Posted on 09/16/2019 7:08:05 PM PDT by massmike
“Trump Administration Rolls Back Clean Water Protections,” ran The New York Times headline on the repeal of Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking. Don’t buy the hype: Team Trump’s move wasn’t a blow against clean water but a win for basic justice.
All the pre-Obama protections of the water supply remain in effect. This simply undoes a move that gave EPA jurisdiction over vast amounts of dry land, in clear violation of Congress’ intent.
By adding terms such as “adjacent waters” and “tributaries” to Clean Water Act coverage, the move empowered EPA officials to grab power over seasonal streams, farm irrigation ponds, roadside ditches and even “connective” dry lands that can turn into “shallow wetlands” when it rains.
That’s created massive uncertainty for farmers, ranchers, real-estate developers and pretty much anyone who owns more than an acre of land — because it’s been near-impossible to know if, say, the presence of a pond won’t bring the EPA down on you.
And the feds aren’t shy about imposing multimillion-dollar fines on farmers just for plowing fields that turn out to contain “seasonal wetlands.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The NY Slimes: Pravda without the journalistic integrity.
I believe this has been in court, and a court recently ruled the Obama admin. overstepped their authority, the court basically cancelled the guidelines. That is probably why the Trump admin. rescinded the rules.
Some airhead chick was on Rush a few days ago crying about this and the mean POTUS Trump fouling the waters.
I worked with guy, highly-respected, very smart, but a radical environmentalist. He spoke at a lot of conferences and he was clear. He wanted the government to have control over all groundwater sources in the country. That Obama-era rule was a grab for power that most other would-be succeeding presidents would have let slide. It’s those insidious, mostly behind-the-scenes power grabs that happen that go largely ignored that makes up a lot of the deep state infrastructure.
Thank you President Trump for undoing that monstrosity.
Trump just made it to where rainwater in the furrows of a plowed field isn’t a “waters of the USA”.
The most egregious abuse of this ever was the Sackett’s case in Priest Lake, ID. They bought property across the road from the lake. After having complied with all local regulations and consulted with hydrology experts, they commenced filling in their land to build a home. In 2007, the EPA issued a “Compliance Order” asserting that the property was subject to the Clean Water Act. The EPA threatened fines of $32,000 per DAY and provided them NO ABILITY to challenge the compliance order. They were ordered to remove the fill and restore the land to natural habitat.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Scalia issued on March 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA’s compliance orders may be challenged in a civil action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The compliance orders are “final agency action” for purposes of the APA, and the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review under the APA.
Justices Ginsburg and Alito each filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg stated in her concurrence that the ruling only permitted the Sacketts to challenge EPA’s assertion of jurisdiction over their property; the Court did not resolve whether the terms and conditions of the Compliance Order itself were subject to immediate judicial review. Justice Alito recommended that Congress act to clarify issues regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.
On May 3, 2012, the Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Sackett’s challenge to the compliance order to the U.S. District Court, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Then, in late March 2019, after winning the right to challenge EPA enforcement orders, the Sackett’s lost their case when the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho judge ruled that the wetlands the couple are accused of illegally filling were indeed protected by the Clean Water Act.
“The Court finds the EPA’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by the record,” Reagan appointee Judge Edward Lodge wrote in a ruling on summary judgment in April 2019.
EPA contends the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property were protected despite the road [between their property and Priest Lake]. Current regulations in place since 1987 protect wetlands separated from larger waterways by roads or man-made barriers, if they have surface or shallow subsurface water connections, and if the two waterways are “reasonably close so as to support a science-based inference of an ecological interconnection.”
The Pacific Legal Foundation has indicated the Sacketts intend to appeal. Here they are at 12 years and counting!! What an abuse of private citizens!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.