The environment: Drink up It’s been in the

Quote:

---

The environment: Drink up


It’s been in the works for a while, but this week the Environmental Protection Agency officially began the process of withdrawing the Clean Water Rule — a never-implemented Obama-era regulation that would have allowed the EPA to treat pollution in upstream tributaries (including seasonal streams and wetlands) the same way as pollution in the larger, navigable lakes and rivers connected to those waterways.

You might have heard it referred to as WOTUS, or the Waters of the United States. The rule got big pushback, from the agricultural industry in particular, because of fears (unfounded, according to the Obama EPA) that it would mean increased interference in the basic activities of farming and ranching.

Because of the legal and rhetorical battle, it’s easy to miss that the EPA originally pitched the rule as a way to protect drinking water.

According to a 2009 analysis, the vast majority of the continental U.S. served by public drinking water systems — 94 percent — gets its water, at least in part, from little streams and waterways that don’t run year-round. That’s more than a third of all Americans.

Historically, it’s been unclear whether the EPA had the power to monitor and regulate pollution in those waters — instead, regulatory authority was decided on a case-by-case basis. Under the Trump administration, the EPA seems to favor an interpretation of the law that would limit regulation as much as possible.

How that plays out will vary across the nation. Regions with a lot of year-round streams and rivers (such as Minnesota and Florida) draw more of their water from already-regulated sources.

Ultimately, it’s the West, Southwest and arid Plains areas where the most drinking water comes from sources the EPA won’t be watching.

Drink up, GOP base. LOL!

Without that oversight, some waterways and wetlands could be destroyed as part of development projects, Annie Sneed wrote in Scientific American.

In other cases, lack of oversight could mean an increase in pollutants that end up in downstream water treatment plants — potentially increasing costs to cash-strapped local water systems or even possibly overwhelming those systems, resulting in higher levels of contaminants in the drinking water itself.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-fed-...=trumpbeat

---

Quote:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act_of_2003

Criticisms in opposition[edit]

The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda."

Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.

Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.
Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.

Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.

By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3 million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO2, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.[2]

In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps [3]. It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush Administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee.

In addition, some opponents consider the term, "Clear Skies Initiative" (similarly to the Healthy Forests Initiative), to be an example of administration Orwellian Doublespeak, using environmentally friendly terminology as "cover" for a give-away to business interests .[1]

---