[ad_1]
ST. LOUIS, Dec. 30 (AP) President Joe Biden’s administration finalized regulations Friday to protect hundreds of thousands of creeks, wetlands and other waterways, rescinding a rule struck down by federal courts in the Trump era , environmentalists say the rule makes waterways vulnerable to pollution.
The rule defines which “U.S. waters” are protected by the Clean Water Act.
For decades, the term has been a flashpoint between environmental groups wanting to expand restrictions on pollution entering state waters and farmers, builders and industry groups, who say extending regulations too far is a risk for business. heavy.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Department said the revised rule is based on a definition developed before 2015. Federal officials said they wrote an “enduring definition” for the waterway to reduce uncertainty.
In recent years, however, there has been a lot of uncertainty. After the Obama administration sought to expand federal protections, the Trump administration rolled them back as part of its effort to loosen hundreds of environmental and public health regulations. A federal judge rejected the effort.
The Supreme Court is currently considering a separate case that could overturn the finalized rule.
“We’re proposing a clear, enduring rule that balances the protection of our water resources with the needs of all water users, whether it’s farmers, ranchers, industry, watershed organizations,” EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Resources Radhika Fox told The Associated Press society.
The new rule builds on the pre-2015 definition but is more streamlined and includes updates to reflect court opinion, scientific understanding and decades of experience, Fox said. The final rule would modestly increase protections for some streams, wetlands, lakes and ponds, she said.
The Trump-era rules, finalized in 2020, have long been pursued by builders, oil and gas developers, farmers and others who have complained of excessive federal intervention extending to ditches, ditches, sills on farmland and other private property. Creeks and canyons.
Environmental groups and public health advocates counter that Trump’s rules allow businesses to dump pollutants into unprotected waterways and fill some wetlands, threatening public water supplies downstream and harming wildlife and habitat.
“Today, the Biden administration restored essential clean water protections to protect our nation’s waters from pollution from fishing, swimming and drinking water sources,” said Kelly Moser, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Clean Water Defense Initiative Say. in a statement.
Jon Devine, director of federal water policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the repeal of the Trump-era rule a “smart move” “at a time when we’ve seen polluters and their allies put pressure on federal protections for clean water.” measures launched an unprecedented attack” “
But Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito called the rule “over-regulatory” that would “place an unfair burden on America’s farmers, ranchers, miners, infrastructure builders and landowners.”
Jerry Konter, president of the National Association of Home Builders, echoed a similar sentiment, saying the new rules make it unclear whether the federal government will regulate water in places like roadside ditches and isolated ponds.
A 2021 review by the Biden administration found that the Trump rule allowed more than 300 projects to proceed without the federal permits required by the Obama-era rule, and that the Trump rule significantly reduced clean water protection.
In August 2021, a federal judge struck down the Trump-era rule and reimposed the 1986 standard, which was broader than the Trump rule but narrower than the Obama rule.
Rosemary Marquez, an Obama appointee for the U.S. District Court in Arizona, said the Trump-era EPA ignored its own findings that small waterways affect the well-being of the larger waterways into which they flow.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court justices are considering the arguments of an Idaho couple pushing for cuts to the Clean Water Act on the back of their business. Chantell and Michael Sackett wanted to build a house on the lake, but the EPA stopped their work in 2007, finding that the wetlands on their property were federally regulated. The agency said Sacketts needed a license.
The case went to trial in October and tested some of the rules that the Biden administration adopted in its final version. The now-retired Judge Anthony Kennedy wrote in 2006 that Clean Water Act protections apply if wetlands “significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of nearby navigable waters, such as rivers.” The EPA’s rules include this test. In a 2006 case, however, four conservative justices said the federal rule applies only when there is a continuous surface connection between a wetland and an apparently regulated body of water, such as a river.
Charles Yates, an attorney with the libertarian group Pacific Legal Foundation, said the new rule shows the importance of the Supreme Court case because the definition of WOTUS “changes with each new presidential administration.”
“Without clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a legal, workable and durable definition of navigable waters will remain elusive,” Yates said in a statement.
The Biden rule applies federal protections to wetlands, tributaries and other waters that have a significant connection to navigable waters, or where wetlands are “relatively permanent.”
Fox said the rule was not designed to stop development or stop farming.
“It’s about making sure we have growth, we’re growing food and fuel for our country, but doing it in a way that also protects our country’s water resources,” she said. (Associated Press)
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from a Syndicated News feed, the content body may not have been modified or edited by LatestLY staff)
[ad_2]
Source link