So much for corporations, companies, individuals, and municipalities doing the right thing for the greater good. I'd say most of it is related to money. Cheaper to pay lawyers and lobbyists than to identify and correct the problems and answer to shareholders and taxpayers. Problem is that the problems don't go away. It just gets worse. Unfortunately, much of the effects of pollution that has occurred or is occurring is unknown until remediation is too late or too much cost to fathom. This is way beyond shameful.

I was involved with auto industry emissions many years ago, but what really opened my eyes was a situation near a favorite trout stream. A company, long out of business, released toxic chemicals into their property, seemingly far from the watershed. High levels of these substances leeched underground and have migrated toward the stream. Water supplies for locals have been affected. The costs and activities required to remediate the current issues and prevent the toxins from reaching the stream are extraordinary. If it was only taken care of in the first place.

And the municipalities that still dump untreated wastes into waterways. Are taxpayers willing to take on the burden to fix their water treatment systems?

Sometimes regulation is necessary and prudent.

My personal desire would be to see an official audit of the states finances regarding environmental responsibilities. The company I work for deals every day with state regulations (or lack thereof), and I can say firsthand that one of the largest problems is misallocation of funds by the state government. Politicians are all about getting re-elected, and to accomplish this they have to keep the public happy, which means spending the state's money on highly visible projects instead of what really needs to be done. We need them to just do their job.

"admittedly biased NY Times"

Really, could you point to where in the NY Times mission statement or manifesto they proclaim this "admitted bias" you say they have?

Most of the quotes come straight from EPA officials and regulators. Are they "liberal" too? Why the hell is water pollution even being couched in "liberal" versus "conservative" terms? Isn't it more of a "common sense" versus "morons" issue?

And if the states aren't doing their jobs (which they clearly aren't), then what? State environmental regulatory agencies have a long history of doing jack, and it's easy to huff and puff about "holding states accountable" but that doesn't really solve the problem, does it?

Creosote,
The NY Times editors have said that they are liberal. CNN says that they (CNN) try to present a moderate, common-ground news source, while the NY Times doesn't even attempt to reach that standard. I'm not saying that I agree with CNN on everything either, but I am saying that I'm much more likely to listen to what they have to say than to what a self-proclaimed liberal news source says.

As for the EPA, allow me to remind you that they are politicians also. They want more power and a bigger budget, just like everyone else. I'm all for common sense, particularly the kind of common sense that dictates looking at a problem carefully and from all angles before making any large-scale decisions. The EPA doesn't exactly have a perfect record, either.

"Then what?" Well, I'd like to see a comprehensive strategy to at least TRY and get them to do their job (starting with audits) before we do such a large-scale reform such as the CWRA, which would remove the "navigable" phrase from the CWA and effectively give the EPA jurisdiction over all water in the US. We need to look at the long-term consequences, people, not just what's happening right now.

And, for the record, I haven't listened to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for at least the past 6 months, so don't even try to paint me as a radical. I'm not.

“This country is a one-party country. Half of it is called Republican and half is called Democrat. It doesn't make any difference. All the really good ideas belong to the Libertarians.”
-Hugh Downs, 1997 (not really true, but the point is worth hearing)

Dad said, we use to bury it, now we mix it with our drinking water!

Dukkllr makes a good point. The NYTimes has a long history of crying wolf. (So does Al Gore). The problem here is that they could be right. Unfortunately, anything they say will probably be ignored. Also unfortunate is that there is a real problem in several states. These states, and municipalities, involved either won't, or can't address the problems because of both desire and money problems.
However, just because the federal courts will not enforce CWA on local waters doesn't mean that the federal government can't spend money to correct these problems with block grants, or maybe stimulus money. I hear there's a few bucks left.

The idea that the states can monitor and enforce any sort of environmental laws is laughable. YooperJack is right, the intent may be there, but virtually no state currently has the ability to even enforce the compliance of existing statutes. Nation-wide budgets are a mess and one of the first departments to feel cuts are natural resource management agencies.

Furthermore, resources such as water and air don't abide by political boundaries, one state doesn't have the right to degrade the resources of an adjoining state just because they dislike regulation and the federal government "infringing" upon their state's rights.

The constant knee-jerk reaction to any sort of safeguarding of resources is truly a sign of the sad state of affairs that our public process has become. The CWRA is needed to close the gaping loopholes created by a short-sighted court ruling.

Water is far and away the most precious resource our nation possesses, creating long term problems for a few short term economic gains is not a legacy we should be passing along to our children and grandchildren.

Funny this should boil down to a debate about politics and the NYT for so many here.

Meanwhile, the real issue gets ignored.

CWRA is exactly that, a restoration of water protections signed into law under Richard Nixon and eroded over the past couple of years.

Calling this a state's issue is a cop out that doesn't address the actual problem. It also ignores the fact that water travels between, across and to other states.

I don't fear the EPA, especially considering that they have done a great job since 1972 in stopping and reversing some serious pollution without "storm troopers" or constitution altering powers.

I do, however, fear the corporations that are motivated by nothing but profit and would think nothing of destroying a trout stream or waterfowl nesting area to save their shareholders a dime. Their track record is less than stellar.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of watching sportsmen argue among ourselves while politicians and special interest groups weaken or overturn the laws that previous generations of sportsmen worked to pass.

It seems like the only thing some of you guys can agree on is that the liberals want your guns. Meanwhile, you stand idly by while the laws that protect our water, wildlife and public lands are winnowed into no protection at all.

I don't give a damn about your opinion of the NYT, Glenn Beck, CNN, Democrats, Republicans or Al Gore either. I do care about reasonable protections for the places I hunt and fish and you should too.

If we don't pass the CWRA, our water resources - and by association our wildlife - will be less safe. I want my boys to look back at what my generation did for sportsmen and be proud. The way things are going at the moment, I'm afraid they will faced with the task of fixing our problems.

Let's stop the fear mongering and do something worthwhile for our children. Maybe if we get our act together soon, there will still be healthy populations of fish and wildlife for our grandchildren.

Pjourn

Leave it to an activist "conservative" court to gut the clean water act. Freikin' "con" judges likely never taste water anyway (leastwise not without same bourbon to "make it safe"). Roberts, Scolia and Thomas are bought and paid for by the same corporate interests that trashed the economy. Acting to preserve their corporate masters profit margin is about what I expect from the twits who appointed Dubya. I want them all to hurry up, get sick and die so the rest of us can get on with living. Poop on "cons" who don't conserve nuthin'!

The fact that water conservation is important does not give the federal gov't the right to regulate it. Under our federalist system of gov't, the federal gov't is SUPPOSED to have limited, enumerated powers, with the majority of powers reserved to the people and the states. The fact that the term "navigable waters," the term Congress used when it wrote the CWA, clearly does not cover all bodies of water in the country is neither a conservative nor a liberal problem. The issue is that under our current constitution, Congress may not legislatively control everything. If you want Congress to have general police powers to control all waters, navigable and otherwise, amend the constitution. If you think the Commerce clause already gives Congress this right already then the 10th amendment means nothing.

The court decision took the teeth from the CWA. By limiting it too navigable waters you stop the EPA from enforcing laws where the majority of pollution happens. Think coal mines in WV. The court ruling allowed them to begin doing what they wanted in many headwaters. Pig farms rarely dump directly into major river its small ditch creeks. I hate the current political climate because I don't want government control directly over me(i.e. gun control), but I do want them to keep running things like the EPA with strong policy. All of our politicians are scared to have centrist views lest they be painted an obstructionist or a communist depending on the current argument. I know the EPA can be painted as evil big government but would you rather have drinkable water and a trout stream or a stream that can only support carp and is no longer potable because of heavy metals. That said it does not mean we should not allow the private sector to brainwash into believing they will all go out of business if environmental legislation is passed. The majority of the private business sector is out for the bottom dollar not the environment that supports the animals that support our recreation.

Congress never gave the CWA teeth to begin with--they put the term "navigable waters" in the law. The Court only construed it to cover its plain meaning. I am not saying I like dirty water, or rivers that catch fire (Cleveland or somewhere, I think), but if we want the feds to regulate all waters, we have to amend (or ignore) the constitution. Plus, what I read of the proposed language of the CWA fix doesn't clarify the situation, but merely extends the power of the EPA to regulate all waters consistent with the powers granted by the constitution. That circular definition gets us right back to square one--i.e, what waters can Congress legally regulate? Separation of power is a good thing. It may be less efficient, but it tends to discourage tyranny.

It would all be for the GREATER good of the people.Once water leaves the control of an individual it becomes a resource to all others.We are made of water and require it to live and the life around us requires it too.When that individual alters ,reduces or degrades that resource,they have damaged it and have imposed a loss against all of us.For that we need properly worded regulations that can be enforced to protect all surface water.With any short period of drought any creek or marsh will run dry replenishing the local aquafer,and with it any possible toxin.
We have corporations,farm bureaus,manufacturers and the like who hire their lobbyist to separate the bottom line from the problem.At the first sign of a contaminate in the water ,the offender will just say prove it's from here ,that creek is dry and we don't keep account of what we dump.In the end taxpayers pay dearly for something our forefathers took for granted and our courts choose to commercialize. Our responsiblities are greater than the bottom line even if you only see water from the zooplankton on up.

So amend the Constitution or let the EPA bully the states into doing what they're supposed to be doing, but don't freak out and cede all water control to the government! I don't understand why it's so politically incorrect to make careful decisions that have been thoroughly thought out anymore. Don't overcorrect the problem here. Fix the state issue, and everything else will fall into line. If the states are endangering the citizens, then it's the citizens' job to vote out those in power and vote in people who will do what they are supposed to do. The FedGov isn't the solution to all of our problems: sometimes we need to take responsibility for ourselves.

The Court did not water down the CWA in any way, shape, or form. The CWA says "navigable waters", and the Court said that "navigable waters" means "navigable waters".

The CWA is hard enough to enforce as it is, even for the EPA, and there is no earthly way the EPA would be able to come close to enforcing it if they were in charge of all US waters. They can't do it. We need to act responsibly here instead of taking the lazy, blame-shifting way out and saying "You know what, this is the government's job, not mine." You can't give up on the states; it is our responsibility as US citizens to make sure that our respective states are doing their job, and we've dropped the ball. It's our fault, really.

I'm reminded that the company built that pond in response to the CWA,because of a what would at best be called a creek that trickles behind the plant.That creek runs 3-4 miles south past the well[200 feet] and into a publicly accessed lake.Under the current ruling would they need the pond or could they get by with containment around their storage tank and a triple basin for there indoor transfer area.

This week the NY Dept of Environmental Conservation released its Bald Eagle Status report for 2009. 173 pairs of eagles now nesting in NY. That would be up from extinct, or 0 in 1975. In 1975 the DEC did a study to determine the number of pairs estimated to have bred in the state historically and came up with a figure of 72 pairs. If Bald Eagle numbers have gone from 0 to 173 pairs, and these are hard numbers not theoretical numbers, what is Chad Love talking about? What is the NY Times talking about? We have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Bald Eagles are susceptible to chemical contamination. If Eagle numbers are up, then water quality must be up also. Get real people. Take some credit for the job of cleaning up North America. We don't need new laws, new restrictions on our freedom.

GregMc
DDT wasn't introduced into the environment until the post WWII period. The NY DEC did a study of historical Bald Eagle nesting in NY in 1975. The study found a total of 72 nesting pairs. Today's population is over 100 pairs higher than the pre DDT population. Try again.
Current regulations are doing a fine job. We are being regulated into non competitiveness. If a man can't get a job he may have to find out if Bald Eagles taste like chicken.

DDT was discovered in the 1930s. It wasn't widely used until after WWII. Water quality by the 1950s was inconceivably bad compared to today. Water in rivers such as the Oswego was opaque, with raw sewage flowing into it continuously along it's length. I grew up there and then. DDT foggers were used in every town from the beginning of black fly season all summer long. It wasn't just the DDT, deldrin, lindane etc ban that is responsible for the tremendous numbers of Eagles and Ospreys that we have today.