Trump Guts Protections for 60 Percent of Nation's Streams, Wetlands, and Waterways

[GMDino]

Profit over people....the Republican/Trump way.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/11/early-holiday-gift-polluters-trump-guts-protections-60-percent-nations-streams

Quote:Sixty percent of U.S. waterways will be at risk for pollution from corporate giants, critics say, following the Trump administration's announcement Tuesday that it will roll back an Obama-era water rule meant to protect Americans' drinking water and all the waterways that flow into it.


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the Obama administration's 2015 Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS) rule would be redefined and no longer protect many of the nation's streams and wetlands.

"This is an early Christmas gift to polluters and a lump of coal for everyone else," saidBob Irvin, president of the national advocacy group American Rivers. "Too many people are living with unsafe drinking water. Low-income communities, indigenous peoples, and communities of color are hit hardest by pollution and river degradation."

Under the Trump administration's proposal, which Common Dreams reported as imminent last week, streams that flow only after rainfall or snowfall will no longer be protected from pollution by developers, agricultural companies, and the fossil fuel industry. Wetlands that are not connected to larger waterways will also not be protected, with developers potentially able to pave over those water bodies.

"The Trump administration will stop at nothing to reward polluting industries and endanger our most treasured resources." —Jon Devine, NRDC

EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler suggested that WOTUS had created unfair roadblocks for industries, farmers, and ranchers who wanted to build and work near the nation's waterways and were kept from doing so because of the potential for water pollution.

But green groups slammed the EPA for once again putting the interests of businesses ahead of the families which rely on the rule that keeps at least 60 percent of the nation's drinking water sources safe from pollution while also protecting wildlife and ecosystems which thrive in wetlands across the country.

"The Trump administration will stop at nothing to reward polluting industries and endanger our most treasured resources," Jon Devine, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) federal water program, said in a statement. "Given the problems facing our lakes, streams and wetlands from the beaches of Florida to the drinking water of Toledo, now is the time to strengthen protections for our waterways, not weaken them."

Ken Kopocis, the top water official at the EPA under President Barack Obama, told the Los Angeles Times that the regulatory rollback will create potential for the pollution of larger bodies of water, even though they are technically still covered under WOTUS and the Clean Water Act.

"You can't protect the larger bodies of water unless you protect the smaller ones that flow into them," said Kopocis. "You end up with a situation where you can pollute or destroy smaller streams and bodies, and it will eventually impact the larger ones."

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, called the revised WOTUS rule a "steamroller" to environmental oversight that American families rely on.

"Piece by piece, molecule by molecule, Trump is handing over our country to corporate polluters and other industrial interests at the expense of our future," said Hauter.

"The proposed rule will take us back five decades in our effort to clean up our waterways," argued Theresa Pierno of the National Parks Conservancy Association (NPCA). "We must ensure clean water protections extend to all streams, wetlands, lakes and rivers that contribute to the health of larger water bodies downstream, and our communities, parks, and wildlife that depend on them."

"We will fight to ensure the highest level of protections for our nation's waters—for our health, our communities and our parks," Pierno added.

I would not be surprised in the least if this was done with absolutely zero scientific evidence to back it up.  Unlike past administrations this one tends to just handle regulations based on what they want and not what has been studied.

[Belsnickel]

Yeah, this is such bullshit. I am on some email lists that are blowing up about this and are unhappy with what this will mean for the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.

[*Nately120*]

I assume stuff like this is why republicans insist that brave men and women fought and died for "the flag" and not the actual country itself. There is nothing unpatriotic about destroying the actual country, not to mention this is the political party that apparently believes that god or God created this world for us.

Respect the flag, not the country itself and blah blah blah. Oh well.

[jj22]

If it was up to Republicans America would be looking like China right now. Thank God for Dems who have fought along the way to avoid that outcome. But look no further than China to see where we'd be headed if Republicans were allowed to do their thing to the environment over the decades they've fought against environmental protections.

We'd all be walking around with surgical masks the Chinese have to so often do.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2166542/air-pollution-killing-1-million-people-and-costing-chinese

Check out these pics if you haven't seen China in the Summer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+pollution+pictures&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQtazejp3fAhUG_4MKHWEUDkMQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=962

How close to home is this?

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/12/12/cincinnati-air-quality-we-cant-breathe-winton-terrace/2117621002/

[*michaelsean*]

Oh shit this will send us back to 2014.

[Dill]

(12-13-2018, 12:22 PM)jj22 Wrote: If it was up to Republicans America would be looking like China right now. Thank God for Dems who have fought along the way to avoid that outcome. But look no further than China to see where we'd be headed if Republicans were allowed to do their thing to the environment over the decades they've fought against environmental protections.

We'd all be walking around with surgical masks the Chinese have to so often do.

Whoa! Stop and think, jj. Masks are WAY CHEAPER than environmental regulations. We need to consider environmental issues from all angles. China's policy may be more cost effective, making them more internationally competitive.  At least in the short run. 

This doesn't look all THAT bad. People can still get around all right.

[Dill]

(12-13-2018, 12:22 PM)jj22 Wrote: How close to home is this?

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/12/12/cincinnati-air-quality-we-cant-breathe-winton-terrace/2117621002/

Not very. That is Cincinnati. I'm in PA. Why should I pay more for furniture or automobiles or whatever so Bengals can have clean air?

[6andcounting]

https://www.naco.org/blog/federal-judge-halts-2015-wotus-rule-three-more-states

The rule never went into effect so I'm sure the rollback will be immediately noticeable.

[SunsetBengal]

As a Land Surveyor, all that I can say is; It's about time! The EPA has been overreaching for quite some time, and the time to roll things back a bit has been past due. I'll give you a good example. You wouldn't believe the number of drainage ditches, yes, ditches dug specifically for the purpose of channeling excess rain water, that have been since deemed "protected wetlands". Farmers have lost tillable ground, because it's a natural low spot, and rain water collects there. The number of natural creases in terrain that have been labeled "blue line streams", even though they only collect water a few times per year, is disturbing. It's almost to the point that wherever a group of cows gather to piss? Now, you've got yourself a wetland..

The Soil Scientists have developed a cottage industry from overreaching EPA regulations. Yeah, that's good for Soil Scientists, as it keeps them in work. (They hate the fact that they have to pay to have their work surveyed by licensed Surveyors) However, more and more, I'm seeing Soil Scientists deliniations being argued back by State Officials. I believe in protecting natural habitat as much as anyone, but some of these designations have been real head scratchers.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-13-2018, 12:22 PM)jj22 Wrote: If it was up to Republicans America would be looking like China right now. Thank God for Dems who have fought along the way to avoid that outcome. But look no further than China to see where we'd be headed if Republicans were allowed to do their thing to the environment over the decades they've fought against environmental protections.

We'd all be walking around with surgical masks the Chinese have to so often do.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2166542/air-pollution-killing-1-million-people-and-costing-chinese

Check out these pics if you haven't seen China in the Summer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+pollution+pictures&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQtazejp3fAhUG_4MKHWEUDkMQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=962

How close to home is this?

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/12/12/cincinnati-air-quality-we-cant-breathe-winton-terrace/2117621002/

That's an easy solution.  Just get everyone in your neighborhood to quit smoking, and start riding bicycles, instead of driving cars..  

[JustWinBaby]

(12-13-2018, 02:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh shit this will send us back to 2014.

(12-13-2018, 07:50 PM)6andcounting Wrote: https://www.naco.org/blog/federal-judge-halts-2015-wotus-rule-three-more-states

The rule never went into effect so I'm sure the rollback will be immediately noticeable.  

LOL....this board never changes [I mean, never evolves].

Good example of why I no longer post. If I called the OP partisan or ignorant, I'd get a ban. The above two posts were much more tactful than I could have been.

[BmorePat87]

Zinke and our governor have had some secret talks to trade state land in Western Maryland for federal park land on the Potomac River border between MD and DC so that Maryland can give the Skins a new stadium to replace their 20 year old stadium...

In addition to removing a ton of great protected land that plays host to a working farm and good fishing/hiking spots near an urban center, it will add to the recent build up along the river.

[GMDino]

(12-15-2018, 02:13 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL....this board never changes [I mean, never evolves].

Good example of why I no longer post.  If I called the OP partisan or ignorant, I'd get a ban.  The above two posts were much more tactful than I could have been.

The above two posts don't change that the rolling back of the rules is bad for the environment and done with no scientific data or information unlike when the rules were put into place.

I guess that makes me "ignorant"?

[6andcounting]

(12-17-2018, 11:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: The above two posts don't change that the rolling back of the rules is bad for the environment and done with no scientific data or information unlike when the rules were put into place.

I guess that makes me "ignorant"?

This may be true. I won't debate this because I don't now. I mean it makes sense that if every little body of water that flows into a large body of water is polluted that it will effect the larger bodies of water. Based on knowing nothing about the law, that seems like the gist of the law. It's just that nothing is actually changing from the way it currently is. If that in itself is good or bad is a fair debate. 

[6andcounting]

(12-17-2018, 11:17 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Zinke and our governor have had some secret talks to trade state land in Western Maryland for federal park land on the Potomac River border between MD and DC so that Maryland can give the Skins a new stadium to replace their 20 year old stadium...

In addition to removing a ton of great protected land that plays host to a working farm and good fishing/hiking spots near an urban center, it will add to the recent build up along the river.

But it will bring tourism to the city. Tons of people outside of the immediate area of Washington are Redskins fans and will rent hotel rooms and by beer or something. 

[Millhouse]

When it comes to these kind of regulations, I have an issue with both sides implementing a blanket solution. Because to me, it would be ideal to determine if an area should be protected or not by a case by case study, not by some generic bureaucratic regulation or deregulation.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 07:50 PM)6andcounting Wrote: https://www.naco.org/blog/federal-judge-halts-2015-wotus-rule-three-more-states

The rule never went into effect so I'm sure the rollback will be immediately noticeable.  

It is in effect in 22 States.

You should read what you link before you make "clever" comments.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 08:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As a Land Surveyor, all that I can say is;  It's about time!  The EPA has been overreaching for quite some time, and the time to roll things back a bit has been past due.  I'll give you a good example.  You wouldn't believe the number of drainage ditches, yes, ditches dug specifically for the purpose of channeling excess rain water, that have been since deemed "protected wetlands".  Farmers have lost tillable ground, because it's a natural low spot, and rain water collects there.  The number of natural creases in terrain that have been labeled "blue line streams", even though they only collect water a few times per year, is disturbing.  It's almost to the point that wherever a group of cows gather to piss?  Now, you've got yourself a wetland..

The Soil Scientists have developed a cottage industry from overreaching EPA regulations.  Yeah, that's good for Soil Scientists, as it keeps them in work.  (They hate the fact that they have to pay to have their work surveyed by licensed Surveyors)  However, more and more, I'm seeing Soil Scientists deliniations being argued back by State Officials.  I believe in protecting natural habitat as much as anyone, but some of these designations have been real head scratchers.

Agricultural run off is one of the biggest pollution problems we have.  Herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizer are dangerous to our water supply.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 09:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is in effect in 22 States.

You should read what you link before you make "clever" comments.

Thought I read where it is not going to be implemented until 2020

[6andcounting]

(12-17-2018, 09:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is in effect in 22 States.

You should read what you link before you make "clever" comments.

"technically in effect in 22 states."



Anytime I see something with the qualifier "technically" I like to keep reading to see why only "technically". 


"the agencies finalized a rule to delay the implementation date of the 2015 WOTUS rule to February 6, 2020."




The rule was ""technically in effect in 22 states." because in those 22 states the courts had not made a ruling overturning or challenging it. The rule in place said it's requirements were to be implemented in 2020, so ending this rule prior to February 6, 2020 didn't change anything.