Democrats defended it as important to make certain waterways remained air pollution-free.
But Don Parrish, congressional relations director for the American Farm Bureau Federation, says the 2015 regulation that extended federal protection to many USA wetlands and waterways created uncertainty about where farmers could cultivate land. Justice Scalia, joined by three other Justices, issued a plurality opinion for the Court, with a separate concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy, and a dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens with three other Justices joining. "They want to pretend that pollution doesn't flow downstream, when everyone knows that the best way to keep water clean is to stop harmful pollution at its source".
While the opinion of the Supreme Court only held that isolated wetlands could not be considered jurisdictional waters exclusively on their basis as habitat for migratory birds, the practical result was that very few isolated wetlands were considered to be jurisdictional.
"The Clean Water rule represented solid science and smart public policy", the Natural Resources Defense Council said Thursday. Twenty-two states the District of Columbia and US territories follow the 2015 rule, while the rest follow guidance dating back to the Reagan administration. The agencies are also recodifying the longstanding and familiar regulatory text that existed prior to the 2015 Rule, ending a regulatory patchwork that required implementing two competing Clean Water Act regulations, which has created regulatory uncertainty across the United States.
Environmentalists contend many of those smaller, seemingly isolated waters are tributaries of the larger waterways and can have a significant effect on their quality. Like about half the states in the country, it was blocked by the courts. Our states depend on the Clean Water Act to protect communities from flooding and unlimited pollution. "They're more efficient and save lives". The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are writing a replacement rule, which is expected to be finalized by the end of the year. The rule's critics and the Trump administration have said the rule amounted to government overreach because it allowed for expansive interpretation in what the federal agency could regulate, leading to scores of lawsuits with private property owners.
But Don Parrish, congressional relations director for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the 2015 regulation that extended federal protection to many USA wetlands and waterways created uncertainty about where farmers could cultivate land.
Environmental groups are panning the move and promising further legal challenges. "This is shameful and unsafe", said Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice president.
While most voiced a concern over this latest move by the Trump administration, many groups said this there are many more fronts for legal challenges.
"It made protecting water quality and conservation efforts more hard and created huge liabilities for farmers, especially when what waters would be regulated under the old rule could not be clearly defined".