EPA moves to kill "Waters of the U.S." rule

[Mike_Jones]

.
EPA moves to kill Waters of the U.S. rule

June 27, 2017

The Trump administration on Tuesday began the process of formally rescinding the highly controversial "Waters of the U.S." rule, an Obama-era regulation that gave Washington broad powers over streams and other small bodies of water across the country.

The rule, put forth in 2015 but subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court before going into effect, was one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's top targets when he took the helm at the agency. President Trump earlier this year signed an executive order directing Mr. Pruitt to review the rule, and with Tuesday's action, the EPA says it's finalized that review and will move to permanently strike the regulation from the books.

"We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation's farmers and businesses," Mr. Pruitt said in a statement. "This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine ‘waters of the U.S.' and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty, in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public."

The action would return EPA authority over waterways to where it stood prior to the Waters of the U.S. rule. Under the Clean Water Act, the agency has jurisdiction over "navigable" waters.

Supporters of the rule have said that definition wasn't specific enough, and allowed for pollution to run from streams and other small waters into larger bodies that supply drinking water.

But critics, including agriculture, business, and virtually all conservatives Washington and across the country, said the regulation was yet another power grab by the EPA.

Moving forward, the administration aims to redefine "waters of the U.S." in accordance with the original language in the Clean Water Act.

My only question concerns why Obama was capable of using every drop of rain to dictate what land owners across America could do with their land. Apparently the clean water act puts some restrictions on what landowners can do. But the restrictions are not draconian restrictions like Obama put in place. Limiting the president's land authority should be a matter, not just of court decisions, but of congressional law.
.

 

[VonMeister]

Nutella is a socialist. He thinks the federal government and it's high net worth and well connected friends owns everything.

For anyone who lives in a red state or didn't vote for him the payback was vicious.

 

[Mike_Jones]

.

.

 

[GDaddy]

Many of the states already watch water bodies pretty carefully. I don't know how much redundancy is necessary when the feds could just publish their standards and require the states to meet them the same way other types of national standards are established.

 

[test_article]

We've come a long way. I remember when the Clean Water Act was considered government overreach by mad dog conservatives.

 

[manbearpig]

Many of the states already watch water bodies pretty carefully. I don't know how much redundancy is necessary when the feds could just publish their standards and require the states to meet them the same way other types of national standards are established.

Yes this is true, as far as you or I most likely know.

But you are a fool if you think protecting our waters is an overreach of our government and not in our best interest. I don't want joe somebody dumping the oil from his machinery into the stream that flows through his property before my own. Uniformity for regulation will come under federal law, not state law. This is similar to the public lands debate in that federal is better than state as it removes outside influences that get to the states, primarily where they put monetary value before what's best for the land and subsequently the people.