Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Water Quality Category
Click here to view all posts

Commentary: The Clean Water Act and the economics of ambiguity: If the Supreme Court narrows the ambiguous definitions in the Clean Water Act, will companies create new domestic pollution havens?

Posted by: Maven on March 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

From Matthew E. Kahn, guest blogger at the Christian Science Monitor:

“The New York Times wants the United States to have clean water . But, does Justice Scalia want you to have such an amenity? The original Clean Water Act has a sloppy definition of its geographical scope. To remind you young environmental lawyers out there: the core issue is a clear, consistent definition of “navigable waters”. I have no idea what these words mean but English is not my first language.

From the Times: [T]he Clean Water Act that limited it to “the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters” of the United States. For decades, “navigable waters” was broadly interpreted by regulators to include many large wetlands and streams that connected to major rivers.”

The economics of this ambiguity issue are fascinating … “

Continue reading this blog post at the Christian Science Monitor by clicking here.

March 6, 2010 · Filed Under Water Quality

Comments

Leave a Reply