"A coalition of 17 Democratic-leaning states sued the Trump administration on Friday for rolling back Obama-era protections for waterways, arguing the move ignores science on the interconnectivity of water," Rebecca Beitsch reports for The Hill. The states suing are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
The "waters of the United States" rule defines what is covered by the Clean Water Act. The Obama administration redefined it to include seasonal or intermittent waterways, many around farms, partly out of concern that fertilizer and pesticide runoff from such streams would pollute lakes and rivers that are obviously covered by the law. The Trump administration officially rolled back the Obama-era redefinition in January, replacing it with the more limited "Navigable Waters Protection Rule."
Because the new rule allows states to set their own protections for smaller waterways, polluting industries would have an incentive to open in states with weaker protections, which would hurt states downriver, New York Attorney General Letitia James told reporters last week.
"The scientific claims raised by the states have been likewise raised by EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board, which reviewed the rule when it was first proposed, writing in a draft report that 'aspects of the proposed rule are in conflict with established science ... and the objectives of the Clean Water Act,'" Beitsch reports.
The "waters of the United States" rule defines what is covered by the Clean Water Act. The Obama administration redefined it to include seasonal or intermittent waterways, many around farms, partly out of concern that fertilizer and pesticide runoff from such streams would pollute lakes and rivers that are obviously covered by the law. The Trump administration officially rolled back the Obama-era redefinition in January, replacing it with the more limited "Navigable Waters Protection Rule."
Because the new rule allows states to set their own protections for smaller waterways, polluting industries would have an incentive to open in states with weaker protections, which would hurt states downriver, New York Attorney General Letitia James told reporters last week.
"The scientific claims raised by the states have been likewise raised by EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board, which reviewed the rule when it was first proposed, writing in a draft report that 'aspects of the proposed rule are in conflict with established science ... and the objectives of the Clean Water Act,'" Beitsch reports.
Obama enlarged the definition way beyond what the Act authorized, Trump is bringing it back to where it is supposed to be. If a farmer spills his coffee cup in his back yard the EPA can now swing in and prevent him from cleaning it up, and it is no exaggeration.
ReplyDelete