web1_awards9.jpg

Electric City Music Conference announces dates, begins taking applications

WVW School District kindergarten registration

<p>Precisely at noon on Jan. 20, the Trump administration unveiled its new website at whitehouse.gov.</p><p>Under the category of &#8220;issues&#8221; is a link to the America First Energy Plan &#8211; which states &#8220;For too long, we&#8217;ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.&#8221;</p><p>Casting aside the part about the Climate Action Plan, the &#8220;Waters of the U.S. Rule&#8221; is worth examining. Does it really represent a burdensome regulation?</p><p>I argue that it does not.</p><p>The Environmental Protection Agency and the US Army Corps of Engineers jointly finalized the Waters of the United States rule in late May 2015. The rule specifies the features of areas that qualify as Waters of the United States, and thus are worthy of receiving protection under the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972.</p><p>Enacted during the Nixon administration, the Clean Water Act protects navigable waterways, such as rivers and lakes, from water pollution. But to do so, Congress wisely included protections for tributary streams and their adjoining wetlands. Such wetlands benefit people living downstream by preventing flooding, restoring groundwater, removing pollution and providing prized habitat for fish and wildlife. Further, about 117 million Americans get their drinking water from streams protected by the Clean Water Act.</p><p>Since the late 1970s, the Army Corps of Engineers has regulated wetlands, streams, ponds and other water features on both private and public lands. Landowners with such features on their property must obtain a permit from the corps whenever they want to develop those areas. But such restrictions rankle many developers, and the government has been repeatedly sued over the law.</p><p>Supreme Court decisions 10 years ago required the corps to prove that a particular aquatic feature clearly benefited a downstream navigable waterway: a time-consuming and costly procedure considering the thousands of regulated wetlands and watercourses in the U.S.</p><p>To streamline the process of identifying Waters of the United States on parcels of land, the EPA and corps jointly developed a set of rules that defined regulated bodies of water within the U.S. They produced an initial document based on scientific expertise and research. Public review followed, involving over one million comments and more than 400 meetings.</p><p>Significantly, the rule declared that tributary streams and adjoining wetlands are sufficiently connected to downstream rivers and lakes to be automatically declared Waters of the United States. Thus, further assessment would not be needed. Developers would therefore benefit by more quickly knowing whether they needed to file a permit application.</p><p>But before it could be fully implemented, the rule was quickly challenged in the courts by Republicans, nearly 30 states, and a range of business interests, all claiming that it represented a major overreach of federal power. It remains in litigation.</p><p>Prospects for the rule will dim considerably if the Trump administration follows through with its pledge articulated on the White House website. Ominously, then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who now leads the EPA, has sued the agency over the rule and has promised to withdraw it. </p><p>Opponents of the rule fail to appreciate that removing the regulation would again force the corps to perform laborious and costly case-by-case analyses of each wetland&#8217;s connections to downstream water conditions. They also overlook the role that wetlands and tributary streams play in helping to protect the quality and flow patterns of navigable waters, which is the clear intent of the Clean Water Act.</p><p>But the rule has its supporters. Pro-fishing groups, such as Trout Unlimited, are concerned about the loss of prized fisheries habitat should stream protections disappear. The National Wildlife Federation and grassroots organizations, such as the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, are waging campaigns to support the rule. Scientific organizations are strongly supportive of the rule and have intervened on behalf of the government in at least one lawsuit.</p><p>If clear thinking prevails and the rule is implemented, we will have a streamlined definition of areas that qualify as Waters of the U.S. Developers and municipalities would benefit from that clarity. Far from being an overreach, the rule is a scientifically defensible approach to keeping the nation&#8217;s navigable waters clean.</p><p>For the sake of America&#8217;s vital waterways, neither the president, nor Congress, nor the new leadership of the EPA should gut the Waters of the United States Rule.</p><p>Clean water, protection against flooding and recreational opportunities all help to make America great. For that reason, we should work together to save the rule.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_klemow1.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_klemow1.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>Kenneth M. Klemow</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D.</p><p>Biology Department, Wilkes University</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Their view: Waters of the US Rule should remain