New report investigates jursidictional decisions in 5 Colorado case studies

Most river advocates have heard about the confusion swirling around the question of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over certain waters and wetlands. A new report just out in Colorado uses five real world examples to illustrate the impacts of that confusion on the aquatic systems in our region.

Three organizations -- Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and the National Wildlife Federation -- banned together to produce the new report. The report reviews five cases where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declared wetlands or streams "non-jurisdictional" for regulatory purposes (and hence protection) under the Clean Water Act.

The case studies provide real world examples of the results of two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v U.S. Army Crops of Engineers) and 2006 (Rapanos v. United States).

Those decisions, and policy decisions made by the Bush Administration, have thrown into question the status of the Clean Water Act's ability to protect some wetlands and streams, by confusing the question of what waters the Act has "jurisdiction" over. This National Wildlife Federation fact sheet provides a summary of what we stand to lose in terms of protection and describes a proposed legislative fix -- the Clean Water Restoration Act.

See our related earlier blog posting Protecting small streams and wetlands in the Intermountain West for more information.

Thanks go to the Colorado Watershed Assembly's Inflow Newsletter for passing on news of the report.