ST. LOUIS (AP) – President Joe Biden’s administration on Friday finalized regulations protecting hundreds of thousands of small rivers, wetlands and other waterways, overturning a Trump-era rule that was thrown out by a federal court and environmentalists say the waterways are vulnerable to pollution.
The rule defines “waters of the United States” that are protected by the Clean Water Act. For decades, the term has been a flashpoint between environmental groups that want to expand limits on pollution entering state waters and farmers, builders and industry groups that say the regulations go too far for business.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army said the reworked rules were based on definitions that existed before 2015. Federal officials said they wrote a “durable definition” of the waterway to reduce uncertainty.
But in recent years, there has been a lot of uncertainty. After the Obama administration sought to expand federal protections, the Trump administration reinstated them as part of the unwinding of hundreds of environmental and public health regulations. A federal judge rejected that effort. And a separate case is currently being considered by the Supreme Court which has yet to overturn the already settled rule.
“We have implemented rules that are clear, durable, and balance protecting water resources with the needs of all water users, whether farmers, ranchers, industry, water organizations,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Radhika Fox. The Associated Press.
The new rule builds on the definition already in 2015, but is more streamlined and includes updates to reflect court opinions, scientific understanding and decades of experience, Fox said. The final rule will add protections to some rivers, wetlands, lakes and ponds, he said.
The Trump-era rule, which is set to expire in 2020, has long been sought by builders, oil and gas developers, farmers and others who complain about federal overreach that they say has turned gullies, rivers and ravines into farmland and other private property.
Environmental groups and public health advocates argue that Trump’s rule allows businesses to dump pollutants into unprotected waterways and fill some wetlands, threatening public water supplies downstream and harming wildlife and habitat.
“Today, the Biden administration restored the clean water protections needed to keep our nation’s waters safe from pollution for fishing, swimming, and as a source of drinking water,” Kelly Moser, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Clean Water Defense Initiative, said in a statement. in the statement.
Jon Devine, director of federal water policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called repealing the Trump-era rule a “smart move” that “comes at a time when we’re seeing an unprecedented attack on federal clean water protections by polluters and their allies.”
But Jerry Konter, president of the National Association of Home Builders, said the new rules make it unclear whether the federal government will regulate water in places like roadside ditches and remote ponds.
“Instead of providing clarity and certainty to homeowners and other affected stakeholders, this proposed definition of US water adds uncertainty and confusion to the regulatory process, increases housing costs and drastically increases federal overreach in the process,” he said. Counter in the statement. .
A 2021 review by the Biden administration found that Trump’s rule allowed more than 300 projects to proceed without federal permits required under Obama-era rules, and that Trump’s rule significantly reduced clean water protections in states such as New Mexico and Arizona.
In August 2021, a federal judge threw out the Trump-era rule and applied a 1986 standard that was broader than Trump’s rule but narrower than Obama’s. U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Marquez in Arizona, an Obama appointee, said the Trump-era EPA ignored its own findings that small waterways can affect the well-being of larger waterways.
Meanwhile, a Supreme Court justice is weighing arguments from Idaho couples in a business-backed push to limit the Clean Water Act. Chantell and Michael Sackett wanted to build a house near the lake, but the EPA stopped their work in 2007, finding wetlands on the property to be federally regulated. The agency said Sacketts needed a permit.
The case was heard in October and tested the portion of the rule that the Biden administration moved to a finalized version. Now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in 2006 that wetlands “affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of nearby navigable waters like rivers, where Clean Water Act protections apply. EPA rules include this test. Four conservative judges in the 2006 case, however, said that the Federal law only applies if there is a continuous surface connection between the wetland and an obviously regulated body of water like a river.
Biden’s rule applies federal protections to wetlands, tributaries and other waters that are related to navigable waters or if the wetlands are “relatively permanent.”
The agency said input was received at 10 regional roundtables seeking information on what works, and what doesn’t.
Fox said the ordinance was not written to stop development or prevent agriculture.
“It’s about making sure that we have development that’s happening, that we’re growing food and fuel for our country but doing it in a way that also protects our country’s water,” he said.
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for water and environmental policy coverage. AP is solely responsible for all content. For all AP environment coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment