New rule would reverse Obama administrations Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule
President Donald Trumps administration is moving ahead with plans to dismantle another piece of the Obama administrations environmental legacy, the rule that sought to protect clean drinking water by expanding Washingtons power to regulate major rivers and lakes as well as smaller streams and wetlands.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Army and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are proposing a new rule that would rescind the Obama administrations Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule and re-codify the regulatory text that existed before its adoption in 2015, according to a press release obtained by The Wall Street Journal that will be sent out Tuesday afternoon.
That action, the agencies contend, would provide certainty in the interim while a new rule-making process is undertaken.
Coming almost a month after Mr. Trump announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, Tuesdays move is another sign the new administration and the EPA under administrator Scott Pruitt intend to prioritize the economic concerns of industry and agricultural interests over environmental concerns and, more broadly, to erase significant pieces of Mr. Obamas legacy.
We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nations farmers and businesses, Mr. Pruitt said in a statement.
Aimed at clearing up decades of jurisdictional and legal uncertainty and protecting more Americans drinking water from contamination, the rule, which was tied to a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972, greatly expanded the federal governments authority to limit pollution in major bodies of water like Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River, as well as in small streams and wetlands.
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...a-administrations-clean-water-rule-1498586400Property developers, chemical manufacturers and oil-and -gas producers also have voiced opposition to the rule, which they argue is an intrusion on property owners rights and an impediment to economic growth.