Latest news with #WOTUS
Fox News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
DOGE prepares to literally drain the swamp by banishing Biden's ‘overreaching' water rule
EXCLUSIVE: After scoring a victory in her effort to undo the Biden-era expansion of clean water regulations that led to outrage from farmers and homesteaders, Senate DOGE Chairwoman Joni Ernst put forward permanent policy exclusions Thursday to prevent future Democratic administrations from "overreach." "If you try to navigate a wastewater treatment pool, you'll be up a creek without a paddle," Ernst, R-Iowa, said, mocking what she and many heartland landowners see as federal overreach into clearly unnavigable waters. Rainwater pools, farm runoff, small property ponds, and other ephemeral or seasonal water bodies – like prairie potholes and temporary channels – were suddenly subject to federal regulation, not local farmers or landowners. "WOTUS regulatory uncertainty has threatened the livelihoods of hardworking Iowa farmers, small businesses, and landowners for far too long and I was thrilled to join EPA Administrator (Lee) Zeldin in announcing that the Trump administration is revising this misguided and harmful regulatory expansion," Ernst told Fox News Digital, noting her announcement Thursday builds on an effort announced in March by the EPA that opened the door to such revisions. Ernst has called the original Biden and Obama expansions of the law disastrous and "overreach" that continue the trend of Democrats "mounting unnecessary environmental regulations to overwhelm the commonsense voice of hardworking Americans." Iowa Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig said Ernst's "CLEAR Waters Act" will provide necessary clarity and consistency to such "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) regulations. Naig said it should "end the constant policy whiplash that changes with each new administration." "It's a commonsense approach that brings certainty to those who are working every day to responsibly manage our land and water." A 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA stripped some of the Biden administration's control via their "significant nexus" test of waterway categorization. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 9-0 majority opinion that the EPA had ordered Idaho landowners Michael and Chantell Sackett to restore a wetland where they were building a home or pay $40,000 per day in penalties. Alito said the EPA had considered the area a wetland because "they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake; a navigable intrastate lake." "The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not 'waters of the United States.'" That decision enraged Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who said the "MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country's environmental laws." "Make no mistake – this ruling will mean more polluted water, and more destruction of wetlands," he warned at the time.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
It could soon become easier to build in Louisiana wetlands
Photo of cypress trees in the Atchafalaya River Basin. Environmental groups like the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper and Sierra Club worry a new bill will make it easier to develop in isolated wetland areas. (Elise Plunk/Louisiana Illuminator) In a stretch of wild land in Iberville Parish, a small dirt dam built across an out-of-the-way bayou is at the center of a lawsuit. Environmental advocates fear cases like this could become more common if a Louisiana proposal to redefine its wetlands becomes law. Opponents say this proposed change doesn't just open doors for mixed legal interpretations; it could also make it easier to erase valuable wetland habitat and build in flood-prone areas. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in Baton Rouge two years ago by the environmental group Atchafalaya Basinkeeper and the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association-West. They allege Benjamin Miller of Miller Hunting Club in Eunice illegally dammed Pat's Throat Bayou in 2021 to access hunting grounds on the other bank. The hunting club didn't get a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before Miller built the dam, according to the lawsuit. Instead, the plaintiffs claim the USACE granted a permit after the dam was illegally built. If the Louisiana Legislature approves a proposed update to its wetlands laws, environmentalists fear property owners and developers will argue that wetlands like these – illegally dammed off from a navigable body of water – shouldn't be protected under state or federal law. 'There will be lawsuits,' said Margie Vicknair-Pray, conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Delta chapter. 'They're changing the definition, but that doesn't change reality.' Mirroring Sackett Pat's Throat Bayou is a window into how a national policy shift could affect Louisiana. A 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, narrowed federal protection for wetlands. The case arose from an Idaho family who backfilled their property, which the EPA later determined to be protected wetlands. The Sacketts challenged that determination, arguing successfully their land did not connect to a navigable water body – known in federal law as Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Before Sackett, developers needed a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge or fill a wetland area protected under the federal Clean Water Act. The Sackett ruling also left uncertainty as to where navigable channels under WOTUS begin and end when it comes to wetlands, according to Mark Davis, director of the Tulane Center for Environmental Law. 'They didn't define exactly how that's going to play out … and people will agree and disagree where those lines are drawn,' Davis said. This means owners and developers might not need permits from the USACE to build in isolated wetland areas. The grey area has prompted states to step in and try to fill the regulatory gap with their own wetlands laws. Louisiana state Sen. 'Big Mike' Fesi, R-Houma, has sponsored Senate Bill 94 in response to the Sackett decision. His bill looks to redefine wetlands cut off by levees that break their connection to navigable water bodies as 'fastlands,' disqualifying them from federal protection. Fesi said in an interview his bill is meant to bring Louisiana law in line with the Sackett decision. 'We try calling everything wetlands just because it has a little water in it,' Fesi said. 'It's gotten way out of hand.' The Sackett ruling does not affect wetlands connected to navigable bodies of water, such as the Mississippi River, or tidal wetlands along Louisiana's coast. They would still have federal protection under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands with levees, either through 'current or future lawful construction,' are left more vulnerable in Fesi's proposal. The senator did not give a conclusive answer when asked what will happen to current wetlands cut off by future levees, saying his bill was intended to invite room for individual interpretation 'One size doesn't fit all,' he said. That's exactly the issue wetlands advocates have with Senate Bill 94 – the room for interperetation it leaves for how wetlands are defined. In the case of Pat's Throat Bayou, the argument was over whether wetlands connected to the navigable bayou were cut off legally or illegally when Miller built a dam, said Brennan Spoor, a member of Atchafalaya Basinkeepers. The group's mission is to protect and restore the swamps and waterways of the basin. 'The bill applies to all [levees and dams] that are currently existing or future ones that are lawfully constructed,' Spoor said. 'You could argue that the dam was lawfully constructed, and therefore the wetlands that they have destroyed since they built the dam were never wetlands at all,' he added, explaining that the bill tries to eliminate the need for a federal permit if the property owners want to dredge or fill the landscape. The exact language of the bill is also concerning to legal experts for the confusion they say it will create in the law. Fesi's bill changes the definition of wetlands under the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, the program that regulates contamination released into surface waters. But Louisiana still needs to follow federal law for pollutants. 'The notion of a continuous surface connection is not really part of the rule for what a pollution discharge covers,' Davis said. 'If anything, it creates deeper confusion rather than clarification.' The Louisiana Senate approved Fesi's bill Tuesday in a 35-1 vote. It heads next to the governor for his signature. Flood concerns As legal arguments mount, environmental advocates say the stakes are high for Louisiana. Building in wetland areas eliminates valuable habitat and increases the risk of flooding in nearby communities, Vicknair-Pray said. 'People just want to build where they want to build, and they don't want to think of the long-term consequences' like habitat loss and flooding, she said. 'That water has to go somewhere. We need wetlands for that water to back up into.' When asked about flood concerns, Fesi said he thinks his bill would make it easier to construct and repair levees, aiding with much-needed flood control in some areas and 'promoting individual property rights' for those wanting to build in previously defined wetlands. 'Those aren't wetlands,' Fesi said, speaking about wetland areas surrounded by levees or cut off from bodies of water. The 2023 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan, a document outlining various coastal restoration and flood protection projects, recommends a combination of wetland resources and manmade levees for flood control. The same document also warns that overengineering rivers like the Mississippi can 'impact coastal wetlands and undermine their ability to replenish naturally.' 'The marsh behind a levee is going to die,' Vicknair-Pray said. Aside from just diminished natural flood control, she worries wildlife living in isolated wetland areas, including migrating ducks and native reptiles, will be put at risk with development encouraged under Fesi's legislation. 'We used to consider this Sportsman's Paradise,' she said. 'I don't think we can say that anymore.'
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
What is the waters rule and why should you care?
The final listening session focusing on a controversial water rule will be held Thursday in Salt Lake City to give Utah residents a chance to weigh in. Called the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, the hotly contested issue has wrangled its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been batted around among various presidential administrations that have never been able to agree on its extent and reach. The EPA and the Department of the Army will be conducting a hybrid listening session for the public on Zoom and in-person at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Multi-Agency State Office Building. The consecutive sessions will be offered at 2–4 p.m. and 4–6 p.m. Participants for this session will include: EPA Office of Water Acting Assistant Administrator Peggy Browne, EPA Region 8 Administrator Cyrus M. Western, and colleagues from the Department of the Army. An Obama-era rule issued in 2015 as an outgrowth of a Supreme Court decision was lauded by environmental activists and conservation groups as the most significant and impressive overhaul of the Clean Water Act in 42 years. Groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership said the Obama rule clarified federal jurisdiction over seasonal streams — which involves 60% of the stream miles in the United States — and was critical for the Prairie Pothole region hosting 70% of the ducks in North America. Supporters of WOTUS say it is meant to protect the benefits of water for all people of the United States to enjoy, not just individual property owners. The rule, however, was derided by states, private property owners and ranchers as regulatory overreach that stretched the meaning of words like navigable, near or adjacent. The case of the Sacketts is one example. Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a vacant lot to build their dream home on in a mostly built-out subdivision in northern Idaho only to be told by the federal government their property was a wetland and subject to the authority of the Clean Water Act. 'The Sacketts' vacant lot is adjacent to Priest Lake, which is 300 feet away and behind two rows of houses,' said Tony Francois, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which sued on behalf of the couple in 2008. Francois said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers have construed WOTUS to expansively extend their authority beyond what is reasonable due to an earlier 2006 Supreme Court decision (Rapanos v. United States) that gave little to no clarity on the issue. In that case, the Supreme Court was trying to answer the question of how closely connected to a navigable river or lake a body of water has to be for Clean Water Act regulations to kick in and how permanent must that water be. The Sacketts prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the justices held to a plurality opinion in the 2006 case that the Clean Water Act applies to only those 'wetlands' or water which must be relatively permanent and connected to traditional interstate navigable waters. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the concurring opinion, warned that under the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act, 'nearly all waters and wetlands are potentially susceptible to regulation under this (significant nexus) test, putting a staggering array of landowners at risk of criminal prosecution for such mundane activities as moving dirt.' Utah was among an 11-state coalition that successfully got the rule put on hold with a federal injunction issued in 2018, and Utah's state Legislature has weighed in with a resolution opposing the WOTUS rule. It still remains a contentious issue, however, as the federal government tries to reach a compromise. The listening session Thursday in Salt Lake City is designed to gather more information.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
EPA, Army to hold WV listening sessions for changes to Clean Water Act impacting wetland protections
A Lesser Golden Plover sits in a section of wetland June 4, 2006 in Barrow, Alaska. (Justin Sullivan | Getty Images) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army will hold a listening session in Charleston next week to get public input regarding proposed changes to the federal Clean Water Act that could redefine what waterways are subject to regulations and protected from certain kinds of pollution nationwide. Two listening sessions will be held on Wednesday at the Kanawha County Courthouse, the first from 2:30 to 4:15 p.m. and the second from 4:15 to ,6 p.m., according to a news release from the EPA. Attendees can participate virtually or in person by registering for the listening sessions here. The federal agencies, according to the news release, are looking to 'understand real-world perspectives and experiences' regarding how the 'Waters of the United States,' or WOTUS, are defined in the Clean Water Act. Since the 1970s, WOTUS has been used to refer to nearly all waterways in the nation, including wetlands and smaller streams and tributaries that run adjacent to them. The term, however, has never been clearly defined, making regulation of certain waterways more difficult. In 2023, a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States narrowed the protections and regulations for wetlands, which provide habitats for thousands of species of animals and plants and can play a crucial role in controlling floodplains in areas prone to flooding as well as naturally filtering drinking water. The Supreme Court decision led to an amendment to the federal rule from the EPA, which has since been mired in litigation and contention. Under the amendment offered in 2023, more than half of the nation's remaining wetlands have no EPA regulations or protections over them. In March, the EPA — operating under President Donald Trump's direction — issued a new interpretation of the Supreme Court's 2023 decision that further erodes protections, which experts say will disproportionately impact rural communities. Wetland conservancy groups and environmentalists from across the country have spoken out against the changes to the federal Clean Water Act. Meanwhile, the American Farm Bureau Federation — a lobbying group representing industrial farming throughout the nation — wants to see the changes made to relieve what they say is a burden for the farm industry, which is responsible for runoff and toxic pollution into thousands of tributaries and wetlands nationwide. The listening sessions in Charleston are just a few of those being held across the nation in recent and coming weeks.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
AG Coleman, others, say KY will protect its own water resources
HENDERSON, Ky. (WEHT) – Attorney General Russell Coleman, Agriculture Commissioner Jonathan Shell and Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Commissioner Rich Storm asked the Trump Administration to end a years-long regulatory battle over Kentucky's water resources. AG Coleman says in a comment letter to the EPA, the three officials call on the federal government to respect the commonwealth's ability to protect its own waters and lands. In 2015, President Obama's EPA imposed its version of the 'Waters of the United States' or WOTUS rule, which gave 'massive' new authority to the federal government to regulate seemingly any amount of water, including on private lands. The rule immediately faced legal challenges, including from Kentucky's then-Attorney General Jack Conway. The Obama Administration's rule was eventually rescinded, only to have President Biden's EPA impose a similar rule in early 2023. AG Coleman says he has since continued the legal fight against the rule that 'over regulated' Kentuckians. Last year, the Attorney General's Solicitor General argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to preserve Kentucky's role in protecting the Commonwealth's resources. In March, President Trump's EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the EPA will revise WOTUS to 'reduce red tape,' 'cut' overall permitting costs and 'lower the cost' of doing business in communities across the country. Two chaplains join HPD for the first time in nearly 20 years 'For years, Washington climate radicals have tried to control every pond, ditch and puddle in the Commonwealth. We've taken the EPA to court to protect family farmers and property owners who don't want to be under the thumb of federal bureaucrats,' said Attorney General Coleman. 'Kentucky is fully prepared to be good stewards of our own water, land and air, and the EPA must respect our right and ability to do just that.' AG Coleman says Kentucky is at the 'heart' of America's inland waterways and has 'more commercially navigable waters' than any state except Alaska. 'Kentucky farmers are the original conservationists, and they don't need Washington bureaucrats telling them how to take care of their land. We support common-sense rules that protect our water without crippling the people who feed and fuel this nation. I'm proud to stand with Attorney General Coleman and Commissioner Storm to push back against overreach and protect Kentucky's rights,' said Commissioner Shell. Red Cross to set up disaster resource center in Henderson AG Coleman says in addition to emphasizing the 'proper division of control' over waters between the federal and state governments, the comment letter also offered practical recommendations to help make the WOTUS definition more transparent and workable for Kentucky landowners. 'As a leading steward and holder of Kentucky's public lands, Kentucky Fish and Wildlife supports the development of a carefully considered and mutually acceptable definition of WOTUS,' said Commissioner Storm. 'A clear definition will help all parties to better determine jurisdictional authority and when mitigation to offset developmental impact would or would not be required.' The comment letter can be viewed below. WOTUS-Comment_FinalDownload 'Eyewitness News. Everywhere you are.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
