Four Pinocchios: Trumps claim that Waters of the United States rule cost hundreds of thousands of

[riversedge]

Fact Checker Analysis
Trump’s claim that Waters of the United States rule cost ‘hundreds of thousands’ of jobs
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee March 2



“EPA’s so-called Waters of the United States Rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation and it has truly run amok and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers and agricultural workers all across our land. It’s prohibiting them from being allowed to do what they’re supposed to be doing. It’s been a disaster. The Clean Waters Act says that the EPA can regulate navigable waters, meaning waters that truly affect interstate commerce. But a few years ago, 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. Right? It was a massive power grab. The EPA’s regulators were putting people out of jobs by the hundreds of thousands and regulations and permits started treating our wonderful small farmers and small businesses as if they were a major industrial polluter. They treated them horribly. Horribly.”
— President Trump, remarks upon signing executive order to roll back the “Waters of the United States” rule, Feb. 28, 2017


.........................................


The Pinocchio Test

Trump made several problematic statements in his remarks. He claimed that the Waters of the United States rule affected puddles and ditches; it affected some ditches, and technically has an exemption for puddles. But opponents of the rule say that since a “puddle” is not defined in the rule, the EPA can still regulate what some people may consider puddles. Trump also exaggerated details of a case involving a Wyoming rancher.

The focus of our fact-check is whether the rule cost “hundreds of thousands of jobs,” and there is no evidence to support that. After the rule was issued in 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a nationwide stay blocking it from taking effect. We checked with key industry groups that opposed the rule, but did not find research into the impact of the rule on jobs after it was halted in 2015. The rule has been in limbo since, so it is not credible that any jobs have been lost.
Four Pinocchios



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Tweet

Link to tweet

[marylandblue]

1. EPA has done a terrible job of explaining this rule

Basically, they don't just regulate navigable waters, they regulate whatever can AFFECT such waters. If they didn't do this, the Clean Water Act would be meaningless, since you would be able to legally dump as much pollution as you want 5 feet away from a river as long as you didn't put it in the river itself. So they've spent over a decade trying to figure what theae other ditches and streams are, and failed miserably each time. Even though they are not regulating most farms, most farmers believe they are. Even though are not regulating most ditches, most people believe they are. Even the rule has been blocked by the courts, and EPA created the current version under a court order, most people believe they have already been affected by it, and that EPA is going rogue on this. I saw congressional testimony a few years ago from the EPA Administrator where none of this was mentioned. I really wish EPA had a better PR department.