Trump administration to propose repealing rule giving EPA broad authority over water pollution

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Trump administration to propose repealing rule giving EPA broad authority over water pollution
By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin June 27 at 2:21 PM

President Trumps administration will revoke a rule that gives the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority over regulating the pollution of wetlands and tributaries that run into the nations largest rivers, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said Tuesday.

Testifying before Congress, Pruitt who earlier said he would recuse himself from working on the rule while any related case he brought is active said that the agency would provide clarity by withdrawing the rule and reverting standards to those adopted in 2008.

Pruitt, as Oklahoma attorney general, had filed suit against EPA over the rule, saying it usurps state authority, unlawfully broadens the definition of waters of the United States and imposes numerous and costly obligations on landowners. ... A withdrawal was expected, based on the executive order Trump signed in February targeting the rule. But this is the first clear signal of how the EPA will act on the presidents order.

The current rule, known as Waters of the United States (WOTUS), unambiguously gives EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers authority that many think the agencies already possessed under the Clean Water Act. The 1972 law gave the agencies control over navigable rivers and interstate waterways, but a series of court rulings left the extent of that power ambiguous. The Obama administration sought to end a decade of confusion by finalizing the WOTUS rule, which took effect in August 2015, triggering protests from a variety of real estate development, agricultural and industrial interests.
....

Brady Dennis contributed to this report.

Steven Mufson covers energy and other financial matters. Since joining The Post, he has covered the White House, China, economic policy and diplomacy. Follow @StevenMufson. Follow @StevenMufson

Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post's senior national affairs correspondent, covering how the new administration is transforming a range of U.S. policies and the federal government itself. She is the author of two booksone on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each otherand has worked for the Post since 1998. Follow @eilperin

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/27/trump-administration-to-propose-repealing-rule-giving-epa-broad-authority-over-water-pollution/

---

* * * * *

Hat tip, TIME magazine:

The Trump administration is rolling back clean water protections for half of America's streams

Link to tweet

* * * * *

This is not a law. It is a regulation. Informed sources tell me that it takes just as much time to remove a regulation as it did to put it in place to begin with. Here it is:

Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’; Final Rule

* * * * *

Clean Water Rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Rule

(Redirected from Waters of the United States)

The Clean Water Rule was a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands which have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over its scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.

The rule has been contested in litigation. Its implementation has been stayed by court rulings since 2015. In 2017 the Trump administration announced its intent to review and rescind or revise the rule.

[Rollo]

1. Make America Raped Again

Sarcasm alert...




.

[Kolesar]

2. Allowing developers to wreck vernal pools and ephemeral wetlands where salamanders breed

Eggs hatch in the spring while the ground is saturated. The little creatures walk off into the woods and the pools dry up behind them. Late in the year, the adults lay eggs in the same spot where they were born.

[Igel]

3. If it's being contested in courts,

and the courts are high enough, an interim method of scrapping it would be to simply instruct counsel not to defend it.

Cede the point.

Problem is, if they do that there may be no fallback, depending on how the new regulation was written if it's trashed there may be no regulatory framework left. That would be worse, but dropping any defense could be done with a phone call. The attorneys work for the executive.

It would also unleash a patchwork of regulations, because if a federal court in Washington state trashes it, I'm not sure that means it would be trashed in Maryland. Good luck with watersheds that cross court jurisdictions.

Remember Obama and DOMA? The executive was proudly under no obligation to defend laws and regulations it disagreed with. That's either true or it isn't; "it depends" isn't justifiable.

As for such regulations, I find them difficult. One bit of the regulation points to 100-year floodplains. Where I live wasn't in the 100-year floodplain in 2008, the last revision. Neither was where I work. Where I work is likely in the 100-year-flood plain, thanks to some rather severe construction that's taken place. Is it regulated? Depends on whether somebody's updated the flood plain map. Or does it? Because the reg refers to "traditional flood plains", not a document put out by the US hydrologic folk, and it's unclear that even the 2008 revisions to the flood plain map are "traditional". But the new construction that's been done near where I work now subject to EPA siting requirements? Nobody can tell. They're putting in a new athletic field this summer, which means raising the level of land that spends a reasonable chunk of the winter with standing water on it. Is the school destroying federally regulated wetlands because they did the work this summer, and not last summer before the flood plain would be altered by all the new construction. I'm pretty sure nobody checked.