EPA seeks to scrap rule protecting drinking water for third of Americans

Authored by theguardian.com and submitted by Reading-Raptor
image for EPA seeks to scrap rule protecting drinking water for third of Americans

Environmental Protection Agency and army propose ending clean water rule to hold ‘substantive re-evaluation’ of which bodies of water should be protected

The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to dismantle the federal clean water rule, which protects waterways that provide drinking water for about a third of the US population.

The EPA, with the US army, has proposed scrapping the rule in order to conduct a “substantive re-evaluation” of which rivers, streams, wetlands and other bodies of water should be protected by the federal government.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” said Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA.

Trump urged to cut Bears Ears monument to 'smallest area' possible Read more

Pruitt said the EPA would swiftly redefine clean water regulations in a “thoughtful, transparent and collaborative” way with other agencies and the public.

Green groups, however, said the move pandered to fossil fuel and farming interests and was part of an agenda to weaken clean water protections.

“Once again, the Trump administration has agreed to do the bidding of the worst polluters in our country, and once again it’s putting the health of American families and communities at risk,” said Michael Brune, executive director of Sierra Club. “We will fight this and every other attempt by polluters and the Trump administration to destroy our water resources.”

The planned rollback follows an executive order penned by Donald Trump in February which called for a review of the regulation, also known as the waters of the United States rule, that was introduced by the Obama administration in 2015.

The rule was meant to end years of confusion over which waterways were federally protected from pollution, with the clean water rule simply designating “navigable” waters for safeguards. The Obama administration widened this definition to include the drinking water of about 117 million Americans.

But while the rule was applauded by environmentalists for improving drinking water protections and aiding wildlife that relies on wetlands, it was attacked by some farmers and golf course operators who claimed it hindered their ability to manage their land.

Trump has called the rule “one of the worst examples of federal regulation” and a “massive power grab”. Signing his order, the president said thousands of jobs were at risk because “the EPA decided that navigable waters can mean nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer’s land or anyplace else that they decide”.

Grand Canyon is our home. Uranium mining has no place here | Carletta Tilousi Read more

While “puddles” aren’t mentioned in the rule, the EPA does have greater latitude to regulate under it. However, there is no evidence that the regulation could result in the loss of thousands of jobs.

The National Mining Association, another opponent of the rule and representative of an industry relentlessly backed by Trump, welcomed its impending demise.

“This sets in motion a welcome correction to a deeply problematic regulation that ignored the careful balance that Congress struck between federal and state water regulation and constitutional limits on federal authority,” said Hal Quinn, NMA president and chief executive.

The clean water rule reversal, which will now go through a period of public comment ahead of a final decision, is the latest in a string of regulations to be paused or scrapped by the Trump administration.

In recent months, the EPA has wound back rules curbing vehicle emissions, toxic waste from power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas drilling operations.

Unicorn_Tea_Party on July 10th, 2017 at 16:23 UTC »

Okay, so with the few comments that I've seen on this post within the first hour, I've seen a bit of variety in the remarks. For those who are genuinely curious what the hell is going on, here's a summary to the absolute best of my ability.

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way shape or form accustomed to interpreting legal text, and if I am wrong, please feel free to POLITELY correct me. I have no problem with being wrong. The text I am pulling this information from is here.

TL;DR Trump signed an order in February, said "yo fix this thing lol". "This thing" was a defunct definition of "waters of the United States" that was declared in 2015. People/states got fucking pissy about it (maybe rightfully so), took it to appeals court, appeals court said "oh shit u right fam", and granted a stay. Now they're trying to get the legal definition to what is was before that ruling, essentially creating time travel. The End.

SUPER FUCKING QUICK SUMMARY

So basically shit was going on with the definition of "waters of the United States" for quite a few years since the Clean Water Act, and in 2015 the EPA and Department of the Army made a rule that lotsa states and organizations weren't happy with for a variety of reasons. So, those fuckers in the Court of Appeals granted a stay on the rule pending judicial review. They've been using the previous definition up until this point, and now they want to make that previous definition law again. I think, I don't fucking know for sure.

QUICK SUMMARY

President Trump signed an Executive Order on February 28, 2017 titled "Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the 'Waters of the United States' Rule." The executive order called for a two step process to review and revise the definition of "waters of the United States". This definition is what governs administration of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The first step will be to rescind the definition of "waters of the United States" in the Code of Federal Regulations pursuant to a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The second step will be to pursue notice-and-comment rulemaking, wherein the agencies (the EPA and Department of the Army) will conduct a re-evaluation of the definition. The action today marks the beginning of the first step. The proposed rule retains exclusions from the definition of "waters of the United States" for prior converted cropland and waste treatment systems. Nothing in the rule restricts State ability to further broaden definition of the scope of waters within their boundaries

FULL EXPLANATION

Back in 1972, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, otherwise known as the Clean Water Act (or CWA). A large part of the goal of the CWA was to prohibit discharge of any pollutants, including dredged or fill material to navigable waters, except in accordance with the CWA. The CWA provides that the term 'navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.

However, much of the issues in deciding what is allowed and what is not is the definition of the term "waters of the United States", which is what today's proposal plans to change. There are three landmark decisions from the Supreme Court that provide much needed context about the scope of the term.

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes

Pretty simple, basically the Corps' ecological judgment states that adjacent wetlands are "inseparably bound up" with adjacent bodies of water, which means they should be included in the CWA definition of "waters of the United States".

*Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The Supreme Court decided that the use of "isolated" non-navigable intrastate ponds by migratory birds was not, in itself, sufficient to subject the waters to federal regulatory authority. Essentially, just because migratory birds use it doesn't mean that the water should be protected; you must take other factors into consideration as well.

Rapanos v. United States

Justice Scalia authored a four-Justice opinion, interpreting "waters of the United States" as covering "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water..." that are connected to traditional navigable waters, as well as wetlands with a "continuous surface connection..." to such water bodies. The important part of this is that the opinion's reference to "relatively permanent" waters did not exclude bodies of water drying up in extraordinary circumstances or even seasonal rivers which may only flow for some months of the year. Justice Kennedy agreed, but concluded that the appropriate test was whether a water or wetland possesses a "significant nexus" to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could be.

After the Rapanos decision, agencies addressed the waters in that decision but didn't change the definition. They concluded that "waters of the United States" included traditional navigable waters, and their adjacent wetlands, relatively permanent waters and wetlands. Waters that were not at issue in Rapanos were not addressed.

In 2015, the agencies (again, EPA and Department of the Army) published the "Clean Water Rule: Definition of 'Waters of the United States'". Thirty-one states and quite a few others sought judicial review on this, and in October of the same year, the U.S. Court of Appeals stayed the 2015 Rule pending further court action. Concerns were raised about the scope and legal authority of the rule. The claims made were that the rule violated the congressional grant of authority to the agencies under the CWA and that it appeared likely the EPA failed to comply with Administrative Procedure Act requirements. This proposal plans to replace that stayed definition and re-codify (make law again, I think) the exact same regulatory text that existed before that ruling.

EDIT: Just want to say thanks to the people who gilded me and everyone who thanked me for this. Helps me want to continue to do this kind of thing knowing that there are people out there who appreciate this kind of write up.

EDIT 2: A word.

EDIT 3: Thanks to /u/RayseApex for catching a typo, edited that out.

EDIT 4: Added a TL;DR to the top of the post, because apparently my patented "SUPER FUCKING QUICK SUMMARY" was still too long.

AFlaccoSeagulls on July 10th, 2017 at 15:20 UTC »

The EPA, with the US army, has proposed scrapping the rule in order to conduct a “substantive re-evaluation” of which rivers, streams, wetlands and other bodies of water should be protected by the federal government.

How much do you want to be bet that this "substantive re-evaluation" significantly lowers (and moves) the amount of waterways that are protected? Morever, how much do you want to bet that every waterway near a business owned or associated with a campaign official from the Administration is no longer protected?

But while the rule was applauded by environmentalists for improving drinking water protections and aiding wildlife that relies on wetlands, it was attacked by some farmers and golf course operators who claimed it hindered their ability to manage their land.

Yep, that's right. Farmers and golf course owners complained about managing their land because they couldn't pollute in the drinking water of 1/3 of the country.

EDIT: Something I just realized. You know who owns several golf courses and signed an executive order to undo regulations about this? Donald. Fucking. Trump.

Trump has called the rule “one of the worst examples of federal regulation” and a “massive power grab”. Signing his order, the president said thousands of jobs were at risk because “the EPA decided that navigable waters can mean nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer’s land or anyplace else that they decide”.

And right on cue, the Republicans claim this regulation was a job killer and returning rights to the states, just like they do every time they scrap a regulation that was protecting something from being destroyed.

The National Mining Association, another opponent of the rule and representative of an industry relentlessly backed by Trump, welcomed its impending demise.

Fucking savage sentence right here.

In recent months, the EPA has wound back rules curbing vehicle emissions, toxic waste from power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas drilling operations.

The last sentence of this article is the most depressing.

EDIT: Grammar.

Felinomancy on July 10th, 2017 at 15:02 UTC »

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” said Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA.

Why is it that every time I hear something is done for "states' rights" it's always to make things worse for people?

I mean seriously, who's dumb enough to oppose federal laws to ensure clean drinking water?