A Big Fight Over Waters in the U.S. Is Heating Up

These are the kinds of ecosystems at risk with this proposed revision.
These are the kinds of ecosystems at risk with this proposed revision.
Photo: AP

The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers published the proposed text on Tuesday for how they want to define the “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. This means changing the definition former President Barack Obama put forth when he expanded the WOTUS rule in 2015 to help protect more waters under the Clean Water Act.

And of course, President Donald Trump’s homies want to minimize the level of protection on our waters. This move was expected. Trump signed an executive order in February 2017 asking for a revision to the WOTUS rule. We didn’t know then what exactly this revision would look like, but turns out it’s not far from what we could’ve imagined.

The federal government wants states and tribal governments to be more involved, apparently, so it’s proposed to give them jurisdiction over groundwater, streams that fill with water during the rain, roadside and farm ditches, wetlands that aren’t directly connected to other waterways, wastewater treatment systems, and stormwater control features.

Advertisement

Lakes, streams, and ponds will stay under the federal government’s watch, but these smaller waterways need attention too, opponents argue.

Look at all these old white men tearing down our protections as Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signs this proposal.
Look at all these old white men tearing down our protections as Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signs this proposal.
Photo: AP

They’re worried about what can happen to people’s drinking water as a result of this proposed rule. Environmentalists argue that these small, disconnected wetlands and streams provide much of the drinking water in the U.S. If this text is finalized, the agricultural sector, as well as other industry giants, will be able to do as they please on land near these waters—even if rain and runoff can help move pollutants (like pesticides) downstream into larger water bodies and eventually peoples taps.

“Big polluters could not have crafted a bigger free pass to dump if they wrote it themselves,” said Blan Holman, managing attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center’s (SELC) Charleston office, in a statement.

Advertisement

Trump’s goonies are using money as an excuse for this proposed revision, citing cost savings, but industry has likely played a major role: The EPA held several conversations with stakeholders like the agriculture, construction, and mining industries before publishing the text on Tuesday. The American Farm Bureau Federation is applauding the proposal, noting the heavy regulatory burden it placed on farmers around the country.

Once the EPA and Army Corps publish the formal text on the Federal Register, the public will have 60 days to comment. Then, the agencies can move to finalize it. Before then, though, they’ll have to deal with groups like the SELC that have already pledged to sue. This fight’s only getting started.

Advertisement

Yessenia Funes is climate editor at Atmos Magazine. She loves Earther forever.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

dnapl
Dense non aqueous phase liquid

I really recommend the following reading:

Definition of “Waters of the United States”-Recodification of Preexisting Rule 

This is the initial submittal (as a supplemental notice) from USACE/EPA on the who, what, where, when why and how a rewrite to the 2015 WOTUS will be done. It was published in the Federal Register in July 2018. Basically it’s a heads up to an upcoming ratfuck or justifiable change to an existing rule. This recent change may be a ratfuck. I need to read the recent submittal.

And it’s all you word nerds fault.

This whole gutting of 2015 WOTUS pretty much comes down to what the word “adjacent” fucking means. Liberal arts majors. 

Here’s what 2015 WOTUS was about (the applicable water to be protected) as presented in the 2018 supplemental notice.

The 2015 Rule attempted to clarify the geographic scope of the CWA by placing waters into three categories: (A) Waters that are categorically “jurisdictional by rule” in all instances (i.e., without the need for any additional analysis); (B) waters that are subject to case-specific analysis to determine whether they are jurisdictional, and (C) waters that are categorically excluded from jurisdiction. Waters that are “jurisdictional by rule” include (1) waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (3) the territorial seas; (4) impoundments of waters otherwise identified as jurisdictional; (5) tributaries of the first three categories of “jurisdictional by rule” waters; and (6) waters adjacent to a water identified in the first five categories of “jurisdictional by rule” waters, including wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters.

Bolding was me.

Those three words, “waters adjacent to” is what got industrial agriculture’s panties in a twist. If you remember, America’s hardworking farm families were all going to lose their farms because Obama is from Kenya and a muslim socialist radical environmentalists.

Big Ag was like “adjacent means neighboring and neighboring could be next-to or miles and miles away from this here little stream here running through America’s Hardworking Farm Families here in America’s Heartland.”

BTW, Andrew Wheeler’s first gig that wasn’t a Big Gubmint employee was flacking for Big Ag here in the Midwest and Great Plains. America’s Heartland. God’s Country. America’s Breadbasket. The Corn Belt.