The Tribune’s Jan. 10 editorial “Balefill ruling strikes a balance,” about the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision weakening the Clean Water Act’s protections in the case of the proposed Bartlett landfill, misstates the environmental harm caused by the 5-4 majority’s decision.
First, by ruling that “isolated waters,” such as small ponds, lakes and lagoons in our communities, are not protected under the Clean Water Act, the court did not “strike a balance” of any kind. Rather, the court eliminated the Clean Water Act’s protection for many valuable wetlands throughout the nation that provide essential habitat and stopping points for migratory birds and other local wildlife.
To state the obvious, migratory birds travel across the country and internationally. Leaving habitat protection to differing local government practices–some environmentally sensitive and some not–is not a balanced approach; rather, it is an abdication of consistent federal protection.
Second, the editorial’s apparent support for limiting the reach of the nation’s basic law protecting clean water to “large or navigable” waters like Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River is especially troubling. It is hoped that the Tribune does not really believe that community waters, including lakes used for drinking water, fishing and recreation, small streams and other waterways, should fall outside of the Clean Water Act. These are important natural resources, and they are community resources that provide the amenities that improve our quality of life.
Fortunately the Supreme Court’s decision did not strip protection from all waters, except for large and navigable ones. Although the court did take away federal protections from community waters that provide necessary habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife, it made clear that the Clean Water Act would continue to protect “non-navigable” tributaries and streams, wetlands adjacent to large waters and some other small waters. The court’s decision does great harm but, in this regard, not as much as the Tribune’s editorial suggests.
Public opinion polls consistently show overwhelming support for the Clean Water Act in the Chicago area and throughout the country. The Supreme Court’s unfortunate decision emerged from a case that could and should have been settled by suburban officials who have been feuding over a local landfill. The group of north suburban mayors who brought this case to the Supreme Court missed a chance to show leadership by engaging in a reasonable settlement. Instead, they undermined the Clean Water Act for a landfill that might never be built because of changing economics.
This case has weakened protections for clean water, migratory birds and wildlife habitat that the public values. It will now be up to Congress to fix this gap, and to our state and local officials to be wise protectors in the meantime.
