Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Waters of the U.S.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    You are obviously a lot more well-versed than most of us on WOTUS. You should also probably stop using them big words on TBH. It's deleterious.

    I thought Tiffany Dowell from Texas Agriculture Law explained it well: "The late Justice Scalia’s opinion (which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) held that the Clean Water Act applied to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” traditionally recognized as “streams, oceans, rivers and lakes” that are connected to traditional navigable waters. Also within the scope of the Act, according to the Scalia opinion, would be wetlands abutting these water bodies if they contain continuous surface water flow connection such that the wetland and the water were “indistinguishable.” This stands in contrast to the approach taken by the 2015 rule, which would seem to follow more along the lines of the Justice Kennedy concurrence in Rapanos, adopting the “significant nexus” standard."

    As many had anticipated, President Trump signed an Executive Order on Tuesday dealing with the “Waters of the United States” rule. [Read full order here.] You may recall that back in 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers passed a rule “clarifying” the definition of “Waters of the United States” as the term is used in the Clean Water Act.  Immediately, numerous States (including Texas), agricultural industry groups, and other businesses filed suits across the country claiming that  the new rule was too broadly written and gave... Read More →

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by 35remington View Post
      You are obviously a lot more well-versed than most of us on WOTUS. You should also probably stop using them big words on TBH. It's deleterious.



      I thought Tiffany Dowell from Texas Agriculture Law explained it well: "The late Justice Scalia’s opinion (which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) held that the Clean Water Act applied to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” traditionally recognized as “streams, oceans, rivers and lakes” that are connected to traditional navigable waters. Also within the scope of the Act, according to the Scalia opinion, would be wetlands abutting these water bodies if they contain continuous surface water flow connection such that the wetland and the water were “indistinguishable.” This stands in contrast to the approach taken by the 2015 rule, which would seem to follow more along the lines of the Justice Kennedy concurrence in Rapanos, adopting the “significant nexus” standard."



      http://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/2017/...e-order-wotus/


      That is a good description, and personally I agree with kennedy's significant nexus interpretation for the reasons stated above. Just because a stream's flow is, ephemeral doesn't mean it isn't an integral part of the the overall surface tributary system. Likewise, just because a wetland isn't continually hydrologically connected with the receiving water, doesn't mean that it doesn't perform important protective functions (e.g. Detention, filtration, sediment sequestration, etc.).


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Buff View Post
        I Want the EPA to stay as far away from me and my land as possible.
        Ok. That is understandable. But, how do you propose managing common resources (like streams) that may flow through your land, but are not geographically constrained by your property boundaries.

        This is not a smart *** questions. I really want to know how landowners think common resources (water, air, wildlife, etc.) should be managed.

        Comment


          #19
          I'm with ya B.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by B Littleton View Post
            Ok. That is understandable. But, how do you propose managing common resources (like streams) that may flow through your land, but are not geographically constrained by your property boundaries.

            This is not a smart *** questions. I really want to know how landowners think common resources (water, air, wildlife, etc.) should be managed.
            Cha ching! It is a bigger picture. Get the idiots in DC under control and let them do what they were formed for in the 70's.

            Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

            Comment


              #21
              The problem with regulatory agencies is, they want to regulate ! They're just like beavers, they just want a little more water/regulations every day ! No common sense, just big words on paper to fit every situation. That's why they're out of control. I don't think any hunter or fisherman wants dirty water or air, but they don't want the EPA up their butts for putting in a culvert or damming up a seasonal creek either. Sometimes to get someone's attention, you have to ( figuratively ) slap them up side the head. The EPA needs such a slapping, and then some common sense needs to prevail. With that, I'm leaving the politics/current events forum, I was only here because I was bored.......

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Drycreek3189 View Post
                The problem with regulatory agencies is, they want to regulate ! They're just like beavers, they just want a little more water/regulations every day ! No common sense, just big words on paper to fit every situation. That's why they're out of control. I don't think any hunter or fisherman wants dirty water or air, but they don't want the EPA up their butts for putting in a culvert or damming up a seasonal creek either. Sometimes to get someone's attention, you have to ( figuratively ) slap them up side the head. The EPA needs such a slapping, and then some common sense needs to prevail. With that, I'm leaving the politics/current events forum, I was only here because I was bored.......
                Do you have direct personal experience with the USACE or EPA acting in such a way? In my experience, working in the Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the EPA rarely gets involved in Section 404 issues. I know that it happens, but it is typically in cases where some egregious violation has occurred. As I stated before, I don't have enough details about the Wyoming enforcement issue to know exactly what happened, but I would bet that there are two sides to the story.

                I have worked in this industry for over a decade, and in my experience the USACE (the agency to which authority is delegated to regulate discharges into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA in most cases) has been consistent in their assessment of jurisdiction since the Rapanos decision in 2006. The new rule did not extend jurisdiction to any additional features, it merely cleared up some gray areas.

                Pre-Rapanos decision (2006), pretty much every aquatic feature, isolated or not was regulated in some form or fashion under the CWA. Post Rapanos, by using the significant nexus determination, many features were able to be removed from federal jurisdiction because the demonstration could not be made that there was more than a speculative effect on the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the receiving water.

                In truth, a large percentage of development work takes place in violation of the CWA and the violations go unnoticed because the USACE and EPA don't have the budget or manpower to police things. I have personally seen way more instances of developers getting away with violations than being held responsible and having enforcement actions against them.

                Drycreek3189, in my experience working closely with these agencies and regulations, I just don't see the behavior you are claiming. I am not saying it doesn't exist, and I believe that it probably does in other areas of the country as we see very significant differences in the way these regs are handled just between the USACE Fort Worth District and Galveston District. I guess my point is, in my professional opinion, that we need to address consistency between agencies and regions (to fix regulatory uncertainty), but we do not need to reduce the jurisdiction of the law. Whether you or anyone else want to admit it, there is undeniable scientific and engineering evidence that supports the need to protect headwater (seasonal as you put it) streams and wetlands in order to maintain the integrity of receiving waters (traditionally navigable waterways). If for no other reason than the cost of flood control infrastructure and bank stabilization if we don't (there are many other reasons that I would argue are as important, but money always seems to get people to listen).

                Comment

                Working...
                X