trump says rollback of waterway rules imminent

[Tennesseer]

President trump says rollback of waterway rules imminent

AUSTIN (KXAN) — President Donald Trump told a crowd in downtown Austin that the finalized repeal of specific water rules will be complete in a few days. Leaders at the American Farm Bureau Federation convention in downtown Austin have fought the Waterways of the U.S. rules for years and the President told them he’s about to deliver on the campaign promise.

“You love your land. You’re going to take care of your land. You don’t need bureaucrats in Washington telling everyone what the hell to do with your land. You love your land,” said President Donald Trump.

The farming organizations have been some of the most vocal supporters to rollback the water rules. The change to the Waters of the U.S. rule was proposed in 2018 and would eliminate Obama-era environmental regulations for half the country’s wetlands and streams, according to the EPA.

The rule set nationwide standards for creeks and streams that don’t flow year-round – known as intermittent streams – and sometimes only when it rains – known as ephemeral streams.

Scientists within the EPA have opposed the move, calling “aspects of the proposed rule are in conflict with established science, the existing WOTUS 37 rule developed based on the established science, and the objectives of the Clean Water Act.”

President trump says rollback of waterway rules imminent


trump quotes about being an environmentalist:

“I think I know more about the environment than most people."

“I’m an environmentalist.”

“I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment.”

Environmentalists don't fuck up our water.

[dondub]

Their land...whose water?

[happyhoix]

Jan 19, 2020 22:48:52 GMT -5 dondub said:

Their land...whose water?

This is the guy who claims we have no water problem because we have rain. 

Telling a bunch of guys in Texas, on of the states that has huge water right issues. 

Dumbass. 

[billisonboard]

Nobody knew that water rights could be so complicated.

[giramomma]

Jan 19, 2020 22:42:24 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Environmentalists don't fuck up our water.

No but some farmers do to.

Trump needs to do something to make up for all the damage the tariffs and immigration shenanigans has caused.

Maybe in his mind damaging our water makes up for damaging farmers' income?

[weltschmerz]

President Trump claimed during his campaign launch on Tuesday night that the United States has “among the cleanest and sharpest” air and water on Earth.



“Something I want to make clear to the media: We have among the cleanest and sharpest — crystal clean, you've heard me say, I want crystal clean — air and water anywhere on Earth,” Trump said during his rally in Florida on Tuesday.

thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/449239-trump-says-air-and-water-are-the-cleanest-theyve-ever-been-before

Such bullshit from the bullshitter in chief. This is the douche who allowed industrial waste to be slipped into rivers and streams.   I'm surprised he didn't say that thanks to him, the US has the wettest water the world has ever seen.

[thyme4change]

Can anyone short hand (the dummies version) what regulations are being pulled back? Is it water usage, or is it pollution? It says it is about intermittent creeks, but I don't know what the regulations on that are.

I could just take the party line, but I think I should at least know what I'm getting all pissy about. 😜

[bean29]

It is probably regarding wetlands, so regarding building on or filling wetlands. Right now if you take out a wetlands area you have to recreate it somewhere else for wildlife/rain/flood mitigation etc.

[thyme4change]

Jan 22, 2020 1:59:07 GMT -5 bean29 said:

It is probably regarding wetlands, so regarding building on or filling wetlands. Right now if you take out a wetlands area you have to recreate it somewhere else for wildlife/rain/flood mitigation etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Rule

Not even Wikipedia dumbed it down enough for me. I is ignorant here.

🤪

[swamp]

Jan 20, 2020 14:40:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

President Trump claimed during his campaign launch on Tuesday night that the United States has “among the cleanest and sharpest” air and water on Earth.



“Something I want to make clear to the media: We have among the cleanest and sharpest — crystal clean, you've heard me say, I want crystal clean — air and water anywhere on Earth,” Trump said during his rally in Florida on Tuesday.

thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/449239-trump-says-air-and-water-are-the-cleanest-theyve-ever-been-before

Such bullshit from the bullshitter in chief. This is the douche who allowed industrial waste to be slipped into rivers and streams.   I'm surprised he didn't say that thanks to him, the US has the wettest water the world has ever seen.

What is sharp air and water? 

Can anyone translate this for me? 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jan 22, 2020 9:02:55 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jan 20, 2020 14:40:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

President Trump claimed during his campaign launch on Tuesday night that the United States has “among the cleanest and sharpest” air and water on Earth.



“Something I want to make clear to the media: We have among the cleanest and sharpest — crystal clean, you've heard me say, I want crystal clean — air and water anywhere on Earth,” Trump said during his rally in Florida on Tuesday.

thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/449239-trump-says-air-and-water-are-the-cleanest-theyve-ever-been-before

Such bullshit from the bullshitter in chief. This is the douche who allowed industrial waste to be slipped into rivers and streams.   I'm surprised he didn't say that thanks to him, the US has the wettest water the world has ever seen.

What is sharp air and water? 

Can anyone translate this for me? 

The ice crystals that we breathe in during ice storms? 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

The guy has lived in NYC his whole life and he's going to make the claim that we have the cleanest, sharpest, crystal clear water in the world? 


I find it ironic that my SIL constantly posts Pro-Trump memes and then in the same breath is posting memes about how awful Trump is for the environment.   You elected him, apparently whatever it is you felt was worth voting him into office for is worth the sacrifice.   Why you thought a reality TV star from NYC would give two shits about the environment is beyond me.

[bean29]

A couple of things. As Giramomma alluded to, Farmers in WI and other areas that have those CAFO (concentrated Animal Feeding Operations?) have such a large number of cows an a smallish section of land that they say they produce as much sewage as a mid-sized city.  Here is an interesting article from JSonline  (the letters are white on grey online, if you hilite them like you are going to copy and paste it, they turned blue for me and will be easier to read)

The article starts out talking about how the small dairy farms are disappearing but the number of cows in the state is holding steady/increasing b/c the number of CAFO's is growing and/or the size of the herd at CAFO's are growing.

www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/special-reports/dairy-crisis/2019/12/06/industrial-dairy-impacts-wisconsin-environment-family-farms/4318671002/

Dairy cows are veritable waste machines; on average they excrete nearly 17 gallons of manure and urine a day. While cities use sewage treatment systems to remove contaminants, most farmers store a mix of manure, urine and water in lagoons and typically spread it across crop fields in spring and fall.

A single farm with 500 cows produces as much daily waste as South Milwaukee, based on Cornell University research. 

A 1,000-cow herd? Think of the 42,000 residents of Fond du Lac.

The largest Wisconsin CAFOs — those with 6,000 cows — generate as much manure and urine as 252,000 people, on par with Madison. 

So anyways when these faremers spread the manure on their farmland it is contaminating people's drinking water.  The existing regulations were already inadequate to deal with this issue, Trump is just making it worse.

In addition to dairy cows - fracking is seriously messing with the quality of people's drinking water.

Be Careful what you wish for.

We have wetlands on about 2,000 square feet of our 18,000+ square foot lot.  Imho, it keeps the neighbors a good distance from my property.  I really don't want the land filled and people to push their lots out to the very edge of their lot line, because it is so wet that at certain times of the year there is a small pond.  We even get ducks occasionally.  We have a pond in spring and fall, and we had/have one right now b/c we have had so little snow this year.  They say these small wetlands are very important for flood mitigation.  The vegetation in the wetlands acts as a sponge to soak up the rains - if the land is all solid impermeable surface, buildings or even grass, the water just runs off instead of soaking into the ground.

We have planted various plants on the edge of the wetlands, and I have to be careful what I plant - they have to be ok with having wet roots, so native wetlands plants are the best.  We had a few ash trees growing in the wetlands, but they are mostly dead b/c of emerald ash borers, and I would like to plant something else.  We were not supposed to do that, the loosening of the regulations may allow us to do that, but it may also allow neighbors to fill and plant grass, which will probably push more water down the wetlands in the direction of my lot - which is what I don't want to see happen.  It is a double edged sword.  On the other hand, I avoided putting a fence on that part of my lot, and used cheaper hog wire in the wetlands, now we could probably fence it without getting permission from the state DNR.  Spending lots of $$ to put fence posts in land that is very wet, is not necessarily going to result in a fence that stands more than a year or two though.  The last fence posts DH dug that come up to the wetlands kept filling with H20, after a few freeze and thaw cycles, the ground may heave and twist the fence posts.  My BIL also expects my black finish on my aluminum fence posts to peel.  We shall see.

[mary2029]

Jan 20, 2020 17:34:26 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Can anyone short hand (the dummies version) what regulations are being pulled back? Is it water usage, or is it pollution? It says it is about intermittent creeks, but I don't know what the regulations on that are.

I could just take the party line, but I think I should at least know what I'm getting all pissy about. 😜

Actually, for this one you should not take the party line.  (Dang it, I may have to admit that 45 actually had a decent executive order... or portions of it anyway.)

In 2015, EPA issued a definition of the Waters of the United States that has been in the courts since then.
A definition is required so that the US can protect its waters and associated commerce. For example, the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean within 3 miles of the US shoreline, Mississippi River, Missouri River, and the Great Lakes and its canals... obviously Waters of the United States; we can't have different state regulations apply to bodies of water that affect multiple states. 

Lakes that aren't used for navigational purposes (Lake Mead)? Sure, multiple states use the electricity. Lake Havasu... yes, that's how AZ supplies CA water and water is a resource. The CAP canals... errr... ok since that's how AZ transports the CO River water to Lake Havasu (even though it's a group of canal that isn't used for navigable purposes and is only within one state).  What about state rivers that aren't used for navigable purposes, like the muddy, shallow Platte? Yup, it's a tributary for the Missouri. How about streams?  Well, we have greatly increased our ability to pollute as we "advance" (I'm older than the Great Pacific Garbage Patch). 

In 2015, however, the definition added all waters located within the 100-year floodplain, all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high-tide line, and tributaries that contribute flow (directly or through another water) to a water that had a bed, bank and an ordinary high-water mark (this would include ditches/washes with ephemeral flow) so tributaries to tributaries. 

Hmmm... sounds like all water or all possibilities of water in Arizona are now Waters of the United States.  

The 2015 definition was comprised of over 2,100 words and takes up 5 pages with a 11-pt font; not even the regulators understood what the definition was and how to enforce it. 

In December 2019, the definition of the Waters of the United States reverted back to the previous definition (337 words and 1 page).  It includes intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, etc. (and their tributaries) where the degradation or destruction affects interstate commerce. It does not include the tributaries to the tributaries. It does not include the floodplain waters. 

A proposed new definition was published in Feb. 2019. I haven't read it in its entirety, but it does ease the definition even more.  If you want to... link

Now, why would anybody care about a definition? If an industry, you may or may not be subject to NPDES or stormwater permitting, inspection and sampling requirements due to this definition. You may or may not be subject to SPCC or petroleum storage and monitoring requirements due to this definition. You may or may not be able to construct a large fence without Section 404 permit(s) due to this definition. 

States can and should have more restrictive definitions for Waters of the United States (e.g., Waters of Arizona include groundwater).  The US should not have "total" control/oversite of our waters.

[thyme4change]

Jan 22, 2020 13:21:34 GMT -5 mary2029 said:

Jan 20, 2020 17:34:26 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Can anyone short hand (the dummies version) what regulations are being pulled back? Is it water usage, or is it pollution? It says it is about intermittent creeks, but I don't know what the regulations on that are.

I could just take the party line, but I think I should at least know what I'm getting all pissy about. 😜

Actually, for this one you should not take the party line.  (Dang it, I may have to admit that 45 actually had a decent executive order... or portions of it anyway.)

In 2015, EPA issued a definition of the Waters of the United States that has been in the courts since then.
A definition is required so that the US can protect its waters and associated commerce. For example, the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean within 3 miles of the US shoreline, Mississippi River, Missouri River, and the Great Lakes and its canals... obviously Waters of the United States; we can't have different state regulations apply to bodies of water that affect multiple states. 

Lakes that aren't used for navigational purposes (Lake Mead)? Sure, multiple states use the electricity. Lake Havasu... yes, that's how AZ supplies CA water and water is a resource. The CAP canals... errr... ok since that's how AZ transports the CO River water to Lake Havasu (even though it's a group of canal that isn't used for navigable purposes and is only within one state).  What about state rivers that aren't used for navigable purposes, like the muddy, shallow Platte? Yup, it's a tributary for the Missouri. How about streams?  Well, we have greatly increased our ability to pollute as we "advance" (I'm older than the Great Pacific Garbage Patch). 

In 2015, however, the definition added all waters located within the 100-year floodplain, all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high-tide line, and tributaries that contribute flow (directly or through another water) to a water that had a bed, bank and an ordinary high-water mark (this would include ditches/washes with ephemeral flow) so tributaries to tributaries. 

Hmmm... sounds like all water or all possibilities of water in Arizona are now Waters of the United States.  

The 2015 definition was comprised of over 2,100 words and takes up 5 pages with a 11-pt font; not even the regulators understood what the definition was and how to enforce it. 

In December 2019, the definition of the Waters of the United States reverted back to the previous definition (337 words and 1 page).  It includes intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, etc. (and their tributaries) where the degradation or destruction affects interstate commerce. It does not include the tributaries to the tributaries. It does not include the floodplain waters. 

A proposed new definition was published in Feb. 2019. I haven't read it in its entirety, but it does ease the definition even more.  If you want to... link

Now, why would anybody care about a definition? If an industry, you may or may not be subject to NPDES or stormwater permitting, inspection and sampling requirements due to this definition. You may or may not be subject to SPCC or petroleum storage and monitoring requirements due to this definition. You may or may not be able to construct a large fence without Section 404 permit(s) due to this definition. 

States can and should have more restrictive definitions for Waters of the United States (e.g., Waters of Arizona include groundwater).  The US should not have "total" control/oversite of our waters.

Thanks for the info!

[NastyWoman]

This could get interesting over time:

"U.S. Supreme Court lets Flint, Michigan residents sue over water contamination
Andrew Chung


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let residents of Flint, Michigan pursue a civil rights lawsuit against the city and government officials that accused them of knowingly allowingthe city’s water supply to become contaminated with lead. …"

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-flint/us-supreme-court-lets-flint-michigan-residents-sue-over-water-contamination-idUSKBN1ZK1S5

[kadee79]

The Trump administration on Thursday will finalize a rule to strip away environmental protections for streams, wetlands and other water bodies, handing a victory to farmers, fossil fuel producers and real estate developers who said Obama-era rules had shackled them with onerous and unnecessary burdens.

From Day 1 of his administration, President Trump vowed to repeal President Barack Obama’s “Waters of the United States” regulation, which had frustrated rural landowners. His new rule, which will be implemented in the coming weeks, is the latest step in the Trump administration’s push to repeal or weaken nearly 100 environmental rules and laws, loosening or eliminating rules on climate change, clean air, chemical pollution, coal mining, oil drilling and endangered species protections.

Mr. Trump has called the regulation “horrible,” “destructive” and “one of the worst examples of federal” overreach.

“I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States rule,” he told the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual convention in Texas on Sunday, to rousing applause.

“That was a rule that basically took your property away from you,” added Mr. Trump, whose real estate holdings include more than a dozen golf courses. (Golf course developers were among the key opponents of the Obama rule and key backers of the new one.)

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-removes-pollution-controls-on-streams-and-wetlands/ar-BBZeL7l

[kadee79]

Here is another article....

A study released Wednesday by an environmental watchdog group found heightened levels of potentially toxic chemicals in tap water supplies serving dozens of major American cities.

The report, published by the Environmental Working Group, found that 20 cities and regions nationwide – including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Miami and Louisville, Kentucky – contained PFAS levels of at least 10 parts per trillion. Forty-three areas, including New York City, Nashville, Las Vegas and Sacramento, had detectable PFAS at least 1 part per trillion.

Only one city, Meridian, Mississippi, which uses well water 700 feet below the surface, found no PFAS, while Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Seattle had levels lower than the 1 part per trillion limit advised by the EWG.

PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances also known as "forever chemicals," have been linked to reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects, as well as high cholesterol and obesity.

EWG's work expanded on data from an EPA program that ended in 2015, analyzing water samples using an EPA-approved independent laboratory for a larger set of PFAS compounds.

PFAS compounds remain in food packaging, cookware and other consumer products.

www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/toxic-forever-chemicals-found-in-drinking-water-throughout-us/ar-BBZglNz?li=BBnb7Kz

[mary2029]

PFOS/PFAS are emerging contaminants and have absolutely nothing to do with Trump's rules; there is yet to be an EPA regulatory limit set on them. There is an EPA health advisory of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). IMO, that's too high, but as municipal water plants can't cost-effectively treat a large volume of water for PFOS/PFAS to a lower level, it doesn't matter.   

[weltschmerz]

The new water rule will remove federal protections from more than half the nation’s wetlands, and hundreds of thousands of small waterways. That would for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into many of those waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-removes-pollution-controls-on-streams-and-wetlands/ar-BBZeL7l


Way to go, you giant douche!

[kadee79]

Jan 23, 2020 17:57:41 GMT -5 mary2029 said:

PFOS/PFAS are emerging contaminants and have absolutely nothing to do with Trump's rules; there is yet to be an EPA regulatory limit set on them. There is an EPA health advisory of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). IMO, that's too high, but as municipal water plants can't cost-effectively treat a large volume of water for PFOS/PFAS to a lower level, it doesn't matter.   

I knew that...just figured that putting the article here, more folks would see it.  And it does pertain to water, just a different aspect of how bad our water is.