Editorial: A watershed case for wetlands

Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006 | 12:31 p.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases today that could result in a major change in how the Clean Water Act is administered across the country.

The act, passed in 1972, allows federal agencies to prevent the pollution of navigable waters and prevents filling wetlands in a manner that could affect larger waterways, including those miles away. Lower courts have said the act applies to cases involving two privately owned wetlands in Michigan. In one case a landowner filled in a wetland on his property to sell it for development. In the other, developers were stopped from building condominiums on property that included a wetland.

At issue is which bodies of water are considered "navigable." A coalition of farmers, water suppliers and others say a ruling in favor of the lower courts would strangle development by extending federal protection to all wetlands, no matter how remote or disconnected they are from actual rivers.

Environmentalists fear that a ruling in favor of the land owners would open the floodgates for the release of toxic pollutants that will destroy surrounding ecosystems.

The case also could prove to be a watershed for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. The case is his first since being appointed to the nation's highest court. A ruling is due by the end of June.

We hope the Supreme Court will uphold the Clean Water Act's intent and protect these precious water resources. The incremental removal of wetlands made Louisiana's Gulf Coast more vulnerable to Hurricane Katrina. Inland, even the smallest wetland provides filtering and storage capabilities that man-made facilities cannot truly replace. They must be strictly protected.