Ever Wonder What’s in your Water? Now You May Not Want To Know.

What's in a name? Well, you may want to ask the Environmental Protection Agency that question. The agency has been intrigued by the same question regarding the term "navigable waters." The uncertainty surrounding the term has produced nothing but headaches and frustrations for environmentalists across the country.

"Navigable waters" is the term used to define waterways protected under the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act. This term was broadly interpreted by regulators for years as encompassing many large wetland areas and streams connecting to major rivers. However, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have specified the word, making it much more difficult, and oftentimes impossible, for the EPA to protect waterways from dangerous pollution.

In the past, the term "navigable waters" applied to all wetlands and creeks and streams which emptied into large rivers and lakes. With the recent court rulings, the term has become further defined to exclude small creeks, waterways contained in one state and lakes which are unconnected to larger water systems. While these excluded water systems may seem minor, they still often provide drinking water to a number of people throughout the country. You may want take another look at that big glass of water you just downed or those ice cubes responsible for making your afternoon iced coffee cool and refreshing.

The many waterways now unprotected by the Clean Water Act may contain pollution that can easily sprinkle and splash its way into your drinking water. This pollution comes from companies which, because of the lower cost and freedom from prosecution have dumped oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waterways.

The Clean Water Act, designed by the EPA to regulate every major polluter in an effort to ensure the elimination of dangerous water pollution, is now often powerless to protect waterways. In the last four years alone, more than 1,500 major pollution investigations were discontinued delayed simply because officials lacked jurisdiction.

Today, as many as half of America's largest known polluters can escape prosecution due to the recent court rulings. Even though regulators are still doggedly chasing down companies that they do have jurisdiction over, the companies can delay cases for years. Consequently, many cases are simply dropped because of the time and effort involved in such a drawn out legal battle.

Not surprisingly, water pollution levels are rising. Clever companies taking note of the subjection of regulators are contemplating the low cost of dumping their dangerous wastes into your backyard creeks. If they haven't done so already, that is. If you're looking out your window at a creek-less backyard, keep in mind that roughly 117 million Americans receive drinking water from sources fed by waters that the Clean Water Act might not be able to protect anymore. This includes, for example, entire watersheds which feed into New York's drinking water.

So while you're eyeing that tall glass of water with some budding distrust, or dashing to the kitchen to dump it down the drain in outright disgust, you may want to pick up a pen and write to your government officials. After all, the human body is made up of 60 to 70 percent water. What are you willing to have floating around in yours?