It's okay. The rich will soon have factories that actually make water for them, so the pollution won't affect them.
3
The EPA has turned its back
On keeping clean water on track.
Bureaucrat Pruitt
Says he won’t do it --
Replying “Let them drink cognac!”
On keeping clean water on track.
Bureaucrat Pruitt
Says he won’t do it --
Replying “Let them drink cognac!”
2
Let me guess . . . He's also ramping up production of "Trump Water."
1
What will probably happen is States with Democratic legislatures and governors will enact (or maybe have already enacted) strict standards. The lapdog, GOP, FOX-news, trump, states will have worse water quality standards. Everyone better hope they don't live downstream or downwind from any of those. How ironic that the coal-mining region of Appalachia will now have no jobs, AND a filthy environment. They deserve what they voted for.
1
What is wrong with these people? They can come move to my hometown if they want to see what polluted water is all about. I cordially invite them.
Let's see if they come up with any "common-sense" ways to keep water clean and healthy. I doubt they will come up with a single thing that helps make water cleaner and safer.
surprise surprise - the people with money win again
3
These people are determined to ruin the country.
3
Reading this latest, I started to laugh because it takes imagination to be so destructive and just plain stupid. Have you ever lived in an environment where you cannot drink the tap water, or worked in a office where water is only safe and used for sanitary reasons?
This American worked as a typist in the Water, Environment and Sanitation Department (WES) of an international children's agency in New York, and while our team had access to the office water fountain, we went to the cafeteria to get tea, a soda or some coffee during the day. Shortly afterwards, I went to work for a financial adviser in a building where bottled water was purchased because there was no drinking water. All to say, I never took water for granted again.
A bucket of tap water for a small garden is enough to keep a family alive in some developing countries for a day. The Planet is suffering a Water Deficit. On asking a water engineer where the greatest resources were to be found, the reply was 'Africa', where certain countries have been plagued with malaria, arsenic contamination, and dangerous bacteria. Haiti has been suffering from an outbreak of cholera.
Perhaps you remember the tragedy of Katrina and what happened to children in Flint. Perhaps you remember Trump and Pence handing out bottled water to Louisiana. There was a severe drought in this Green Valley last summer and it impacted on the farmlands, crops, fishing and other produce.
Let Us Treat Water with Respect.
This American worked as a typist in the Water, Environment and Sanitation Department (WES) of an international children's agency in New York, and while our team had access to the office water fountain, we went to the cafeteria to get tea, a soda or some coffee during the day. Shortly afterwards, I went to work for a financial adviser in a building where bottled water was purchased because there was no drinking water. All to say, I never took water for granted again.
A bucket of tap water for a small garden is enough to keep a family alive in some developing countries for a day. The Planet is suffering a Water Deficit. On asking a water engineer where the greatest resources were to be found, the reply was 'Africa', where certain countries have been plagued with malaria, arsenic contamination, and dangerous bacteria. Haiti has been suffering from an outbreak of cholera.
Perhaps you remember the tragedy of Katrina and what happened to children in Flint. Perhaps you remember Trump and Pence handing out bottled water to Louisiana. There was a severe drought in this Green Valley last summer and it impacted on the farmlands, crops, fishing and other produce.
Let Us Treat Water with Respect.
4
There is another equally informative article regarding this at nrdc.org (Natural Resources Defense Council)
1
By the way, what are Scott Pruitt's qualifications and views on climate change and the environment? Can someone enlighten us?
3
Let's be clear about this: the Democrats environmental record only looks good when compared to the Republican's record. Both parties stay within the bounds that corporate America is willing to tolerate, although the Democrats occasionally push a few meters beyond that.
Here's a typical environmentalist's analysis of Obama's water protection rules:
"The final rule contains some very serious negative provisions including not protecting streams and rivers that have historically been protected under the CWA, exempting industrial-scale livestock facilities, and allowing streams and rivers to be impounded or filled with toxic coal ash and other waste."
Both parties are speeding up climate change and environmental degradation, generally. The Times efforts to "green wash" Obama's record is deceitful.
https://www.ecowatch.com/8-reasons-the-clean-water-rule-fails-to-protect...
Here's a typical environmentalist's analysis of Obama's water protection rules:
"The final rule contains some very serious negative provisions including not protecting streams and rivers that have historically been protected under the CWA, exempting industrial-scale livestock facilities, and allowing streams and rivers to be impounded or filled with toxic coal ash and other waste."
Both parties are speeding up climate change and environmental degradation, generally. The Times efforts to "green wash" Obama's record is deceitful.
https://www.ecowatch.com/8-reasons-the-clean-water-rule-fails-to-protect...
1
Flint, Michigan, anyone?
3
If the regime, congress, & the cabinet roll this rule back, I suggest every member of congress, the whole cabinet, the total regime (except minors in their families), & the evil minions be forced to drink & cook with nothing but water bottled from those rivers, streams, & to quote senator Barrasso 'prairie dog holes'. Then go to all the homes the 1% own, turn their public water supply off at the street & supply them with the same water too. Wonder how long any will live? Especially if forbidden to buy any other bottled water. Oh, I'd charge each & every one in each group $100,000 per gallon. They can buy all they want at that price. Only FAIR.
It actually isn't that difficult to protect waterways and most ranchers and farmers out here do so. However not everyone takes the along view and plenty of runoff and animal damage is evident just from a car window while driving in the countryside. The solution is simple. Forested/planted setbacks filter and clean runoff and fencing prevents animal encroachment. This expense can be too much for smaller businesses so I, for one, would like to see my taxes go to fund more help for water protection.
1
NY Times, please do a better job reporting.
Tell us specifically what these regulations do. Who do they impact, and how? What are real estate developers and farmers prevented from doing on their land? How much do they cost? What are the benefits of these regulations? How do they make water cleaner? What other benefits do they provide?
Tell us specifically what these regulations do. Who do they impact, and how? What are real estate developers and farmers prevented from doing on their land? How much do they cost? What are the benefits of these regulations? How do they make water cleaner? What other benefits do they provide?
15
What are you really that much in the dark about the long known issue of run off from pesticides & waste that are created from industrial farming & livestock? There are scores of images we've had for years that vividly show what runoff to name one item has done to damage our shores. This includes run off from houses as well that use pesticides. Just today there was a report on how much healthier the Chesapeake Bay is with support from EPA, laws & public awareness. Goodness just look it up!
The tragic fire in the UK happened because safety regulations were traded for profit. If poisoning our water isn't enough, the administration can encourage flammable buildings at less cost. Think of the money to be made.
12
good grief...here we go again. This article is almost a side show, easy to miss, yet potential major impact. We better hope and pray that Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wait another few years before consideration of retirement. Seems Flint, Michigan was not a major enough wake up call. "not in my neighborhood" may become a battle cry for folks who wish to retain a semblance of healthy waterways. And for that, we need a new administration.
15
One more like Gorsuck on the Supreme Court and the court will have an authoritarian, corporatist bent for perhaps a generation!
Gorsuch was a clerk for Kennedy but seems to have learned nothing!
He is much further to the right than was Scalia and that's saying a lot!
Gorsuch was a clerk for Kennedy but seems to have learned nothing!
He is much further to the right than was Scalia and that's saying a lot!
1
Sometimes regulations like the Clean Water Act can save companies from crippling future penalties for environmental damage and cleanup.
In 2016, Washington State AG Bob Ferguson sued Monsanto for PCB contamination in 600 sites in WA, including Puget Sound drainages. Odds appear to be in favor of the State, since Monsanto has already lost a similar suit by the city of St. Louis, which was awarded $46 million. WA is the first state to sue but almost certainly not the last.
Monsanto was the only manufacturer of PCBs from 1939 to 1979 so they pretty much own the huge problem of PCB contamination nationwide.
On the other hand, local farmers, tribes and shellfish companies have developed their own rules for managing agricultural runoff that was harming Puget Sound, once it was clear the Feds and State were unable to solve the problem.
That's generally only practical when all of the stakeholders are local and reasonable.
When large distant corporations are involved, they sometimes make really large bad decisions, like Johns Manville, and end up being run solely for the purpose of paying claims.
In 2016, Washington State AG Bob Ferguson sued Monsanto for PCB contamination in 600 sites in WA, including Puget Sound drainages. Odds appear to be in favor of the State, since Monsanto has already lost a similar suit by the city of St. Louis, which was awarded $46 million. WA is the first state to sue but almost certainly not the last.
Monsanto was the only manufacturer of PCBs from 1939 to 1979 so they pretty much own the huge problem of PCB contamination nationwide.
On the other hand, local farmers, tribes and shellfish companies have developed their own rules for managing agricultural runoff that was harming Puget Sound, once it was clear the Feds and State were unable to solve the problem.
That's generally only practical when all of the stakeholders are local and reasonable.
When large distant corporations are involved, they sometimes make really large bad decisions, like Johns Manville, and end up being run solely for the purpose of paying claims.
8
I guess this is what Mr. Trump meant when he said he would "drain the swamp."
13
Nice one!
It is doubtful, MidtownATL, because he might see his reflection.
If you poison both the ground water, and the surface water,, you will then be able to sell clean water by the drop.
8
"Who knew water could be so complicated?"
11
Can government regulation go too far? Of course it can! But we never hear stories from the NY TIMES about too much government. More government is always promoted as a good thing, because liberals are mesmerized by power and LOVE government control of EVERYTHING. Long live Trump!
2
Of course, regulations can go too far. But conservatives never seem to come up with actual reasonable regulations. It's just simply un-do, un-do, un-do. For example, where is the reasonable alternative being offered here?
9
'Nother one for the list to receive only the polluted water to cook & drink. He's not, I don't think. 1% so each gallon will only cost him $500. His public water will be shut off at the street. If caught trying to turn it on, he will be removed from the neighborhood, with his family, his home torn down (as totally polluted land) & be put in the middle of Hanford Reach in Washington state, with walls to keep him in the radio active shack that will be built for him. At only a cost of $250,000. To pay his mortgage he will have to work without safety gear on the clean up there. With a 60 year mortgage he will be working till he is very old, his wife & kids are dead, & he glows in the dark.
I find it ironic how so many American conservatives are so staunchly anti-government, yet take every opportunity to wave their flags and chant USA USA!
Huh?
Huh?
2
Hey Macron, sign-up the USA for Eviancare.
4
This is a really insufficient article. I was looking for further explanation for the opposition's stance, other than "overextended government control". How does it effect businesses, ranchers, and farmers? Why do farmers and ranchers specifically find the Wotus limiting? I find it hard to believe that there are none, even if a nonsensical republican controlled government. Please let us see both sides of the story.
8
Opposition? They want us dead, polluted water sources are one good way to do it. That is their idea. Roll back any rule that will keep even one regular person safer, healthier, & more productive. Then cancel all health insurance, so when we start to mutate, they won't have to pay a cent to try to turn us back into healthy humans. But, can, make us do hard labor until we are dead. No wages at all as mutants are not humans.
4
I hope they purchased a filter for the water that their yachts sail on. Maybe from Williams Sonoma?
2
Worst. Presidency. Ever!
15
What an inane comment by Senator Barrosso , backyard ponds , puddles and prairie potholes ? Really? An IQ test should be mandatory when you run for congress . But guess the Wind river area will become so polluted no one will want to go there , too bad the Wind river , is really beautiful . Lets also not forget what polluted water becomes (undrinkable) and very expensive to clean up .
19
We need to bottle that really polluted water. Call it Congressional Special Water. Deliver it to all those in congress, both where they live in DC & in their home states, & the dining rooms in the Capitol. Then include the whole regime, & every 1%er, after turning off public water supplies to them. Then make the 1%ers buy Poland Springs water for every other household in the US. Or maybe local pure springs. I prefer PS.
One I had years ago is even better. It's made from the steam boiled off maple sap. No calories, just a barest hint of sweet, & it doesn't come from the water table.
One I had years ago is even better. It's made from the steam boiled off maple sap. No calories, just a barest hint of sweet, & it doesn't come from the water table.
Nice alliteration, though: ponds, puddles and prairie potholes.
All according to plan.
They want a future where clean water will be controlled by private corporations who will charge a steep premium for clean, safe, untainted water. Can't afford the price, well, you'll either need to buy your own expensive water cleansing system (which will be out of reach for many,) or go with the degraded, unmaintained city water system, carrying questionable water or, if not in a city, hope your well water hasn't been contaminated.
Then it will be a premium to have clean, safe air delivered to your home. Otherwise, well, at home you can just breathe the same stuff that you get outside.
They want a future where clean water will be controlled by private corporations who will charge a steep premium for clean, safe, untainted water. Can't afford the price, well, you'll either need to buy your own expensive water cleansing system (which will be out of reach for many,) or go with the degraded, unmaintained city water system, carrying questionable water or, if not in a city, hope your well water hasn't been contaminated.
Then it will be a premium to have clean, safe air delivered to your home. Otherwise, well, at home you can just breathe the same stuff that you get outside.
24
The Clean Water Act explicitly states that it protects the "navigable waters" of the United States. However, the EPA, through regulatory fiat, extended the definition of "navigable waters" to cover wetlands, including those on private property, that are in no sense "navigable." In numerous cases, landowners, many of them ordinary citizens (not big corporations) were denied reasonable use of their property, without compensation. For an example, consider the facts behind the 2012 SCOTUS Sackett decision.
The Clean Water Act is a good thing. But the EPA's enforcement of it is a classic example of regulatory overreach, which has caused substantial economic harm to many, and gone far beyond what Congress intended. It's not even clear that many of the regulations benefit the environment.
Reducing regulatory overreach does not mean ignoring the mandates of the Clean Water Act. It means complying with the law as written and finding an appropriate balance between protecting our waters and the rights of citizens to enjoy their private property.
The Clean Water Act is a good thing. But the EPA's enforcement of it is a classic example of regulatory overreach, which has caused substantial economic harm to many, and gone far beyond what Congress intended. It's not even clear that many of the regulations benefit the environment.
Reducing regulatory overreach does not mean ignoring the mandates of the Clean Water Act. It means complying with the law as written and finding an appropriate balance between protecting our waters and the rights of citizens to enjoy their private property.
2
Enjoy their private property ?... What you are hiding is this....
Polluting their private property which can then harm wildlife that does not belong to them, spread poisons to neighbors and damage the environment as a whole.
Nice Going Alex. Wouldn't want "Regulatory Overreach" to keep you from a nice glass of polluted water, or a deep breath of poisoned air. If you could just keep it to yourself and other Trump worshipers fine. Knock yourself out. Leave the rest of us alone.
But you can't. So in came practical, sensible "regulation" to keep the rest of us safe from folks like you and Trump.
Polluting their private property which can then harm wildlife that does not belong to them, spread poisons to neighbors and damage the environment as a whole.
Nice Going Alex. Wouldn't want "Regulatory Overreach" to keep you from a nice glass of polluted water, or a deep breath of poisoned air. If you could just keep it to yourself and other Trump worshipers fine. Knock yourself out. Leave the rest of us alone.
But you can't. So in came practical, sensible "regulation" to keep the rest of us safe from folks like you and Trump.
16
So, you say it's ok for your neighbor to dump his sewerage into the wetlands that are between your properties? Is that right? Not telling you, even suggesting to you your kids should play there. Nice neighbors huh? All right with you.
1
Really, now - what's the difference between the Republican party and mass murderers?
13
This is the people's country, we the 99%, along with all the animals & fish that can't speak, deserve clean water!! We pay taxes, more so than most of the 1% and corporations! We need to fight this by going to the streets, and supporting organizations that will take it to the courts!! This administration makes me sick, they are dreadful people!!
20
Can anyone document one instance -- just one -- of Scott Pruitt having proposed or supported any act that would lead to cleaner/safer air, water or soil?
17
Well, no, of course not. Mr. Pruitt was not hired to do any of that clean air or clean water stuff. He was hired to throttle the EPA, quietly, if possible, then drive a stake through its heart, bury it at the crossroads and salt the ground over it. If he finishes early, he can lock the door, and go down the hall to the Department of Interior and help Zinke do the same thing there, or go to Education and help Devos destroy that agency. So much to do. So little time.
11
Why are you even expecting Pruitt to do anything but kill the dept. he's head of? The oligarchs (it is what they are in America) were only selected to head a department about which they know nothing. Therefore, the depts. are going to be burned to the ground. Carson heading HUD? That's a joke. DeVos ("Erik Dean Prince is an American businessman and former U.S. Navy SEAL officer best known for founding the government services and security company Blackwater USA" as in a thief) with anything to do with education - she's killing it and it's why dt asked for loyalists on the cabinet, NOT people who knew how to do their jobs. Labor Sec. wants to get rid of people and use robots. Tillerson and what is left of the State Dept.? Wilbur Ross had dealings with the money laundering Bank of Cypress. The list is endless but the institutions are not and they will die - Russian 101 - kill the institutions that built our country.
10
"It's a Pity" you're so great!!!
As a large portion of the world's population thirsts for clean water, Trump and Company work to foul ours.
17
Bingo. That's what's coming except he will foul the world's water, not just ours.
7
We don't need another Love Canal, or another Flint....
6
It's apparent that this regime doesn't care and killing our world is irrelevant so long as they make their blood money. Why should they?
3
Unless we move all of congress, the regime, the evil minions, 1%ers, & cabinet into the 'new' Love canal. Move out the poor people who have been stuck in it, put them in the vacated home of the above. With access to all their bank accounts.
This is the no brainer off all no brainers.
2
Our pro business administration wants to put pricetag on clean water and air so they can sell it.
6
Once protection of small bodies of water is abolished, will that important bathtub still be available? You know ... the one that conservatives want to drown government in, once they reduce it to a portable size. "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Grover Norquist, 2001
6
They have to change the name of the agency. It is an organization that is trying to kill us all.
8
Fortunately, our schools & communities have taught the next generation about the role of watersheds in our (navigable, fishable, swimmable) river systems. There is hope for the future.
Perhaps they will have a nation where the water is so clean, you can drink it.
Perhaps they will have a nation where the water is so clean, you can drink it.
6
Your schools where?
In trump country I am sure different lessons have been taught.
And now that "government should sometimes pay for religious institutions", they will start teaching that Adam and Eve just need to pray to God, and water will be clean.
Or pray to trump to turn toxic waste into water (for a price).
In trump country I am sure different lessons have been taught.
And now that "government should sometimes pay for religious institutions", they will start teaching that Adam and Eve just need to pray to God, and water will be clean.
Or pray to trump to turn toxic waste into water (for a price).
It is always a binary choice to you simple-minded progressives. If we get rid of one regulation, the whole world will end! Tomorrow! Give it a rest Chicken Littles.
No, Joe, it's not just one regulation it is the systemic dismantling of a wide range of environmental regulations that causes alarm. Death by a thousand cuts.
18
I live in Iowa, too, Joe. Iowa has the most polluted waterways in the nation. Maybe you already knew that. It's just the price of doing business, according to guys like you. You might even be one of the welfare farmers who use our streams as your personal toilet for the excess poisons you pour on the land. Iowa farmers may finally get what they've been voting for over the past 50 years ... that is, you've been voting "to let the market decide" while shaking down the tax system for enough handouts to buy a new pickup every couple years or take the family to the Gulf coast to visit all your eroded topsoil that's washed down the river. There's probably a tax break for that, too. Anyhoo, your Tea Party wants to yank all your subsidies. They've kinda started already, as you know. So, once the market truly decides, Joe, you won't get bailed out when the crops fail or you grow to much corn or beans. Then you go belly up, like a true free-market disciple. Maybe you can return, as a temp, to farm the same ground for whatever international conglomeration buys your place at auction. Meantime, go down to your nearest creek and take a drink. I dare you.
23
What's Trump done for you lately Joe??
4
Waterworks, clean showers and the sound of flushing EPA rules down the drain doubtlessly keeps Trump up at night. I'm not sure if Trump washes or just vacuums his hair with a Hoover. I guess his Coke is the only liquid he understands but waterways will be polluted by industrial interest with repeal.
3
Oh gosh. Conservatives are not in favor of polluted water. Golly, no! We just can't afford it, that's all. Otherwise, we'd love to have clean water ... air, too! But those tax cuts for the rich people are expensive! Money's gotta come from somewhere. It doesn't must fall from the sky, like rain (haha ... get it? Rain! Clean water!) But ... tell you what ... if there's anything left over after we, responsibly, keep our promise to help out those job creators, we'll sure be happy to take a look at this clean water thingy. Meanwhile, two words:
bottled water! Now there's a job creator! MAGA! You betcha!
bottled water! Now there's a job creator! MAGA! You betcha!
6
Given the administration has taken a "major legal step" in removing limits on pollution of the available drinking water, ~1% of fresh water globally, I hope lawyers for the protection of public health and the environment hear the call and sue. And if you say, "so what, cleaning water is what municipal water treatment are for" a few things to consider: 1) the more contaminated the water, the more expensive it is to clean, say hello to higher taxes and water rates, and 2) pollution travels, it doesn't care about state borders, so while a city or state can financially benefit (taxes and jobs) from local polluting factory, some other city or state, that does not have these financial offsets, could end up paying the price to make the water potable for their residents. This is could be a much larger Flint, Michigan situation.
8
What planet is this administration from? Are they going to somewhere we don't know about? We're all on this beautiful, glorious earth together! Is there nothing they won't commodify? Could we have maybe just one person in this administration do something really good for the people and the earth??This makes me absolutely sick!!!
18
Just because the 1%ers can afford the $10,000 dollar bottles of wine every day, doesn't mean they aren't active alcoholics. Same with congress, the regime, cabinet, evil minions & supposedly sober VP. His wife has so little trust in him that he can't go anywhere alone. Where there is that much distrust, there is often someone being untrustworthy.
There's a time and place for managing water at the Federal Level and large bodies and multi-state rivers does make sense. However, Wotus was clear over-reach.
My state would be a swamp if it had not been drained 100 years by thousands of miles of tiles - it was that era's "moon shot." Instead of malaria infested swamps (biggest killer of the era), we have millions of acres of prime farmland. Similar situation occurs across the Midwest.
Wotus was forcing farmers to abandon land back to swamp when tiles went out of repair and water accumulated. Eastern landowners found Wotus covered much of their land because when it rained, a stream formed to drain the water off the hill.
The Water of the US was clear overreach and it is good that is it being pared back to original framers intentions.
My state would be a swamp if it had not been drained 100 years by thousands of miles of tiles - it was that era's "moon shot." Instead of malaria infested swamps (biggest killer of the era), we have millions of acres of prime farmland. Similar situation occurs across the Midwest.
Wotus was forcing farmers to abandon land back to swamp when tiles went out of repair and water accumulated. Eastern landowners found Wotus covered much of their land because when it rained, a stream formed to drain the water off the hill.
The Water of the US was clear overreach and it is good that is it being pared back to original framers intentions.
Pure baloney. The regulations would not have applied to farm ground. You were fed propaganda, and you swallowed it and asked for a second helping. Sheesh.
9
Trump, Pruitt, Rick Perry and all the rest of the client deniers should be forced to swim in and drink the water from the Mississippi, Missouri, Hudson, Potomac, Chicago, Ohio rivers to prove to the US citizens that we don't need to protect our water anymore. And add to the climate deniers list the chairmen and CEOs of the major agriculture businesses (ConAgra, Monsanto, Cargill, etc.), chemical companies and real estate development firms who should all be forced to take themselves and their families for a swim in these these rivers. What good is defense spending if we can't drink our water and breath the air?
10
"The Trump administration has moved to rescind a rule that would have extended existing pollution protections for large bodies of water — such as the Puget Sound in Washington — to include rivers, tributaries and wetlands"
This is a very misleading caption. No, it's not just misleading-- it's flat-out wrong. As others have noted, this article does not go into sufficient analytical detail about the rule, what it requires and how it was created. It doesn't even mention the WOTUS rule's extensive history in front of the Supreme Court. To be clear: the parameters of this rule, i.e., what waters it protects, have been litigated multiple times in front of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has proscribed precisely which waters the rule protects. It's up to EPA to determine how to craft the rule to protect those waters. The Court, in Rapanos v. United States, acknowledged that federal jurisdiction (i.e., "protection") extends to waters that are not "large bodies" of water, but also includes those smaller waters that have a "significant nexus" to traditionally navigable waters. Prior to this decision, it was widely acknowledged that federal jurisdiction over waters extended beyond "large bodies" of water--the question was simply how far.
The rule has always protected wetlands, tributaries, and smaller streams--not just lakes, rivers, sounds, oceans and the like. To imply that it did not before the Obama era is simply wrong. I expect better from this paper.
This is a very misleading caption. No, it's not just misleading-- it's flat-out wrong. As others have noted, this article does not go into sufficient analytical detail about the rule, what it requires and how it was created. It doesn't even mention the WOTUS rule's extensive history in front of the Supreme Court. To be clear: the parameters of this rule, i.e., what waters it protects, have been litigated multiple times in front of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has proscribed precisely which waters the rule protects. It's up to EPA to determine how to craft the rule to protect those waters. The Court, in Rapanos v. United States, acknowledged that federal jurisdiction (i.e., "protection") extends to waters that are not "large bodies" of water, but also includes those smaller waters that have a "significant nexus" to traditionally navigable waters. Prior to this decision, it was widely acknowledged that federal jurisdiction over waters extended beyond "large bodies" of water--the question was simply how far.
The rule has always protected wetlands, tributaries, and smaller streams--not just lakes, rivers, sounds, oceans and the like. To imply that it did not before the Obama era is simply wrong. I expect better from this paper.
9
Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump both need to somehow be visited by the Environmental Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to experience what their 'business and real estate development is everything' approach to life will do. The President and his guests (and eventually their grandchildren) at Mar a Lago smelling and overlooking sewage-filled water, then inundated by the same as water levels rise from the "hoax" of global climate change effects. Drinking and cooking water at Trump Tower and Pruitt's abode(s) limited to a public supply that no longer has pollution controls. Air conditioning systems at Mar a Lago and Trump Tower that are pure breeding grounds for Zika and Dengue virus-harboring mosquito species that love the warmer temperatures.
5
Why bother with spending billions on a military and first responders when we are poisoning ourselves - people and resources. Protecting the environment is part of national security and public health. The notion to put people first means having a clean and safe environment.
10
I agree until the notion that we should "put people first." Putting people first doesn't take into consideration that this is a meat eating society - which I am not - and would be adversely affected by putting "people first." Animals are also adversely affected by water pollution which follows that those who eat meat will also be affected. It's time for our species to consider the importance of animal welfare as well not only in keeping the planet healthy but ourselves as well.
5
Apparently, the Trump Administration believes that clean water is not necessary - like health care.
13
Yeah, looks like "the Trumps" don't clean-up their own trash. Glass of water at their hotel clubs.... no thanks, I'll pass.
5
much of the water supply is polluted now. we can expect to have water like it is in the far east, where there is so much waste, plastic, chemicals that it filth where people continue to fish and drink it because they have no choice. companies are looking to own water all over the world and in my community. if business can take the drinking water from the public, you are forced to pay for it.
2
The city I live in had a major movie made out of it's pollution problem a few years ago. Seems WR Grace company fouled all the ground water then just closed & left time. At that time all our drinking/cooking water came from wells. Then the kids started getting leukemia & dying. Finally the city switched to the MWRA (state water commission). But, so that we wouldn't have to run short in a hot summer, they kept 2 of the wells on line. Still there. Named us a Super Fund site too.
Anyone with a brain, drinks & cooks with bottled water. And not from local 'filtered' water companies either. We use Poland Springs from Maine. Won't drink water in a restaurant, cause have no idea if they filter or not. State says it's clean, but, they don't test during water shortages when they are actively pulling from those wells. The city also spent several years & lots of money lining the water pipes. But, not for years after the pollution was found. Oh, we have a small mall in the middle of the worst of the site, along with many businesses & corporations. I worked at the mall for over 5 years. When I went to my first Fibromyalgia support group meeting I say half the people there used to work at the mall too. Now they say Fibro is an autoimmune disease. Caused by airborne pollution left over maybe? I was mostly healthy until I got a job there. Now my mobility is almost gone, pain is a daily companion, & I will probably make Ryan very happy by not living until a nice ripe old age. (I'm 66 now)
Anyone with a brain, drinks & cooks with bottled water. And not from local 'filtered' water companies either. We use Poland Springs from Maine. Won't drink water in a restaurant, cause have no idea if they filter or not. State says it's clean, but, they don't test during water shortages when they are actively pulling from those wells. The city also spent several years & lots of money lining the water pipes. But, not for years after the pollution was found. Oh, we have a small mall in the middle of the worst of the site, along with many businesses & corporations. I worked at the mall for over 5 years. When I went to my first Fibromyalgia support group meeting I say half the people there used to work at the mall too. Now they say Fibro is an autoimmune disease. Caused by airborne pollution left over maybe? I was mostly healthy until I got a job there. Now my mobility is almost gone, pain is a daily companion, & I will probably make Ryan very happy by not living until a nice ripe old age. (I'm 66 now)
1
I mean - who needs water right?
12
money certainly speaks loudly as the rest of the country drinks contaminated waters. how sad.
3
The administration will be looking at common sense ways to keep our water clean and safe. Ha ha ha! (Will this come before or after new extreme vetting procedures are issued?) Please NYT keep on top of this story, Pruitt's clean water plans should be a hoot to read.
11
It appears that the trump wrecking ball is in full swing. Let the lawsuits begin.
6
We have enough lawyers alright already in our Country. Bring in the Water Engineers because we are in trouble and hoping this article by Coral Davenport on The Trump Administration and its E.P.A. does not drown in the cesspool of News.
Outrage after outrage emanating from Trump and his cabinet. Did voters who cast their ballots for him realize this demolition derby was going to happen? I doubt it. Why would anyone take the side of polluters? Pure greed--those who have a stake in the polluting industry--can be the only motive. Save our fragile planet from these monsters.
9
How can we possibly have leadership like this? Protecting water and air are not political, they are commonsense. Obviously. How can anyone think otherwise? If there is need for improvement in the regulatory process then make adjustments. But to rollback protections is simply foolish.
9
It's OK. The human speices will be gone in less than 100 years anyway. Then the world can get back to just being. Humans are the most destructive, invasive species known to science. Homo stupidus is what we are.
13
I agree. I think the next species that should be given control is one of two species of farming ants. The one I'm thinking about modifies the mold it farms to be unable to live anywhere but in their underground 'fields'. The other one doesn't do that & the mold spreads everywhere, kinda like us.
Anyone who suggests that you can have clean, large bodies of water without clean tributaries is either a moron or an industry stooge. In the Chesapeake Bay, there are enormous poultry operations and if the chicken waste flows into the rivers, steams, and creeks, the bay will die. This isn't contested science, this is common sense, obvious to any rational person.
People who say they want to protect the large bodies of water and ignore the tributaries are lying. Plain and simple.
People who say they want to protect the large bodies of water and ignore the tributaries are lying. Plain and simple.
14
I vote moron
4
Maybe the anti-environmentalists think they can escape to the space since they don't care about Earth. When their kids don't have clean water like most of developing countries, maybe they'll think again.
2
When my first and only child was born, scales fell off my eyes and a light-bulb came on in my mind: the environment! A desire rose out of me to insure that the world remained livable for both my offspring and my grandchildren. I look at the concerted efforts the Trump administration is making to roll back some very hard fought protections for the world we live and breathe in. Good God, these people have children and grandchildren. Do they not give the future of their own progeny a second thought?
9
Once again there is no mystery about this
Repealing the EPA was one of the cornerstones of Trump's campaign
He strongly supports business and individual property rights (in that order) and has been clear that any environmental protections that encroach on that need to end
The voters have spoken, they bought what Trump and the GOP have clearly run on.
As shown in the special elections the voters continue to love Trump's agenda, and him as well personally.
Voters have sent a strong message - particularly white men and women - that the future is not important. Ease of life is all that matters, our children can take care of themselves
For the minority of states not in alignment with this vile philosophy we need to fight local battles where we can
Repealing the EPA was one of the cornerstones of Trump's campaign
He strongly supports business and individual property rights (in that order) and has been clear that any environmental protections that encroach on that need to end
The voters have spoken, they bought what Trump and the GOP have clearly run on.
As shown in the special elections the voters continue to love Trump's agenda, and him as well personally.
Voters have sent a strong message - particularly white men and women - that the future is not important. Ease of life is all that matters, our children can take care of themselves
For the minority of states not in alignment with this vile philosophy we need to fight local battles where we can
6
If people who had access and opportunity to pollute and mismanage the small rivers, creeks, streams, ponds and puddles actually used the "common sense" that Conservatives claim is needed, then Government would not need to create regulations that prevent their abuse.
But many seem not to think far ahead beyond their immediate purposes, don't foresee what damage might be done downstream or to water tables. and selfishly believe they are the only one using or abusing these waters.
So, since people will not use and have not used "common sense" and put the greater good ahead of their own greed and profit, we need regulations.
Just remember Flint and all other communities where folks put economic policy before "common sense." It would have been "common sense" to treat the water so as not to disturb the lead protective crust built up in the pipes. Did they? Nope. And NOW how much money have they saved?
When all peoples have been cured of greed, then we can deregulate. And that means when humans stop acting like humans.
So in your dreams Conservatives. In your dreams.
But many seem not to think far ahead beyond their immediate purposes, don't foresee what damage might be done downstream or to water tables. and selfishly believe they are the only one using or abusing these waters.
So, since people will not use and have not used "common sense" and put the greater good ahead of their own greed and profit, we need regulations.
Just remember Flint and all other communities where folks put economic policy before "common sense." It would have been "common sense" to treat the water so as not to disturb the lead protective crust built up in the pipes. Did they? Nope. And NOW how much money have they saved?
When all peoples have been cured of greed, then we can deregulate. And that means when humans stop acting like humans.
So in your dreams Conservatives. In your dreams.
5
Has anyone read the full text of the President's Executive order or the EPA Administrator's 42 page proposal on implementing the order? If you have, you should be very angry about the damage this policy change will inflict on the environment. It does not matter if you are a tree-hugger, or just a parent.
The EPA is where we have the knowledge and understanding about pollution, water quality and migration of pollutants through sub-surface hydrology. By changing the definition of who's responsible for decision-making authority from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Tribal Councils, Regional, State, Local and Municipal Authorities, we will no longer avail ourselves of the expertise required for good decision making. That's just plain dumb policy.
There an example cited in the first few few pages about how there's no need to involve the feds when there's a body of water adjacent to a solid waste landfill, if that body of water is not navigable. What? Any hydrologist or geologist will tell you that determining the level of interconnectedness between a body of surface water, the sub-surface water table and nearby bodies of water, either static or moving, is a really complex process requiring expertise and a large amount of detailed data. There's no way we'll have that outside of EPA.
There's a reason we have so many Superfund sites in the US. It's simple, in the past, we didn't have an EPA to help us make good decisions, so we made bad ones.
The EPA is where we have the knowledge and understanding about pollution, water quality and migration of pollutants through sub-surface hydrology. By changing the definition of who's responsible for decision-making authority from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Tribal Councils, Regional, State, Local and Municipal Authorities, we will no longer avail ourselves of the expertise required for good decision making. That's just plain dumb policy.
There an example cited in the first few few pages about how there's no need to involve the feds when there's a body of water adjacent to a solid waste landfill, if that body of water is not navigable. What? Any hydrologist or geologist will tell you that determining the level of interconnectedness between a body of surface water, the sub-surface water table and nearby bodies of water, either static or moving, is a really complex process requiring expertise and a large amount of detailed data. There's no way we'll have that outside of EPA.
There's a reason we have so many Superfund sites in the US. It's simple, in the past, we didn't have an EPA to help us make good decisions, so we made bad ones.
14
The EPA motto is "Pollution Is The Solution" in the Trump administration.
4
As usual here, commenters are rushing to bash Trump's environmental policies without knowing anything. The EPA started out in the 1970 fixing decades of abuse to our national resources. Admirably the EPA accomplished its objective. It's been almost 40 years since that Ohio river caught on fire, but like so many other well intentioned government bureaucracies, the EPA zombies onward without purpose or need, or worse it over-rules state governments who are more informed about the issues.
For example Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson built a small stock pond on his property in 2012 and got the proper approval from the state Engineers Office. But the EPA nonetheless inserted itself and has been fining him thousands of dollars a day, trying to enforce bogus federal regulations.
We elected Trump to eliminate unnecessary regulations and downsize meddlesome government agencies, so this is what he is now doing. Bravo.
For example Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson built a small stock pond on his property in 2012 and got the proper approval from the state Engineers Office. But the EPA nonetheless inserted itself and has been fining him thousands of dollars a day, trying to enforce bogus federal regulations.
We elected Trump to eliminate unnecessary regulations and downsize meddlesome government agencies, so this is what he is now doing. Bravo.
1
@BearBoy, instead of restructuring the entire Body of Law for such minor overreaches, couldn't the EPA implement changes in the application and existing approaches as to how the Rules are interpreted? I just don't think throwing the Baby out with the Bath Water is the way to go here.
15
Andy Johnson, under a settlement reached May 2016, in federal court, will not have to pay the fines or drain the pond. But he will have to plant willow trees around the pond to protect the ground from erosion, and he’ll have to put a fence to temporarily protect it from livestock.
6
just because you don't like the rules they are there to protect us all ie; you break the speed limit you pay the fine.
1
This rule roll-back will specifically benefit Trump's golf-courses - once again, lining his pockets takes precedence over the health of the country.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/donald-trump-confli...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/donald-trump-confli...
13
I'm very tired of the selfishness of industries and individuals who treat our environmental resources as infinite and immune to human impact. I am tired of the tantrums and denials of these same individuals who see pollution and destruction of ecosystems as irrelevant to their personal financial needs. And I am beyond fatigued by the word-twisting and sloganeering of "common sense" which implies that federal regulations appear out of thin air, dreamed up by a bored, over-reaching government as opposed to the reality - that federal regulations exist in response to public demand.
Enough of this mythology and mentality, that the world is something to be torn apart and conquered in the pursuit of private capital. The reality of environmental fragility, and the enormous impact of human activity, is absolutely undeniable. From now on we must act accordingly.
Enough of this mythology and mentality, that the world is something to be torn apart and conquered in the pursuit of private capital. The reality of environmental fragility, and the enormous impact of human activity, is absolutely undeniable. From now on we must act accordingly.
17
Well stated Dom. I'm 61 and it seems we've been fighting this battle my entire life. I mistakenly thought that most Americans had learned enough to come around to intelligent thoughtful progressive positions on environmental conservation and compassionate capitalism. I underestimated the success of the dumbing down of the country. Looks like we baby boomers will have to get back out there again. This time not to educate the older generation. But the younger. So Sad.......
This article fails to explain what bodies of water are affected. The basic battle concerns the definition of "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act. The expansive definition has been whittled away by the supreme Court despite clear legislative history that the term should be given the broadest possible interpretation under the Constitution.
3
You are wrong.
There was no expansive definition. The definition was All waters with a "significant nexus" to "navigable waters".
The liberals appointed to the EPA by Liberal Presidents expanded the definition.
This infringed on farmers rights to plow fields and homeowners to build near a creek.
The founding fathers would be aghast at the freedoms that have been taken away by big government !
There was no expansive definition. The definition was All waters with a "significant nexus" to "navigable waters".
The liberals appointed to the EPA by Liberal Presidents expanded the definition.
This infringed on farmers rights to plow fields and homeowners to build near a creek.
The founding fathers would be aghast at the freedoms that have been taken away by big government !
Such as that notoriously liberal President who signed the legislation enacting the EPA? Nixon.
1
"There was no expansive definition. The definition was All waters with a "significant nexus" to "navigable waters"."
No, YOU are wrong. That's the Supreme Court test (well, specifically, Kennedy's test). That definition is not found in the Clean Water Act.
"This infringed on farmers rights to plow fields and homeowners to build near a creek."
Boo hoo. You have no right to ruin communal resources. Your "freedoms" do not include ruining other people's stuff. I thought you conservatives loved "personal responsibility"? Suck it up and comply with the permit.
No, YOU are wrong. That's the Supreme Court test (well, specifically, Kennedy's test). That definition is not found in the Clean Water Act.
"This infringed on farmers rights to plow fields and homeowners to build near a creek."
Boo hoo. You have no right to ruin communal resources. Your "freedoms" do not include ruining other people's stuff. I thought you conservatives loved "personal responsibility"? Suck it up and comply with the permit.
3
There should be just one simple rule.
If you, the legislator, are going to not protect the water, then you must be required to drink a glass of it. ( or more )
Balk, and you have no business trying to make us drink it without protection.
If you, the legislator, are going to not protect the water, then you must be required to drink a glass of it. ( or more )
Balk, and you have no business trying to make us drink it without protection.
13
I'm pretty sure that if you poll Americans with the question "Do you think more pollutants, toxins, and poisons should be added to our waters?" the vast majority will say no. Do we need any more proof that this administration would eagerly roll over the masses with tanks in order to serve the interests of its corporate masters?
12
To keep from crying, I will keep contacting my congressman and senators, writing letters whenever there is a contact listed, file written comment against proposed Pruitt eviscerating regulations such as these, and vote.
4
This seems like common sense for the greater good. John Barrasso sounds like the typical "me, give me mine!" type that would have (may still will be) the undoing of the nation, and world. O.K. Barrasso so it's your (your constituents) land - big deal - follow the rules to keep the runoff safe for all human beings. "Indefensible regulation" - here's a defense the rest of us would like to have living oceans, rivers, and streams healthy, and well for eons to come. Trump absolutely (and it sounds like Barrasso too) cannot think beyond the me, me, me - he is incapable of considering the greater public good. This administration, and its followers are some of the most greedy, grubbing, uncaring-beyond-self, ever seen in the political realm. O.k. maybe some hyperbole here, but I feel it's warranted.
6
Remember that ad\psa from back in the 70's with the Native American with the tear streaming down his face because of the pollution behind him ?
I feel that way about our planet ~ especially for me kids. ( started long before this administration as well )
There are massive plastic islands developing out there in the oceans, which are rapidly choking off life to anything that requires oxygenated water. It is working its way through the food system and we are ingesting more and plastic every day because of it.
It goes way, way, way beyond what Pruit and this administration are doing\rolling back. We need even more than the Paris agreement if we are ever to have even a chance to survive.
To roll anything back though, is just insanity.
I feel that way about our planet ~ especially for me kids. ( started long before this administration as well )
There are massive plastic islands developing out there in the oceans, which are rapidly choking off life to anything that requires oxygenated water. It is working its way through the food system and we are ingesting more and plastic every day because of it.
It goes way, way, way beyond what Pruit and this administration are doing\rolling back. We need even more than the Paris agreement if we are ever to have even a chance to survive.
To roll anything back though, is just insanity.
8
If a body of water, of any size, at any time, outflows into a water course that ends up in a waterway that crosses State lines, it should be regulated. "Who knows what" can end up in that that water and it eventually could be used for drinking, fishing, swimming and of course it ends up in larger lakes, rivers and the ocean where all types of wildlife ingests it. Of course even if it doesn't cross State lines it should be regulated but that is up to the various State governments. Good luck with that!!
5
The agenda: Getting rid of rules that interfere with and costs the Trump Organization money. "Nothing else here, move along..." Sad
4
Will we really have to transport water from Mars to be able to get drinking water not contaminated by the Trump administration's retraction of all the EPA regulations protecting water supplies?
3
Part of what has brought this on is the bottled water industry. If your waters are polluted, buy water from the people who pollute it even more with plastic bottles. And of course you don't know what you are buying. And when you buy other people's water (Dasani), you usually deny them access to it. And of course, it costs more than gasoline, but hey, let's forget about that. And let's forget about the fish or shrimp that you eat that live in those polluted waters. It's ridiculous--they talk about their children's futures but are fine with poisoning their waters, lands, air, etc. I just don't get it.
2
I live in a small city that is/was a Superfund Site. Anyone with a brain drinks bottled water. Even though we get state water now. Why? They kept 2 of the wells that were/are polluted open, just in case of a shortage. The cocks leak some so some of that water gets in the state water. Even in wet summers. Don't drink Dasani, it's only filtered tap water from who knows where. We buy Poland Springs from Maine. Sits under a resort. We aren't taking water from anyone else.
Move to Woburn & drink the water, I dare you.
Move to Woburn & drink the water, I dare you.
So this is what's draining out of our Swamp? Any of us working in the water protection field saw this coming a long time ago. But we hoped he wouldn't go this far. There had to be some modicum of environmental ethics somewhere in his psyche.
As our new leader often says, "It's sad. So sad." I may be old but what about all our grandchildren?! Where and how will they live?
My sincere apologies to the youngsters. Please do a better job of conserving the only home our species can live, not just survive, in.
As our new leader often says, "It's sad. So sad." I may be old but what about all our grandchildren?! Where and how will they live?
My sincere apologies to the youngsters. Please do a better job of conserving the only home our species can live, not just survive, in.
1
Apparently, Mr. Trump and his supporters in the government and business are planning to move to another planet after they destroy ours.
1
Pruitt has yet to look upon any natural landscape in America and not seen dollar signs. Air, trees, land, waterways, rock are all just there to be used for profit in some way or another.
And the whipped cream on top is that Obama wanted to enact this regulation so of course it has to be eliminated.
And the whipped cream on top is that Obama wanted to enact this regulation so of course it has to be eliminated.
7
When you drain the swamp, that sewage has to end up somewhere ... in this case, after their cesspool of corruption is overflowing, I suppose in all manner of other bodies of water for dumping toxic by-products that should not even be part of manufacturing processes.
In a just world, policies that address everyday life, make our environment more toxic for humans and other species (Pruit likely considers many of these species acceptable collateral damage for pro-industry policy change), and lead to greater sickness and death would be true targets of extreme vetting, and the people who sign them into law and enforce them would be targets of criminal investigations. Flint here we come ...
In a just world, policies that address everyday life, make our environment more toxic for humans and other species (Pruit likely considers many of these species acceptable collateral damage for pro-industry policy change), and lead to greater sickness and death would be true targets of extreme vetting, and the people who sign them into law and enforce them would be targets of criminal investigations. Flint here we come ...
4
One more time - all Trump & Co. care about is MONEY. The man is a fool if he thinks money actually makes the World go around. You can't buy the balance, abundance and beauty that the Natural World gives to sustain us all.
With all of the money, and "science" available today, we cannot "make"
Water. Without clean, abundant Water, we are all dead. We need to protect not just the large bodies of Water, but also the streams and estuaries, to ensure that one endless oil pipe leak, or excessive lead or mercury, or nuclear waste contamination, doesn't foul everything.
Trump would turn America's water ways into a replica of Flint, Michigan. The man has no soul and zero ethics if he thinks that Water is just a commodity.
With all of the money, and "science" available today, we cannot "make"
Water. Without clean, abundant Water, we are all dead. We need to protect not just the large bodies of Water, but also the streams and estuaries, to ensure that one endless oil pipe leak, or excessive lead or mercury, or nuclear waste contamination, doesn't foul everything.
Trump would turn America's water ways into a replica of Flint, Michigan. The man has no soul and zero ethics if he thinks that Water is just a commodity.
6
Since this was a executive action. it can be reversed. To reduce impact Democrats merely need to tell folks this will be reinstated next time Democrats have the white house. Any involvement made will not be compensated.
We should remind them what Trump overturns can and will be restored.
Meanwhile during these dark ages we need Environmental Groups to monitor and publicize corporate pollution. Bad publicity can trump bad executive orders
We should remind them what Trump overturns can and will be restored.
Meanwhile during these dark ages we need Environmental Groups to monitor and publicize corporate pollution. Bad publicity can trump bad executive orders
39
I also support allowing local jurisdiction over water resources, as opposed to a Federal program that would in fact regulate every water resource in the country.
The Federal Government is not supposed to be an intrusive force but more of a guiding hand.
The Federal Government is not supposed to be an intrusive force but more of a guiding hand.
1
I want to see this country really be a country. All laws the same all over. No 'state's rights'. This isn't a country, it's a bunch of squabbling children. If something in illegal in MA, it should be illegal in Texas, or Maryland, or Michigan.
Although I can't prove it, I believe the majority of Americans support environmental regulations. So the issue is... can our Congressional Democrats be effective in fighting against any such rollbacks? Sadly, I'm not optimistic with this Democratic Congress, who have proven since the inauguration, largely unable to rally this country.
1
Why do we need regulations? When have oil and gas companies ever done anything that wasn't in the public's best interests? Thank god we have Barrasso and Trump to protect us from clean water fanatics.
7
It would be nice if the article said something, anything, about substantive effects of the proposed change in regulation. In the absence of any definitive statements the article seems to indicate that these upstream bodies of water will now lack any form of protection and that they did lack protection prior to Obama's action, which is not the case. What is at stake is far more specific than general "public health" or "washington control" as the article and those quoted in it would have us believe.
My criticism is not that we should or should not change this regulation. It is that this article gives the reader no ammunition to thoughtfully consider the question. All the article provides is a useful link and series of extremely partisan, broad, and ill-informed quotes from both sides neither of which characterize the issue at stake in an accurate or thoughtful way.
In this way the article reinforces the partisan, ill-informed direction of the country as a whole.
My criticism is not that we should or should not change this regulation. It is that this article gives the reader no ammunition to thoughtfully consider the question. All the article provides is a useful link and series of extremely partisan, broad, and ill-informed quotes from both sides neither of which characterize the issue at stake in an accurate or thoughtful way.
In this way the article reinforces the partisan, ill-informed direction of the country as a whole.
6
The apartment complex I live at had a transformer blow down. By Fed Law they had to get a company specializing in toxic spills come in & clean up the toxic oils that were seeping into the ground, fairly near a small stream. Many here would say it shouldn't have to have been done. So, what if that stream ended up polluted. The ground water under the transformer ended up polluted. No body rich lives near here, so not to worry, just slap another transformer in. No clean up needed. Now, if they didn't have to by law, would the Electric company have done it anyway?
"But farmers, ranchers and real estate developers oppose it as an infringement on their property rights."
How will these same farmers, ranchers, and real estate developers react when this occurs:
1. Farmers will be unable to sell their crops because the water is tainted which affects the safety of the food supply.
2. Ranchers will be unable to sell their cattle or whatever livestock it is they raise because the meat will be tainted with pollutants that have leached into the soil the animals graze upon and the water they drink.
3. Real estate developers will see the houses they build on the market for years because the soil under and around them is contaminated from run offs from dirty streams and rivers.
They're free to destroy the environment if they want to but they ought to realize that there will be a price to pay and they will pay it. There's a name for people and organizations that do what these folks want to do: scoundrels. The other word is not printable.
How will these same farmers, ranchers, and real estate developers react when this occurs:
1. Farmers will be unable to sell their crops because the water is tainted which affects the safety of the food supply.
2. Ranchers will be unable to sell their cattle or whatever livestock it is they raise because the meat will be tainted with pollutants that have leached into the soil the animals graze upon and the water they drink.
3. Real estate developers will see the houses they build on the market for years because the soil under and around them is contaminated from run offs from dirty streams and rivers.
They're free to destroy the environment if they want to but they ought to realize that there will be a price to pay and they will pay it. There's a name for people and organizations that do what these folks want to do: scoundrels. The other word is not printable.
12
Since all institutions are being annihilated by minimally Putin-oligarch mentality, the consumer protection agency is dead. Farmers will still
be able to sell their tainted crops (come on - already tainted with pesticides - it will just get worse). Ranchers can sell their livestock
as animal feed or sell it overseas. Restrictions are lifted. Real estate
developers will still sell houses unless the contamination is obvious.
be able to sell their tainted crops (come on - already tainted with pesticides - it will just get worse). Ranchers can sell their livestock
as animal feed or sell it overseas. Restrictions are lifted. Real estate
developers will still sell houses unless the contamination is obvious.
1
Stinking orange lawns?
There are countless ways for landowners and businesses to minimize pollution, obey the law and still make a healthy profit. Arguments against these rules are just plain lazy-minded, there is no gentler way to describe them. Instead of wasting so much effort arguing for the right to pollute more, use all that money and effort to think, act and conserve. You will most likely be happier and eventually, even more profitable.
21
So this is a proposed rule that must go through the rule making process, public comment, final rule etc. before it becomes the law. Meanwhile, the current rule, which became final two years ago after the same extensive rule making process is the law of the land. Can the EPA simply decide not to enforce the rule in the meantime, i.e. not follow the law of the land?
2
You mean the law "against the land?"
1
Years ago my husband was one of many who testified before Congress in behalf of what came to be The Clean Water Act. His entire professional life as a marine biologist working for the CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife was devoted to protecting our state waterways and coast. He took his responsibility as a Protector of the Public Trust seriously, out of concern and deep devotion for the preservation of our precious natural resources.
This administration represents a total disregard and ruthlessness when, among other issues, it comes to the environment. The bottom line is always lining the pockets of special interest groups who care only for themselves. We as everyday citizens can not be complacent. We need to fight for what is collectively ours for not only us but also for our children's children.
This administration represents a total disregard and ruthlessness when, among other issues, it comes to the environment. The bottom line is always lining the pockets of special interest groups who care only for themselves. We as everyday citizens can not be complacent. We need to fight for what is collectively ours for not only us but also for our children's children.
16
Thank you!
That's the one thing about the oligarchs I don't understand. They
will kill the earth without compunction. How will their children be
affected? Like the regime in charge, they don't seem to care. Maybe they have an escape plan off this planet...
will kill the earth without compunction. How will their children be
affected? Like the regime in charge, they don't seem to care. Maybe they have an escape plan off this planet...
"But farmers, ranchers and real estate developers oppose it as an infringement on their property rights."
Sorry, but in my opinion, the rights of property owners, and I am one, should not include the right to pollute waterways and the air, which are shared collectively by all people and creatures. It is always like pulling teeth to get business to acknowledge anything, such as a sense of public responsibility, other than the bottom line, which is driven by profits.
That has always been the problem with business - it does not regard a sense of balance as necessary and will generally only do the right thing (other than in small ways, like charitable donations for good will) when pushed by regulations. Another good role of government (which is us).
The fact that Republicans disdain government, except of course when they need something, is Exhibit A in the case against them as caring about business interests and those who profit most from them at the expense of the common good.
Business is good - it provides jobs, needed goods and services, and incomes, but again, there must be a balance between profits and support for a thriving society and world in all respects. There are different kinds of riches.
Sorry, but in my opinion, the rights of property owners, and I am one, should not include the right to pollute waterways and the air, which are shared collectively by all people and creatures. It is always like pulling teeth to get business to acknowledge anything, such as a sense of public responsibility, other than the bottom line, which is driven by profits.
That has always been the problem with business - it does not regard a sense of balance as necessary and will generally only do the right thing (other than in small ways, like charitable donations for good will) when pushed by regulations. Another good role of government (which is us).
The fact that Republicans disdain government, except of course when they need something, is Exhibit A in the case against them as caring about business interests and those who profit most from them at the expense of the common good.
Business is good - it provides jobs, needed goods and services, and incomes, but again, there must be a balance between profits and support for a thriving society and world in all respects. There are different kinds of riches.
67
Oh yes. This onerous notion of protecting the nation's drinking water must be stopped immediately. Because if there's one thing historical precedent has taught us - over and over and over again - it's that trusting the wealthy and powerful to do the right thing on their own is always a sure bet.
38
We all live downstream. When the anti-environment idiots poop in their own nests it affects all of us.
49
The president has no shame. Now he is delighted to pollute drinking water, poison our children and kill the fish we eat. I assume his family will drink bottled spring water but what will we drink? Or eat? He is a cruel administrator with no regard for the people he promised to protect. Why is he still in office?
15
Those maligned prairie pot holes frequently feed under ground aquifers and streams that many of us depend upon as sources of water. Bassasso's pot holes form tributaries of the Missouri, Colorado and Columbia rivers. It would be difficult to pick a more critical watershed in the USA than Wyoming. At least 20 States lay down stream of waters originating from those "pot holes".
80
Would you rather live downstream from Obama or Trump?
Everyone lives downstream from someone.
Everyone lives downstream from someone.
18
Save your time on crafting future headlines. Just print: "The left builds up safeguards for our air land and water, and then right tears them down."
And so it goes....
And so it goes....
11
Coral Davenport, I'm surprised at the quality of this article. You haven't explained what protections WOTUS provides, only that it provides them. You also haven't explained what's at stake if the protections are removed. I wonder if commenter JA from Portland is correct that rivers, small waterways and wetlands will remain covered, which sounds likely and is certainly something the article should explain. Never mind analysis, this article barely includes basic information. Just because environmental protection is being thrown away by the Trump administration does not mean it's a throw away issue. Please provide better researched articles in future.
9
I agree, this article lacks enough information for anyone not intimately familiar with the policy to make any kind of informed decision on the issue. What are people's concerns with the policy specifically?
2
After the EPA announcement today, do you really want to be kept from knowing about it for 2 months while every nuance is researched again & again, a Pulitzer quality article written, then published? Or do you want to know about the announcement today, with basic facts, sooner rather than later? Can't have both at the same time. Another article could be being researched right now, but, it won't come out until the research is done so the article can be written.
Cash and power over healthy people and unpolluted natural resources -- the grand old party sells its freedom agenda to their confederacy of dunces.
7
And, somehow, we are not to characterize the Trump administration as dumb?
8
All you have to do is consider who opposes the rule to know that its intentions were probably well founded. Pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and the razing of natural buffers that filter run-off will now be ok thanks to trump's EPA saboteur - "pave paradise, put up a parking lot" pruitt. All this winning.... looks like losing to me.
18
Trump and his boys continue to pull back protections for us little folk, the 99+% who can't jet away some day to cleaner parts of the world (no doubt there will still be a few) when their missteps and spiteful science-bereft decisions leave our country, and the world, much more toxic. Of course the <1% are in power and calling the shots.
I am hoping that someday when a true representative, un-gerrymandered government comes to be here in the USA, there will be a way of holding these "criminals" responsible for the pollution of our air and water, wetlands and forest. Perhaps we will be able to bring them to trial for the increase in cancer, kidney disease and lung disease that is sure to come from their myopic policies. The problem is that the impacts take a while to manifest, while these old codgers are just that; old. Especially the President. If you remove his makeup and elongated sideburns swept over his ears to simulate hair, and un-girdled him, well you would have the mean old egg-shaped man that he is. But that's Hollywood and many of our fellow citizens swallow his act; hook, line and sinker... if you know fishing, you will understand what happens to the fish when that takes place.
There is little camouflaging Trump's destructive personality. It's in just about every word and tweet that he exudes. Very toxic. Very polluting...
I am hoping that someday when a true representative, un-gerrymandered government comes to be here in the USA, there will be a way of holding these "criminals" responsible for the pollution of our air and water, wetlands and forest. Perhaps we will be able to bring them to trial for the increase in cancer, kidney disease and lung disease that is sure to come from their myopic policies. The problem is that the impacts take a while to manifest, while these old codgers are just that; old. Especially the President. If you remove his makeup and elongated sideburns swept over his ears to simulate hair, and un-girdled him, well you would have the mean old egg-shaped man that he is. But that's Hollywood and many of our fellow citizens swallow his act; hook, line and sinker... if you know fishing, you will understand what happens to the fish when that takes place.
There is little camouflaging Trump's destructive personality. It's in just about every word and tweet that he exudes. Very toxic. Very polluting...
13
Why???? just why???? couldn't they leave the waters at peace and clean and just focus on they thinks they should be focusing?
1
Good! the Obama era regulations went over the top.
4
Hmmm, let's review facts. No clean water? No clean air? No life!!! What is it that they don't understand? It is not rocket science GOP!! It is survival for the environment AND for human kind.
29
Everyone needs to watch that film of the "Dead Zone" off the coast of Southern California.
9
Yes! Because the EPA should be about letting commercial interests pollute and poison our waters, not protect them. Welcome back to Bush W on Steroids. And Obama had about gotten us out of the troubles Bush W caused. Republicans love the short memories of the average US citizen.
24
So, John Barrasso is very happy with the deregulation but at the same time claims that the administration will seek common sense approaches to clean water. Somehow, that won't work. Farmers will continue to dump pesticides and fertilizer in the water system and corporation won't care what their effluent is as long as it goes down stream.
28
when you live in a moral sewer, every body of water looks like a good place to pollute, because, you know, who cares as long as you can get away with doing anything you like no matter who it hurts or what it despoils. after all, what are any of those sissy environmental and scientific concerns compared to rugged individualism and the quest for money? no contest!
43
Scott Pruitt knows what he is doing is wrong. That is why he has 10 Secret Service agents protecting him, more than any other cabinet member.
35
It is a breath-taking, audacious thumb in the eye to environmental responsibility by a hostile and rogue band of interlopers. The political statement alone, purposely designed to outrage, is nearly as damaging as the yet untold damage in store to our precious and irreplaceable public water resorces. If there were any question as to the osscene level of irresponsibility of the odious Pruitt regime, it's been thoroughly answered.
82
Seriously. Do these current GOP guys ever do anything that is good?
6
Sounds like an inroad for the gas and oil industry to duck responsibility for pollution from fracking and oil pipeline leaks. Any time the Chump administration looks to weaken environmental regulations you have to ask who profits. It isn't the American people.
18
This is what happens when you turn a Scientific Review Board into a Business Review Board. The irony is that all you haters of the regulation out there could actually capitalize on it. But alas, that would take innovation, creativity, risk, and thoughtfulness. How dare we venture out to those areas, when we can just keep doing business as usual without any implications, subsidized by the powers of dilution - for now, sort of.
48
I didn't vote for Trump, but I am very glad to hear this. I hope he goes a lot farther in rolling back problematic "environmental" regulation. Unfortunately, this law will not help much in California, due to CEQA.
I live in a house that lies on the SF bay shoreline. There is marsh outside my backyard that used to be a navigable channel when older relatives purchased the house. After ESA and CEQA passed, local conservation extremist groups opposed dredging because it would disrupt the habitat of an endangered mouse. Angry homeowners went to city council meetings for years. Many of those original homeowners were working class people who had spent their life savings to buy a house with water access. The homes are simple tract homes, not anything fancy.
The conservation extremists "won" the battle - even though it was just a few activists against an entire community of homeowners. Many of the original homeowners were so upset that they sold their homes and moved away. Many of my grandparents close friends moved far away.
Now, we have severe flooding at high tide. We get 3-4 feet of water running through the entire yard. I worry my young kids will drown in this. Some of the current homeowners and myself advocated for a levee, but guess what? Can't do that either because of the mouse. It is covert eminent domain, but without compensation to homeowners.
Conservation extremists have also used CEQA to obstruct mass transit and bike infrastructure. It is absurd.
I live in a house that lies on the SF bay shoreline. There is marsh outside my backyard that used to be a navigable channel when older relatives purchased the house. After ESA and CEQA passed, local conservation extremist groups opposed dredging because it would disrupt the habitat of an endangered mouse. Angry homeowners went to city council meetings for years. Many of those original homeowners were working class people who had spent their life savings to buy a house with water access. The homes are simple tract homes, not anything fancy.
The conservation extremists "won" the battle - even though it was just a few activists against an entire community of homeowners. Many of the original homeowners were so upset that they sold their homes and moved away. Many of my grandparents close friends moved far away.
Now, we have severe flooding at high tide. We get 3-4 feet of water running through the entire yard. I worry my young kids will drown in this. Some of the current homeowners and myself advocated for a levee, but guess what? Can't do that either because of the mouse. It is covert eminent domain, but without compensation to homeowners.
Conservation extremists have also used CEQA to obstruct mass transit and bike infrastructure. It is absurd.
3
"There is marsh outside my backyard that used to be a navigable channel when ....."
....when it WAS dredged.
I know the bay area well. I have never heard of such a place as you describe, as well as a place that now floods, severely, at high tides. Nice anecdote though.
....when it WAS dredged.
I know the bay area well. I have never heard of such a place as you describe, as well as a place that now floods, severely, at high tides. Nice anecdote though.
20
I live in Novato, on the bay shore in Marin. Groups such as Marin Audubon opposed dredging and opposed a levee, due to the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.
I favor the WOTUS rule and am appalled by this effort to stop it, but this article is an oversimplification of the debate. "Rivers, small waterways and wetlands" are mostly certainly protected under current federal law and rules. At stake here is how far those protections can extend to less substantial but ecologically significant water bodies, such as seasonal or ephemeral streams, "isolated" wetlands, and "prairie potholes." All of these are crucial for the ecosystem and deserve protection under the new rule, notwithstanding Senator Barrasso's and the Farm Bureau's overheated "puddles and ponds" rhetoric. But rivers, streams, and most wetlands should remain covered by any version of the rule, though vulnerable to other shenanigans, such as the proposed cuts to EPA's enforcement budget.
8
Isn't he supposed to be in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency??? Give Pruitt's background and support from those opposed to any environmental regulation, why not just call the agency The Environmental Destruction Agency and get it over with. Shame on this administration and its sick idea of governance.
98
Another assault by the Trumpys on nature. Shame on them.
54
Never thought I'd agree with the Trump administration on anything but the Obama regulations were a huge overreach. They would have regulated the smallest stock ponds on private land as federal water. Any land that held water at any time of the year could have been classified as a wetland, even if it was only for a matter of days each year or bone dry in others.
More common sense is needed in these regulations.
More common sense is needed in these regulations.
5
Diurnal or vernal pools are home to many endangered species. It's like some guy I heard saying that they actually preserved the grass in the san diego bay, the sea grass. Well, buddy, the sea grass is everything, just like diurnal or vernal pools can be everything for some ecosystems!
I will not swim in the Pacific because we experience almost daily 'dumps' of raw sewage, both from Mexico and from California systems. So I fail to see where regulations have gone too far anywhere.
We haven't even begun to deal with the anti-biotics in our river systems!! Too much regulation, my tuchus! What another bunch of malarky from the criminal trump administration.
I will not swim in the Pacific because we experience almost daily 'dumps' of raw sewage, both from Mexico and from California systems. So I fail to see where regulations have gone too far anywhere.
We haven't even begun to deal with the anti-biotics in our river systems!! Too much regulation, my tuchus! What another bunch of malarky from the criminal trump administration.
103
Water never stays in one place. It is always flowing, percolating, evaporating...eventually finding its way elsewhere. It makes perfect sense to me why water pollution should be regulated, no mater where that water happens to be located at any given time.
25
Have you ever seen what animals and plant life are around a vernal pond or one of the pothole ponds on the prairie? Birds use these as stopovers and breeding places. Frogs and ducks as well. Those vernal ponds serve an important purpose for wildlife during the spring and sometimes, depending upon where they are located, part of the summer, fall, and winter. Vernal ponds can keep the eggs of frogs and some insect species safe until there's enough water for them to hatch and grow to adulthood. Furthermore, the soil in these places is such that houses and other buildings should not be placed there. Intelligent urban planning is what we need rather than what the EPA under Pruitt is trying to do now.
13