Comment submitted by J. Calman

I am a second year law student at the University of New Mexico. I know that federal regulations cannot span across all fields at all times, but I would like to urge you to look at a more comprehensive picture of what "waters of the US" would be. Everything in the world is connected, and the waters of the world are no exception. All water affects all other water, and the same water has been here forever--there will never be any new water molecules. Each water molecule has been everywhere--they have each been in the ocean, in rivers, in soil, in clouds, and each will be there again. It is physically impossible for water in the ground, or in an ephemeral stream to stay there without ending up at some point in a river or the ocean or a lake. States rights are certainly important, as is progress, development and the economy. But if our waters and the health of the earth are not the top priority in policy making, we won't be making policy much longer. The Clean Water Act, and other environmental statutes, should be seen as comprehensive enough not just to balance environmental concerns with economic ones, but to realistically have an effect on the problems we're trying to fix. There is no real distinction between a river and an ephemeral stream--they are the same. Polluting one will always pollute the other, and this should be considered when limiting the scope of the Clean Water Act--every molecule of water has a significant nexus to waters of the United States! If we really want to solve environmental problems, we will find ways of having the things we want without having to balance a certain amount of environmental damage along with it. Please consider what environmental effects really are happening when regulating the Clean Water Act and other statutes. Thank you, Judy Calman