Trump administration rolling back protections on streams and wetlands

[Valin]

The Hill

Trump’s Waters of the United States regulation was released today, limiting federal protections and giving states more control over development.

Alexandra Kelley

Jan. 23 2020

 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rolling back federal pollution protections for rivers, streams and wetlands — many essential for clean drinking water — in a move that’s advocated by farmers and other industry leaders but opposed by even the agency’s own scientists.

The new legislation will replace the already-repealed Waters of the United States rule, which, crafted by President Obama, expanded the types of waterways that are federally protected. 

Environmental groups are criticizing the new rule. For instance, the nonprofit American Rivers denounced the decisions as a “a crippling blow” to the protection of more than half the country’s wetlands and about 20 percent of its rivers and streams.

Trump’s EPA proposed the new Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule in December 2018, in collaboration with the Department of the Army. It was finalized at the end of December 2019.

Key features of the new law would change the definitions of protected waters. Previously protected under the Clean Water act, for instance, waste treatment systems like treatment ponds and lagoons are no longer considered “waters of the United States,” according to the EPA.

Trump's new act is likely aimed at benefiting farmers and real estate developers, as it loosens regulations surrounding development around waterways. The move may make it easier to begin projects along jurisdictional waterways and wetlands, according to an analysis by the American Bar Association. Permits and other approval from the EPA or Army Corps will also likely be easier to attain and save project costs, as well as incentivize new developments. 

Farmers who work on land near select streams and waterways may also be able to use previously forbidden chemical pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers that the Clean Water Act restricted to prevent runoff. 

(Snip)

[Geee]

HEARTLAND INSTITUTE REACTS TO TRUMP EPA’S NEW ‘NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION RULE’

---

“President Trump delivered wonderful news for Americans who have been oppressed by EPA bullying and overreach. In recent years, EPA has asserted jurisdiction over all sorts of waterways. State and local governments are far better at providing environmental stewardship best suited to their communities than federal bureaucrats in Washington, DC who are beholden to extremist environmental groups. This is another promise delivered by the Trump administration and Americans should be greatly pleased.”

---

“The Trump administration’s Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory reforms are not a roll-back of environmental protections but rather an acknowledgment that previous administrations had gone far beyond legitimate federal powers under CWA to regulate the uses of ephemeral, or seasonal, temporary streams or isolated wetlands not connected to navigable waters. CWA was intended to safeguard drinking water and shipping, not prevent farmers, ranchers, and potential home-builders from using their property in productive ways on the grounds that some soggy spot or isolated stream bed might be affected by development.

[Geee]

COMMENTARY On ‘Waters of US’ Rule, EPA’s Science Advisory Board Conflates Policy Preferences for Science

The Environment Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board is supposed to provide scientific advice to the EPA administrator.

The Science Advisory Board seems to have forgotten this simple requirement. 

Based on the board’s actions regarding the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ efforts to define “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, the Science Advisory Board seems to think it’s the legal or policy advisory board. 

The board developed a draft “commentary” critical of the proposed regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” The problem is, the commentary (both the original and latest version) isn’t a science document, but a legal and policy document drafted by scientists who the media are using to put a negative spin on the proposed rule and the recently released final rule.