======================================== NRDC's EARTH ACTION: The Bulletin for Environmental Activists January 15, 2008 ======================================== Tell the Bush administration to protect our streams and wetlands Comments are due January 21st, so take action now at http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/nrdcaction_011008 ====================================================== Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration have created doubt about whether certain types of water bodies are protected by the Clean Water Act, the nation's landmark water pollution law. As a result, many of America's smaller streams and the wetlands that neighbor them are not being adequately protected under the act's pollution control programs. The same is true of so-called "isolated" water bodies -- those that don't have a clear surface connection to some other water. The United States contains about 20 million acres of these isolated wetlands and nearly two million miles of streams that do not flow year-round. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have released a seriously flawed "guidance" document for determining which of these bodies of water will be protected. For countless numbers of these waters, trying to demonstrate that the Clean Water Act still protects them will be difficult. Even if communities rely on one of these smaller water bodies for drinking water, flood control, fishing or recreation, proving that the particular water body is "significant" enough to warrant protection will still likely require a resource-intensive, confusing and subjective process. This approach ignores the basic scientific fact that water bodies are parts of an interdependent web. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are accepting public comments on the guidance document through January 21st. == What to do == Send a message, before the January 21st comment deadline, urging the EPA and the Corps to substantially revise their guidance so that it protects all water bodies to the maximum extent that the law permits. == Contact information == You can send an official comment to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers directly from NRDC's Earth Action Center at http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/nrdcaction_011008 Or use the contact information and sample letter below to send your own message. Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Email: OW-Docket@epa.gov == Sample letter == Subject: EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0282 Dear EPA and Corps staff, I urge you to withdraw the June guidance document issued by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers aimed at implementing the Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States. This document is fundamentally flawed because it does not fully protect the water bodies that the agencies have the authority to safeguard, even considering the Supreme Court's decisions. I urge you to issue a replacement document that protects our waters to the fullest extent that existing law allows. The guidance document mistakenly leaves in place a 2003 policy that has contributed to the loss of Clean Water Act protection for countless so-called "isolated" water bodies. Although an earlier Supreme Court case has limited whether your agencies may use one particular rationale to protect such waters, the EPA and the Corps retain significant authority to prevent their pollution and destruction. But this authority is plainly being neglected, since these waters are regularly being declared unprotected. The new guidance is also flawed because it questions whether certain kinds of tributary streams may be protected. Although tributaries to protected waters have been protected for many years, the guidance would protect tributaries that are not "relatively permanent" only if it can be shown that they are "significant" enough, using the guidance's vague standards. The Supreme Court did not establish any new rules restricting protections for tributary streams; doing so in this guidance threatens a great number of non-perennial streams, which constitute nearly 60 percent of the stream miles outside of Alaska. Finally, even though the Supreme Court's decision left your agencies a great deal of flexibility to protect the nation's wetlands when they collectively contribute to water quality, the guidance takes a very narrow view of when it is appropriate to consider such cumulative effects. The likely upshot of this approach is that more wetlands will be found to be insignificant and, therefore, unprotected, substantially harming our nation's water quality. Please rethink and revise your current interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision and the Clean Water Act. I urge you to use your significant remaining legal authority to protect America's entire system of water bodies and its interrelated components. Sincerely, [Your name and address] ========== About NRDC ========== The Natural Resources Defense Council is a nonprofit environmental organization with 1.2 million members and online activists, and a staff of scientists, attorneys and environmental experts. Our mission is to protect the planet's wildlife and wild places and ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things. For more information about NRDC or how to become a member of NRDC, please contact us at: Natural Resources Defense Council 40 West 20th Street New York, NY 10011 212-727-4511 (voice) / 212-727-1773 (fax) Email: nrdcaction@nrdc.org http://www.nrdc.org Also visit: BioGems -- Saving Endangered Wild Places A project of the Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.savebiogems.org