Trump EPA Proposes Major Rollback Of Federal Water Protections

[Wingnut]

Great news!  This has been a long time coming!   With lawsuits likely and a 60-day public comment period ahead, the administration's proposal is far from becoming law.
---


Vast amounts of wetlands and thousands of miles of U.S. waterways would no longer be federally protected by the Clean Water Act under a new proposal by the Trump administration.

The proposal, announced and signed Tuesday at the Environmental Protection Agency, would change the EPA's definition of "waters of the United States," or WOTUS, limiting the types of waterways that fall under federal protection to major waterways, their tributaries, adjacent wetlands and a few other categories.

The change aims to "provide states and landowners the certainty they need to manage their natural resources and grow local economies,"said the EPA's acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler.

Wheeler said the simpler approach would allow farmers, for example, to decide which water on their property is subject to federal regulation without paying thousands of dollars for consultants and engineers. He said it will also let them and others avoid expensive and time-consuming permits for an Obama-era regulation he called a "power grab."

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675477583/trump-epa-proposes-big-changes-to-federal-water-protections

[Bigun]

Excellent!  About time this Obama crap was reigned in!

[Blizzardnh]

Excellent!  About time this Obama crap was reigned in!

The agenda 21 / 2030 crowd were on easy street for a lot of years. they won't let go that easy.
Unless they are dead.

[Fishrrman]

Ghost, you are correct.

This is a MILESTONE and PROPER "step backward" from democrat-communist nonsense and tyranny.

Lawsuits?
Bring 'em on!

[RoosGirl]

We'll see what the states do though.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We'll see what the states do though.

Who cares what other states do?

[RoosGirl]

Who cares what other states do?

Oh, I dunno, maybe the people that live in those states.

[Wingnut]

We'll see what the states do though.

So you are saying we won't have clean water here in Florida because of this?   

[bigheadfred]

I think it means a hard slap on the hand of fed government overreach.

[RoosGirl]

So you are saying we won't have clean water here in Florida because of this?

No, I'm saying that the states are able to set their own rules.  I believe they have to at least meet the federal requirements, but can be more restrictive.

[Wingnut]

No, I'm saying that the states are able to set their own rules.  I believe they have to at least meet the federal requirements, but can be more restrictive.

Waters don't know where the state lines are.

[RoosGirl]

Waters don't know where the state lines are.

Oh, but believe you me, the permit reviewers do.

[thackney]

Oh, but believe you me, the permit reviewers do.

 

[mountaineer]

Senator Ted Cruz
20 hrs ·

I am pleased to see the EPA and Army Corps’ proposal that finally provides common-sense definition of ‘waters of the United States.' Only in Washington can a puddle or dry ditch be considered navigable water. Today’s WOTUS announcement is evidence of this administration’s commitment to reining in federal overreach and protecting the property rights of landowners. This proposal will replace the Obama administration's broad regulation which greatly expanded the scope of federal authority over land and waterways in the United States. Ultimately, it will prevent the federal government from telling private landowners, farmers, ranchers, and others in Texas and across America what they can and cannot do with their private property.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oh, I dunno, maybe the people that live in those states.

well, You don't so what's the big deal?  A state has a right to decide for itself.  If my state decides badly, I move

[bigheadfred]

It was proposed fisheries restrictions that got me on the warpath.

[RoosGirl]

well, You don't so what's the big deal?  A state has a right to decide for itself.  If my state decides badly, I move

OFFS

[IsailedawayfromFR]

OFFS

not sure what that means?

[Wingnut]

not sure what that means?

Oh For F's sake.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oh For F's sake.

Got it, a non-response.

Meanwhile, one has to wonder why he/she wishes other states abide by his/her own dictates.

I for one do not wish federal control over what my state does.

[RoosGirl]

Got it, a non-response.

Meanwhile, one has to wonder why he/she wishes other states abide by his/her own dictates.

I for one do not wish federal control over what my state does.

Go back and read what I wrote and quote me where I said I wanted the Feds to have control over what the states do.

What I was doing was pointing out that the Feds may roll back Federal regulations, but the states can make their own, as long as they meet the Fed requirements at a minimum.  What this means is that the Feds may roll back regulations, but the States don't have to.  Not sure why you read anything into what I said previously, but you can back off giving me shit over your misunderstanding.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Go back and read what I wrote and quote me where I said I wanted the Feds to have control over what the states do.

What I was doing was pointing out that the Feds may roll back Federal regulations, but the states can make their own, as long as they meet the Fed requirements at a minimum.  What this means is that the Feds may roll back regulations, but the States don't have to.  Not sure why you read anything into what I said previously, but you can back off giving me shit over your misunderstanding.

I have no misunderstanding, regardless of your apparent lack of.

With the weight off a state from a mandated federal dictate, a state has the right to decide what it wishes to do.

I live in one state and I could care less what another state wishes to do, as long as my state behaves.

My original point is who cares what another state does as long as it does not impact me?

Why is that hard for you to discern?

[RoosGirl]

I have no misunderstanding, regardless of your apparent lack of.

With the weight off a state from a mandated federal dictate, a state has the right to decide what it wishes to do.

I live in one state and I could care less what another state wishes to do, as long as my state behaves.

My original point is who cares what another state does as long as it does not impact me?

Why is that hard for you to discern?

I have no trouble at all understanding any of that. What I do have trouble understanding is you claimi g I said I wanted the federal oversight.  Thanks for walking that back though. 

[verga]

BKMK