I'll take the overwhelming scientific opinion on this one
Trump Removes Pollution Controls on Streams and Wetlands
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
I'll take the overwhelming scientific opinion on this one
There is no overwhelming science on this one.
Here read for yourself, it’s been basically blocked since inception in about half of the states.
https://www.fb.org/issues/regulatory-reform/clean-water-act/
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized a rule in June 2015 that significantly expanded the definition of “waters of the United States,” also known as “navigable waters,” under the Clean Water Act. EPA failed to listen to concerned farmers, ranchers and business owners around the country in crafting its new rule, vastly expanding EPA’s and the Corps’ regulatory authority beyond the limits approved by Congress and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The rule was challenged in court by dozens of state, municipal, industry and environmental organizations. It was quickly blocked by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals based on its legal flaws and the harm it threatened to cause, and was never implemented nationwide.
The 6th Circuit never decided the merits of the 2015 rule, and in early 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that review of the 2015 rule belonged with federal district courts, not with the courts of appeals. Although AFBF agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision, this meant that the 6th Circuit’s nationwide stay would be lifted as its stay was no longer in effect. Meanwhile, the agencies finalized an “Applicability Date Rule” delaying implementation of the 2015 rule until 2020 while the agencies continue to work to repeal and replace the illegal 2015 rule.
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina struck down the Trump administration’s rule delaying implementation of the Obama WOTUS rule nationwide. While the court expressly applied its ruling nationwide, district courts in North Dakota and Georgia had previously blocked the Obama rule in 24 states. Later, the North Dakota court added Iowa to its list of states where the Obama rule is blocked, and a district court in Texas added the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
The number of states where the WOTUS rule has been temporarily blocked by the courts has risen to 28, leaving the 2015 WOTUS rule in place in 22 states.[1] AFBF is deeply involved in the ongoing legal battles and is using all available means to block implementation of the illegal 2015 rule.
[1] The states where the 2015 WOTUS rule is currently in place are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Four of these (OH, OK, MI and TN) have requested court injunctions but have not yet been granted relief.
Impact
The 2015 rule grants the federal government regulatory control over virtually any waters – and many land areas that only temporarily hold water – assuming a scope of authority Congress never authorized. It effectively eliminates any constraints the term “navigable” previously imposed on the agencies’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction, and few, if any, waters would fall outside of federal control.
The 2015 rule provides none of the clarity and certainty it promised. Instead, it creates confusion and risk by giving the agencies almost unlimited authority to regulate, at their discretion, any low spot where rainwater collects, including common farm ditches, ephemeral drainages, agricultural ponds and isolated wetlands found in and near farms and ranches across the nation, no matter how small or seemingly unconnected they may be to true “navigable waters.”
The 2015 rule defines terms such as “tributary” and “adjacent” in ways that make it impossible for farmers and ranchers to know whether the specific ditches, ephemeral drains or low areas on their land will be deemed “waters of the U.S.” But these definitions are broad enough to give regulators (and citizen plaintiffs) justification to assert that such areas are subject to Clean Water Act regulation and give the agencies sweeping new authority to regulate land use, which they may exercise at will, or at the whim of a citizen plaintiff.
AFBF Policy
Farm Bureau has significant concerns with the 2015 rule. It expands federal jurisdiction far beyond what was authorized by Congress, resulting in the imposition of burdensome requirements, widespread uncertainty and legal risk for farmers and ranchers.
AFBF strongly supports the agencies’ proposal to repeal the 2015 rule. AFBF also urges the agencies separately to develop a new rule that will provide a clear and reasonable definition of “waters of the U.S.” within the limits set by Congress.
Last edited:
I don't see a single scientific reason in these opposing arguments. You're basically saying tobacco never gave anyone cancer because lobbyist kept blocking legislation that favored big tobacco.
The Scarecrow, knowing his head was filled with straw, lamented “if I only had a brain”.
The argument is not based on science but upon it’s legality. In 2015 both the Senate and House passed joint resolutions against it. The GOA stated it violated the law. It’s been blocked in court. And none of these actions were, wait for it........................ BASED ON SCIENCE.
It’s not an Orange Man Bad issue, the 2015 WOTUS changes were unconstitutional and poorly designed.
Man Faces $75,000-A-Day In EPA Fines For Building Pond On His Land
File photo
A Wyoming man is facing a $75,000 a day fine from the Environmental Protection Agency because he built a stock pond on his own property.
The agency claims private landowner Andrew Johnson violated the Clean Water Act by building the pond near a stream, and has ordered him to restore the land back to its original state.
“EPA appears more interested in intimidating and bankrupting Mr. Johnson than it does in working cooperatively with him,” three US Senators wrote in a letter to the agency about Johnson’s case.
Veteran Sits in Prison, Faces 15 Years for Building Ponds on His Own Property
A 77-year old Montana resident is facing 15 years in federal prison for building ponds on and hear his own property, charged by the federal government for discharging dredged and fill material.
The man, disabled veteran Joseph Robertson, also could be fined around $750,000.
“I’m facing 15 years and three-quarters of a million in fines,” Robertson told the Billings Gazette. “What they’re doing to me, the feds, they shouldn’t have the ability to.”
Robertson is scheduled to be sentenced in federal court on July 20, charged with polluting “waters of the United States” and for violating the Clean Water Act.
He says he built the ponds — nine total — to water his horses and protect his property from fire.
The EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers contend Robertson violated the Act by building the ponds, which sit near a wetland. The government argues that the water should be regulated because it flows into Cataract Creek, and then into the Boulder River, and finally into the Jefferson River, which is about 60 miles away from his property.
Although Robertson lost in a federal jury trial, which no doubt was chock full of expensive attorneys and EPA experts which few citizens could hope to overcome, there were still proponents on Robertson’s side who pointed out the true objective of the EPA.
A 77-year old Montana resident is facing 15 years in federal prison for building ponds on and hear his own property, charged by the federal government for discharging dredged and fill material.
The man, disabled veteran Joseph Robertson, also could be fined around $750,000.
“I’m facing 15 years and three-quarters of a million in fines,” Robertson told the Billings Gazette. “What they’re doing to me, the feds, they shouldn’t have the ability to.”
Robertson is scheduled to be sentenced in federal court on July 20, charged with polluting “waters of the United States” and for violating the Clean Water Act.
He says he built the ponds — nine total — to water his horses and protect his property from fire.
The EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers contend Robertson violated the Act by building the ponds, which sit near a wetland. The government argues that the water should be regulated because it flows into Cataract Creek, and then into the Boulder River, and finally into the Jefferson River, which is about 60 miles away from his property.
Although Robertson lost in a federal jury trial, which no doubt was chock full of expensive attorneys and EPA experts which few citizens could hope to overcome, there were still proponents on Robertson’s side who pointed out the true objective of the EPA.
Man Faces $75,000-A-Day In EPA Fines For Building Pond On His Land
File photo
A Wyoming man is facing a $75,000 a day fine from the Environmental Protection Agency because he built a stock pond on his own property.
The agency claims private landowner Andrew Johnson violated the Clean Water Act by building the pond near a stream, and has ordered him to restore the land back to its original state.
“EPA appears more interested in intimidating and bankrupting Mr. Johnson than it does in working cooperatively with him,” three US Senators wrote in a letter to the agency about Johnson’s case.
Buddy of mine, inherited some land after his father’s death. Dad had dug and built a large size pond on their farm decades ago, few acres, farm was large. Over time, family members built homes around the pond.
He decided to put in a walking track around the pond for the family. Corps of Engineers came in fined him and after battling it in court forced him to remove the track. Clean Water Act.
Last time we talked he was out close to seven figures in legal fees and construction costs.
Unrelated to clean water, but goes to the heart of the EPA.
Have a good friend, owned a business, this goes back 20 years, made custom ornamental pipe, had some type of baked on/powder coating finish. EPA came in told him his filtering system was not in compliance, basically he had to retro fit everything. He told them he couldn’t afford to retool his entire facility. They told him, he didn’t need too, just pay the fine.
Last edited:
Man Faces $75,000-A-Day In EPA Fines For Building Pond On His Land
File photo
A Wyoming man is facing a $75,000 a day fine from the Environmental Protection Agency because he built a stock pond on his own property.
The agency claims private landowner Andrew Johnson violated the Clean Water Act by building the pond near a stream, and has ordered him to restore the land back to its original state.
“EPA appears more interested in intimidating and bankrupting Mr. Johnson than it does in working cooperatively with him,” three US Senators wrote in a letter to the agency about Johnson’s case.
Because harmful algal blooms from redneck ponds draining into public water & disease carrying mosquitoes aren't a thing or anything
I have a good friend that has over $300K in hardwood on a (small) portion of his land his grandfather planted years ago for the family that he can't harvest now because a dry (99% of the time) stream-bed runs thru it. For years he always pointed to it and said "that's my kids college education right there." Obama nixed that plan. Its complete BS. I wish I had a picture to post of it.
I need to call him lol... He's an old country boy that's done well and doesn't need the money, but I bet he tied on a good one last night. Probably ordered a dozen MAGA hats.
