Trump administration drops Obama-era water protection rule | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

Trump administration drops Obama-era water protection rule

Associated Press
1666534_web1_1666534-0a5feb22468b486082790eafd37d2430
AP
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks at a news conference to announce plans to revoke the Waters of the United States rule, an Obama-era regulation that provided federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and streams Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019, in Washington.
1666534_web1_1666534-1b957428b02c4b18adce840e499ceb00
AP
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, right, signs a document in front of Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D. James to revoke the Waters of the United States rule, an Obama-era regulation that provided federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and streams Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019, in Washington.
1666534_web1_1666534-d0172fa6c39543a3bc335f1b71824320
AP
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks at a news conference to announce plans to revoke the Waters of the United States rule, an Obama-era regulation that provided federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and streams Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019, in Washington.
1666534_web1_1666534-af4c12d4a45241158cea0d7b22a5b6cf
AP
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks at a news conference to announce plans to revoke the Waters of the United States rule, an Obama-era regulation that provided federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and streams Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019, in Washington.
1666534_web1_1666534-122044950c7e4b0eb4c00798ca0098df
AP
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks with reporters after a news conference to announce plans to revoke the Waters of the United States rule, an Obama-era regulation that provided federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and streams Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019, in Washington.

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — The Trump administration Thursday revoked an Obama-era regulation that shielded many U.S. wetlands and streams from pollution but was opposed by developers and farmers who said it hurt economic development and infringed on property rights.

Environmental groups criticized the administration’s action, the latest in a series of moves to roll back environmental protections put into place under President Barack Obama.

The 2015 Waters of the United States rule defined the waterways subject to federal regulation. Scrapping it “puts an end to an egregious power grab, eliminates an ongoing patchwork of clean water regulations and restores a longstanding and familiar regulatory framework,” Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler said at a news conference.

Wheeler and R.D. James, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, signed the repeal document.

Since enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the federal government has gone beyond protection of navigable waterways and their major tributaries to assert jurisdiction over “isolated ponds and channels that only flow after it rains,” Wheeler said.

“As the scope expands, so too has Washington’s power over private property and the states’ traditional authority to regulate their land and water resources,” he said.

President Donald Trump had ordered the agencies to develop a replacement policy that has a more restrictive definition of protected wetlands and streams, leaving fewer subject to federal protection.

Environmentalists say the move would leave millions of Americans with less safe drinking water and allow damage of wetlands that prevent flooding, filter pollutants and provide habitat for a multitude of fish, waterfowl and other wildlife.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the administration’s action would be challenged in court.

“The Clean Water Rule represented solid science and smart public policy,” the group said in a statement. “Where it has been enforced, it has protected important waterways and wetlands, providing certainty to all stakeholders.”

But Don Parrish, congressional relations director for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the 2015 regulation that extended federal protection to many U.S. wetlands and waterways created uncertainty about where farmers could cultivate land.

“It would be great if farmers didn’t have to hire an army of consultants and lawyers just to be able to farm,” he said.

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said the Obama rule was “an unconstitutional power grab that did nothing to advance good water management.”

The question of which waters are covered under the Clean Water Act has inspired decades of lawsuits and congressional debate.

A sharply divided Supreme Court in 2006 produced three differing opinions, leading the Obama administration to craft its rule. It provided federal oversight to upstream tributaries and headwaters, including wetlands, ponds, lakes and streams that can affect the quality of navigable waters.

The regulation drew quick legal challenges. Courts prevented it from taking effect in parts of the U.S.

Betsy Southerland, who was director of science and technology in EPA’s Office of Water during the Obama administration, said repealing its regulation would create further regulatory confusion.

“This repeal is a victory for land developers, oil and gas drillers and miners who will exploit that ambiguity to dredge and fill small streams and wetlands that were protected from destruction by the 2015 rule because of their critical impact on national water quality,” Southerland said.

Categories: News | Politics Election
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.