Your Input is Shaping the Clean Water Rule
Water is the lifeblood of healthy people and healthy economies. We have a duty to protect it. That’s why EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are finalizing a Clean Water Rule later this spring to protect critical streams and wetlands that are currently vulnerable to pollution and destruction. On April 3 we sent the draft rule to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review. Since it’s not final yet, we can’t speak to every detail. But the spirit of this rule boils down to three facts:
First, people depend on clean water: one in three Americans get their drinking water from streams currently lacking clear protection.
Second, our economy depends on clean water: manufacturing, farming, ranching, tourism, recreation, and other major economic sectors need clean water to function and flourish.
Third, our cherished way of life depends on clean water: healthy ecosystems support precious wildlife habitat and pristine places to hunt, fish, boat, and swim.
A year ago, our agencies released the draft Clean Water Rule. Since then, we’ve held more than 400 meetings across the country and received more than one million public comments from farmers, manufacturers, business owners, hunters and anglers, and others. The input helped us understand the genuine concerns and interests of a wide range of stakeholders and think through options to address them. In the final rule, people will see that we made changes based on those comments, consistent with the law and the science. We’ve worked hard to reach a final version that works for everyone – while protecting clean water.
We’re confident the final rule will speak for itself. But we can broadly share some of the key points and changes we’re considering.
- Better defining how protected waters are significant. A key part of the Clean Water Rule is protecting water bodies, like streams and wetlands, which have strong impacts downstream – the technical term is “significant nexus.” We will respond to requests for a better description of what connections are important under the Clean Water Act and how agencies make that determination.
- Defining tributaries more clearly. We’ve heard feedback that our proposed definition of tributaries was confusing and ambiguous, and could be interpreted to pick up erosion in a farmer’s field, when that’s not our aim. So we looked at ways to refine that definition, be precise about the streams we’re talking about, and make sure there are bright lines around exactly what we mean.
- Providing certainty in how far safeguards extend to nearby waters. The rule will protect wetlands that are situated next to protected waterways like rivers and lakes, because science shows us they impact downstream waters. We will provide a clear definition about what waters are considered adjacent waters.
- Being specific in the protection of the nation’s regional water treasures. We heard concerns that the category we called “other waters” in the rule was too broad and undefined. We’ve thought through ways to be more specific about the waters that are important to protect, instead of what we do now, which too often is for the Army Corps to go through a long, complicated, case by case process to decide whether waters are protected.
- Focusing on tributaries, not ditches. We’re limiting protection to ditches that function like tributaries and can carry pollution downstream—like those constructed out of streams. Our proposal talked about upland ditches, and we got feedback that the word “upland” was confusing, so we’ll approach ditches from another angle.
- Preserving Clean Water Act exclusions and exemptions for agriculture. We will protect clean water without getting in the way of farming and ranching. Normal agriculture practices like plowing, planting, and harvesting a field have always been exempt from Clean Water Act regulation; this rule won’t change that at all.
- Maintaining the status of waters within Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Some state and local governments raised questions about waters within these permitted systems. We listened carefully as we did not intend to change how those waters are treated and have considered ways to address this concern. We will also continue to encourage the use of creative solutions like green infrastructure and low-impact development, as many of these communities have advocated.
The public will see that the agencies listened carefully and made changes based on their input. That’s how an open and collaborative process works – so we can ensure everyone’s voices are heard, in a way that follows the law and the latest science. Our mission is to uphold that commitment to the American people.
We may have different opinions on how we best protect our water resources, but we can all agree that clean water matters, and that it deserves our protection. The health of our people, our economies, and our way of life deserve protection. That’s what the Clean Water Rule is all about.
About the authors: Gina McCarthy is the U.S. EPA Administrator and Jo-Ellen Darcy is the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Barbara Stewart
Apr 06, 2015 @ 14:47:54
I want to know when the Federal EPA is going to issue federal regulations regarding fracking injection wells. We have four of these going in less than 2 miles from our home (which is in the middle of a small city of the Ohio River). These injection wells are causing earthquakes, and have the ability to turn America’s water supply into the biggest Super Fund site ever. If we wait, it will be too late. When is the government agency tasked with protecting our environment going to step up to the plate??
Enviro-Equipment, Inc.
Apr 06, 2015 @ 14:48:26
Although many farmers have objected to the proposed clean water rule, there’s no doubt that it will dramatically ramp-up protection of our waterways and wetlands. However, the weakness of the rule is that it’s going to bring significantly more federal control — via the EPA — of privately held property. I just wish the EPA would do a better job of explaining this trade-off to the agricultural community than they have done up to now.
Cassie Hart
Apr 07, 2015 @ 14:49:01
It appears that we are suffering from contaminated water in our area. We have farmland all around us, numerous fracking wells at a very close distance and a gas plant not 8 miles away. Many people and animals have started to become sick and remain unhealthy. This is very alarming. I urge people to have their drinking water wells tested and take precaution around standing and stagnant water. I don’t believe that the healthcare physicians and veterinarians are taking this seriously. At some point someone has to take a stand before things become far worse and unrecoverable damage is done. Research and testing needs to be done in our area to secure a better healthy future for all.
Jerry Foster
Apr 07, 2015 @ 14:49:41
I read a lot of statements of intent. Intent is worth little. And we heard the same statements of intent when Nancy Stoner wrote the proposal. Intent doesn’t trump words in print where litigation is concerned. When someone makes statements of intent without showing evidence of following through (the text of the regulations sent up for review) I lose trust very quickly.
Jordan
Apr 08, 2015 @ 14:54:26
Please clean up the whole thing. Clean things wait for no one in any way.
krishnan
Apr 10, 2015 @ 15:01:21
Clean water rule is very good as it leads to better health across the states.
We provide systems that naturally enhance water quality – be it hard water or irrigated water or industrial or sea water. How could we best support the rule and its intent as we like doing it cost effectively to the end users?
apkmart
Jun 18, 2016 @ 16:04:05
keep water clean
Paul Davis
Apr 10, 2015 @ 15:01:49
Following instructions from the Supreme Court, the proposed rule says the U.S. will protect waters that are chemically physically and/or biologically important to larger waters.
What happens if we fail to do that?
Tennessee Senator had the answer years ago: “The once seemingly separable types of aquatic systems are, we now know, interrelated and interdependent. We cannot expect to preserve the remaining qualities of our water resources without providing appropriate protection for the entire resource.”
Congressional Record, August 4, 1977
Cal Cole
Apr 11, 2015 @ 15:02:14
Water , fresh or salty is life to earth !! You , all of us must not let politics stop us from defending it !!! The wars of tomorrow will be over water !!
Let’s not forget the BP disaster still at hand and their effort to walk away !!! Some one should be in jail !!!
If we can not save clean water we can not save ourselves !!!
Go fight for your right to live !!!!!! God help us all
Lori
Apr 11, 2015 @ 15:06:34
Please do not allow California until Feb. 2017 to investigate/shut-down injection wells potentially contaminating groundwater. Protect our water supply NOW.
Lisa Segers
Apr 12, 2015 @ 15:07:09
How can someone in the city of Coatesville be helped if stormwater damage to a property is going onto a private property, from another township and a water company?
Eric
Apr 15, 2015 @ 15:09:03
Restoring Watersheds back to Meadows, Forest, and Wetlands will have many benefits including wildlife corridors for better genetic diversity in all animals including game, more habitat for biodiversity, better heath, clean air/water. Restoring 100 yards on each side of rivers, 50 yards on creeksides, and 25 yards on ditches Aquifers will increase along with water quality.
Large Protected areas upstream of every major City will help and also give recreation (hunting, fishing,canoeing,camping,etc) for Communites as well as tourism$$$
Biophilia Hypothesis says humans have an attraction to natural areas and are much healthier when they spend a little time there.
Immunnity goes up 50% after spending 3 hrs in a multi-story Forest (last for 3 weeks), BP/Pulse/Stress Hormones also reduced
Lamar Everett
Apr 15, 2015 @ 15:09:31
I work for General Motors, and while we disagree with some air standards, I think most of us want clean water and agree with the intent. My problem is that as many of you have said, the EPA isn’t going to hurry up and fix the water any time soon.
sinnadurai sripadmanaban
Apr 22, 2015 @ 15:09:57
If gas,water,electricity,fuel,liquor etc are rationed as per age and medical condition of each person we can save a lot of waste.
Jim Jurena
May 09, 2015 @ 17:59:13
The time has come to fight back against Nestle and other corporate monsters who are tapping a resource that is [nearly] free, and in their unbridled greed produce waste from the oil used to bottle water we can get from our own faucets.
Our natural resources have been put at risk, and government should be protecting the citizens of this country, their air , water and food , by saying NO to huge corporations that show callous disregard for the well being of our children and future generations.
Tom
May 27, 2015 @ 08:47:11
Do what you can no matter how long it takes. Private property rights must be destroyed.
Insurancewhisper.com
Jul 12, 2015 @ 04:47:08
Wow, marvelous weblog structure! How long have you ever been blogging for? you make blogging glance easy. The whole look of your website is magnificent, let alone the content material!
Kasia
Mar 23, 2016 @ 20:06:03
Great news but o these ruls apply to the countries outside the US. Like Africa
Its very important to protect of water resources there. There are huge water resources are exposed to tamper.