Clean Water Rule Scrapped

[Northwoods Labs]

Not good news for conservation. Headwater streams and wetlands are vitally important for clean water. Also, they are some of the most important habitat areas for many fish and wildlife species.I certainly feel they warrant protection under the Clean Water Act. Maybe this administration will be good on keeping public lands public, but to me that just isn't enough. I would hate to see our public lands become environmental sacrifice zones for rampant development.

http://www.trcp.org/2017/02/28/executive-order-halt-progress-reversing-wetlands-loss-2/

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not good news for conservation. Headwater streams and wetlands are vitally important for clean water. Also, they are some of the most important habitat areas for many fish and wildlife species.I certainly feel they warrant protection under the Clean Water Act. Maybe this administration will be good on keeping public lands public, but to me that just isn't enough. I would hate to see our public lands become environmental sacrifice zones for rampant development.

http://www.trcp.org/2017/02/28/executive-order-halt-progress-reversing-wetlands-loss-2/

The public will get to clean up the mess, while the profits flow to the people who bought congress & the White House.

8 years of conservation work and better management of public lands will be tossed out the window in short order. Bank on it.

 

[Gr8bawana]

It's a shame we will have to start over once we get this clown and his anti EPA puppet out of office. I assure you this is only the beginning of his pillaging.

 

[elkduds]

Once again we are shown the antithesis between "conservative" and "conservation."

 

[MTGomer]

Aw, the short sightedness of agenda through executive fiat.

 

[Big Fin]

I doubt anyone believes this change is to make our water "cleaner." Not sure what is accomplished with this or the other changes that allow for dirtier air.

 

[RobG]

This is not a good thing, but, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't this just the killing of a rule Obama just created and it hadn't even taken effect?

 

[u1299]

I guess there is an assumption we can't have jobs without massive regulatory reform (cuts) which they are implementing. Of course they will claim none of this will harm the air and water which is BS, and they will also tell us that we can do more with less as a result of massive budget cuts to Agencies and Programs which is also BS. The shortsightedness of this Administration is frightening at best.

 

[grandejuan]

I personally know of a corps of engineers designation of a navigable water of the US that is dry as a bone and has been for centuries. It did flow during the Pleistocene period. GJ

 

[TRS_Montana]

The wording in the clarification (that is being thrown out) gave jurisdiction to the EPA to regulate activities on navigable streams or streams with a "significant nexus" to navigable waters. These seasonal streams are ecologically vital for a number of reasons, one of the most important being that they serve as some of the most resilient cold-water refugia for critical salmonid species (e.g. bull trout). If the current climate trends persist, and all indications say they will, these smaller, seasonal headwaters are only going to be more valuable for the viability of many aquatic and terrestrial species.

On Fresh Tracks Season 4 Episode 9 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RHqYQZ7ACo&list=PLLdxutimd-JvGyjPUXmifah2FGEHeHwJv&index=9), the HuntTalk crew mentions a spot in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness where mining operations threaten the ecological health of Rock Creek. This is a prime example of a stream that would have been covered under the Clean Water Act, if the amendment to the wording would have remained. However, given that portions of Rock Creek are seasonally dry, EPA won't have jurisdiction to monitor and regulate the activities effecting things like water quality, water availability, and groundwater contamination. There is a resident population of bull trout that live upstream from the intermittent section of the river. I'm speculating here, obviously, but I would bet a sizeable sum of money that you won't find those bull trout there in 5 years.

I understand that we need resources and that we have to extract them. It's possible to extract resources with minimal impact on the environment, it just takes more work (generally). Sometimes it is discouraging to think about how quickly we are willing to sacrifice something so valuable (environmental health) for more immediate gratification.

 

[Matt R]

Indeed, the short-sightedness of a "profits now" corporate ethos that seems to pervade America is about the least conservative principle I can think of...we are kicking the can down the road so our posterity will pay the price both economically and environmentally although the folks inhabiting this planet right now are seeing these dividends returned already. I do believe we are falling upward though and this country has shown that we can do amazing things when called upon. Reform is needed in many areas of our government no doubt and the antipathy on both sides needs to be subdued so that we can take the best of all ideas and put them to action.

 

[mkmatheson]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...a-210pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.6907fc29f180

 

[Opoponax]

Here's a list of 42 things getting either cut down dramatically or entirely eliminated. Much of it is shocking.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2017/03/here_are_42_of_president_donal.html