Comment submitted by S. Vandergaw

In making your decisions on the guidelines as to what constitutes navigable waters of the U.S. I urge you to pay heed to Justice Kennedy?s opinion. Find the answer to the issue in the purpose of the statute. Namely to ?restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation?s waters.? 33 U.S.C. ? 1251(a), C.W.A. ? 101. The opinion by Justice Scalia asks you to make a bright line boundary between ?wetlands? and navigable waters. This definition would prevent the CWA from covering some bodies of water that flow into navigable waters. Allowing discharge of pollutants into these bodies of water will not provide the protection the CWA requires. The Scalia plurality is ignoring the spirit of the law in order to make regulation uniform. I urge you to remember the purpose of the statute. The test favored by Justice Stevens has worked for the Army Corps of Engineers for 30 years. Justice Kennedy?s opinion, while not in agreement with the Steven?s plurality, does not rely on wetlands to be navigable in fact and I would argue is closer to the Steven?s plurality than Scalia?s plurality. The purpose of the Clean Water act is to prevent polluting the waters of the United States. I implore you to remember that in adjusting your regulations to fit the judgment in Rapanos. Thank you for your time and efforts, Sam Vandergaw