EPA will re-evaluate which water bodies will receive federal protection

[frozentripper]

I knew it... the new and improved EPA. Might want to watch where you're taking a drink of water from... I expect the savings in costs to the feds and to business will be passed on to the states and municipalities as they need to spend more in treating drinking water.

[FONT=&quot] [h=1]EPA seeks to scrap rule protecting drinking water for third of Americans[/h]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot] Environmental Protection Agency and army propose ending clean water rule to hold ‘substantive re-evaluation’ of which bodies of water should be protected
[FONT=&quot]

Oliver Milman[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tuesday 27 June 2017 20.19 BST

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to dismantle the federal clean water rule, which protects waterways that provide drinking water for about a third of the US population.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The EPA, with the US army, has proposed scrapping the rule in order to conduct a “substantive re-evaluation” of which rivers, streams, wetlands and other bodies of water should be protected by the federal government.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” said Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA.

...

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[/FONT]


[/FONT]


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/27/epa-clean-water-rule-drinking?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[riverstrider]

I'm not sure it is as bad as this makes it sounds. The new "WOTUS" Rule, which got a lot of pushback from farmers (who didn't understand it) and builders (who are typically bloody-minded about any regulation anyways), was originally intended to clarify and better define what is regulated as a "Water of the US". including Wetlands. In my opinion, it actually reduced the scope of protection rather than increased it as most opponents claimed. And it would have better streamlined decisions over the current process, which is basically "case by case determinations" by the ACOE. Oh well. So, now that the WOTUS Rule may be reconsidered, we're back to making individual determinations on a case by case basis, using the "significant nexus" standard given in Justice Kennedy's SCOTUS decision many years back which, on the whole, is not a bad thing except that it is not standardized and since its interpretation can be very different from one region to the next...something that WOTUS was supposed to fix. In any case...there is still pretty good federal jurisdiction over wetlands and waters in the US even without WOTUS, and very good protection at least in New England, where I am from. So if you're worried about water quality, come paddle in New England, LOL!

-rs

 

[frozentripper]

RS, the standardization of protection measures for streams across the entire nation was what I thought to be the valuable part of the clean water rule... being Canadian, I'm not there to evaluate what is degraded and what isn't, what needs to be fixed, what needs to be kept in it's natural state but I thought there was a need for this. The rule was made for navigable waters as well which would include canoe routes so could have some relevance like here in Canada with the Navigable Waters Protection Act being weakened by the previous administration and now restored.

Having individual state-by-state oversight for stream protection and restoration could have less rigor in some areas depending on who's defining the measures for protection. During the nineties, there was a water pollution scandal of some kind in Arkansas when Bill Clinton relaxed the state's standards for stream protection in favor of chicken producers like Tyson Foods, and ended up allowing the industry to pollute drinking water, trout streams, the Arkansas river, degrading recreational use for anglers and canoeists IIRC.... fuzzy memory, still, the Clean Water Rule could have kept that sort of thing from happening at the state level.

I'm too far away to be able to judge for sure, what I can say here in Canada was the previous business-interests-leaning government tried to suppress and weaken national environmental protection measures as well, became pretty unpopular and was eventually voted out.

Yes, New England is on the list, I've seen some great pix and stories, gotta see it. Happy 4th of July!

 

[yellowcanoe]

States and local governments have a lot of clout. In our town you may not cut native vegetation within 100 feet of shore for example. Our water is quite clear and if it weren't commercial bottlers would scream. Clean water is huge business in Maine
I've always thought of EPA controls as having most clout in air quakity and effluent control as in sewage treatment
Coal isn't returning and sewage treatment seems to be more efficient now. Most of us have septic talks and wells so we have a vested interest in clean water

 

[riverstrider]

The protection of streams in the US at the Federal level actually is pretty standardized, even without WOTUS. WOTUS just further clarified matters and may in fact have reduced the number of miles of rivers and streams protected, IMO. That being said, such Federal protection isn't that great since it generally only looks at direct discharges of pollutants into the watercourses and does a poor job of protection against non-point sources. For those impacts, where there are programs, State and local regulations blow the Feds out of the water...pun intended.

-Chuck

 

[Steve in Idaho]

....That being said, such Federal protection isn't that great since it generally only looks at direct discharges of pollutants into the watercourses and does a poor job of protection against non-point sources....

That it does - with or without the current clean water rule. Non-point sources are a big problem, and some states deal with it better than others. My state (Idaho) apparently puts some pressure on construction sources and dairies, but farmers pretty much get a pass. I does surprise me that downstream states don't push more for a federal standard on non-point source pollution.

 

[lowangle al]

Could someone please monitor this and let us know when it's OK to pee in the water again.

 

[frozentripper]

Chuck...

Federal protection isn't that great since it generally only looks at direct discharges of pollutants into the watercourses and does a poor job of protection against non-point sources.

I'd argue that the Clean Water Rule did have the potential to reduce non-point sources, if it prevented farmers and ranchers from degrading lands that drained into wetlands and small and temporary streams, which would affect water quality in the larger watershed. Farmers and ranchers in news reports were opposed to the CWR since it could have prevented them from using sensitive lands that could affect water quality downstream from non-point source, larger-scale land use. But the CWR would have exempted agriculture, at least on paper, so on the ground, the federal measures taken to protect streams and wetlands may have turned out to be limited.

OTOH what were the farmers and ranches worried about if they were exempt? Maybe state and municipal protection being less rigorous?

The CWR also seems to have had solid scientific backing as shown here (primary waters being streams and rivers that are navigable by boats IIRC, and receiving greater protection by the CWR by extending protection further up the watershed):

Conclusion

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal agencies may protect waters on a categorical basis if most waters in that category have a significant effect on primary waters. The best available science overwhelmingly demonstrates that the waters treated categorically in the Clean Water Rule have significant chemical, physical, and biological connections to primary waters. Accordingly, we write in support of upholding the Clean Water Rule.

http://www.stetson.edu/law/internat...land_and_water _scientists-01-20-17_filed.pdf


Anyway... here in Canada, we have the Great Lakes and definite point source pollution on both sides of the border from industrial and municipal wastes flowing into them so there may some effect. The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement signed by Nixon may help prevent further degradation but we'll see. Trudeau and Trump are trying hard to get along to move things forward, big toothy smiles and handshakes in front of the cameras. Maybe a canoe trip in the Boundary Waters would help with protection, cross-border shopping for the latest outdoor clothing styles at MEC to promote business interests further.

 

[frozentripper]

Iowangle,

...let us know when it's OK to pee in the water again.

I think it's OK anytime if it helps quieten down those people on the next campsite over. Ah yes, nice and quiet again, those party-hearty vacationers over there seem to be in some kind of shocked silence.

Really, I wouldn't worry about it, pee or no pee, climate change is going to kill us all anyway.