A Third of Americans Are About to Have Their Drinking Water Deregulated by the EPA

[FriendlyFire]

As Trump would say "Enjoy"

A Third of Americans Are About to Have Their Drinking Water Deregulated by the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to dismantle the federal clean water rule, which protects waterways that provide drinking water for about a third of the US population.

The EPA, with the US army, has proposed scrapping the rule in order to conduct a “substantive re-evaluation” of which rivers, streams, wetlands, and other bodies of water should be protected by the federal government.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” said Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA.

Pruitt said the EPA would swiftly redefine clean water regulations in a “thoughtful, transparent and collaborative” way with other agencies and the public.

Green groups, however, said the move pandered to fossil fuel and farming interests and was part of an agenda to weaken clean water protections.

The rule was meant to end years of confusion over which waterways were federally protected from pollution, with the clean water rule simply designating “navigable” waters for safeguards. The Obama administration widened this definition to include the drinking water of about 117 million Americans.

In recent months, the EPA has wound back rules curbing vehicle emissions, toxic waste from power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas drilling operations.

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...-their-drinking-water-deregulated-by-the-epa/

 

[Synobun]

The entire concept of "repeal, then consider an alternative" is baffling to me.

 

[Zkribbler]

Making America gray again.

 

[Peuri]

Turns out it was Trump himself who was the puppet of the Koch brothers, not the other candidates.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

 

[uppi]

The entire concept of "repeal, then consider an alternative" is baffling to me.

Repealing and then letting the alternative die a slow and quiet death is going to make a better impression than saying outright that there is not going to be an alternative.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The entire concept of "repeal, then consider an alternative" is baffling to me.

The funny part is that Republicans are too stupid to see the contradiction between "scrap regulation and conduct a substantive re-evaluation" and the stated outcome of "provide regulatory certainty."

 

[Farm Boy]

The 2015 regulation at issue is actually pretty confusing. Is the artificial grass waterway we put in during the 1980s to reduce water erosion subject to regulation? Is it not? If I remove the waterway and let the field erode more, is it still subject to regulation? You don't really know! Is there any reason to change what you're doing? Not really, but will there later? Maybe! It's not really defined!

Edit: Well, maybe it is, but it makes the creek we deal with confusing instead of clear. Used to be if you could shove a kayak down it, it was public, when it's low, it's not. Now, who knows. Safer to figure it's probably regulated if anybody gets a bug up their ass to regulate it. Ag runoff is usually its own thing, instead of this thing, and this thing says that's the case still, but what qualifies as ag and what doesn't is more confusing than I've ever sorted out.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The 2015 regulation at issue is actually pretty confusing. Is the artificial grass waterway we put in during the 1980s to reduce water erosion subject to regulation? Is it not? If I remove the waterway and let the field erode more, is it still subject to regulation? You don't really know! Is there any reason to change what you're doing? Not really, but will there later? Maybe! It's not really defined!

Edit: Well, maybe it is, but it makes the creek we deal with confusing instead of clear. Used to be if you could shove a kayak down it, it was public, when it's low, it's not. Now, who knows. Safer to figure it's probably regulated if anybody gets a bug up their ass to regulate it. Ag runoff is usually its own thing, instead of this thing, and this thing says that's the case still, but what qualifies as ag and what doesn't is more confusing than I've ever sorted out.

The point is that there is still no real clarity on your creek because "reregulation pending analysis," but now the Mississippi River also has the same lack of regulatory clarity. We all know that some states will feel free to allow their industries to poison the citizenry of downstream states, those states will file law suits, the courts will flail about, and eventually some form of regulation very similar to what we had will be back in force...but no one can say exactly when or exactly what it will say.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sounds like everything goes back to the start of 2015 and the definition of navigable. For the purposes of this specific bundle of regulations. Water and the pollution thereof was not unregulated in 2014.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sounds like everything goes back to the start of 2015 and the definition of navigable. For the purposes of this specific bundle of regulations. Water and the pollution thereof was not unregulated in 2014.

It says right in the proposal that they will abandon the codes of 2015, recodify what was in place before that, and then "conduct a substantive re-evaluation." Yes, for the moment they are just rolling back to 2014, but they are entering into law that the regulation being rolled back to is only temporary. Hence the extreme dubiousness about this "providing regulatory certainty."

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course. As widening the reach of bureaucrats without clear boundaries set by people other than said bureaucrats.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We, as a people, have long since opted for "the reach of bureaucrats." While we may not like it pretty much everyone recognizes that all the other options are worse. That's what makes the crying about it so annoying.

 

[Farm Boy]

Agreed. Yes, the thread is annoying, the headline a bit breathless, but I'm not going to call him out for "crying." That's just rude.

Edit: Nevermind, I get it. You're in shoot the hicks when they get out of line mode.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The NYT has an more in depth and detailed news story on the EPA
Essentially the Head of the EPA is slashing the EPA budget, rolling back enforcement, delaying new regulations, Generally it takes many years for the EPA to develop and implement new regulations. I doubt these roll backs will produce many jobs, its just the usual GOP ideology

The sad thing is that its their (Rual Republicans) own children that are being hurt.

Counseled by Industry, Not Staff, E.P.A. Chief Is Off to a Blazing Start

WASHINGTON — In the four months since he took office as the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt has moved to undo, delay or otherwise block more than 30 environmental rules, a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history, according to experts in environmental law.

Since February, Mr. Pruitt has filed a proposal of intent to undo or weaken Mr. Obama’s climate change regulations, known as the Clean Power Plan. In late June, he filed a legal plan to repeal an Obama-era rule curbing pollution in the nation’s waterways. He delayed a rule that would require fossil fuel companies to rein in leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas wells. He delayed the date by which companies must comply with a rule to prevent explosions and spills at chemical plants. And he reversed a ban on the use of a pesticide that the E.P.A.’s own scientists have said is linked to damage of children’s nervous systems.

“I have been consistently informed by multiple career people at E.P.A. that Administrator Pruitt is not meeting with them ahead of making decisions like rolling back these major regulations,”

Instead, Mr. Pruitt has outsourced crucial work to a network of lawyers, lobbyists and other allies, especially Republican state attorneys general, a network he worked with closely as the head of the Republican Attorneys General Association. Since 2013, the group has collected $4.2 million from fossil fuel-related companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Murray Energy and Southern Company, businesses that also worked closely with Mr. Pruitt in many of the 14 lawsuits he filed against the E.P.A.

Mr. Pruitt has said, he wants to focus on “tangible” pollution — for example, the Superfund program, which cleans up hazardous waste at old industrial sites.

“I am making it a priority to ensure contaminated sites get cleaned up,” he said. “We will be more hands-on.” (His proposed budget for 2018, however, would cut the Superfund program by about 25 percent.)

In the filing, he noted that the E.P.A. had concluded that a delay of the pollution rules “may have a disproportionate effect on children.” But he also said the rules would come at a significant cost to the oil and gas industry.

“The nice thing is,” Mr. Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, said, “now we feel like we’re being heard.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/...-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Agreed. Yes, the thread is annoying, the headline a bit breathless, but I'm not going to call him out for "crying." That's just rude.

Edit: Nevermind, I get it. You're in shoot the hicks when they get out of line mode.

No I'm not. I'm as likely to catch myself crying about bureaucrats as anyone else. But when I do I just shrug and remind myself that it's like that quote about democracy. Leaving things to bureaucracy is the worst possible solution...but it's the only one that seems to work. I mean, might makes right and just shoot the hicks has a certain appeal, but I know it wouldn't really work.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh good, chlorpyrifos again. Satan incarnate, that stuff. Let's ban the most scrutinized chemical of a class, one that's fading in popularity, and spin the wheel on whatever will replace it. I'm sure it'll be better than something that isn't perfect, but is generally safe enough that finding the harm is actually semi-difficult and not entirely clear anyhow. It's slated for rereview in 2022.

Someday we ought to be able to... because it has already begun!

 

[onejayhawk]

We had a long thread about the EPA and the massive changes Trump initiated. The big thrust is to get the EPA out of regulating climate change. Earlier this week an attempted stay of implementation was struck down in court. In tho opinion, the Judge stated that the EPA had the power to change the rule, but needed to use the whole rulemaking process, ie statement of a proposed new rule, period of public comment, etc.
http://usatodaynews.net/2017/07/04/appeals-court-rules-against-epa-in-methane-gas-regulations/

The one in the OP is different. That has to do with the Waters of the United States (WOTUS). WOTUS has a specific meaning defined by a 70 page rule. What EPA is doing is revising the definition, not "dismantle the federal clean water rule." The law requiring the rule has to do with navigable waters, eg large rivers, coastal inlets and bays. The scope reaches up the tributaries, into the river deltas and various wetlands. The rule under review continues on to include places where the water only runs during rain. Thus a coastal waters law covers 1/3 of the country, which some consider excessive. Hence the review and revise. The proposed revision will limit the scope to places where there is continuous flowing water. Not surprising for the source, the article vastly overstates the changes sought.

The entire concept of "repeal, then consider an alternative" is baffling to me.

It does not apply in this case, the articles statements not-with-standing.

Oh good, chlorpyrifos again. Satan incarnate, that stuff. Let's ban the most scrutinized chemical of a class, one that's fading in popularity, and spin the wheel on whatever will replace it. I'm sure it'll be better than something that isn't perfect, but is generally safe enough that finding the harm is actually semi-difficult and not entirely clear anyhow. It's slated for rereview in 2022.

Someday we ought to be able to... because it has already begun!

This reminds me of Chloramphenicol, which is an inexpensive and very effective antibiotic. It's one of the WHO Essential Medicines, all but banned in USA. Instead we use much more expensive drugs that have lesser side effects.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We had a long thread about the EPA and the massive changes Trump initiated.
J

We started a new one in hopes it would not be noticed by Republican shills with their endless nonsensical attempts to defend their idols.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Oh good, chlorpyrifos again. Satan incarnate, that stuff. Let's ban the most scrutinized chemical of a class, one that's fading in popularity, and spin the wheel on whatever will replace it. I'm sure it'll be better than something that isn't perfect, but is generally safe enough that finding the harm is actually semi-difficult and not entirely clear anyhow. It's slated for rereview in 2022. Someday we ought to be able to... because it has already begun!

Really you would take DOW chemicals press release over the AAP and EPA ?
At least it is now banned in Residential use and has greatly reduced the number of chlorpyrifos poisoning per year, If a country wishes to continue to use it for economic reasons or given the lack of alternatives then so be it, but the fact that Dow chemicals has been covering up incidents and putting out dis-information in a attempt to muddy the waters over scientific and medical research should sound alarm bells.

The American Academy of Pediatrics responded to the administration's decision saying they are “deeply alarmed” by Pruitt's decision to allow the pesticide's continued use. “There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children and pregnant women. The risk to infant and children's health and development is unambiguous

In the US, the number of incidents of chlorpyrifos exposure reported to the US National Pesticide Information Center shrank sharply from over 200 in the year 2000 to less than 50 in 2003, following the residential ban

Adults may develop lingering health effects following acute exposure or repeated low-dose exposure. Among agricultural workers, chlorpyrifos has been associated with slightly increased risk of wheeze, a whistling sound while breathing due to obstruction of the airways.[37]

Twelve people who had been exposed to chlorpyrifos were studied over periods of 1 to 4.5 years. They were found to have a heightened immune responses to common allergens and increased antibiotic sensitivities, elevated CD26 cells, and a higher rate of autoimmunity, compared with control groups. Autoantibodies were directed toward smooth muscle, parietal cell, brush border, thyroid gland, myelin, and the subjects also had more anti-nuclear antibodies

In 1995, Dow paid a $732,000 EPA penalty for not forwarding reports it had received on 249 chlorpyrifos poisoning incidents

Chlorpyrifos was used to control insect infestations of homes and commercial buildings in Europe until it was banned from sale in 2008.[75] Chlorpyrifos is restricted from termite control in Singapore as of 2009.[76] It was banned from residential use in South Africa as of 2010.[77] In 2010, India barred Dow from commercial activity for 5 years[78] after India’s Central Bureau of Investigation found Dow guilty of bribing Indian officials in 2007 to allow the sale of chlorpyrifos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos