[ad_1]
The Trump Administration wants to limit the scope of a major rule in terms of water quality. He indicates that the EPA under Obama has gone too far in regulating isolated waters and wetlands far upstream of navigable lakes and rivers.
Seth Perlman / AP
Hide the legend
Toggle the legend
Seth Perlman / AP
The Trump administration wants to limit the scope of a major rule in terms of water quality. He indicates that the EPA under Obama has gone too far in regulating waters and isolated wetlands far upstream from navigable lakes and rivers.
Seth Perlman / AP
Large amounts of wetlands and thousands of kilometers of US waterways would no longer be protected by the federal government through the Clean Water Act as part of a new proposal by the government Trump.
The proposal, announced and signed Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would change the definition of "United States waters", or WOTUS, of the EPA, by limiting the types of navigable waterways under protection. major waterways, their tributaries, adjacent wetlands and a few other categories.
The change aims to "provide the states and landowners with the certainty they need to manage their natural resources and develop local economies," said Andrew Wheeler, Acting Administrator of the EPA.
Wheeler said that a simpler approach would allow farmers, for example, to determine which water on their property is subject to federal regulation without paying thousands of dollars for consultants and engineers. He said that it would also allow them, as well as others, to avoid costly and time-consuming authorizations for a settlement of the Obama era, which he described as "takeover".
The proposed change contrasts with the Obama Administration's 2015 definition of expanding federal protections for drinking water to include not only these major waterways, but also the smaller ones. water and their tributaries that feed them. For years, Republican opponents, agriculture groups and real estate developers have decried the initiative, calling it regulatory in scope.
As a candidate and president, Donald Trump presented the Obama era regime in the same manner, calling it "one of the worst examples of federal regulation," and making its repeal and revision a priority for its administration.
Dave Ross of the EPA's Office of Water, said the reduction of the water rules would achieve the "right balance" that the Congress planned when it passed the Clean Water Act decades ago.
This is one of the dozens of environmental regulations that the Trump administration aims to limit or replace in order to stimulate industry and fossil fuel production. The administration hopes to finalize the settlement next year, but environmental groups are already threatening to challenge the law.
"This proposal is irresponsible," said Jon Devine of the Natural Resources Defense Council in a statement. "Given the challenges facing our lakes, streams and wetlands, from Florida beaches to Toledo's drinking water, the time has come to strengthen the protection of our waterways and not to weaken them. "
One of the main points of contention is the erasure of protections for ephemeral or intermittent waterways in the new plan. Ephemeral watercourses flow only after rainfall, but they form an important part of the country's water supply systems.
According to a study cited by the EPA under Obama, nearly 60% of American waterways and 81% in the arid southwestern are ephemeral or seasonal – waterways that would lose their protection . In his announcement, the current Acting Administrator of EPA, Wheeler, disputed these figures, saying that they could not be saved.
Asked for a more precise figure, officials say there is no map of all US waterways.
Millions of acres of wetlands would also be affected by the change. Under its proposal, the EPA would only protect wetlands adjacent to or connected to large bodies of water by a body of surface water. The Obama rule was much more expansive.
Arguments on federal jurisdiction and the definition of "US waters". have lasted for decades.
Adopted in 1972, a few years after the Cuyahoga River, in Ohio, literally caught fire, the Clean Water Act aimed to maintain "the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. ".
To this end, it largely prohibited the release of pollution into the "navigable waters" of the country.
Jurisdictions, interest groups, and the US Supreme Court have argued over the definition of "navigable waters" and their scope. since.
The Obama administration has adopted a broad definition, arguing that upstream pollution is blazing a trail downstream and that it should therefore be regulated.
The Trump administration proposes a more restrictive interpretation based on a 2006 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who held that the Clean Water Act did not apply only at relatively permanent waters. According to him, other waterways and other bodies should be regulated by States.
Both administrations emphasized the need for clarity and regulatory certainty in the announcement of their rules.
But with probable lawsuits and a 60-day public comment period, the administration's proposal is far from becoming a law.
Source link
