Groups weigh in on EPA draft report on waters of the U.S.

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

Agricultural organizations are raising concern over the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft report “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: a Review and Synthesis of Scientific Evidence.” When finalized, the report could be the scientific basis for defining “waters of the United States,” and could result in expanded EPA and Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

Wetlands In September, EPA sent a draft rule to the Office of Management and Budget to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. While at the same time, EPA’s Science Advisory Board solicited public comments on the draft report and scheduled a public meeting in December. For now the proposed rule is being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and isn’t available to the public.

The topic of the definition of “waters of the United States” is not a new one and is one that raises concerns among agricultural groups on mere mention. Twice in recent years, Congress has refused to pass legislation to remove the word “navigable” from the definition of waters of the United States.  

The report reviews and synthesizes more than 1,000 pieces of scientific literature finds the following:

  • All tributary streams, including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, are physically, chemically, and biologically connected to downstream rivers via channels and associated alluvial deposits where water and other materials are concentrated, mixed, transformed, and transported.
  • Wetlands and open-waters in landscape settings that have bidirectional hydrologic exchanges with streams or rivers are physically, chemically, and biologically connected with rivers via the export of channel-forming sediment and woody debris, temporary storage of local groundwater that supports baseflow in rivers, and transport of stored organic matter.
  • Wetlands in landscape settings that lack bidirectional hydrologic exchanges with  downstream waters (e.g., many prairie potholes, vernal pools, and playa lakes) provide numerous functions that can benefit downstream water quality and integrity

According to EPA’s website, any final regulatory action related to the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act in a rulemaking will be based on the final version of this scientific assessment, which will reflect EPA’s consideration of all comments received from the public and the independent peer review. Further, EPA says the proposed rule does change propose changes to existing regulatory exemptions and exclusions, including those for agriculture.

So, what did some of those comments include?

According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, “EPA’s Charge Questions focus on verifying the clarity and technical accuracy of the Report, but EPA stops short of asking important questions about the scientific significance of these connections on the health of downstream waters. For example, the Report identifies the presence but not the significance of these connections; fails to discuss how effects are measured; and whether it is possible to establish science-based effects thresholds that could ultimately be applied in a regulatory context. These are all important questions that need to be answered scientifically for the Agencies to make CWA policy decisions.

“NCBA members support a reasonable program for conserving and enhancing waters that have significant environmental value. However, we do not support, and urge the SAB to reject, this latest EPA and Corps effort to expand its regulatory jurisdiction over our waters.

Click here to read NCBA’s full comments.

The Water Advocacy Coalition, a coalition of more than 35 organizations, said EPA “put the cart before the horse,” raises additional questions and concerns with the science behind the report, asks the agencies to withdraw the draft rule and wait for the SAB’s final review of the rule before making any regulatory decisions.

Click here to read the WAC’s full comments.

The next step in this regulatory process will be the public meeting scheduled for December 16-18, in Washington, D.C., at the Washington Plaza Hotel. 


Prev 1 2 Next All



Comments (4) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Sam    
Ohio  |  November, 12, 2013 at 09:06 AM

The findings may be true but are not relevant. The interstate commerce clause is the vehicle that gives the federal government any authority to regulate in this arena. If the waters are not navigable for or by commerce then they are not available for regulation. Furthermore if the waters are not navigable across state or national borders then there is also no authority to regulate.

Jim    
In a drought  |  November, 12, 2013 at 01:18 PM

Memo to Sam: Your argument is accurate, but of no effect. We're dealing with lawless people who are interested only in controlling more people, places and things for the purpose of extracting everything from fees on one end to penalities on the other end. Either way it ultimately means more power and money to them, and more cost and hell hell to you and I. Neither the law nor common sense count for anything anymore.

Rod    
Kansas  |  November, 12, 2013 at 04:11 PM

I am reminded of when EPA laid claim of US Waters to farm ponds and wet weather stream beds back in '02. These people never quit!

Graywolf12    
Texas  |  November, 13, 2013 at 07:54 AM

You are correct. This regime has no respect for laws unless they serve their intended purposes. Last comment deleted. Probably because I used the "Cist" word.


LWR Manure Treatment System

The innovative, sustainable, and cost effective LWR System employs a mechanical and chemical process which has the unique ability to ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Generate Leads