When Congress passed the original Clean Water Act in 1972, its intent was clear. The act was supposed to cover all the waters of the United States, and require permits for wiping out virtually any wetland.

After all, as we explain in "Paving Paradise," the goal was to stamp out water pollution, and it could originate from just about anywhere upstream.

One of the bill's House sponsors, Rep. John Dingell, said on the record: "“Thus, this new definition clearly encompasses all water bodies, including main streams and their tributaries, for water quality purposes. No longer are the old, narrow definitions of navigability . . . going to govern matters covered by this bill.”

But a pair of recent Supreme Court decisions have turned that clear intent into, as Dingle put it, "a bungle." Those cases, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Corps of Engineers in 2001 and
Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States in 2006, made a muddle of which wetlands the federal government was supposed to protect.

So in 2007 Dingell, with a raft of co-sponsors, introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act to overturn those court decisions. The Senate version was sponsored by Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

Dingell said the bill “will . . . prevent any further mess made of a wonderful law.” However, Congress failed to pass the bill.

This week, Feingold introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act again.

"“Every day Congress fails to reaffirm Clean Water Act protections, more and more waters are stripped of their protections, jeopardizing the drinking water of millions of Americans, as well as our nation's wildlife habitats, recreational pursuits, agricultural and industrial uses, and public health," Feingold said.

He noted the broad support for the bill coming from both parties, including Nixon, Ford and Bush (41) EPA administrators William Ruckleshaus, Russell Train and William K. Reilly. The Obama Administration has promised the president will sign the bill into law if it passes.

Not everybody loves it, though. The National Center for Public Policy Research contends that because the act would expand the Clean Water Act's protections beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed -- thus restoring the rules to areas that were clearly intended to be covered in 1972 -- it's a bad move.

The center, by the way, is a conservative think tank that believes "private owners are the best stewards of the environment," -- although what we've found regarding the history of wetlands loss in Florida certainly tends to show otherwise.