EPA Moves to Eliminate Essential Clean Water Act Protections
Continuing its march toward elimination of key Clean Water Act protections, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Tuesday issued a formal notice of withdrawal of the Obama administration's rule defining which waters can be protected against pollution and destruction under federal law.
This is the first step in EPA administrator Scott Pruitt's plan to eliminate essential Clean Water Act protections for waterways across the country that have been in place since the 1970s.
Within the next few months, Pruitt is expected to take the more dangerous second step—adopting a narrow definition of "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) long sought by industry that will allow uncontrolled pollution and destruction of our nation's rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands.
The decision to withdraw and replace the definition that protects our nation's waterways—a move advocated by industry groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the American Petroleum Institute—was made soon after Pruitt became administrator and without consultation with the public, the states or environmental groups. In fact, Pruitt attended the Farm Bureau Advocacy Conference on the same day he signed the withdraw and replace notice to announce to his allies that "relief is on the way."
50+ Interviews With EPA Staff: Trump Poses 'Greatest Threat' to Agency in 47-Year History https://t.co/oAxZP5JNyn (@EcoWatch)— Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)1498347007.0
It has been widely reported that, after becoming administrator, Pruitt had multiple meetings with senior executives in the automotive, coal, oil and gas, and utility industries, including attending "a March 22 meeting of the executive council of the American Petroleum Institute at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, with 45 oil and gas CEOs."
By contrast, despite Pruitt's purported goal of "restoring states' important role in the regulation of water," the states were briefed on EPA's plan on April 19th after Pruitt had already determined to proceed with the withdrawal and replacement of the existing definition, and an official request for written comment was provided to the states roughly 40 days prior to a June 19th deadline.
"This action is not about restoring the state's role in the protection of water—the states are the primary entities that implement the Clean Water Act," said Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney Kelly Hunter Foster. "This is EPA Administrator Pruitt's first step in implementing a long-term industry strategy to eliminate federal and state authority to protect waterways against industrial pollution."
Waterkeeper Alliance is committed to ensuring that the Clean Water Act continues to protect our nation's rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands, and all those that depend on clean water. Waterkeeper Alliance will fight every attempt to weaken this vital environmental protection.
While the hazards of fracking to human health are well-documented, first-of-its-kind research from Environmental Health News shows the actual levels of biomarkers for fracking chemicals in the bodies of children living near fracking wells far higher than in the general population.
A man stands with his granddaughter in front of the Murphy Oil site located next door to his apartment in West Adams, Los Angles, California on July 16, 2014. Sarah Craig / Faces of Fracking
- Total Ban on Fracking Urged by Health Experts: 1,500 Studies ... ›
- Every Parent Concerned About Their Kids' Health Should Read This ... ›
- 650,000 Children in 9 States Attend School Within 1 Mile of a ... ›
- Fracking Chemicals Remain Secret Despite EPA Knowledge of ... ›
- Study: Fracking Chemicals Harm Kids' Brains - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
As the planet warms, mountain snowpack is increasingly melting. But "global warming isn't affecting everywhere the same," Climate Scientist Amato Evan told the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego.
- California's Dwindling Snowpack: Another Year of Drought, Floods ... ›
- California's Dire Drought Leads to Record Low Snowpack Levels at ... ›
- Climate Change Is Shrinking Winter Snowpack and Harming ... ›
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›