Welcome, I'm Anastasia Glova bringing you the Cato Daily Podcast.

Full and edited versions of our podcasts are available on our website at

W.W. Kato.org.

The Supreme Court ruled recently against a very broad interpretation of the Clean Water Act

that allowed EPA regulators to control any land with a hydrological connection to navigable water.

But in Rapanos versus the United States,

the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff,

a Michigan land developer.

Cato's Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Mark Moller explains the meaning of this ruling.

Mark, could you explain the controversy that brought Michigan commercial developer John

Rapanos to the Supreme Court? Well, Mr. Rapanos is a commercial real estate

developer in Michigan, and he wanted to dump some sand

on some parcels of property that he owned in order to prepare them for a real estate project.

And environmental regulators said that by dumping the sand he had violated federal wetlands law because some water might carry grains of the

sand that he dumped on his property through a century old drain and through culverts and ditches and streams

into the Kalkhollin River 20 miles away, which is a navigable body of water that's governed by federal law.

And so the case raises an important question about the scope of the Clean Water Act,

which is the body of federal law that governs wetlands.

What waterways have been traditionally protected under the Clean Water Act?

Well, the Clean Water Act says that the federal government can regulate the water quality in navigable water

and there is a provision that also suggests that some land or non-navigable water adjacent to navigable water is also within the scope of federal regulatory

power.

...