Is the Clean Water Restoration Act Constitutional?

from: Rapanos Blog

The proposed Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) now under consideration in Congress, is "patently unconstitutional" and would "push the limits of federal power to an extreme not matched by any other law, probably in the history of this country."

So argues Pacific Legal Foundation Principal Attorney Reed Hopper. Hopper was the successful lead attorney at the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 2006 Clean Water Act case, Rapanos v. United States, which reined in overbroad federal regulation under the Clean Water Act.

Currently the Federal Clean Water Act applies to "navigable waters." The proposed Clean Water Restoration Act would remove the phrase "navigable waters" and replace it with the broader phrase "waters of the United States." "This change would expand the reach of federal land use regulation to an unlimited
extent, subjecting every pond, puddle, and ditch to control from Washington, D.C.," said Hopper.

In response to what he calls "this breathtaking scheme for limitless federal land-use control," Reed Hopper has issued a list of "False Claims" about the legislation.

Check it out:
http://rapanos.typepad.com/my_weblog/

Johnny,

I guess nobody wants to refute Mr. Hopper's assertions? Good!