EPA Moves to Roll Back Clean Water Protections

COURT HOUSE – EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the agency is moving forward with a rule to rescind the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed, led by New Jersey Audubon and National Wildlife Federation, and its partners are deeply dismayed by this action. Repealing the Clean Water Rule threatens the water resources of the entire nation, including the Delaware River Watershed, which supplies clean and reliable drinking water to over 15 million people.
“We all depend on clean water and wetlands – whether its water for our families, small business owners, or hunters and anglers – and the repeal of the Clean Water Rule threatens the vitality of our communities and economy,” said Maddy Urbish, Director of the Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed at New Jersey Audubon.
The Clean Water Rule was adopted by the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May 2015 to clarify longstanding confusion over which water bodies are protected by the landmark Clean Water Act. The rule more clearly defined what kinds of waters are protected and which ones are exempt. Before finalizing the rule in 2015, the EPA and Army Corps held more than 400 meetings with stakeholders across the country and incorporated over one million comments, 87% of which were supportive of the rule.
Healthy wetlands and headwater streams provide the clean, cool flows and essential habitat for fish and wildlife populations that are essential for a thriving economy. Along with supplying five percent of the U.S. population with drinking water, the Delaware River Watershed supports over $25 billion in direct annual economic activity, including a thriving recreation industry, a strong agricultural sector, and a nationally significant port system. It also provides over $21 billion in ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and water filtration. Lacking clear and understandable protection under the Clean Water Rule puts these vital resources at risk.
“The Clean Water Rule is a commonsense safeguard for streams and communities throughout New Jersey. It protects our drinking water and the wetlands we need to filter pollutants and provide vital habitat for wildlife.” remarked Eric Stiles, President and CEO of New Jersey Audubon. “A repeal of this rule flies in the face of science and will hurt our wildlife and economy.”
Kelly Mooij, Vice President of Government Relations at New Jersey Audubon added, “To ensure all Americans have access to reliable, drinkable, clean water, the EPA and Army Corps must use the best available science on the ecological functions and connectivity of the nation’s waters to develop and implement rules for protecting them through the Clean Water Act.”
Repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule and gutting protections that have prevented the pollution of the nation’s waterways for decades is a huge step backwards, and the Coalition urges the EPA and Army Corps to reverse course and focus on providing strong protections for our water resources.
According to a story on The Heritage Foundation website: 
“A highly controversial rule from the Obama administration may finally be on its way out.
“On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it is going to put an end to the Obama administration’s federal power grab known as the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule.
“Specifically, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are proposing to rescind the rule and, for the interim until a new rule is developed, recodify the regulations prior to the WOTUS rule.
“The Trump administration should be commended for taking this critical action. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, through the Clean Water Act, were seeking to regulate almost every water imaginable.
“Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>
“For example, under the rule, federal agencies could have regulated certain man-made ditches and even dry land that may hold some water only a few days of the year after major rains.
“The rule was so broad and subjective, property owners would have had a very difficult time even knowing what was subject to regulation. For that matter, the level of subjectivity was so great that even government officials enforcing the rule wouldn’t have been able to agree on whether specific waters could be regulated.
“By trying to regulate almost every water, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers would have been forcing property owners to secure far more permits, including for normal activities such as farming.
“The EPA and Army Corps now appear to recognize that protecting the environment doesn’t have to come at the expense of property rights and the rule of law. Critics will inevitably use scare tactics to say that getting rid of the WOTUS rule will harm the environment. The opposite is the case.
“Getting rid of the rule now allows both the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to develop a new rule that is both clear and objective.” 
Presidential Executive Order copied from The White House website: 
Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule 
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – – 
RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW, FEDERALISM, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
BY REVIEWING THE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” RULE 
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: 
Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. 
Sec. 2. Review of the Waters of the United States Rule. (a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Assistant Secretary) shall review the final rule entitled “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,'” 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015), for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. 
(b) The Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the final rule listed in subsection (a) of this section for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result of a rulemaking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. 
(c) With respect to any litigation before the Federal courts related to the final rule listed in subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall promptly notify the Attorney General of the pending review under subsection (b) of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule. 
Sec. 3. Definition of “Navigable Waters” in Future Rulemaking. In connection with the proposed rule described in section 2(a) of this order, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall consider interpreting the term “navigable waters,” as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). 
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: 
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or 
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. 
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 
DONALD J. TRUMP 
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 28, 2017