WorldCat Identities

Copeland, Claudia

Works: 8 works in 10 publications in 1 language and 724 library holdings
Classifications: KF3794.A314, 347.303924
Publication Timeline
Publications about  Claudia Copeland Publications about Claudia Copeland
Publications by  Claudia Copeland Publications by Claudia Copeland
Most widely held works by Claudia Copeland
A legislative history of the Safe Drinking Water Act : together with a section-by-section index by Claudia Copeland ( Book )
1 edition published in 1982 in English and held by 231 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Federal-state relations in transition : implications for environmental policy : report by Claudia Copeland ( Book )
1 edition published in 1982 in English and held by 157 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Clean Water Act : current issues and guide to books by Claudia Copeland ( Book )
2 editions published in 2003 in English and held by 119 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Water pollution issues and developments ( Book )
2 editions published in 2008 in English and held by 71 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Coral reef protection and the Clean Water Act ( Book )
1 edition published in 2012 in English and held by 15 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Water quality : implementing the Clean Water Act, updated October 15, 1999 by Claudia Copeland ( Book )
1 edition published in 1999 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Legislative approaches to defining "waters of the United States" by Claudia Copeland ( )
1 edition published in 2010 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
"In the 111th Congress, legislation has been introduced that seeks to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the wake of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 that interpreted the law's jurisdiction more narrowly than prior case law. The Court's narrow interpretation involved jurisdiction over some geographically isolated wetlands, intermittent streams, and other waters. The two cases are Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. United States. Bills to nullify the Court's rulings have been introduced repeatedly since the 107th Congress, but none had advanced until the 111th Congress. In June 2009, a Senate committee approved S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act. Companion legislation in the House, H.R. 5088 (America's Commitment to Clean Water Act), was introduced in April 2010. Under current law, the key CWA phrase which sets the act's reach is the phrase 'navigable waters,' defined to mean 'the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.' Proponents of the current legislation contend that the Court misread Congress' intent when it enacted the CWA, and consequently the Court's ruling unduly restricted the scope of the act's water quality protections. Both S. 787 and H.R. 5088 would replace the phrase 'navigable waters' in the CWA with 'waters of the United States' and would install a definition of 'waters of the United States,' not found in the law now. The bills differ in how they would define the phrase. The Senate committee bill includes a definition drawn from one paragraph of existing federal regulatory text, while H.R. 5088 includes a longer definition based on the same regulatory language, but with some modifications. Both bills also include provisions affirming the constitutional basis for the act's jurisdiction. These provisions address the concern that the Court's rulings, while decided on statutory grounds, raised related questions about the outer limits of Congress's power to regulate waters with little or no connection to traditional navigable waters under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Proponents of the current legislation, including many states and environmental advocacy groups, contend that the Court's ruling in these cases, and subsequent regulatory guidance by federal agencies, have unsettled several decades' worth of case law, misreading or ignoring congressional intent, and thus reinterpreting and narrowing the jurisdictional scope of the act. Supporters say that the intention is to return to the CWA regulatory jurisdiction that prevailed before the Court's rulings. On the other hand, critics, including many industry groups and development and home builder organizations, contend that the legislation would greatly expand federal regulatory jurisdiction of the CWA beyond interpretations that existed before the two Supreme Court rulings, not simply reaffirm congressional intent. They are concerned that the legislation has the potential to be interpreted far more broadly than what was previously understood to be jurisdictional--thus causing more uncertainty, rather than clarifying the issue. Between proponents and critics, there is wide disagreement whether the new statutory definition proposed in either bill, coupled with other changes, will achieve the objective of clarity and certainty that is broadly desired. In light of the differing views on the issues, future prospects for either bill are uncertain. The legal and policy questions associated with the SWANCC and Rapanos cases--concerning the outer geographic limits of CWA jurisdiction and consequences of restricting that scope--have challenged regulators, landowners and developers, and policymakers for more than 35 years."
Audience Level
Audience Level
  Kids General Special  
Audience level: 0.86 (from 0.47 for Legislativ ... to 0.92 for Water qual ...)
English (10)