If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

EPA, Army Corps Rule Seeks to Clarify Clean Water Act

streamEPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a proposed rule that they say would clarify protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for streams and wetlands. The rule would extend protections to wetlands and intermittent streams that flow seasonally or only after a rainfall.

Determining CWA protection for streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006, the agencies said.

The proposed definitions of waters will apply to all CWA programs and the rule does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the law, the agencies said.

Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies that under the Clean Water Act and based on the science:

  • Most seasonal and rain dependent streams are protected.
  • Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected.
  • Other types of waters may have more uncertain connections with downstream water and protection will be evaluated through a case specific analysis of whether the connection is or is not protecting similarly situated waters in certain geographic areas or adding to the categories of waters protected without case specific analysis.

The proposed rule preserves the exemptions and exclusions for agriculture.

The agencies are launching an outreach effort over the next 90 days, holding discussions around the country and gathering input.

Photo: TimothyJ Flickr photostream

Approaches to Managing EHS&S Data
Sponsored By: Enablon

  
Six Steps to Navigating EHS & Compliance
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability

  
The EHS Guidebook: Selecting, Implementing, and Using EHS Software Solutions
Sponsored By: EtQ

  
Just the Facts: 8 Popular Misconceptions about LEDs & Controls
Sponsored By: Digital Lumens

  

3 thoughts on “EPA, Army Corps Rule Seeks to Clarify Clean Water Act

  1. It would not matter what rules they promulgate if they only enforced against businesses and organizations. The EPA’s enforcement against individuals/families with personally held private property – make me think that EPA’s jurisdiction should be limited as opposed to being increased.

  2. Enforcement of EPA rules in the case of individuals/families with personally held private property – represents no overstep in jurisdiction. Why? Because surface and ground water manifestly do not respect property boundaries. When one family chooses to contaminate surface water on their private property – that contaminated water then frequently moves off their property and affects their neighbors and the public at large. EPA is well within their authority to regulate in such instances.
    We do not live as isolated individuals – we live in a shared community and one person’s actions and choices affect others.

Leave a Comment