MuadDib

Thats just the point. The Clean Water Act is a 31 year old act that has implicitly and explicitly protected ALL bodies of water in the United States. The heart of the act is that all water mingles either through waterflow, groundwater, or precipitation. Since its enactment the United States has gone from having less than 1/3 of its waterways considered clean enough to swim and fish in, all the way up to above 50%. Thats one helluva lot of ecological clean up in such a short period of time. The reason the act has been so successful is that it is all encompassing and recognizes that you can't pollute the hell out of a few bodies of water and have the rest of the water in the area/country/world go unaffected. By limiting the act to navigable water bodies and further stripping many wet lands, small streams and rivers, and lakes that are dried part of the year from protection you are dooming the act.

Oh I read the article and I read the CWA. I would suggest you do both before you assume that jurisdiction, or anyother issue for that matter, is not relevant. Furthermore, what I mean when I say "denying the science that water is interlinked" can be found in the 4th to last paragraph of the article:
"State water quality officials and conservationists said the wetlands and streams that would lose protection under a rule change are essential to maintaining the health of the larger rivers and lakes that would still be protected by the law. Wetlands filter pollutants and retain water after rainfalls to lessen flooding. Ephemeral streams reduce flooding. Both provide healthy habitats for fish, birds and other wildlife. The government received more than 130,000 comments about its proposal to rewrite the rules, and EPA and White House officials said the government had not yet decided whether to follow through with a new rule. "
Science has shown that waters are interlinked and interdependent. You can't just go dumping in "lesser bodies of water" and think that nothing is going to come of it. The strike against science here is akin to the strike against science in denying global warming. This administration has continously ignored scientific evidence on all environmental issues and dangers since it took office. Seriously, if Bush's EPA or Whitehouse doesn't deny the science showing that water is interrelated and that there is global warming then how could they justify this proposed changed or the inappropirately named Clear Skies Initative?

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751