Supreme Court upholds Clean Water Act

[eastduck]

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/06/19/416937.html

This ruling just saved 100 million acres of wetlands.

[chesapeakeblend]

good stuff right there!

[eastduck]

It did but it also might hurt a lttle too. After discussing this decsion with a few lawyers and reading the different spins the papers put on it well just have to see.

[MarkTakacs]

A lawyer can always "put a spin" on any issue.

That is what they do.............

Mark

[mikie]

If I read the decision correctly, it may add a little sanity to the wetlands controversy. What I read said that in order to be considered a wetland - the area would have to directly impact an adjacent, navigable waterway. Which would mean, that mud puddle in the middle of your field wouldn't be considered a wetland. (which I believe is the way it should be, if it's a genuine wetland that's okay, but if it's just a low spot, the law shouldn't apply).

[chesapeakeblend]

there has always had to have been a connection to "waters of the u.s." to be under the ACOE regulations. if they cannot make a connection, it is not a wetland under their jurisdiction.

now that does not mean the couny agencies will not take it as a vernal pool or hydrologically disconnected wetland. that is a whole other animal.

[eastduck]

You guys are correct CB has it right even though it is not a federal issue it will still could be a county issue. What I read is that the fed's don't want to get involved they want the states to handle it.

[mikie]

What I read, said they used to consider any drainage ditch a wetland, because sooner or later it led to a stream, river, etc. which was navigable. The new wording shortens the distance to-adjacent to, and having a direct impact on, a navigable waterway. It's all open to interpretation, that's why they're lawyers, and why they word it that way - keeps them all in business and allows them to find loopholes for their friends.