wotus waters of US
==
some text hidden?
see wetlands, ecosystem services
kochs claim kill in list of 2017 accomplishments
AHA/ NOTE EVERY TIME GOP OPENS MOUTH STARTS W/ WE ALL WANT CLREAN AIR/WATRER THEN NEXT SENT GUTS IT
NO LNX TWT HEATED
The nation’s top health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., took a swim with his family in a poop-contaminated stream this weekend.
The New York Times reports:
Rock Creek, which flows through much of Northwest Washington, is used to drain excess sewage and storm water during rainfall. The creek has widespread “fecal” contamination and high levels of bacteria, including E. coli, and the city has banned swimming in all of its waterways for more than 50 years because of the widespread contamination of Rock Creek and other nearby rivers.
Kennedy has not responded to requests for comment to explain why he did this. Many have speculated that it’s because Kennedy does not believe in germ theory, the foundational scientific principle that germs—like bacteria, viruses, and parasites—cause disease.
On Bluesy, epidemiologist Dr. Elizabeth Jacobs writes: “RFK Jr. doesn’t believe in germ theory, so him hopping into a sewage-filled creek reminds me of Immanuel Pfeiffer. He’s the anti-vaxxer who in 1902 went right ahead and took his unvaccinated self to a smallpox ward and lo and behold became very ill with smallpox.”
But that doesn’t ring entirely true, because Kennedy has always said he believes contaminated water causes disease. In his 2021 book, The Real Anthony Fauci, he wrote that he believes in miasma theory, which “emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses." He’s said he believes in “fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition."
In fact, protecting clean water was once integral to Kennedy’s public identity. In 1999, he was named a ‘Hero of the Planet’ by Time for his work cleaning up the Hudson River with the Riverkeeper Association. Kennedy was also a founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance, “where he took on pollution from coal mines, coal-fired power plants and factory farms,” reports Inside Climate News. Kennedy has called Waterkeeper “my life’s work,” and said it “will always be my proudest achievement.”
But today, Kennedy is the top health official in an administration decimating America’s clean water protections. Trump has said his goal is to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 65 percent, which environmental groups say would be “devastating” for clean water. Already, Trump’s EPA has started the process of significantly reducing the types of waterways that are protected under the Clean Water Act, in order to allow landowners, farmers, ranchers, and home builders to dump livestock waste, construction runoff, and industrial effluent into small streams and wetlands.
Waterkeeper, Kennedy’s old organization, has called this move a “disaster” for clean water in this United States. It points out that polluting small streams and wetlands “also contaminates downstream waters, decimating fisheries and recreational waters, jeopardizing businesses and agricultural production, and increasing local water treatment plant costs.”
That’s why Waterkeeper has become an outspoken opponent of Trump’s anti-clean water agenda. Since taking office, Trump has withdrawn regulations limiting “forever chemicals” in waterways; paused enforcement against coal companies whose waste is leaching into groundwater; and cancelled a program to protect Alabamans from raw sewage, among many other things. “Collectively, these actions alone threaten to reverse more than a decade of progress to reduce highly toxic pollutants from the environment,” Waterkeeper said.
But while Kennedy’s old environmental group is sounding the alarm about the health risks of polluted water, Kennedy—the nation’s top health official—is posting pictures of himself swimming in it. The reason is clear: He’s trying to convince himself and others that he remains a legitimate environmentalist. Worse, he’s trying to provide green cover for Trump, who he insists is bonafide nature-lover. It’s more than environmental theater; it’s environmental propaganda.
Kennedy’s form of environmentalism is the equivalent of toasting all-natural marshmallows over a tire fire. It might make for a good photo, but it’s actually poison. True environmentalism requires protecting natural resources, listening to scientists, and prioritizing public health over polluter profits. Kennedy used to understand that. Now, he’s full of crap.
---
[[===
tom b raw an 5 23
https://www.alternet.org/brett-kavanaugh-lobbed-the-judicial-version-of-a-grenade-at-sam-alito-this-week-analysis-2660660997/
reacting to a blunt-talking concurring opinion submitted by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh taking on the ruling authored by colleague Sam Alito, Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson suggested in a new column for MSNBC there is the makingsof a schism developing within the conservative majority court.
At issue was the court severely limiting the ability of the government to enforce theClean Water Act,with Kavanaugh agreeing with the ultimate decision, but siding with the liberal wing in pointing out that the court is making law instead of interpreting it.
According to Levinson, the court's ruling was an egregious assertion of the court's authority and "the court’s ruling isn’t merely practically pernicious for those who care about the environment; it is legally wrong."
As she notes, the conservative wing of the court continually emphasizes that they are jurists and not elected lawmakers and, surprisingly, Kavanaugh reminded Alito of that in the text of his concurrence.
"It is unusual for Kavanaugh to break with his conservative colleagues, and the fact that he did so here shows us how truly baseless the court’s reasoning is," she suggested before explaining, "Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion explains why the court’s interpretation of the text of the Clean Water Act is fundamentally unmoored from the text itself. To use his words, 'the Court is imposing a restriction nowhere to be found in the text.'"
"The question before the court in this case was which wetlands are considered to be 'adjacent' to a body of water covered by the act, and therefore itself protected by the act," she wrote. "While the court’s ultimate decision was unanimous, its reasoning was splintered. A thin five-member majority of the court, defying basic rules of legal interpretation, concluded that 'adjacent' means 'adjoining.'"
As she notes Kavanaugh pointed out that the court went out of its way to ignore the obvious meanings of the words involved.
"Kavanaugh tells us exactly why Justice Alito got it wrong, as well: his interpretation goes against the 'ordinary meaning' of the word 'adjacent' and the 'longstanding agency practice' of the Army Corps.Referring to dictionaries for the plain and ordinary meaning of the word adjacent, Kavanaugh notes, 'the definitions of "adjacent" are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent,'" she elaborated.
According to Levinson, Kavanaugh was being brutally blunt with Alito and his other conservative colleagues when he wrote, "I would stick to the text.”
"These six words are nothing less than the judicial version of a grenade," the law professor wrote before adding, "Kavanaugh is essentially reminding the majority that they had one job, and one job alone, when interpreting a federal law: to follow the text. They failed to do so. We will live with the practical and legal consequences of that failure for years to come."
You can read her whole column here
an 5 23
no lnx
U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority on Thursday severely curtailed protections for "waters of the United States."
The decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is "unanimous in result but very split in reasoning," explainedSlate's Mark Joseph Stern. "The upshot of Sackett is that, by a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court dramatically narrows" which wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The majority opinion—authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by all of the court's other right-wing members except Justice Brett Kavanaugh—concludes that the CWA only applies to wetlands with "a continuous surface connection" to larger bodies of water, excluding those that are "adjacent."
Earthjustice declared in response to the ruling that "this is a catastrophic loss for water protections across the country and a win for big polluters, putting our communities, public health, and local ecosystems in danger."
Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), was similarly critical, saying that "the Supreme Court ripped the heart out of the law we depend on to protect American waters and wetlands."
"The majority chose to protect polluters at the expense of healthy wetlands and waterways. This decision will cause incalculable harm. Communities across the country will pay the price," Bapna warned.
"What's important now is to repair the damage," he added. "The government must enforce the remaining provisions of law that protect the clean water we all rely on for drinking, swimming, fishing, irrigation, and more. States should quickly strengthen their own laws. Congress needs to act to restore protections for all our waters."
Elizabeth Southerland, former director of science and technology in EPA's Office of Water, noted that "since 1989, the U.S. government has used Clean Water Act authority to either prevent the filling of wetlands or to permit filling only when an equal acreage of wetlands is reclaimed or restored."
"Wetland preservation is critical for providing flood control, absorbing pollutants, preventing shoreline erosion, storing carbon, and serving as a nursery for wildlife," stressed Southerland, now a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network.
Thursday's decision, she said, "is a big win for land developers and miners, who will now be free to destroy certain types of wetlands without paying for wetland reclamation," and "a big loss for communities who will have to pay more to treat their drinking water and respond to increased flooding and shoreline erosion."
The high court was criticized for hearing the case—brought by an Idaho couple denied a permit by the EPA—as the federal agency was finalizing a new waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule following the Trump administration's widely condemned rollback. The Biden administration's policy was just finalized in December.
"While Earthjustice and our allies are closely evaluating the impact of the Sackett decision on the new WOTUS regulation," said Sam Sankar, the legal group's vice president of programs, "we can say with certainty that the court has once again given polluting industries and land developers a potent weapon that they will use to erode regulatory protections for wetlands and waterways around the country."
FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES
Legal experts explain how Clarence Thomas’ SCOTUS ruling could impact charges against Sam Bankman-Fried ›
How a 1892 SCOTUS decision is 'setting up a spectacular legal clash' that could imperil US democracy: Trump biographer ›
Billionaire SCOTUS benefactor Harlan Crow has just hours to comply with Senate Judiciary probe ›
RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey Challenges Student Loan ... ›
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion ... ›
===}}
related precursor? see NMA
BS july 11, 2019
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Hal Quinn, National Mining Association (NMA) President and CEO, will today testify on the importance of the federal coal leasing program – a program that provides hundreds of millions of dollars of federal, state and local revenue per year, while providing a low cost, reliable source of energy for all Americans.
In his remarks before the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Mr. Quinn said, in part:
The federal coal program has been a national energy and economic success story. It provides hundreds of millions of dollars of federal, state and local revenue per year, while also providing a low cost, reliable source of energy for all Americans.
Unfortunately, in recent years, there have been misguided efforts to derail the program. The leasing moratorium announced in January 2016 by former Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell, for example, was based upon pretext and politics. None of the reasons she provided for taking such a drastic and disruptive action survive an encounter with the facts.
The reasons offered for the moratorium are devoid of any real evidence, lack any analytical rigor and are simply a collection of the contrived claims both she and her predecessor previously rejected. Federal coal production provides a fair return to the public with almost $14 billion in federal royalties, acquisition fees and rentals paid between 2003-2014 alone. Some argue that federal royalties are too low. However, they are substantially higher than rates for private coal in the East, and federal coal producers also pay bonus bids and surface rentals. Federal, state and local governments receive about 38 cents of every dollar on the sale of each ton of coal produced in the Powder River Basin.
If the Secretary really believed that certain issues with the program deserved further evaluation, nothing prevented her from proceeding to do so without imposing the drastic measure of halting coal leasing. And, this is what is so puzzling, to say the least, about a recent court ruling that the Department of Interior was obligated to conduct a NEPA analysis before Secretary Zinke’s order lifting the moratorium. It seems backwards.
Following the court’s reasoning, if any action was subject to NEPA, it would be Secretary Jewell’s decision to halt leasing. The moratorium order was the classic leap first and promise to look later at the consequences. On the other hand, Secretary Zinke’s order merely ceased what Secretary Jewell characterized as a wholly voluntary programmatic review which, as all the evidence demonstrates, is unjustified and unnecessary.
His full testimony as submitted can be found :{here:(style="box-sizing:inherit;font-weight:700"):}:.
Background
In January 2016, former Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell issued an order halting federal coal leasing while the Interior Department undertook a voluntary review of the coal leasing program and conducted a voluntary programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS).
In March 2017, Trump administration Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium on coal leasing, ending the prior administration’s discretionary and exploratory process – a process that the agency itself started. In lifting the temporary suspension, the agency took no actions that would trigger the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In June 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed, ruling that the Interior Department was under no obligation to conduct a programmatic EIS on the program. The Department completed a programmatic EIS for the current coal leasing program and has continually conducted NEPA reviews for coal leasing on both regional and site-specific bases. Moreover, NEPA reviews are also conducted prior to any mining on a lease when the Department reviews the mine plan submitted by the mine operator under the Federal Coal Leasing Act.
Unfortunately, in April 2019, in a sharp departure from precedent on the types of federal agency actions that trigger NEPA, a federal district court in Montana ruled that a NEPA review was required before former Sec. discontinuing a voluntary programmatic environmental analysis. This ruling not only contradicts the prior DC Circuit ruling, but ignores the fact that under the court’s reasoning the real action violating NEPA was former Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell’s order halting federal coal leasing, not Secretary Zinke’s action lifting the agency’s own voluntary pause on leasing. The court’s decision casts considerable uncertainty over the ability of the federal agencies to adopt policies that traditionally have been considered to be solely within their discretion.
OMG
trump eco rules killed tally over 100?
==
not sure technically:
https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-water-act--2645821708.html
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration Thursday in a case Earthjustice called "the clean water case of the century."
:{
}:
The case concerned a Maui, Hawaii wastewater treatment plant that pumped around four million gallons of sewage a day into groundwater, where some of it reached the Pacific Ocean, The New York Times reported. Maui County and the Trump administration argued that the plant did not need a Clean Water Act permit if the waste was passing through groundwater before entering protected waters, but the court rejected that narrow interpretation of the landmark environmental law six to three.
"We do not see how Congress could have intended to create such a large and obvious loophole in one of the key regulatory innovations of the Clean Water Act," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, as Earthjustice reported
[twt?]
Earthjustice brought the case on behalf of Maui environmental groups Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club-Maui Group, Surfrider Foundation and West Maui Preservation Association. Both the Hawaiʻi District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the county, but the Supreme Court case was high stakes.
"If the Supreme Court endorses the county's position, it would open a massive loophole for every polluter in the country to avoid regulation of their discharges by the law that protects the nation's waterways," arguing Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said in November 2019.
By backing up the county's case, the Trump Environmental Protection Agency was also reversing the agency's historic position, The Associated Press reported. This is in keeping with other Trump administration attempts to weaken water protections, such as its rollback of the Clean Water Rule rule granting protection to small streams and wetlands.
"This decision is a huge victory for clean water," Henkin said. "The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration's effort to blow a big hole in the Clean Water Act's protections for rivers, lakes and oceans."
Henkin said it was likely the lower court would now order the Maui plant to get a permit for its activities and ensure they do not damage the ocean. They have already been found to have harmed a coral reef.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh joined Breyer in the majority opinion, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented, though Alito wrote his own dissent, The New York Times reported.
"Based on the statutory text and structure, I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable waters," Thomas wrote, according to The Associated Press.
In the majority ruling, the court did not go as far as the environmental advocates, who argued a permit was needed for any pollutants that "actually and foreseeably reach navigable surface waters," The New York Times reported.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled entirely in favor of the environmental groups, but Breyer said that standard was too all-encompassing and would include things like "pollutants carried to navigable waters on a bird's feathers."
Instead, he argued that discharges into groundwater had to be regulated if they were the "functional equivalent" of a direct discharge.
But Earthjustice still touted the decision as a win, and CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck said it would boost water-protection efforts.
"Compared to the argument that it does not require permits for any groundwater pollution, which the county and the three dissenting justices all argued, this result will both empower the federal government to more aggressively regulate such pollution and allow private parties to sue when that regulation fails," Vladeck told CNN.
- Maui Mayor Rejects Clean Water Act Settlement, Aims for Supreme ... ›
- U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Hawaii Clean Water Act Case ... ›
==
OMG longtime target? fed overreach BS? am farm bureau
even stacked sab objected?!
120
https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html
Today, the Trump administration will finalize its replacement for the Obama-era Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule in a move that will strip protections from more than half of the nation's wetlands and allow landowners to dump pesticides into waterways, or build over wetlands, for the first time in decades.
:{
}:
President Donald Trump has been working to undo the 2015 rule since he took office, but his replacement goes even further, The New York Times explained. In addition to rolling back protections for some wetlands and streams that run intermittently or temporarily underground, it will also get rid of a requirement that landowners seek permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which had considered permits on a case-by-case basis before 2015.
"This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen," Southern Environmental Law Center lawyer Blan Holman told The New York Times. "This puts drinking water for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution. This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the '70s and '80s that Americans have relied on for their health."
The administration announced the repeal of the WOTUS rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule, in September of 2019. That rule had expanded the definition of "waters of the United States" under the 1972 Clean Water Act from larger bodies of water to include streams and wetlands. The rule was controversial before Trump took office.Many farmers and businesses thought it gave the federal government too much power, and court rulings had suspended it in 28 states.
Trump appealed to this logic when he touted his repeal Sunday at the American Farm Bureau FederationAnnual Convention and Trade Show in Austin, Texas.
"I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration's disastrous Waters of the United States rule," he said. "Thank you. It's gone. That was a rule that basically took your property away from you."
However, the rule was also based on a review of 1,200 scientific studies that found that streams and wetlands were connected to waters downstream. And legal experts say Trump's replacement goes even further than repealing the 2015 rule to deny decades-old protections to smaller headwaters.
"This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it's ever been before," Vermont Law School environmental law professor Patrick Parenteau told The New York Times "Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act."
The science behind Trump's new rule is already being challenged, including by some of Trump's own appointees.
Late in 2019, the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, which is staffed with many Trump picks, questioned the science behind three of the administration's deregulatory moves, including its WOTUS repeal. The board wrote that the administration's proposed replacement "neglects established science" by "failing to acknowledge watershed systems," The New York Times reported at the time. The board also said it found "no scientific justification" for denying protections to certain bodies of water.
The board's comments will likely prove useful to environmental groups and the attorneys general of several states, who are expected to sue to block the new rule, The New York Times reported.
"The legal standing all has to do with whether you have a rational basis for what you're doing," Parenteau told The New York Times. "And when you have experts saying you're not adhering to the science, that's not rational, it's arbitrary."
The rule is also already being challenged by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has called for an investigation into how it was finalized, E&E News reported Monday.
"The writing of the final Rule was controlled solely by [EPA] Headquarters political appointees," the complaint, signed by 44 current and former EPA employees, said. "The final Rule contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus on the connectivity of wetlands and waters, and the impacts that ephemeral streams and so-called 'geographically isolated' wetlands have on downstream navigable waters."
The group filed the complaint with the EPA's Office of Inspector General and asked it to determine if the rule violated the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy.
The final rule is due to be announced in Dallas, Texas today by EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials, as well as Texas Republican Representatives Louie Gohmert and Ron Wright, Courthouse News Service reported.
drinking water trump administration epa clean water act water public health
==
not sure if techn wotus?
The Environmental Protection Agency is slated to roll back key Obama-era regulations to protect waterways near coal-fired power plants from being flooded with toxic coal ash today. Coal ash contains mercury, arsenic and other toxic chemicals. Food & Water Watch has vowed to sue the Trump administration over the rollback of the rules, which it says would “lead directly to more water contamination, more birth defects, more childhood cancer and more pain and suffering for American families — all for the sake of a dirty industry’s last grasp at profits.”
1119
A coalition of environmental groups has sued the Trump administration for repealing the Waters of the United States (or WOTUS) rule, reports Bloomberg Environment.The groups charge that “agencies have simply gone through the motions of giving notice and taking comment without providing any legitimate rationale to support the predetermined result,” which was to wipe the landmark Obama-era rule off the books.
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-admin-repeals-protections-for-smaller-streams-and-wetlands-2640338564.html
Trump Admin Repeals Obama-Era Clean Water Protections
Olivia Rosane Sep. 13, 2019
The Trump administration repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule rule Thursday, a rule intended to protect 60 percent of the nation's waterways from pollution, The New York Times reported.
At stake is the definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The Obama-era rule expanded that definition from larger bodies of water to include streams and wetlands. Thursday's repeal will return the country to more-limited 1986 water-protection standards, The Washington Post reported. The administration will also announce a new definition within months.
"Today, EPA and the Department of the Army finalized a rule to repeal the previous administration's overreach in the federal regulation of U.S. waters and recodify the longstanding and familiar regulatory text that previously existed," Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a press release. "Today's Step 1 action fulfills a key promise of President Trump and sets the stage for Step 2—a new WOTUS definition that will provide greater regulatory certainty for farmers, landowners, home builders, and developers nationwide."
Because court rulings have suspended the rule in 28 states, while keeping it in place in 22 others, Wheeler argued that a new rule would provide regulatory certainty across the board.
:{
}:
"We want to make sure that we have a definition that once and for all will be the law of the land in all 50 states," Wheeler told The Washington Post.
But environmental advocates say the repeal will endanger wetland wildlife and national drinking water.
"By throwing out the Clean Water Rule, Andrew Wheeler is acting like the former coal lobbyist that he is, putting the drinking water for one in every three Americans at risk just so he can placate corporate polluters who don't want to be held accountable," Dalal Aboulhosn, Sierra Club's Deputy Legislative Director for Land and Water, said in a statement provided to EcoWatch. "We will fight Wheeler's rollback to not only protect our communities from dangerous water pollution, but also restore order and common sense as to how we go about protecting our water in the future."
Wheeler made the announcement at the headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the industry groups that opposed the Clean Water Rule.Critics argued it gave the federal government too much power over the actions of developers and farmers. Farmers were prohibited from planting certain crops near streams or wetlands, or using certain pesticides without an EPA permit, The New York Times explained.
"When you take private property rights from a man who's worked all his life," American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall told The New York Times, "that is very intrusive to him and it's something he just can't stand for."
President Donald Trump singled it out for repeal in a Feb. 2017 executive order, in which the President asked the EPA to start a review process that would lead to "the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule," The Washington Post explained.
Its repeal means that farmers, developers or landowners will no longer need a permit to pollute the streams and wetlands now excluded from protection, according to The New York Times. When finalized, the new Waters of the United States definition is likely to include streams that feed into larger bodies of water and wetlands directly adjacent to them, but exclude streams that run only during rainfall or wetlands not directly connected to larger waterways.
But the 2015 rule was based on a review of 1,200 scientific studies that showed how important these streams and wetlands are to downstream waters, according to The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
"The Trump administration's wild-eyed attempts to reward polluters knows no bounds, so it is repealing these important protections without regard for the law or sound science," NRDC Director of Federal Water Policy Jon Devine said.
The Clean Water Rule repeal is the latest in a growing number of environmental rollbacks initiated by the Trump administration. Others include the repeals of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and tailpipe emissions standards. Wheeler said Thursday that the Trump EPA had finalized 46 deregulatory actions, and that an additional 45 were in the works, NPR reported.
==
Victory for Clean Water: Court Reinstates Obama WOTUS Rule for 26 States
A federal judge invalidated the Trump administration's suspension of the Clean Water Rule, effectively reinstating the Obama-era regulation in 26 states.
The 2015 rule, also known as Waters of the United States (WOTUS) defines which waters can be protected from pollution and destruction under the Clean Water Act. It protects large water bodies such as lakes and rivers, as well as small streams and wetlands.
....
==
2x? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319
https://www.alternet.org/environment/3-ways-epa-chief-scott-pruitt-protects-polluters-not-people
atticework of alleged ethics violations swirling around U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt certainly calls into question his fitness to serve our country. Far more dangerous, though, is his utter fealty to polluters, which drive policies that present devastating threats to the air we breathe and the water we drink. The consequences of his disastrous decisions jeopardize the health and welfare of current and future generations.
The three examples below represent just a few of Pruitt's gifts to industrial polluters for which he should be removed from office immediately.
1. Eliminating Regulations on Coal Ash
Water pollution from coal-fired power plants—and particularly their coal ash dumps—is the single largest source of toxic water pollution in the United States; coal plants dump more toxics into our waters than the other top nine polluting industries combined.
There are more than 1,400 coal ash dumps, containing millions of tons of toxic waste, at power plants throughout the United States. Roughly half of them have no liners and 70 percent are situated in low-income communities. Waterkeeper Alliance has investigated dozens of coal ash dumps all over the country and found toxic pollutants like chromium, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and lead discharging out of more than 90 percent of them into waterways used by citizens for drinking, swimming and fishing.
These toxins increase risks of multiple types of cancer, heart disease and organ failure.
In 2015, the EPA—for the first time—set standards for how power plants store and dispose of their coal ash. Despite the clear threat that coal ash presents to public health, Pruitt's EPA now wants to eliminate even these bare minimum standards. Pruitt claims that regulations are killing the coal industry. To the contrary, renewables and market forces are putting coal out of business—despite his attempts to keep the industry on life support.
Under the guise of providing flexibility to states, Pruitt wants to roll back rules that help protect our drinking water from coal ash. His proposed rollbacks project to save the coal industry between $31 million and $100 million in compliance costs. But what about the financial and emotional costs imposed on communities suffering from leaking coal ash dumps in their communities? For every day that Pruitt props up the coal industry, Americans suffer loss to their health and property.
Upon taking office, one of Pruitt’s first actions was to take aim at the definition of "Waters of the United States," which identifies the waterways that are protected from pollution under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Pruitt is looking to significantly narrow the definition presumably in order to enrich his polluter pals.2. Narrowing the Definition of "Waters of the United States"
The CWA's definition of "waters of the United States" is essential for protecting human health; the well-being of communities; the success of local, state and national economies; and the functioning of our nation's vast, interconnected aquatic ecosystems; as well as the many threatened and endangered species that depend on those resources.
Opening up a creek or wetland to indiscriminate pollution can negatively affect a community's drinking water supply and property values. Pruitt's disdain for the CWA and the waters it protects reflects both a complete ignorance of how an ecosystem works and his role as a puppet to industry.
3. Adding a Groundwater Loophole
Picture a scenario where an industrial polluter releases pollutants from a pipe just short of a surface waterway. The pollutants do not discharge directly into the waterway, but rather seep into the ground, travel a short distance via groundwater, and then contaminate surface waters.The EPA currently is considering adding a gaping loophole to the CWA; the agency is accepting comments on whether the CWA should apply to pollutants discharged to groundwater which then directly travel a short distance to pollute surface waters.
Under changes being considered by the EPA, and contrary to long-standing agency and judicial interpretations, the CWA would not apply to these discharges, allowing the polluter to legally dump unlimited amounts of pollutants and stifling citizens’ ability to protect their communities’ waterways. This potential gift to polluters was not remotely contemplated by Congress when it passed the CWA.
These three examples—among many others proposed by the Trump/Pruitt EPA—demonstrate Pruitt's pattern of protecting polluters instead of people. Regardless of politics and all of his alleged ethical lapses, the EPA Administrator's biggest scandal is making decisions that favor the wallets of industry barons at the expense of Americans' health and welfare.
Fortunately, his ineptitude has led to hasty and sloppy rulemakings and rollbacks that we plan to defeat in court. Nevertheless, the Administration needs to remove Pruitt from office now.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
==
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/climate/trump-water-wotus.html
of course:
President Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, at the White House last February.CreditAndrew Harnik/Associated Press
By Coral Davenport
Jan. 31, 2018
Want the latest climate news in your inbox? You can sign up here to receive Climate Fwd:, our new email newsletter.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has formally suspended a major Obama-era clean water regulation ahead of plans to issue its own version of the rule later this year.
President Trump has taken aim at the bitterly contested rule, known as Waters of the United States, since his campaign, calling it “one of the worst examples of federal regulation.” Among Mr. Trump’s first actions in office was an executive order directing his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, to begin the legal process of rescinding the rule and replacing it with a more industry-friendly alternative.
:{
}:
On Wednesday, Mr. Pruitt took a major step toward completing that task, filing the legal documents required to suspend the Obama rule for two years. The rule was set to be implemented in the coming weeks, following a Supreme Court decision last week that gave jurisdiction of the matter to district courts.
:{
}:
:{
}:
Having suspended the water rule, Mr. Pruitt is now crafting a Trump administration version, which is expected to include much looser regulatory requirements on how farmers, ranchers and real estate developers must safeguard the streams and tributaries that flow through their property and into larger bodies of water.
The Obama clean water regulation, which would have limited the use of pollutants like chemical fertilizers that could run off into small streams, came under fierce criticism from the rural landowners that make up a key component of Mr. Trump’s political base.
“Today, E.P.A. is taking action to reduce confusion and provide certainty to America’s farmers and ranchers,” Mr. Pruitt said in a statement. “The 2015 WOTUS rule developed by the Obama administration will not be applicable for the next two years, while we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation.”
Mr. Pruitt told a conference of state agricultural commissioners that he intends to issue a draft proposal of replacement water regulations in the spring and to finalize new rules this year, according to Politico.
The Waters of the United States rule, designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water, was put forth by the E.P.A. and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2015. It had extended existing federal protections of large bodies of water, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, to smaller bodies that flow into them, such as rivers, small waterways and wetlands.
Issued under the authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, the rule has been hailed by environmentalists. But farmers, ranchers and real estate developers oppose it as an infringement on their property rights.
Republicans in farm states cheered the administration’s move on Wednesday.
“The Obama administration’s outrageous Waters of the United States rule would have put backyard ponds, puddles, and farm fields under Washington’s control,” said Senator John Barrasso, the Wyoming Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Today’s action will give Wyoming’s ranchers, farmers, small businesses, and communities clarity.”
Environmentalists, meanwhile, assailed the move and vowed to sue the administration.
“The Clean Water Rule protects the bodies of water that feed the drinking water supply for one in three Americans,” said Jon Devine, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “E.P.A. Administrator Scott Pruitt is racing the clock to deny protections for our public health and safety. It’s grossly irresponsible, and illegal — and we’ll challenge it in court.”
==
https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule
off
e definition of "waters of the United States" currently applicable is the definition promulgated in 1986/1988, implemented consistent with subsequent Supreme Court decisions and guidance documents. The 2015 revised regulatory definition of "waters of the United States" has been stayed nationwide by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In response to this stay, EPA and the Department of the Army resumed nationwide use of the agencies’ prior regulations defining the term “waters of the United States.”
On February 28, 2017, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order directing EPA and the Department of the Army to review and rescind or revise the 2015 Rule. The agencies are in the process of reviewing the 2015 Rule and considering a revised definition of "waters of the United States" consistent with the Executive Order.
On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction to review challenges to the 2015 Rule. On January 31, 2018, the agencies signed a final rule adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule. With this final rule, the agencies intend to maintain the legal status quo of pre-2015 implementation, thus providing continuity and certainty for regulated entities, states and tribes, and the public while the agencies continue to consider possible revisions to the 2015 Rule.
==
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319
Obama's water war
Industries like agriculture, oil and home-building are lining up to attack a rule aimed at protecting wetlands and waterways.
By JENNY HOPKINSON 05/27/2015 10:41 AM EDT Updated 05/28/2015 02:56 PM EDT
The Obama administration announced new protections Wednesday for thousands of waterways and wetlands, pushing ahead despite a fierce counterattack from powerhouse industries like agriculture, oil and home-building — and their supporters in Congress.
On its face, the Waters of the United States rule is largely a technical document, defining which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. But opponents condemn it as a massive power grab by Washington, saying it will give bureaucrats carte blanche to swoop in and penalize landowners every time a cow walks through a ditch. And it comes amid years of complaints from Republicans about President Barack Obama’s regulatory agenda, which has encompassed everything from power plants and health insurers to Internet providers and for-profit colleges.
Critics are already fighting back: The House voted earlier this month to block the rule, with support from both Republicans and some farm- and energy-state Democrats, and similar legislation is moving through the Senate.Opponents are also preparing lawsuits that will add to an already long trail of litigation over the government’s powers to regulate water — an issue the Supreme Court has taken up twice, with confusing results, since 2001.
Obama was quick to add his personal endorsement to the rule, saying the measure is needed to protect vulnerable waterways and drinking water and to keep the economy going.
07 Jan 2014, Germany —- The cooling towers of power plant Lippendorf smoke before a red evening sky near Espenhain, Germany, 07 January 2014. The brown coal plant has a power of about 1,900 megawatt and was brought into service in 2000. Photo: Jan Woitas/ZB —- Image by © Jan Woitas/dpa/Corbis
ALSO ON POLITICO
“This rule will provide the clarity and certainty businesses and industry need about which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and it will ensure polluters who knowingly threaten our waters can be held accountable,” Obama said in a statement after the EPA released a final version of the regulation. “My administration has made historic commitments to clean water, from restoring iconic watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes to preserving more than a thousand miles of rivers and other waters for future generations. With today’s rule, we take another step towards protecting the waters that belong to all of us.”
But House Speaker John Boehner accused the president of delivering yet another devastating blow to the economy.
:{
}:
“The administration’s decree to unilaterally expand federal authority is a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement. “[T]he rule is being shoved down the throats of hardworking people with no input, and places landowners, small businesses, farmers and manufacturers on the road to a regulatory and economic hell.”
The agencies and their supporters say the safety of drinking water and stream health are threatened because of weak state and local regulation and a lack of enforcement. The rule is meant to make it clearer which waterways EPA and the Corps of Engineers can oversee under the 43-year-old Clean Water Act, which covers “navigable waters” such as the Mississippi River and Lake Erie but is vague on how far upstream protections must go to keep those water bodies clean.
In essence, the rule would establish whether antipollution laws are triggered if a farmer blocks a stream to make a pond for livestock, a developer fills in part of a wetland to put up a house or an oil pipeline has to cross a creek.
“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who threaten our clean water,” senior White House adviser Brian Deese told reporters during a conference call. He added that the rule “is based on common sense. … The status quo is rife with unsustainable confusion over what’s protected and what’s not.”
The final rule ensures protections for tributaries that have physical signs of flowing water, even if they don’t run all year round, and ditches that “look and act” like tributaries, said Jo-Ellen Darcy, the assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. The rule also limits EPA regulatory oversight to any body of water within 1,500 feet of another water body already covered by the rule, unless they have a surface water connection.
Kemper County, MS - 3/16/2015 - An eleaborate system of piping, part of the gasifier steam production process, at the Kemper County IGCC Plant.
The Kemper Project, also called the Kemper County energy facility, is an electrical generating station currently under construction in Kemper County, Mississippi. Mississippi Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, began construction of the plant in 2010. Once operational, the Kemper Project will be a first-of-its-kind electricity plant to employ gasification and carbon capture technologies at this scale.
The station is scheduled to open in the first half of 2016, more than two years behind schedule, at a cost of $6.1 billion, making Kemper one of the most expensive power plants per kilowatt in the United States.
EPA and the corps also decided to extend protections to regional water features, like prairie potholes and coastal bays in the Delmarva peninsula and the Carolinas, on a case by case basis.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the rule maintains long-held exemptions for agriculture and does not cover features like tile drainage systems, regular farm activities or the moving of livestock. The agency detailed many of the changes in a series of industry-specific fact sheets, also released Wednesday.
Despite the changes, McCarthy added that the new rule would expand the reach of the Clean Water Act by only about 3 percent. The measure is expected to take effect 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register.
Defining where a navigable waterway begins and ends has long spurred disputes among the government, environmentalists and industry. Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 added to the confusion, imposing a less-than-clear requirement that upstream water must have a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway to fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction.
Groups that back the rule, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Environment America and fishing organizations, want the definition to be as broad as possible, saying you can’t protect major lakes and rivers unless you protect their sources upstream. And they say the federal government needs an oversight role, argued that states lack the financial resources and manpower to keep water from becoming polluted.
Supporters of the rule were quick to herald Wednesday’s action.
:{
}:
“Small streams and wetlands provide drinking water to roughly 1 in 3 Americans and they must be protected from pollution at the source,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.
On the other side are Republicans and some of the biggest spenders in Washington.
“The administration’s cavalier attitude toward expanding the federal government’s authority into our backyards is absolutely outrageous,” said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). “Not only were small businesses — who will be dramatically impacted by expanding of the definition of ‘waters of the United States’ — inappropriately excluded from the rule-making process, but the federal government shouldn’t be regulating puddles on private property in the first place.”
:{
}:
The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have joined the American Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America, pesticide manufacturers, mining companies, home builders, state and local governments, water utilities, flood control districts, the timber industry, railroads, real estate developers and even golf course operators among the more than 230 organizations and companies that have listed “Waters of the United States” on federal lobbying disclosures since the administration proposed the rule in March 2014.
Many food and beverage giants have pitched their thoughts to lawmakers on the measure, too, including Tyson Foods, Perdue Farms, Land O’Lakes, the potato giant J.R. Simplot and Ocean Spray Cranberries. Also weighing in are about 40 energy companies, including Halliburton, BP, Shell, Chevron, Rio Tinto and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, in addition to two dozen power companies such as Duke Energy and Pepco.
Many of the groups also made their case directly to White House and EPA officials during more than a dozen visits after the rule was sent for review at the Office of Management and Budget, meeting records show.
The lobbying effort has already had some success.
:{
}:
This month, the House passed a bill from Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) that would force EPA and the Army Corps to kick their rule back to the drawing board and consult with states and industries before writing a new proposal. The 261-155 vote included yes votes from 24 Democrats, of whom eight sit on the House Agriculture Committee and two sit on Energy and Commerce. Four of the Democrats are from energy-heavy Texas.
:{
}:
The Senate is considering a similar measure from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that is awaiting a vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee and has the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Other supporters include three Democrats on the Agriculture Committee: Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
:{
}:
:{
}:
Barrasso’s measure includes more detailed consultation requirements than the House version and sets a Dec. 31, 2016, goal for EPA to finish a revised rule.
The White House has threatened to veto Shuster’s bill, arguing that it would “derail current efforts to clarify the scope of the CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water.”
However, that won’t stop the agriculture industry and other opponents from suing. Among other objections, the suits are likely to debate whether the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act when trying to garner support for the measure and in reviewing comments, whether the rule-making violated federal protections for small businesses, and whether the rule’s expanded oversight of waterways falls outside what Congress intended when it wrote the Clean Water Act.
==