Another day of the Trump Administration, so of course, there is yet another fresh horror unleashed on the American people and the environment.
Natural Resources Defense Council reports on the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposal to repeal the Clean Water Rule, which protects the water supply for 117 million Americans.
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers issued the Clean Water Rule in May 2015, they clarified, after decades of confusion and debate, that tens of millions of acres of smaller waterways across the United States were, in fact, eligible for protection under the Clean Water Act. Less than two years later, in February 2017, after several failed attempts by Senate Republicans to kill the rule, President Trump signed an executive order directing the EPA and the Army Corps to begin the process of repealing the Clean Water Rule, with the aim of eliminating it altogether. Today, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated that the two agencies will send a proposal to repeal the rule.
“This proposal strikes directly at public health,” said NRDC president Rhea Suh. “It would strip out needed protections for the streams that feed drinking water sources for one in every three Americans. Clean water is too important for that. We’ll stand up to this reckless attack on our waters and health.”
The Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS), limits pollution in the streams and wetlands that feed our larger waterways—critical for safeguarding the drinking water that more than 117 million Americans rely on and for ensuring that people across the nation can continue to swim in and otherwise enjoy these bodies of water. “The Clean Water Rule provides the clarity we need to protect clean water. Its repeal would make it easier for irresponsible developers and others to contaminate our waters and send the pollution downstream.” Suh said.
Charles C. Mann of Vanity Fair reported on Trump and this rule back in December of 2016. In a piece titled “How Much Damage Can Trump Actually Do to the Environment?”
Among the few explicit environmental policies that Trump has announced is the desire to “eliminate the highly invasive ‘Waters of the U.S.’ rule.” Technically, WOTUS, as it is called, defines which U.S. rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. Practically, WOTUS is the latest round in a seemingly endless battle over the Clean Water Act. The law is intended to regulate “navigable waters” like the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, but it doesn’t spell out how far protections must go upstream to keep those “navigable waters” clean. Should you monitor only the tributaries of rivers, or worry about the wetlands that filter the water that goes into those tributaries? Over the years, the E.P.A. extended the law, on dubious legal grounds, to include isolated ponds and marshes used by migratory birds. Opponents called this a massive D.C. power grab; supporters said it was necessary to protect the nation’s water and wildlife. The fight has been to the Supreme Court twice since 2000, with confusing results. WOTUS, now on hold while under review from the Sixth Circuit, will end up putting the issue again to the Supreme Court—unless Trump, as he has promised, sends the E.P.A. back to the drawing board for the zillionth time.
Among the few explicit environmental policies that Trump has announced is the desire to “eliminate the highly invasive ‘Waters of the U.S.’ rule.” Technically, WOTUS, as it is called, defines which U.S. rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. Practically, WOTUS is the latest round in a seemingly endless battle over the Clean Water Act. The law is intended to regulate “navigable waters” like the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, but it doesn’t spell out how far protections must go upstream to keep those “navigable waters” clean. Should you monitor only the tributaries of rivers, or worry about the wetlands that filter the water that goes into those tributaries? Over the years, the E.P.A. extended the law, on dubious legal grounds, to include isolated ponds and marshes used by migratory birds. Opponents called this a massive D.C. power grab; supporters said it was necessary to protect the nation’s water and wildlife. The fight has been to the Supreme Court twice since 2000, with confusing results. WOTUS, now on hold while under review from the Sixth Circuit, will end up putting the issue again to the Supreme Court—unless Trump, as he has promised, sends the E.P.A. back to the drawing board for the zillionth time.
snip
None of this is to say that environmentalists should cheer Trump’s election. But it is important to note that Trump is not Sauron in Mordor. Not only did Sauron have limitless persistence and an ability to sweat the details, but in Mordor he was taking over a wasteland with no existing institutional structure. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he can focus on topics for only a few minutes at a time. And he would be moving into a realm where even the smallest actions require planning worthy of D-Day, and can have immense consequences contrary to whatever is intended. The constraints of actual governance infuriated and hobbled Obama often enough—and Obama was a man with boundless patience and a willingness to engage with complexity. His successor is the opposite—and shows no sign of understanding what he face.
x xYouTube Video