EPA promises wetlands rules
Inconsistent court decisions muddle policy in Michigan.
JOHN FLESHER
Associated Press Writer
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- The Bush administration is preparing instructions for
regulators puzzling over which wetlands are covered by federal clean water
law, a top Environmental Protection Agency official said.
But the EPA hasn't decided whether to issue a comprehensive regulation on the
issue in the wake of a confusing U.S. Supreme Court ruling in two Michigan
wetlands cases, said Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water.
"Our overarching goal is to continue to protect wetlands under the Clean
Water Act to the maximum extent allowable since the decision," Grumbles
told The Associated Press in an interview. "Which tools are the best to
use is a policy decision we haven't made yet."
The high court took up the Michigan cases in hopes of settling a long-running
debate concerning federal jurisdiction over wetlands. But the June 19 decision
muddied the waters further.
The justices split three ways, with none of their five written opinions
drawing majority support. Several urged Congress or federal agencies to deal
with the issue, saying they were best suited to handle its complexities.
Courts have agreed the Clean Water Act requires permits to degrade wetlands
alongside navigable waterways such as lakes and rivers. The question is
whether the law also applies to tributaries of those waters and their adjacent
wetlands -- and if so, how far upstream.
The Army Corps of Engineers, which issues the permits, has contended the law's
protections extend to virtually all "waters of the United States,"
including wetlands. Environmentalists agree, while developers and property
rights advocates contend government jurisdiction is far more limited.
The key Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said a
permit could be required if there's a "significant nexus" between a
wetland and a navigable waterway. The wetland must "significantly affect
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity" of nearby navigable
waters, he wrote.
After the ruling, the EPA -- which oversees the federal wetlands program --
instructed regulators to delay action on contentious permit applications while
it analyzed the justices' opinions.
The agency soon will issue a "guidance" document that will offer the
EPA's interpretation of what the Supreme Court decided, Grumbles said. The
agency is working with the Justice Department to determine "how much
stature to give certain pieces of the various five opinions," he said.
"We have no doubt that this interim guidance will help add clarity,"
he said. "We also have no doubt ... it won't be the end of the story
either. We'll need to provide more details, and we're still reviewing whether
or not to pursue a regulation in addition to the guidance."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml