I see the EPA is up to its old tricks again. What is a navigable water and what is considered a wetland have been downgraded again.

This will decrease the amount of protection marginal flows, seasonal flows and particularly wetlands receive under the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act protects all navigable waters. How many marginal wetland are really navigable? What this will do is place an unfunded mandate (where is Jeff Gannon when we need him? Oh wait, he was funded. He was a prostitute. I wonder who he visited all those times in the White House? It would be fun to know what Christian lawmaker he was making his bitch. but I digress) -- yes, an unfunded mandate on State and county environmental protection departments as they will have to protect these areas as the Feds won't.

Now, let's say you were a developer in an area where there may be few environmental activists. And you want to fill in a swamp (er, wetland) to place a development near a freeway. You could go the county and say in your environmental impact statement we will rid you of pesky mosquitoes and lower the chance of West Nile virus and lower your expenses by eliminating your need to monitor for that and mosquito control. Oh yes, don't mind the red wing blackbirds, herons, etc. we will be displacing. They will just move elsewhere. And this is if the county actually requires environmental impact statements. Just stating that the possibility of abuse exists, maybe. And maybe county officials are cheaper to bribe than federal officials. maybe. Or maybe county and city officials want economic development and they may be more biased than federal officials. maybe.

But what really bothers me here in Colorado is that if the definition of navigable waters gets further downgraded, how many waters in Colorado, where you sometimes jump across rivers (they start here in the mountains and don't gain breadth until you get out to the plains) would truly be navigable, kayaks not withstanding? And many streams are seasonal depending upon snow melt. In a state where irrigation canals and senior water rights prevail (yes, Ralston Creek and Clear Creek were dried up four years ago by irrigation diversions--keeping grass green is much more important than fish life) how much can a stream be diverted before it is considered non-navigable and therefore not worthy of protection?

and even in Denver, the Burlington Canal (I think) along the bike path can take so much of the flow of the Platte River that the river will be dry until the effluent outfall of the Denver Metro Wastewater Plant actually starts a flow again. Yes, this does happen. This allows lawyers to lobby the State Environmental Agency to lower pollution standards (not navigable, no water) and the State is short-handed (republican congress cut budget, watch for Tabor amendments in your States--they suck. Tax payers Bill of Rights they are not. They are just an excuse to cut government funding.) Who has more money and time? developers or overworked and underpaid State employees who work for civil service?

Just think of these implications for a minute and let me know if gutting the Clean Water Act seems like such a good idea.

One other small rant. I mentioned Denver Metro WWTP. It gets the flow from almost the whole Denver area. Big plants are easier and MUCH CHEAPER to regulate and keep in compliance rather than many small ones. Except remember lobbyists cost money and bigger plants can afford lawyers more readily than small ones. But I mentioned that many area creeks run dry in the summer because of irrigation. Ralston Creek and Clear Creek had many small wastewater plants on their banks in the past--Arvada, Wheat Ridge, Northwest Lakewood, some small mobile home parks off of Federal Ave. All these at one time contributed flow to the creeks. Now their flow is diverted to the east side of Denver, depriving the stream of flow. I am sure that no one adjusted the irrigation rights to accommodate the change in flows. This really needs to be a consideration for semi-arid areas.

Oh, and if a river like the Platte receives much of its flow from a wastewater plant after irrigation diversions, how many male fish are there in the river? One study shows an 80% ratio of female to male.

Or intersexed fish?

rojo