Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Trump Admin Should Be Commended for Flushing Obama-Era ‘Clean Water Rule’
Page 1 of 14 next> last>>
Sep 15, 2019 23:16:35   #
EyeSawYou
 
Thursday saw a major win for the rule of law, property rights, and the environment: The Trump administration announced that it had finalized its repeal of President Barack Obama’s infamous 2015 Clean Water Rule.

For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to define the Clean Water Act’s term “waters of the United States” in a manner that can pass judicial scrutiny.

That definition is extremely important, because it clarifies what waters the agencies can regulate under the statute.

Instead of learning from past mistakes, the Obama administration decided it would take the federal overreach to a new level while ignoring the plain language of the Clean Water Act.

There’s a reason why there was such diverse and widespread opposition to this Obama rule: It’s a rule that could have made it very difficult for Americans to engage in even ordinary activities, such as farming or building a home.

The Obama rule was so extreme it would have regulated waters that couldn’t even be seen by the naked eye.

The American Farm Bureau Federation explained:

“… distant regulators using ‘desktop tools’ can conclusively establish the presence of a ‘tributary’ on private lands, even where the human eye can’t see water or any physical channel or evidence of water flow.

“That’s right—invisible tributaries!

“The agencies even claim ‘tributaries’ exist where remote sensing and other desktop tools indicate a prior existence of bed, banks, and [ordinary high-water marks], where these features are no longer present on the landscape today.”

The rule would have made it possible to regulate “waters” that were, in effect, dry land, such as a depression in land that holds water a few days a year after heavy precipitation.

Then there’s the “we will know a regulated water when we see it” aspect of the rule. If waters didn’t fall under specific categories as listed in the rule, then the Obama rule created a backup plan to help ensure the agencies could still have the ability to regulate additional waters.

The rule made it possible for the agencies to regulate some waters on a case-by-case basis if they decided that the water had a “significant nexus” to certain regulated waters.

A property owner couldn’t have known what this would cover, because such determinations would have been at the subjective whim of agency officials.

That’s particularly problematic because the Clean Water Act has both civil and criminal penalties.

The ongoing vagueness problem with the Clean Water Act is a concern that the Supreme Court has repeatedly brought up, including then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, who stated in 2016 in the oral argument for Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., “[T]he Clean Water Act is unique in both being quite vague in its reach, arguably unconstitutionally vague, and certainly harsh in the civil and criminal sanctions it puts into practice.”

At the start of the Clean Water Act, Congress made it clear that it’s “the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution … .”

The Obama rule ignored this state role. When the federal government tries to regulate every water imaginable, it doesn’t leave much room for states and local governments to address water issues.

Critics will argue that getting rid of this vast federal role in regulating waters will undermine water protection. Congress rejected that argument when it passed the Clean Water Act.

Legislators recognized that states should play the lead role in addressing water pollution. That makes sense, because states are in the best position to address most water issues, and that’s because they are closest to the issues and can develop policy that’s tailored to address specific problems.

The Clean Water Act regulations are also just one piece in a massive web of laws and programs that helps to protect surface waters. (In addition to other federal programs and laws, there is, of course, state and local governments.)

It should also be noted that a separate federal law, the Safe Drinking Water Act, protects the water we drink.

By getting rid of the Obama rule, the Trump administration appears to recognize the rule’s numerous problems. Now, it will be up to the Trump administration to develop a definition of “waters of the United States” that does something unique; namely, one that follows the law.

On Feb. 14, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed their new definition, which is a major improvement from the Obama rule.

There are still improvements that are needed before any new definition is finalized. Justice Antonin Scalia in his plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States wrestled with many of the challenges that admittedly the agencies face when developing a workable definition of “waters of the United States.”

If the final rule is consistent with this thoughtful opinion, then the Trump administration will succeed where past administrations have failed in developing a workable, legally defensible definition of “waters of the United States.”

Until then, the Trump administration should be commended for getting rid of the Obama rule, which failed on all counts.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/daren-bakst/trump-admin-should-be-commended-flushing-obama-era-clean-water-rule

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 02:31:11   #
Angmo
 
It’s like Obakapig was never there.

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 06:13:15   #
Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay
 
Very r****t. and dumb.

Reply
 
 
Sep 16, 2019 07:46:42   #
Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa
 
EyeSawYou wrote:
Thursday saw a major win for the rule of law, property rights, and the environment: The Trump administration announced that it had finalized its repeal of President Barack Obama’s infamous 2015 Clean Water Rule.

For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to define the Clean Water Act’s term “waters of the United States” in a manner that can pass judicial scrutiny.

That definition is extremely important, because it clarifies what waters the agencies can regulate under the statute.

Instead of learning from past mistakes, the Obama administration decided it would take the federal overreach to a new level while ignoring the plain language of the Clean Water Act.

There’s a reason why there was such diverse and widespread opposition to this Obama rule: It’s a rule that could have made it very difficult for Americans to engage in even ordinary activities, such as farming or building a home.

The Obama rule was so extreme it would have regulated waters that couldn’t even be seen by the naked eye.

The American Farm Bureau Federation explained:

“… distant regulators using ‘desktop tools’ can conclusively establish the presence of a ‘tributary’ on private lands, even where the human eye can’t see water or any physical channel or evidence of water flow.

“That’s right—invisible tributaries!

“The agencies even claim ‘tributaries’ exist where remote sensing and other desktop tools indicate a prior existence of bed, banks, and [ordinary high-water marks], where these features are no longer present on the landscape today.”

The rule would have made it possible to regulate “waters” that were, in effect, dry land, such as a depression in land that holds water a few days a year after heavy precipitation.

Then there’s the “we will know a regulated water when we see it” aspect of the rule. If waters didn’t fall under specific categories as listed in the rule, then the Obama rule created a backup plan to help ensure the agencies could still have the ability to regulate additional waters.

The rule made it possible for the agencies to regulate some waters on a case-by-case basis if they decided that the water had a “significant nexus” to certain regulated waters.

A property owner couldn’t have known what this would cover, because such determinations would have been at the subjective whim of agency officials.

That’s particularly problematic because the Clean Water Act has both civil and criminal penalties.

The ongoing vagueness problem with the Clean Water Act is a concern that the Supreme Court has repeatedly brought up, including then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, who stated in 2016 in the oral argument for Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., “[T]he Clean Water Act is unique in both being quite vague in its reach, arguably unconstitutionally vague, and certainly harsh in the civil and criminal sanctions it puts into practice.”

At the start of the Clean Water Act, Congress made it clear that it’s “the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution … .”

The Obama rule ignored this state role. When the federal government tries to regulate every water imaginable, it doesn’t leave much room for states and local governments to address water issues.

Critics will argue that getting rid of this vast federal role in regulating waters will undermine water protection. Congress rejected that argument when it passed the Clean Water Act.

Legislators recognized that states should play the lead role in addressing water pollution. That makes sense, because states are in the best position to address most water issues, and that’s because they are closest to the issues and can develop policy that’s tailored to address specific problems.

The Clean Water Act regulations are also just one piece in a massive web of laws and programs that helps to protect surface waters. (In addition to other federal programs and laws, there is, of course, state and local governments.)

It should also be noted that a separate federal law, the Safe Drinking Water Act, protects the water we drink.

By getting rid of the Obama rule, the Trump administration appears to recognize the rule’s numerous problems. Now, it will be up to the Trump administration to develop a definition of “waters of the United States” that does something unique; namely, one that follows the law.

On Feb. 14, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed their new definition, which is a major improvement from the Obama rule.

There are still improvements that are needed before any new definition is finalized. Justice Antonin Scalia in his plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States wrestled with many of the challenges that admittedly the agencies face when developing a workable definition of “waters of the United States.”

If the final rule is consistent with this thoughtful opinion, then the Trump administration will succeed where past administrations have failed in developing a workable, legally defensible definition of “waters of the United States.”

Until then, the Trump administration should be commended for getting rid of the Obama rule, which failed on all counts.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/daren-bakst/trump-admin-should-be-commended-flushing-obama-era-clean-water-rule
Thursday saw a major win for the rule of law, prop... (show quote)


It is now time for the Dems to cry and make a ridiculous post, and of course the non v****g little canadian will jump in. Good for Trump.

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 07:59:36   #
WNC Ralf Loc: Candler NC, in the mountains!
 
Who needs clean water anyway? Or clean air?

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 08:20:44   #
jcboy3
 
Elaine2025 wrote:
It is now time for ME to cry and make a ridiculous post, and of course the non v****g Repukes will jump in. Good for Justin!


Hmmmm.

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 08:22:16   #
Frank T Loc: New York, NY
 
Clean water is so overrated. I remember Reagan allowed arsenic to be in drinking water and by-god, he was a Republican. Besides, that, as long as there's Diet Coke, the fat blob in the White House will be just fine.

Reply
 
 
Sep 16, 2019 09:13:10   #
sb Loc: Florida's East Coast
 
Yeah! Why shouldn't I have the right to dump poison in my little neighborhood stream without the feds making a federal case out of it! It's NOT like my little stream flows into a bigger stream which flows into a river which is the source of YOUR DRINKING WATER! So screw off! All hail Trump!

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 09:17:14   #
Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa
 
jcboy3 wrote:
Hmmmm.


I have submitted my original post to admin along with what you changed it to. I do think it is fascinating that you and the mentally challenged Canadian keep doing this because nobody on here agrees with you two 90 percent of the time.

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 09:18:04   #
Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa
 
sb wrote:
Yeah! Why shouldn't I have the right to dump poison in my little neighborhood stream without the feds making a federal case out of it! It's NOT like my little stream flows into a bigger stream which flows into a river which is the source of YOUR DRINKING WATER! So screw off! All hail Trump!


Who dumped poison in a stream? Or did you make that up?

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 09:30:13   #
wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma
 
jcboy3 wrote:
Hmmmm.


is that your best?? changing others posts to suit your inadequacies??

Reply
 
 
Sep 16, 2019 09:31:16   #
wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma
 
sb wrote:
Yeah! Why shouldn't I have the right to dump poison in my little neighborhood stream without the feds making a federal case out of it! It's NOT like my little stream flows into a bigger stream which flows into a river which is the source of YOUR DRINKING WATER! So screw off! All hail Trump!


??????? where did the poison issue come from??

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 09:35:04   #
jcboy3
 
wilpharm wrote:
is that your best?? changing others posts to suit your inadequacies??


Is that YOUR best? Stop projecting your own issues.

Elaine is shown to be an insulting whiner. Typical bully mentality.

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 09:36:00   #
wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma
 
jcboy3 wrote:
Is that YOUR best? Stop projecting your own issues.

Elaine is shown to be an insulting whiner. Typical bully mentality.


I do not have to change other peoples posts....You are the worst here except possibly the t*****r!!!

Reply
Sep 16, 2019 09:40:04   #
EyeSawYou
 
sb wrote:
Yeah! Why shouldn't I have the right to dump poison in my little neighborhood stream without the feds making a federal case out of it! It's NOT like my little stream flows into a bigger stream which flows into a river which is the source of YOUR DRINKING WATER! So screw off! All hail Trump!


You lefties are really ignorant and dumb.

Reply
Page 1 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.