ShareThis Page

Not 'onerous,' not 'power grab'

| Thursday, Aug. 17, 2017, 8:55 p.m.

The Clean Water Rule, which the editorial “Rolling back a power grab: What's clean & clear” referred to as an “onerous federal water rule” and a “power grab,” is simply a commonsense clarification to the Clean Water Act based on the notion that to protect our drinking water we must protect the rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands that feed our drinking water.

Pennsylvanians are rightly concerned about their water because 63 percent of them get their drinking water from the small streams that the Clean Water Rule protects. It's probably why over 50,000 Pennsylvanians submitted supportive public comments to the Environmental Protection Agency during the rule-making process.

In addition to protecting our drinking water, the Clean Water Rule protects 59 percent of Pennsylvania's stream miles that would be at risk without the rule. This is essential for protecting our natural resources — and the multibillion-dollar outdoor recreation industry in Pennsylvania.

Repealing the Clean Water Rule is a massive waste of time and taxpayer money. Our elected officials should be doing more, not less, to protect clean water.

Steve Hvozdovich


The writer is Pennsylvania campaigns director for Clean Water Action (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.