THE RETURN OF MUDDY WATERS

MANY Americans are too young to remember the days when an American river really did catch on fire, when many waterways were like open sewers and lakes nearly died from pollution.

They are too young to remember the dirty days before the 1972 Clean Water Act, signed by that radical environmentalist Richard M. Nixon, led the government to begin the massive task of protecting all "waters of the United States."

The Clean Water Act is a prime example of how prudent government regulation can make a huge difference in the health of the nation's environment and its people. Within a relatively short time, the Clean Water Act helped turn around a dangerous environmental crisis.

So it may be difficult to believe that this country once again is poised to allow private companies to turn a profit by befouling the water we swim in and use to irrigate our crops, and contaminate the streams that feed into our drinking-water supply.

Actually, we're well along the way, thanks to two decisions - in 2001 and 2006 - by the U.S. Supreme Court that were seized upon by the Bush administration to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's jurisdiction in enforcing the act as it had for 30 years.

According to a recent story in the New York Times, the court rulings cast doubt on just which bodies of water are covered by the Clean Water Act. The confusion has led the EPA to discontinue more than 1,500 major pollution investigations since 2006, and likely has led to many companies' dumping unknown pollutants into streams without getting permits.

The court hung its decisions on a phrase in the act that calls for protecting "all navigable waters," suggesting that smaller streams and wetlands on which boats don't traverse might therefore be exempt. This opened up the possibility for endless and expensive litigation - even though previous court decisions and enforcement under both Democratic and Republican administrations made Congress' "original intent" quite obvious: The Clean Water Act was designed to cover all the nation's water.

This is the only interpretation that makes sense - that is, if you're not a polluter. You can't really protect "navigable waters" if you can dump poisons into their tributaries.

The court decision could be affecting the water coming from your kitchen faucet: Nearly 60 percent of Pennsylvania's streams could be unprotected, including the sources of drinking water for 8 million residents of the commonwealth.

A year ago, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced - and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved - the Clean Water Restoration Act to do just that: "restore" the act to where it was before the court muddied the waters, so to speak.

Cue the lobbyists, who called the bill an intolerable government power grab that would impose terrible new requirements and even regulate rainwater. It's reminiscent of the intense suspicion of government that fuels "Tea Party" members, although it's doubtful that even the most dedicated government-hater would want to brew a cup of orange pekoe with water from an unregulated stream near a factory or chicken farm.

If you care about clean water, contact your representatives in Congress to tell them to support the Clean Water Restoration Act. Otherwise, it won't be long before dirty days are here again.