ShareThis Page

The EPA Clean Water Rule: Not so popular

| Saturday, May 30, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new rule that effectively gives it and the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over most every puddle in the U.S. is dubious in itself. And it benefits from a flood of supposed support that's anything but a genuine outpouring of public opinion.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in March that 87.1 percent of more than 1 million comments received were “supportive” of the measure, known as the Clean Water Rule. But she didn't mention EPA efforts to rig the comment process, according to Heritage Foundation agricultural-policy expert Daren Bakst, writing for The Daily Signal.

The EPA used social media including Facebook and Twitter, collaborated with the Sierra Club and even developed a video to promote the rule. And those overwhelmingly “supportive” 1 million-plus comments? Most were form letters.

Add Ms. McCarthy's dismissal of “some public concerns about the rule as ‘ludicrous' and ‘silly'” and the EPA “has been acting more like an advocacy group than a federal agency that is supposed to welcome comments from all sides,” Mr. Bakst writes.

All of which makes this new rule — opposed by “farmers, ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, home builders, mining companies, counties, cities and state legislators, as well as individuals, state officials and other groups” — even more of an unprecedented power grab than it already was.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.