The Obama Rule gave federal control over every mud puddle in the country under the guise of protecting"navigable waterways". And of course offered no compensation. And they wonder why there was a backlash.
9
We do not have a President. We have Donald Trump.
11
Honestly, given the low number of comments on this article, Americans don't care until they get sick and start dying. And let me guess how much of this is discussed on Fox, probably zero.
19
The most destructive person in the world! This man needs to be OUT!
13
Clean water?
But he only drinks Pepsi...
6
Why did the author burry the paragraph about states' AGs joining with other organizations to stop this heinous action in court?
10
I live in Florida, a state that at a glance seems to have a lot of water, and yet has such a fragile ecosystem, whose health is intricately entwined with water quality.
As development here gobbles up forest and farm alike, our watershed is being thrown away. We sit atop a shallow limestone aquifer fed by the filtration of rain and various pollutants through forests, wetlands and grasses. We have already seen saltwater intrusion into this aquifer and now pollutants and pesticides will also rapidly intrude as well. The rush to develop with no thought of the quality of life that will be left to our children and grandchildren is stunning.
We have seen algae blooms so potent that millions of fish are killed that make beaches stink and tourism decline even under the current rules. Fishing, oystering and other water related business will be decimated all for the ‘right’ to pollute.
As a species, we are on track to cause our own extinction, and this thoughtless escapade to please one sector of political donors, will just hasten the inevitable.
40
Everyday practically, we read about the enormous damage done by toxic algae blooms. They toxic algae blooms are created by exactly the type of terrestrial pollutants flowing into rivers, creeks and wetlands. And now the clueless idiot in the White House has removed the penalties from the types of behavior that cause exactly this sort of event. Not to mention things like the pollution of municipal water sources all over the country. And the enormous dead zone in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico and and on. The polluters are wringing their hands with glee. We are on a fast track to the End.
15
Here's hoping that our over-heated president opts to take a relaxing dip in one of those streams, pollutants and all. Get up close and personal, Trump. It'll be an eye-opening (or not!) experience!
10
Another example of make America great again... smh
4
"handing a victory to farmers, fossil fuel producers and real estate developers"
Nope - we all lose whether we realize it or not. This is bad for business, bad for our national health, bad, bad, bad - no winners here.
Even the irresponsible members of Congress and the Senate are ultimately held accountable for protecting our declining environment and health. Have they considered the real value of the environment in our formerly bountiful country? Irreplaceable!!!! Or are they just chasing dollars and letting influential lobbyists "do their work" for them?
15
It won't be long now before we learn that leaded paint and leaded gasoline are returning. We'll be told that the current regulations were too onerous and that all of the previous negative hype was overblown.
Let's hope that the White House drinking water comes directly from a "safe" stream in West Virginia. "Bottom's Up!" Mr. President.
10
This, along with all the other environmental regulations the Trump administration has rolled back or destroyed, is a travesty. Even Trump's grandchildren have to breathe and drink clean water. He doesn't seem to understand this.
5
I am building a farm. For several reason, including habitat for and diversity of flora and fauna, being a resource conserver rather than a resource exploiter, for the pleasure and resources a clean environment provides, I have built wetlands into my plans. I will still earn enough to not go broke.
Waste not. Want not.
11
Wow. This is just another example of corporate greed and “good for the economy” disregarding the cries of our youth, indigenous, and wildlife. I fear the day when our water — a precious resource — is no longer right...
7
At the age of 61 I know why all these rules were enacted in the first place I lived it. In my youth it was not safe to eat many of the fish caught in the Great Lakes, this is where Trump and his sycophants in the Republican Party want to take us. Any young person who does not vote and encourage their peers to vote out every last republican then deserves what is going to happen across their lifetime. They will be telling their children when I was your age you could eat the fish from the Great Lakes.
15
One more decision by Trump that is not based on the good of the country but on having his base giving him accolades. No science is needed for a man who is a self proclaimed expert in all things. How did this country elect this ignorant egotist? Why does his base think that destroying our planet is a good thing? I don't understand.
I really want to lash out at his supporters. They are to blame. He just tells them what they want to hear. The rest of the world tells him the truth and he refuses to even research any science. He doesn't bother to read. This is not what a world leader should be. Why is a whole political party kissing his "you know what"? Oh, wait a second, it's about money isn't it? The 1% who will not suffer for wrongs that are done to rest of us.
5
Can the people who live downstream from the farmer sue him for damages when he pollutes the stream that then flows onto there land?
4
This is of course to benefit Putin indirectly, by causing more damage to the U.S.
6
You're right. Comrade Trump has to follow the orders of his GRU handler, Comrade Putin. The Russians engineered Trumps victory so that he could destroy our democracy and everything else good in this country. And his handler must be very proud of him.
5
To those who still believe the old rumors that “volcanoes” produce more CO2 than humans do — you are wrong! As reported in Scientific American, the USGS figures that “greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.”
The numbers: The world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually. But humanity’s automotive and industrial activities caused 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year in 2009 (and now, more like 35 billion tons annually).
See:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
And:
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html
2
I guess the Administration misses the days when air killed people in New York, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh. When rain etched away our iconic old national buildings and the acid hurt lakes in the Midwest and Northeast. And when rivers could catch fire.
Let's do the following for him - vote him out, let him live at Mar-a-lardo, build an open landfill next door and channel the runoff onto his property.
In the meantime, the next President will have their hands full undoing the senseless vandalism.
11
Great for farmers until their wells become contaminated and non-potable.
2
This is about administrative law. When the Clean Water Act (CWA amendment) was in 1972 nobody was concerned about the issues raised in Obama's executive orders. In fact if those issues were raised the CWA probably would not have had the votes to pass congress. We have a gov't that is gradually being taken over by so-called experts who continually make changes to the original intent. Congress and not the Executive Branch are suppose to make laws. The Congress has abdicated its authority in this area and Congressional Reps and some journalist hide behind the administrative law and claim they have no control when the administrative law is challenged.
1
No. The Senate is hiding under trumps skirt so as to not rock his boat.
Because the water is too clean. We have hundreds of wells in Michigan that are undrinkable because of industrial pollution. I say let the polluters drink exclusively from contaminated sites until they clean up there own mess.
9
@JRoebuck
And that should include all drinking water provided to the White House, Republican caucus offices and personal residences, all Trump family residences (and Kushner), and the home/family residences of Jessica Flanagain, Andrew Wheeler, Donald Parrish, and Karen Harbert. Bottled water is not to be allowed in any circumstance. If they currently have municipal water, they should be forced to drink well water - preferably from a well contaminated by this action.
5
Thank you for increasing climate coverage.
Where applicable, when regulations are in the proposed update stage, please include the link to allow us to send in citizen comments. Some environmental articles imply that regulations have been changed when, actually, they are still in the comment stage. It is extremely challenging to locate the comment submission button and it would be lovely to know if the regulation has already been changed or is in the proposed stage. Best of all would be coverage of proposed changes before they are changed.
10
So those regulations were there for big reasons, one of those is they are naturally prone to be wet lands and therefore flood alot. Meaning tax payers will end up footing the bill for developers and farmers'. Honestly, insurance companies should push back here and say, "we are not going to do policies or underwriting for these areas due to the risk."
Another prime example we should elect individuals whom are informed and actually read.
4
Here in lovely Saratoga Springs, NY springs, woodlands and water features are everywhere. The Saratoga Spa State Park in SS features a geyser (technically a "spouter"), the only one East of the Mississippi. There are dozens of springs within the city limits -- they are what has made this city famous and historically it's why Old Saratoga was moved here, so far from it's original location along the Hudson R. In SS and the surrounding towns there are dozens of lakes, marshes, streams, creeks and waterways abound. Lake George is not too far to the North.
Trump's short-sighted, self-serving, endlessly-greedy policies are a major threat to this entire area! It's already under siege with tress being cut down all the time for the building of new developments. All around the area, massive apple orchards and dairy farms are being chopped up and sold to developers. Trump's destruction of water protections going back to the 70's (under Richard Nixon) are the final straw in the ultimate decline of a beautiful water-rich area like Saratoga Springs.
Only the numerous golf courses in this area might benefit.
The only irony here is that this is Elise Stefanik (R) country. It's her Trump-supporting constituents whose property values and quality of life will plummet.
11
Thank God Trump got rid of these regulations.
This is far more about an owner’s right to use their land than protecting water supplies. When Obama imposed the rules Trump has rolled back, thousands of acres of private land were affected. Many of these newly-decreed ‘wetlands’ never were wet except under rare and extreme conditions. Homeowners who wanted to put an addition on their houses learned they couldn’t because the addition would be too close to ‘designated wetlands’ - even though the area was dry 363 days/year.
Other owners found they were in need of flood insurance, costing them thousands of dollars.
Those who live in cities cannot be expected to understand but the Obama rules went far beyond usefulness.
2
@Matt Williams You may be right that some of the rules about waterways and wetlands are overkill. I'm not a scientist, and I have insufficient information. I do realize, however, that the nature of legislation unfortunately tends towards a one-size-fits-all mold. But the overall aim is good and necessary. A wholesale trashing of these regulations will lead to no good at all. Anyone who thinks that individuals will take care to protect those downstream is living in la-la land. Ecosystems are complicated and extremely crucial to our health.
7
@Matt Williams so reducing the rules made before Obama was president fixes that?
1
@Matt Williams - I'm fine with landowners not having to deal with regulations about what they put on their land.
YOU tell us how those landowners will uphold their side of the bargain and keep toxins, excess nutrients and sediment out of our waterways? Maybe they can build a wall.
Freedom ends when exercise of it impinges on others.
Look at any large farm and the square fields are crossed by green squiggles of often-dry creekbeds which is one way the increasingly intense rainfall dumps runoff-laden water into rivers.
Des Moines lost a lawsuit against four counties upstream where farm runoff was spilling into the river Des Moines draws its drinking supply from. Poisoning people, particularly pregnant women, with excess nitrogen compounds is impolite.
Imposing an extra tax burden on the city to do extra work to remove the farmers' property from everyone's river is little more than stealing money from those affected by farm runoff.
The Toledo area shut down their water plants when agricultural runoff in the Maumee watershed filled Lake Erie with toxic algal blooms a couple years ago.
Farm and city runoff into the Mississippi hurts Gulf fishermen and tourist business - even in small towns there.
So tell fishermen in the Gulf that they just wouldn't understand that Obama's rules went far beyond usefulness. Most of those fishers are not big-city folks, but condescend to them anyway, why don't you?
6
While everyone was crying about 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the Trump administration has now gone and literally poisoned a good chunk of the nation. Please everyone focus on environmental problems that matter to public health and wildlife. Humanity emits less carbon dioxide than a single large volcano in a year. Climate change is at most an economic challenge. This is real pollution with real consequences for real life. Water is everything.
5
@Chris McClure
Tell that to Matt but I doubt that he'll understand.
@Chris McClure - Humanity emits far more CO2 than all volcanoes combined.
And warmer climates in the past were marked by increased erosion and increased flooding - simple reason being warmer air evaporates more moisture which then falls.
Global warming, mostly from CO2, is increasing the intensity of storms already, allowing toxins to run off of land - that is a pollution issue. Increased rainfall and rising seas are one reason Houston suffered significant toxic releases from their sea-level petrochemical industry sites.
And look at the other benefit of ending use of carbon fuels - while we reduce the flooding we also reduce the direct air and water pollution caused by extracting, transporting, refining, burning and disposing of fossil fuels and their byproducts.
Oh - the increased flooding from warming will also lead to more breaches of coal ash ponds, which tend to be near rivers.
See?
The CO2 issue IS the pollution issue at the same time.
4
@Chris McClure - and others in this overall thread have addressed the volcanoes with detail, here so you don't have to just take my word in my previous message:
"Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do."
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
I could almost understand an argument that someone has the right to do whatever they want with waters that are contained on their own, private land. Leaving out any discussion of wildlife habitats and such, if a private owner wants a golf course or parking lot instead of a marsh, then from the standpoint of property rights, at least it's logically consistent to say that the owner has that right to their own use of their own land.
BUT! If I accept that argument, then it follows that I also have rights to any waters on property that I own, either directly, or publicly as a citizen. I have the right to not have someone else dump THEIR chemicals, mine tailings, and other pollutants in MY water.
Stripped of all other details, that seems to be the core of the rights argument, and highlights the hypocrisy of those who argue against environmental protections.
Once again, as with so many other issues, our oligarchic society is moving toward "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses."
8
People act like just because they aren't regulated that they will all instantly be polluted. It really isn't going to change much. Many of those protected will still remain just as they are now. Others will continue to be regulated by the state. But it will substantially decrease costly oversight and overregulation.
Corporations have proven to this very date that they will not comply with environmental laws and sustainable practices unless it serves them economically. They will absolutely pollute if they can. Also you have no idea about the costs relating to environmental oversight and regulation. It’s really not much at all. This rule should be repealed and even stronger requirements should be put in place next year.
10
Having closely experienced the "Burning River" (and Lake Erie) improve over five decades of meaningful environmental stewardship, I can attest to the shortcomings of such a backward policy change.
Stewardship of the land is a moral and ethical responsibility not to be supplanted by greed. Sadly, our concrete jungle president, and the current do nothing Senate, continue to abdicate their responsibilities.
Poor choices do have consequences, vote them out!
27
Can you imagine the future value of the statement "I was a scientist for the Trump administration". Perhaps these individuals should consider changing their occupation now.
5
Of all the reckless things Trump has done, this perhaps says the most about his character.
Poisoning his own people, animals, vegetation should be heeded. How much lower can he go?
Wisconsin has been fighting already about lands destroyed and tainted because of poor farm management. Our kids, grandkids are in danger. Manure seeps into water and has destroyed responsibility and safety.
But all this is right up Donald Trump’s alley isn’t it? He’d probably laugh watching “Dark Waters” or visiting Flint, Michigan. He’d make remarks that he would think people should laugh at.
But, would he have his grandkids drink the water?
12
@MIMA
Sadly, he probably would have them drink it. I doubt that he cares any more about them than he does about the country. The real tragedy is that the Republicans in Congress continue to support even this destruction.
3
I don't understand how legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, can be simply dismantled by a stroke of a pen. Is there nothing that withstands the whims or will of a president?
9
so the american farm bureau association likes these changes along with the fossil fuel folks and real estate developers--how many of these groups are the rest of us already baling out, not to mention for the carcinogen effects their selfishness and greed produce. time for some reckoning i think
3
Water is our most valuable commodity. Yes, remove Federal handling but increase state's power. Those in D.C. KNOW DIDDLE SQUAT about water pollution as they drink their designer bottled water. It is each individual state that is well aware of the quality of their drinking waters and how to legislate for the benefit of all. If state agencies are not in tuned with the people's wishes they will be voted out and replaced with more knowledgeable individuals. A proper , intelligent weights and balance.
1
@Elissa Jung Hhmmm. Your confidence in state governments' all-wise expertise in protecting water quality seems a little overstated to me. Not to say that the federal government necessarily does better, but its aim may be a little more detached from regional special interests that benefit from ignoring water quality. Protecting the environment is difficult. In general it needs all the help it can get.
1
Why would anybody want clean water or fresh air? Watersheds such as the Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi River, Colorado River, Puget Sound, etc., will one day be as sparkling clean as the Ganges with these continued rollbacks. But the current administration cares about nothing but the almighty dollar, no matter how many people get sick in the process.
7
Among those advocating for this disaster, golf course developers.
4
The fact that Trump is using his big scandals again to cover up his efforts to destroy the country and environment is abhorrent. Which attorney generals and environmental groups are expecting to sue? I want to donate to their efforts.
3
As usual, no victory for the people.
3
From day one, this Administration has shown contempt for the welfare of anyone but themselves. No doubt they have a strategic stockpile of sparkling water, while we, the 99%, will soon be drinking chemical-laced swill. For shame!
3
The west where water is scarce and keeping it free of harmful chemicals is a public health imperative is now more vulnerable. People will have to filter more; that is if filters will remove pollutants like fertilizer run-off. As for the net effect on the planet we already have huge dead areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are the result of oil spills and ag runoff. This has badly damaged the shrimp fisheries of the Gulf. This isn't just stupid it's criminal and needs to be stopped at all costs.
5
Vote Trump out this fall and then reverse every one of his life-destroying "reversals" of sound protective policies. This and the cascade of other reversals is shameful - muderous, really.
6
As this man continues to destroy our planet, most will be transfixed to CNN and Fox News, following one news story and obsessing over an over entitled Megan and Harry.
1
So much winning - for golf club developers!
Those of us having to drink polluted water - oh well.
3
So much for the future of your children and grandchildren. This is a death sentence for wildlife, and eventually American Citizens. Welcome to more cancer, less food, and more death. When we destroy the ecosystem, we destroy ourselves.
6
Trump's grandchildren will definitely be changing their last names some day. The name "Trump" will be an albatross after he's gone and the results of his insanity are fully realized.
6
Why is Trump trying to kill us? Is he just testing to see how far he can go? Prove how powerful he is? Will he actually be able to eventually shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it?
4
Removing environmental protections from streams, wetlands and other waterways is not only vindictive, it is also foolish, short-term thinking. It's these kinds of actions that make impeachment seem like one of the few options to removing this destructive and useless president.
9
@Birdygirl Agree. It's all to win back farmers who may have been disllusioned by his thoughtless tariff policies that have cost soybean producers hundreds of millions in lost markets in the Far East.
4
So farmers will be watering their crops with toxins and pollutants. Yeah, make America great again! Go Trump!
4
We should have a general strike by far.
4
NYT writers: this is well done on a topic of generational importance, especially as we are heading to a time of perilous drinking water shortages. It also shows the break not just between today's GOP and Dems, it also shows the break between past and present Republicans--- many of the affected policies and regulations were signed by the last GOP environmentalist, Nixon. My correction to the story: it's misleading to call big ag companies "farmers," which nostalgically calls to mind a valuable but shrinking share of our populace. Please differentiate in all reporting. The people who grow the produce I receive in a monthly CSA box are proud environmentalists AND farmers. By contrast, big ag's hands are linked with those of fossil fuel in this land and water destruction; they are the supporters, authors, and bribery payers behind this sad news.
2
Let them eat cake! (Or as trump would say, "Let them drink poisoned water while I drink Evian". And still the ignorant will vote for him.
2
Several people have mentioned how few comments there are here. Like deer in the headlights, we see that we've been marked for death, and we are frozen. Well, one of these days there will be a reckoning, and my money is on the deer. We'll leap, and come back really, really angry.
3
Trump dismantles these clean water regulations only because Obama extended the Act. Originating in 1948 and completely rewritten in 1972, the Clean Water Act needs to be strengthened. Obama helped strengthen the act. Clean water is essential, period.
4
I do not know if our institutions like the Supreme Court are strong enough to survive four more years of the Trump/GOP onslaught, but I’m more and more convinced that our environment won’t.
141
@Susan Oh the environment will be just fine (in time). The Human species? Not so much. ...Life finds a way; not everyone makes it to the finish line.
9
@illutian
I seriously think it would be helpful if we could speak of "save the people", or "save your children" ... instead of "save the planet".
The planet has another +5 Billion years to go, whether it's Snowball Earth, or Nuclear Earth, or No Atmosphere Earth.
There's likely a good chance life will find a way, as you said. And if not, does it really matter in the long run?
3
Many states and municipalities have much stricter wetlands regulations. Those should serve as a guide to restoring the federal rules, through a much-needed change "at the top," and though the courts.
Let the litigation begin!
125
@robKusner Yes, and that is why it is so important to donate money to groups such as: the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Union of Concerned Scientists. I do, generously!
15
Hopefully, this can be held up in the courts until Trump is voted out of office. If this doesn't motivate the young people to come out and vote I don't know what will.
The article refers to making his base happy. Many rural areas get their water supply from individual wells. These wells get their water from wetlands and streams. Why would anyone be happy to let their water be polluted by these giant multi-national agribusiness and petrochemical companies?
200
@Bernie i think his 'base' is huge farming corporations and real estate developers ie: the people that give him lost of dough
17
@Bernie Trump preys on the short-sighted.
14
@Bernie
If his so-called base is happy, may they be the first to have their well water contaminated by toxic run-off. Of course, they can always buy bottled water in plastic bottles so they can destroy 2 environments at the same time.
I felt sorry for Wisconsin dairy farmers who have been forced to sell their herds but if they are among those applauding this, not anymore.
12
Are the farmers ready for the destruction of their own fragile ecosystem? I grew up in a small town where most off the sewers ran off into the local brook. Now those brooks are clean. No thank you Mr. Trump.
178
@rixax, You are, of course, correct, but Trump is playing to large corporate farms whose owners live far, far away.
12
The same Oligarchy of the wealthy, the corporations, and the Military Industrial complex that has destroyed our democracy is also destroying our environment. We need serious change i n Washington, D.C.
228
I don’t understand how the gop keep their heads buried in the (extraordinarily polluted) sand with regard to environmental issues.
Don’t they have children?
No healthcare & cancer for all!
Aren’t we better than this?
4
Who can fathom this man's impulse to destroy? Is it really just a reaction against Obama or anyone else's considered, measured, careful achievements? Is it that pathetic? It is. Yesterday, someone said, well, he won't be president forever...only four more years (that is what this person believes). First, even though Russians have succeeded in dividing America, I seriously doubt Putin's boy will be re-elected. Next, it only takes a second to destroy, eviscerate, demolish, strangle, kill. Four more years of Trump's infantile smashing, we could all be living on a moonscape. That is, if we live at all.
2
Trump is busy, busy this week.
Thursday: Do away with anti-pollution laws that allow any and all chemicals to be dumped into water, soil, and air.
And, then, Friday: Go march in an anti-abortion march where the farmer's and the farmer's wives will all cheer him mightily for ridding this country of laws-of-choice; meanwhile, never mentioning to those farmer-folk that no abortions will be needed in their neck of the woods because the pollution will be killing off every fetus, wanted or not.
Everyone will cheer him wildly.
And then go home and wonder why they can't get pregnant.
Reap what you sow.
5
Ok NYC, get ready for even more pollution in the Hudson. And if they ever clear the way for Fracking in NY State - boy, I'd not want to get my water from your area. :-(
2
Yep, Trump wants to make America great again. Just like the good old days of polluted drinking water and ozone depletion and deforestation and the overhunting of animals.
Yep, the good old days. Can’t wait!
2
Farmers, I doubt you want to destroy the land you depend on. Please make your voices heard! Don’t Let a few bad apples among your colleagues ruin you reputation or your livelihood - or our drinking water.
5
Another crime against our Mother Earth, and the people who need to live here.
2
A filthy $1.00 earned today equals $100.00 spent tomorrow to clean up the toxic mess.
63
This is a pathetic attempt to further destroy our environment. Why does the GOP think that money is more important than US citizen health?
3
One great virtue of Donald Trump is that he's ripped the mask off American capitalism to show us the sneering, sociopathic gangsters underneath. The seven deadly sins are all virtues in the corporate-ruled USA! All power to the profiteers!
2
A vote for Trump is a vote for dirty air and poisonous water, not just dirty politics and poisonous rhetoric.
4
Not surprising, given this track record:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
1
Many, many farmers do not support Trump in his efforts to reduce environmental protections.
It might be much more accurate to say that corporate farmers, those with headquarters in cities, those with expensive lobbyists, and those with big organizations, support Trump’s action while farmers who actually live on the land they farm, do not support the President’s actions.
If you change that simple assumption, your whole story changes. Instead of ‘farmers support Trump,’ you end up with ‘big business supports Trump.’
All in all, this story is just another tiny brick in another wall that the media is helping build that divides people and it’s bad, cheap, sloppy journalism. Shame on the Times.
1
@Greg
"Real" journalism isn't what's dividing the country.
"It might be much more accurate to say that corporate farmers, those with headquarters in cities, those with expensive lobbyists, and those with big organizations, support Trump’s action while farmers who actually live on the land they farm, do not support the President’s actions."
It's one thing to say it; another to prove it.
Horrifying, unnecessary, disgraceful.
2
Stop this man and his cohorts and tie them up and sit on them if necessary, they have caused more than enough damage, end this illegitimate admin without further delay, they continue their looting and destruction derby every day.
2
I am scared to death this creep may end up in office because it seems people are stupid and vote for the incumbent
2
Is he really this evil? Or his advisors know he is stupid and make him do these things?
Good luck finding waterfowl hunting and eco tourism opportunities in those states willing to trash their wetland habitats, minus federal wetland protection.
This shortsighted political blunder once again continues to place environmental protections or lack thereof under state and local control. A good topic for future NYT articles.
4
This issue should be the first sentence of every Democrat running for office in 2020. Then you can go on about Ukraine, tax cuts for the rich, public funding of religious schools, but destruction of the environment animates even 2nd amendment types--hunters tend to be conservationists and they tromp around in the woods and see what despoiling the environment does to our fields and streams.
1
Is this trickle-down economics in action?
Greedy polluters trickling down their toxic waste on the rest of us so they can hoard more short term profits.
2
Here he goes again! Trump is buying votes from key interest groups for the 2020 election.
He'll grovel to the religious right on abortion by partaking in an anti-abortion march. He's already given them hefty tax concessions back in 2017.
Then, of course, he's strong-arming our allies to get re-elected.
There's nothing, absolutely nothing, this empty-suit of a man will not do to get re-elected. That makes him very dangerous.
2
Do you think that Trump has EVER hiked all day in the mountains, rafted through whitewater or cared about anything other than country clubs or places you (he) wears a suit and tie? The man is obscene because of his actions, his words and to what he is committed.
5
Greed will be the death of America and this is an act of pure greed. Humanity can not live without clean and safe water. The cost in human life and the cost for the related medical problems that this very bad rule change will bring about will be in the Billions Who gets to pay for this bad decision ? We do, with a lower quality of life and increased health care cost. When does Trumps foolishness end before or after we no longer have a nation worth living in.
3
Im an environmental lawyer and law professor. this article assumes that the streams should be protected under the CWA. Congress did not intend federal government to assert jurisdiction over intermittent, intra-state streams. While the science may support regulation, the Constitutionally-correct approach would be to go back to Congress and request jurisdiction over these temporary water-bodies.... #WOTUS #waterpollution
I know that most of you who read this comment will pass it off as coming from someone who has no regard for the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a dairy farmer and like all the farmers in America that feed you we consider the land to be sacred to our and your existence. The latest round of rules put in place by the Obama administration were not only onerous but not backed by science. Space will only allow for a few examples. Examples that I posed to a representative from the EPA at a hearing in our area while the rules were being proposed. A lot of farm's water supplies come from springs. The spring has a collection tank which over flows into a run terminating into a ditch or a small creek. Question? Do the new rules regulate that run off? Ans. We don't know, it might , we will get back to you. Question? In a hay field there is a swale that only has water running through during the spring run off. Is that now regulated under the new rules? Ans. I'm not sure, it might ...we will get back to you. This is why farmers and ranchers get concerned when the EPA backed by uninformed environmental organizations propose rules that are not only onerous but make absolutely no sense. Agriculture is the foundation industry upon which all other industries are built. Work with us we are not the enemy in spite of what Blan Holman is telling you.
1
This is one fisherman/waterfowl hunter that won't be voting to Trump. We in the US are no so hard-up economically that we cannot afford to take care of our own environment. The US has already lost most of its wetlands (up to 91% in some states). Destroying the last of our waterfowl and fisheries for a few more bags of rice or wheat--that we intend to export anyway--is unacceptable.
7
It shouldn’t matter which side of the fence you are on - this will be a disaster. This is going to effect surface waters and groundwaters, which are the sources of our drinking water. I know, I know...farmers gotta farm. But during my career as a groundwater scientist, I saw significant pollution problems that resulted from careless agriculture. And for anyone who thinks, well, we just clean it up!...if only it were that simple. A few months or years of careless waste and water management results in decades of remediation. This is a sad day for those who depend on clean water...which, of course, is all of us.
11
As a resident of the Eastern Shore of VA and the Chesapeake Bay watershed, my quality of life will be seriously impacted by deregulation of this nature. How can one man influence the lives of so many without any real scientific knowledge of his actions beyond how it will impact the "one percent's" wallets.
12
Are you reporting that there will no court challenge, and that these rules will go into effect immediately? I hope not. In fact, reporting of these rollbacks of environmental regulations since Trump took office hasn't kept readers up to date on court challenges, and successes and failures in blocking their implementation.
5
I gave up eating meat significantly after seeing and smelling the horrible photos of factory farm waste that rose and polluted the areas near the I40 after Hurricane Florence. I already drink bottled water I have to pay for since the Chemours/ GenX chemical dumping into the Cape Fear River in 2017. All this for a tiny port city in NC, I shudder to think what is going to happen across the country as a result of this mistake, not to mention what happens when income-generating folks and property owners decide to move away from polluted areas. Not to mention the nightmare in Flint which still exists, when home owners are stuck and can’t sell their homes because of the exorbitant cost of replacing tainted plumbing. All in the name of short-term greed and gaining votes. This is a disaster in the making.
9
How does the Trump Administration even have the authority to roll back regulations put in place by Congress via the Clean Water Act? Surely they could be sued by Congress for this.
8
@Steph regulations are developed and adopted by Executive Branch agencies after public comment periods. Congress puts laws in place, not the implementing regs.
Having grown up in the Midwest, I now try to avoid returning to visit relatives who fail to see the changes in the landscape they live in. Smaller fields with diverse crops interspersed with hedgerows and woodlots have given way to mile after mile of genetically-engineered corn and soybean monoculture and monotony. And those crops have a sickly look, even in mid-summer, as green foliage now has a brownish look from extensive pesticide and defoliant use. Running through this are remnant streams, invariably brown from soil erosion and scientifically-proven to be carrying toxic loads of nitrates and other pollutants. That is, when the land isn't flooded because of poor planning and land-use practices not resilient to a changing climate. But all this is not enough for industrial agriculture and the so-called farmers who practice it, as they seek to plow over what little natural habitat remains. And they wonder why so many of their educated young no longer want to live there.
43
This incredibly short-sighted rule will negatively impact everyone, even those large industries and farmers that currently support it. Their short-term economic gains will quickly be overshadowed by the long-term impacts of their actions. As we continue to unravel the innumerable, interconnected threads that comprise our planet, we will see ecosystem collapse, climate catastrophe, burgeoning healthcare costs, and irreversible economic impacts. Ironically, farmers will be some of the hardest hit as we approach these irreversible tipping points. Indeed, it is precisely decisions such as this that will secure our undoing.
32
Have you had enough America?
40
@Gene Cass Seriously unbelievable. I suppose we (Canadians) who share the Great Lakes with our southern neighbors will reap the rewards of this stupidity.
5
@Gene Cass Long ago. Let's end this horror show #VoteBlueIn2020
4
@Gene Cass The Cult says NO, Clean water is Socialism
2
Florida is already facing a crisis with our water, fish, and wildlife! Fish with oozing with sores and water that’s not fit to swim in! Our wetlands are what’s going to protect this world and now Trumps stupid admin is going to kill us all with everything else!!!! Our land and water need these protections!!!!!
16
@Jennifer Im. from Miami & the marine patrol is working so hard to protect the Lagerheads, overfishing, coral protection to keep my Florida pristine. There are underwater sanctuaries needing protection. And the Glades! Human pollution is at its highest! Teddy Roosevelt started these protections.
This is to line the pockets of Real Estate developers & Fossil fuels
2
Removing these wetland and small waters protections is a disaster for waterfowl hunters, but when you go to the Ducks Unlimited website, it's crickets, it's like they don't even know about this. First farmers took out the hedgerows and destroyed much of the native quail population, the conservation group Quail Unlimited closed shop in 2013. Hunters were responsible for bringing back wild turkeys and white tail deer, but they are doing a terrible job with waterfowl and upland birds. Conserve habitat!
14
@Agilemind
Not enough has been said about the contribution hunters make towards the conservation of our land and water. Each fee and license a hunter pays goes towards hiring law enforcement intent on managing our natural resources and towards the purchase of new properties for public's use. These efforts have been in place since the 1920s in the United States.
I ask my fellow hunters to consider their love of the untamed outdoors the next time they vote. Which politician is conserving land and water for public use and which politician is giving it away to private use?
Our votes for conservation must be heard in 2020. Protect our land and water for our use and that of our children and grandchildren.
19
@Robert G. McKee In the future when my love-to-hunt relatives see the degradation of habitat, you can bet that (following Fox News and the NRA, which do all their thinking for them), they will find a way to blame Obama for it.
3
What could be more important than protecting the water we drink? Well, if you are Donald Trump, partisan political moves that satisfy your base of farmers, while enriching the wealthy oil lobby, and note that a primary beneficiary will be golf course owners – do we know any presidents who own golf courses? – is all far more important than protecting the water we drink.
If you have any doubts whether the impeachment of Donald Trump is justified, just consider the moral corruption of a man who would pollute the water we drink just to benefit his golf courses.
27
The restrictions imposed by President Obama, served to protect the water, wildlife and environment . Trump’s removal of these protections, just reinforces his ignorance. He is one of the few world leaders who is a climate change denier. It’s unlikely the Senate will impeach him, but we the people must insure he isn’t re-elected, so we can save our country and the planet.
24
As a sometimes waterfowler and fly-fisherman...I have to wonder how this will impact the places that I spend outdoors. It certainly doesn't sound as though it will be a positive impact.
8
For those farmers and business interests who applaud their newly granted ability to pollute water on their property, The next administration should add two amendments:
1. That the polluted water shall remain on their property with barriers that prevent it from running off the property.
2. Prevent them from being able to sell the property until they mitigate the environmental pollution.
22
Considering this move puts the drinking water for millions (if not all) Americans at risk - why is mainstream media ignoring it?
Are we this far removed from rivers catching on fire, Lake Erie pronounced dead, silent spring and Love Canal? (If you don't know what any of those things are, consider the adage that History repeats itself and look them up).
After historic and devastating flooding last year that took/ruined lives, prevented farmers from planting and turning a profit, and the continued drought that faces much of the west, how does this move make any sense? Why is protecting wetlands not our number one priority?
Does anyone besides agribusiness support this decision at all? Trumps hand picked scientists say this is a bad move.
Can't wait until someone opens up a landfill next to one of Trumps resorts. Sorry the air on your golf course stinks Donald, but it's my property so I get to do what I want with it.
14
If there is any justice, the farmers and "developers" who think this is a great idea will be the first to suffer its consequences. For most of us, it is another nail in the coffin of the environment, the degradation of which the Trumpublicans are accelerating. They must despise their grandchildren.
14
The Obama Administration goofed with this ruling. It sought to block property owners' rights based on an insufficient case.
Several state Attorneys General sought an injunction.
3
@AACNY
Then why not address the errors in that ruling and thus improve it rather than just eliminate it altogether?
6
@Marian Why? because it gave too much discretion to Federal agency executives
1
While we continue to be distracted by a circus trial with a foregone conclusion, the Trump Administration quietly continues to rip up and burn any rules that prevent large corporations from using nature as its dumping ground. We will kill millions, perhaps billions of animals, plants, and lose entire habitats in the process, without truly understanding the long-term consequences of these losses on our own societies and lives. And, we will poison our own bodies, perhaps irreparably, while knowing full well that most cancers are influenced by environmental factors. But, not to worry. We can just play another round of golf at one of Trump's courses while the world unravels.
11
@Cenzot
Not on one of his courses!
Another example of Trump's overreach. As the article points out this is not just a rollback of Obama's clean water policies, but also some from way back in the 1970's. Sadly he'll get away with it because he's an expert politician who will lie, cheat, and steal to get what his largest campaign donors want. Wake Up Democrats. Pick not the Presidential candidate who most perfectly fits the agenda, but pick the best, most ruthless politician. This is blood-sport & the stakes are extremely high.
7
This regime is rolling back to at least the 1970's. I remember when we were literally drowning in polluted waters and horrid air quality. The rich will always be okay, they have hoarded enough personal wealth in the last 30 years to buy themselves clean water and air. However, the rest of the 99.9% of us don't have that luxury and need our government to protect us. Flint, MI still has dirty water despite a national outcry. If this man gets another term I shudder to think to imagine the lasting damage to the environment this he could do.
16
For the sake of the planet, this monster must be removed. We stopped mentioning his name some time ago, turn the channel or mute the volume when he is covered on tv, which helps anxiety a small degree. 362 days left.
17
I am no supporter of Donald Trump and am virulently pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ. However, if need be, I can live with most of what he is doing EXCEPT for this and other environmental rollbacks. This is not because I am some kind of tree-hugger. This is because of the deep way his rollbacks will affect our nation - more unsafe drinking water, more flooding (due to loss of wetlands), more pollution everywhere. We started going down this road before the EPA and it wasn't pretty, so Nixon started the EPA. Nixon!
6
Big thanks to bernie and his his followers for this nice accomplishment. Since they are mostly white and young they thought it would be business as usual no matter who wins. Hope they remember when they or their children get diseases related to contaminated drinking water.
4
Add one more item to the 'We'll fix it after we vote him out' list....
5
I looked at the American Farm Bureau Federations website and their claim that they are the voice of agriculture. It says nothing about organic farmers and their opinions and I believe the bureau is in bed with the pesticide chemical industry. You can’t just trust farmers to take care of their land without polluting the waters just because they are farmers as their website states. Have we forgotten about the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, water that is dead from pesticides and fertilizers that wash down there to the Mississippi River? Clean. Water is our right for every living thing. This Trump removal of water rules is pathetic, irresponsible, juvenile and dangerous.
11
@Juliana James American soil is increasingly foreign owned... Nearly 30 million acres of farmland are held by foreign investors. Story is on NPR if you want to look it up...
2
Once again, to the many people who said there was no significant difference between Trump and Hillary...
17
Can either the NYTimes or someone else explain how it is possible for one person to overturn 50 years of environmental protection. This is law correct? Don't laws have to be overturned in the legislative branch?
14
@Raydeohed
Agreed, this is outrageous. So many good comments in this column but I am amazed that there are not millions of comments against this -- people need to be educated to understand the connection between what these deregulations mean and how it will affect them. History repeats itself, so there is no guesswork.
6
'Mr. Trump has called the regulation “horrible,” “destructive” and “one of the worst examples of federal” overreach.'
Funny he used those words. Take away the word "regulation" and insert "Donald Trump". That's what we've been saying about him since the start.
5
@Peggy Rogers Trump is the projectionist extraordinaire. Consider how he labeled his opponents "brazen" and "unlawful," two words that should have his picture next to them in the dictionary.
2
It is sad that there are so few comments on this piece, is that a reflection of who is paying attention and how many care? I am also appalled at the apparent lack of understanding about watersheds. Without understanding how water moves it is easy to put your head in the sand and think it will not effect you.
14
Maybe, at some point, when the American people start getting sick and start dying of acute and chronic exposure to the pollutants in their air and water, maybe, just maybe, they will push back against this administration. Doubtful, though, since science is now regarded suspiciously in this country.
11
Interestingly enough, Nixon always gets credit for the Clean Water Act of 1972...because he was Prez.
Reality? He waited for Congress to leave town...they, thinking the Bill becomes law after 10 days.
40 minutes before it became law automatically, King Richard the Nixon VETOED Clean Water as too expensive at $24 million. But Congress failed to leave town, and a few hours after the Veto, the Senate overode; the House overode too by a 10 to 1 margin.
Clean Water came IN SPITE of our King.
Guess what the King did?
The overide in both Houses was now law.....so he impounded half the funds.
Clean Water was not his cup of tea.
It took 2 years to impeach Nixon, despite his opinion that "I am not a crook!"
Congress not only declared our King a crook and ousted him, as Constitutionally mandated for "crooks"...they went further up to the Supreme Court. In 1975, the Supremes sided with Congress, because the Constitution required ONLY Congress has the power of the purse.
And now the wheels of time go by, but we have a new "king". While Kinging away, he finds himself being impeached and sorely in need of removal.
Impounding funds that Congress has appropriated is a lawlessness by the Executive Branch over the Legislative Branch power of the purse.
I suspect building a wall with funds appropriated to our military would also be a no-no, provided our Congress had the character of Congress in the 1970's
12
Only 26 comments in an hour. There should be 260,000. This deregulation of water laws is the most egregious act by Trump so far. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea and covers it with the justification that it is their “right” to pollute the surrounding waters is despicably greedy.
12
@Kokopelli
Then stand up in Idaho and lobby, cajole, inform, and yell at the top of your lungs — did you folks vote republican last tim e around? Will you this time???
1
I do see why this is considered a victory for fossil fuel producers and developers. But farmers? Really?
3
@Steve Beck
It's quite disingenuous
This is not a victory for small scale, family farmers like the sort I know in my native Kansas.
This is an enormous victory for huge corporate mega farms (which are already eating up family farms) and large scale meat production like food lots. Agricultural runoff is a major culprit in water pollution - expect to see massive eutrophication.
They say you cant take it with you when you die, but Trump seems hell bent on doing just that. He's such a malignant narcissist that he can't imagine the world surviving him because no one else truly exists in his mind.
Whether by war, famine, or outright destruction, he seems intent on taking the world with him into death.
2
@Steve Beck Pesticides.
@Steve Beck American soil is increasingly foreign owned... Nearly 30 million acres of farmland are held by foreign investors. Story is on NPR if you want to look it up...
This article is very poorly written. With regards to jurisdictional wetlands on farmer’s property, as long as the land use isn’t being changed (i.e. still used for farm land) the clean water act doesn’t require mitigation or permitting to fill in the wetlands. So the comment from Republican strategist from Nebraska that frames the issue as a big win for farmers is misleading. Trump’s changes would not do anything for farmers except further intensify the extreme weather events that ravaged our state last year with flooding and erosion that deposits detrimental chemicals downstream at an increased rate. It’s a step in the wrong direction for climate conscious farming, instead of cultivating a productive and healthy ecosystem for ag growth, destroying wetlands puts the extra work on working class farmers who are trying to keep their yields up as flood control is being diminished and there is decreased funding for preventative, conserving practices incentive.
16
@Erika Well stated response for the Corn Husker State! I manage our meager (relative to Nebraska!) 256 acres (210 acres corn/wheat/soy) at the headwaters of a historic Chesapeake Bay river on DelMarVa. I take issue with the headline of this article implying that all farmers are happy with Trump'sEPA ignoring upland wetland standards. Not this generation of 5.....or is it 8 (we've only farmed here since 1832....another place frio 1680....). Plenty of farm owners on DelMarVa are also sailors, crabbers, fisherman, etc. We love out Bay and many have worked hard to restore it. Not the least of these have been farmers. Recent work of expanding a 500 kVolt utility line here was done under "Section 404" (Clean Water Act) mitigation standards. Engineers and construction workers were employed to ensure the protection of our land and the Chesapeake Bay. Without the "upland wetland" classification of our woods....our Bay would be muddier than it already is. The mitigation work did not affect our corn/wheat/soy protection one iota.
2
No wonder many voters, who say they don't like Trump, can claim with a straight face that they "like his policies" or they "like what he's been doing for our country."
If only we could stick a microphone (and a 2020 ballot) in front of our environment.
9
@Peggy Rogers Our environment is definitely starting to "talk." Problem is, we aren't listening.
8
My only question: Are the voters paying attention? I hope so! We'll find out next November.
16
It is customary to hold public comment sessions around the country when something like this is proposed so that all sides may be heard. This time, there was a total of one. One opportunity for public input, and it was held in Kansas City, Kansas. I was there, and the overwhelming sentiment was against rolling back the EPA rules. The rule to hold sessions for public input was technically followed. The results were dismissed, as is usual these days.
52
It took me a while to figure this out, but I think I might be on to the grand republican agenda. They want to make it so bad that everyone but them either leaves or dies as a consequence of their policies and actions. These folks want one tribe, under one preacher, following one dogma - until then, they will burn everything down. Moves to destroy the environment and the economy are only two things they are good at, wonder what is coming next. I suspect outlawing of education and healthcare for most Americans will happen in the second term.
53
The two "next" things mentioned in your last sentences have unfortunately been already going on for years...the war on education is one of the most frightening things I've ever watched.
23
@Kalidan
Seems like there's an additional (short-term) dynamic at work:
"Will it help my personal bank account?"
4
Rather than forcing landowners to be more responsible, this just gives them a free pass to do as they please. And when the land and the groundwater becomes polluted, who is going to suffer the consequences?
43
They will be the first in line demanding tax payers foot the bill for the havoc they cause to their own land.
5
@Chris
!!!!
1
You see more and more conservatives/those on the right claiming to care about the environment. After decades of ignoring it or treating it and those that do care about with downright antipathy, some of them are sort of starting to come around. Welcome to the party, one might think, until you see stuff like this and are reminded of the unwavering support of this president.
Care about the environment? No you don't, not if you still support this administration. You just like to say you do.
56
Putting the words conservative (what is conserved anyway?) and the environment in the same sentence creates an oxymoron. Cute ain’t it?
3
I wonder how much of this violates American treaty obligations on international waterways and tributaries that feed in to international waterways, and whether there has been any consultation with neighbors to the North and South.
39
Maybe the fix to the errors now allowed would be to have the children and grandchildren of those who will benefit bear the related incumbrances in the future and that should include but not be limited to health issues, poorer quality soils, animal and plant loses which would be directly related to this mistake and a lot more. At that point those who will benefit financially from this mistake will be turning over in their graves when they hear their family members screaming at them for the mistakes they are making today.
19
@David Gage Good idea, but this is not a "mistake." It's a policy of sacrificing the health of the planet and the majority of the people for the profits of a few. And, no, those few are unlikely to pay, because they are insulated by their money or distance from the problem.
1
That's the Republican way: the right to destroy your own property while you own it ... or forever as the case may be - to hell with the consequences to others by doing so.
67
@Slavin Rose, I wouldn't necessarily oppose those who destroy their own property, but water flows, from property to property, and from state to state. To destroy someone else's water should be actionable.
5
Problem is and why there must be federal laws is because water moves both above and below ground. You think some farmer is just polluting his own land? No that stream flows to a river that flows to a lake or ocean. And all along the way people rely on that water for life.
5
What Wheeler is doing at EPA can only be described as evil.
99
@jiminy
Yes, and once he gets kicked out of office, he'll get some high-paying lobbying job in D.C. Disgusting.
4
Some of the former wetlands restrictions were overly onerous and arbitrary. They enraged property owners including farmers for stopping activities that had been normal for decades. Of course, polluting groundwater and runoff into larger rivers was also "normal" for a long time.
Bureaucracies attempting to impose new restrictions need to do a much better job of educating those affected by the new regulations. That includes explaining possible impacts before the regulations are imposed. Most folks didn't understand "protecting our environment" to mean they couldn't eliminate areas where seasonal puddles appeared.
10
@Ned I worked 43 years as a Fed.
When the people voted for cut budgets and freeze agency budgets for 6 months every year for decades because there is no budget (not to mention, cause shutdowns), the services are no longer there.
Just because a candidate runs around trumpeting "waste" doesn't mean its true. It usually means wealthy donors and interests want to harm government functions they don't like. Public announcements cost money.
This has been a problem for over 4 decades: where are my government services after I vote to cut government? It's actually quite simple how it works.
26
@Ned
Any time an environmental regulation is rolled back the knee jerk response is to claim it's a disaster for the environment. Few understand that regulations can be onerous and even illegal.
1
@Ned
"Most folks didn't understand protecting our environment to mean they couldn't eliminate areas where seasonal puddles appeared."
Who are you insinuating is stupid?
I’m sick to my stomach and a heart that aches and grieves for the earth and all its people. Maybe the new motto can be Business first! Money first and earth be dammed peace on earth and goodwill toward man appeared in my mind then slinked away in sadness. Lists of Virtues and 7 deadly sins also pops in my mind. God is Love is gone replaced with Trump is God!
43
Impeach and remove, vote out, break up the Union into two smaller "Red" and "Blue" commonwealths, or whatever.
This Administration, which is designed to destroy the country as we know it, and as it was intended, must go.
68
Why not include what the National Farmers Union had to say about Obama's action?
https://nfu.org/2015/05/27/national-farmers-union-statement-on-waters-of-the-u-s-final-rule/
The Farm Bureau does not speak for all farmers.
42
Why is this not the lead story today? While the media rightly ocuses on the impeachment saga, this is more important.
103
@Joe You are so right. This story should be above the fold and two inches tall.
13
@Joe It is mind-boggling to be sure. Long past time to promote watershed & water systems education.
'The things you think are precious, I don't understand'
5
I hope all those southwestern Trump voters who draw their water from the Colorado river are ready to invest in Poland Springs.
52
@Samuel
Nope. They should be banned from buying bottled water! After all, they probably don't bother to recycle.
5
Uncommon sense.
Is there any logical way to reach this decision?
I can’t think of one.
38
The fact that it was Obama era executive orders and not done thru Congress should be noted. States often try efforts to protect on the local level and federal law is often at odds .
4
@Craig -- "...The Clean Water Act is a U.S. federal law that regulates the discharge of pollutants into the nation's surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal areas. Passed in 1972 and amended in 1977 and 1987, the Clean Water Act was originally known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act"
Obama is not, was not, involved in this
76
@Richard Yes: it was that grand statesman whom we miss so much these days, Richard Nixon, who oversaw the original CWA regulations. For all his crimes, Nixon saw that he would be impeached and that he would not survive a Senate vote. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared to Trump's. We reverted Nixon by replacing him. Trump's actions will not be so easy to erase.
9
@Richard
Yes, but Trump doesn’t know that.
3
The U.S. coronavirus awaits
44