“This proposal declares open season on the nation’s waterways”
Jessica Corbett for Common Dreams
The supplemental proposal from the Department of the Army
and Environmental
Protection Agency builds on their widely criticized proposed rule
from November for defining “waters of the United States”
(WOTUS)—both of which go further than the high court did with its 2023 decision
in Sackett v. EPA.
While the American
Petroleum Institute and some
Republicans in Congress joined Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works Adam Telle and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in promoting the new
proposal, environmental and public health advocates
sounded the alarm.
“What the Supreme Court did in its Sackett decision was an inexcusable assault on clean water,” Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a Friday statement. “Communities and wildlife will pay the price until Congress fixes it. The Trump administration’s answer has been to make a bad situation worse.”
“This proposal declares open season on the nation’s
waterways. It denies federal protection to virtually all wetlands and more than
three-quarters of our streams, endangering drinking water supplies and
flood-prone communities—and the agencies admit it themselves,” he noted. “The
proposal would virtually eliminate protection for freshwater wetlands. Their
own analysis says most streams would lose protection, with the West hit
hardest.”
Food
& Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen declared that “Trump is
taking yet another sledgehammer to our bedrock Clean Water Act, shamelessly
doubling down on his initial terrible proposal to strip protections from
countless streams and wetlands.”
“Make no mistake: This unlawful proposal gives bad actors
the green light to fill, drain, and poison sensitive waterways from coast to
coast,” she warned. “The result will be dirtier water for everyone. The
administration must reverse course on this dangerous proposal.”
Gary Belan, senior director of American Rivers’ Clean Water
Program, stressed that “our nation’s water resources are precious and
increasingly at risk. This is not the moment to be jeopardizing the nation’s
water security by narrowing the safeguards of the Clean Water Act.”
The public comment period for the initial proposal has
closed but, as Belan noted, the publication of the supplemental rule in the
Federal Register kicks off a new 30-day period. He said that “while we
appreciate EPA’s effort to seek more public comment, the proposed changes will
have consequences that will impact communities across the nation if finalized.”
“The proposed definitions do not reflect the
established science on
how rivers function and would significantly reduce the scope of the Clean Water
Act,” he continued. “When headwater and intermittent streams and wetlands lose
protection, downstream flooding worsens, the costs of drinking water treatment
rises, and water supplies become less reliable.”
Jim Murphy, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate
vice president for legal advocacy, pointed out that “this is now the fifth effort to
define the scope of the waters protected by the Clean Water Act in the past
decade. We need Congress’ help to get off this merry-go-round at a place that
protects our waters, our wildlife, and our way of life.”
“The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule
that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors’ desire to effectively
scrap these protections wherever possible,” he added. “One thing is clear: If
we don’t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water
and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most
Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.”
