Podcasts about Clean Water Rule

It's taken some time, but a couple in Idaho — and the Texas Farm Bureau and Railroad Commission, among others — are celebrating, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling May 25. The Idaho couple, Mike and Chantell Sackett, can now build a home on land they purchased in Idaho. They'd been prevented from using their own land by a rule under the Clean Water Act. Dubbed “WOTUS” — for Waters of the U.S. — the rule gave the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wide latitude in control over waterways, bodies of water, and wetlands across the country, due...Article Link

5-26-23 AJ DailyBLM Proposes Ambiguous RuleAdapted from an article by Paige Nelson, Angus Journal Supreme Court Reaffirms Clean Water Rule Adapted from a release by the American Farm Bureau Federation Cattle Industry Groups Strongly Support New Cattle Health Protection Bill Adapted from a release by National Cattlemen's Beef Association Compiled by Paige Nelson, field editor, Angus Journal.  For more Angus news, visit angusjournal.net. 

On October 2, 2022, the US Supreme court heard a case that could impact the quality of water across the United States. Sackett v EPA dates back to 2004, but the forces impacting the case date back to the 1960s and, arguably, centuries earlier.  Today we revisit a 2019 episode, where we dove deep into the history of the US Clean Water Act and the stealth effort to undermine it. 

Farm Bureau Says Changes to Clean Water Rule Will Hurt Family Farms

1-6-22 AJ DailyCAB Insider: Market UpdateAdapted from a release by Paul Dykstra, Certified Angus Beef Changes to Clean Water Rule Will Hurt Family Farms Adapted from a release by the American Farm Bureau Federation Byproduct Value Adapted from a report by Len Steiner, Steiner Consulting Group Compiled by Paige Nelson, field editor, Angus Journal. For more Angus news, visit angusjournal.net. 

This week, host Kristin Hayes talks with Sheila Olmstead, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, a university fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF) and a senior fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. She spent time at the Council of Economic Advisers during the transition from the Obama to Trump administrations, and she has coauthored a recent report, commissioned by the External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (E-EEAC), which is the subject of this episode. The E-EEAC is an independent organization dedicated to providing up-to-date, nonpartisan advice on the state of economic science as it relates to programs at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Regular listeners may recall that Hayes discussed a previous E-EEAC report on Resources Radio, with coauthors Mary Evans and Matt Kotchen, about the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. This week, Hayes and Holmstead talk about the newly released report commissioned by the E-EEAC, this time about the 2015 Clean Water Rule and its eventual replacement, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. They discuss what the rules are all about, how the rules have shifted under different presidential administrations, and Holmstead's views on how to improve the economic analysis that underpins the development and finalization of these rules. References and recommendations: "Report on the Repeal of the Clean Water Rule and its Replacement with the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to Define Waters of the United States (WOTUS)" by David A. Keiser, Sheila M. Olmstead, Kevin J. Boyle, Victor B. Flatt, Bonnie L. Keeler, Daniel J. Phaneuf, Joseph S. Shapiro, and Jay P. Shimshack; https://www.e-eeac.org/wotusreport "Bowlaway" by Elizabeth McCracken; https://www.harpercollins.com/products/bowlaway-elizabeth-mccracken?variant=32205511360546 "The Giant's House" by Elizabeth McCracken; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/110879/the-giants-house-by-elizabeth-mccracken/

Welcome back to the Politics of Prosecution Podcast! Welcome to the Politics of Prosecution Podcast. This podcast examines the interaction between politics, broadly defined, and criminal prosecution on the local, state and federal levels. Our goal is to produce a variety of shows using different media. Our first series of eight episodes is produced by students in High Point University's Honors Program. They will look at a variety of issues raised by ongoing events. This tenth episode features a breakdown of the EPA through different presidential administrations and how its investigating and prosecuting environmental crimes is effected by the different administrations. They specifically look at the Obama Administration's Clean Water Rule and the Trump Administrations repeal of it and the reevaluation of the Waters of the United States. They then look at a current case being prosecuted and speculate how they think this would be prosecuted in the Obama Administration vs the Trump Administration. They also talk about how the upcoming election this November could have an effect on the EPA's prosecutorial power and discretion. The sources used for reference in this episode are: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/15-ways-trump-administration-impacted-environment/ https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/basic-information-enforcement https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2019/03/27/467697/debunking-trump-administrations-new-water-rule/ https://www.justice.gov/usao-sc/pr/columbia-man-indicted-federal-charge-dumping-hazardous-waste https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-epa-clean-water-pollution.html https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/clean-water https://www.pbs.org/now/science/cleanwater.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170108114336/https://www.ok.gov/oag/Media/About_the_AG/ https://www.sierraclub.org/lay-of-the-land/2014/03/obama-administration-restores-clean-water-act-protections-streams-and https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/798809951/trump-administration-is-rolling-back-obama-era-protections-for-smaller-waterways) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1319 https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/annual-statistical-reports https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/cleaning-up-after-pollution#:~:text=This%20process%20typically%20takes%20between,to%20go%20on%20for%20decades. https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/annual-statistical-reports https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do https://www.justice.gov/enrd/about-division https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1034 https://www.justice.gov/enrd/jeffrey-bossert-clark https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal_prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution_summary_id=2416 https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063639213 https://www.npr.org/2018/07/05/594078923/scott-pruitt-out-at-epa https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/27/trump-to-direct-rollback-of-obama-era-water-rule-tuesday/ Please follow us on: Twitter: @Poli_Pros Instagram: Poli.n.Pros You can find this podcast on iTunes and Spotify. If you have comments, questions, concerns or criticisms, you can email us at poli.n.pros@gmail.com

This week, we chat with Bob Irvin [Interview starts at 42:00], president of American Rivers, an organization that does solid work protecting the aquatic resources we all love.  Bob and I talk about the Clean Water Act and the Clean Water Rule--what these laws have done for us in the past, how they are currently managed, and threats to their effectiveness.  It's not as much fun as talking about trout or steelhead, but it's important stuff to all of us. In the Fly Box this week, listeners offered the following tips and questions: What kind of water is best for Euronymphing?  Can you do it in really slow water for panfish?The booties on my waders are too tight for two pairs of socks.  How can I keep my feet warm winter steelheading? I have some streams in my neighborhood that people say used to hold brook trout.  How can I find out if they still live there? A suggestion that keeping the index finger on the top of your rod grip helps with sensitivity. What is the best fly line to use when trying to cast the entire line? Can I Spey cast for smallmouth bass? My dad really outfished me using a Rapala.  I tried all kinds of streamers but no luck.  Is there a fly that is as good as a Rapala? When I wade waist-deep I have trouble with my casting.  What can I do to fix this? How can you reconcile our obsession with drag-free drifts and the effectiveness of a swung wet fly? I have a bunch of old fly lines.  How can I tell what they are, and how can I mark them? If you have a local stream that you fish often, how long should you rest it between fishing trips? I am fishing for smallmouth and shoal bass during the day in weedy, rocky water.  What's the best technique to use? A tip from a listener on a great indicator you can make yourself. Can you clarify the confusion behind the term "dropper"?

This week, host Daniel Raimi talks with Ellen Gilinsky about Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, which refers to the 2015 Clean Water Rule that defined the scope of federal water protection, particularly for streams and wetlands that share a hydrologic system with "navigable waters." Gilinsky was the associate deputy assistant administrator for water at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); she is an expert on all things WOTUS. Raimi and Gilinsky discuss why WOTUS is so important for federal regulation of surface waters; why the waters that fall under regulation are so tricky to define; and how the Trump administration has sought to change the definitions, with implications that reduce regulation. Just last week, EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers published their Navigable Waters Protection Rule to change the definition of WOTUS and "navigable waters," demarcating four categories for waters under jurisdiction. The new rule becomes effective on June 22 this year, although lawsuits already are challenging it. References and recommendations: "Replenish: The Virtuous Cycle of Water and Prosperity" by Sandra Postel; https://islandpress.org/books/replenish "Where the Crawdads Sing" by Delia Owens; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/567281/where-the-crawdads-sing-deluxe-edition-by-delia-owens/ "Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/323685/cadillac-desert-by-marc-reisner/

Farmers say new Clean Water Rule helps water quality.

Farmers say new Clean Water Rule helps water quality.

The Trump Administration recently released its final rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. This rule, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” is the replacement for the repealed 2015 Clean Water Rule. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to define “waters of the United States” in a way that passes legal muster. Criticism has long-focused on the alleged overreach by the agencies, the vagueness of the definition, and a disrespect for the state role in addressing clean water as envisioned by Congress. However, many critics of the new EPA and Corps’ rule argue that it is too narrow and not properly based on science. Please join us as our experts discuss the history of the “waters of the United States” definition, explain the new rule and what waters would be regulated, and provide their insight and perspective on the impact of this major new rule.Featuring:- Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, The Heritage Foundation- Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLCVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Trump Administration recently released its final rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. This rule, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” is the replacement for the repealed 2015 Clean Water Rule. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to define “waters of the United States” in a way that passes legal muster. Criticism has long-focused on the alleged overreach by the agencies, the vagueness of the definition, and a disrespect for the state role in addressing clean water as envisioned by Congress. However, many critics of the new EPA and Corps’ rule argue that it is too narrow and not properly based on science. Please join us as our experts discuss the history of the “waters of the United States” definition, explain the new rule and what waters would be regulated, and provide their insight and perspective on the impact of this major new rule.Featuring:- Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, The Heritage Foundation- Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLCVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Trump's years of dogged attacks on the Clean Water Rule have finally succeeded, and big ag and fossil fuel industries are rejoicing.

The Trump Administration recently released its final rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. This rule, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” is the replacement for the repealed 2015 Clean Water Rule. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to define “waters of the United States” in a way that passes legal muster. Criticism has long-focused on the alleged overreach by the agencies, the vagueness of the definition, and a disrespect for the state role in addressing clean water as envisioned by Congress. However, many critics of the new EPA and Corps’ rule argue that it is too narrow and not properly based on science. Please join us as our experts discuss the history of the “waters of the United States” definition, explain the new rule and what waters would be regulated, and provide their insight and perspective on the impact of this major new rule.Featuring: -- Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, The Heritage Foundation-- Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation-- John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLC

The Trump Administration recently released its final rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. This rule, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” is the replacement for the repealed 2015 Clean Water Rule. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to define “waters of the United States” in a way that passes legal muster. Criticism has long-focused on the alleged overreach by the agencies, the vagueness of the definition, and a disrespect for the state role in addressing clean water as envisioned by Congress. However, many critics of the new EPA and Corps’ rule argue that it is too narrow and not properly based on science. Please join us as our experts discuss the history of the “waters of the United States” definition, explain the new rule and what waters would be regulated, and provide their insight and perspective on the impact of this major new rule.Featuring: -- Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, The Heritage Foundation-- Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation-- John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLC

In this episode of The Sustainable Angler podcast, I interview American Fly Fishing Trade Association (AFFTA) CEO Ben Bulis, Communications & Membership Director Matt Smythe and Conservation Director Regan Nelson. We discuss everything from the history of AFFTA, to important conservation initiatives like: Pebble Mine, Magnuson Stevens reauthorization, the Clean Water Rule and how AFFTA has formed a Kick Plastic Coalition in partnership with Costa Sunglasses to make the International Fly Tackle Dealer Show (IFTD) a single-use plastic free trade show!

The April 15 deadline is fast approaching, not just on getting your taxes filed, but also for providing comments on the new Clean Water Rule with the EPA. The post Cleaning up the Rules appeared first on Tennessee Farm Bureau.

During our #MOFBinDC legislative trip, we sat down with American Farm Bureau Federation staff Don Parrish (AFBF Senior Director, Regulatory Relations) and Veronica Nigh (AFBF Economist) to discuss two important issues affecting our members: the new Clean Water Rule and trade.

Eric Bohl, Leslie Holloway, and Spencer Tuma go over the proposed replacement to WOTUS, the Clean Water Rule. Seeing progress on talks with China, Trump postpones raising tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods. New study shows Missouri food manufacturing could increase more than 50% in 8 years, adding $25 billion in economic activity and over 70,000 jobs to the state.

Eric Bohl, Spencer Tuma, and BJ Tanksley review MOFB's Legislative Briefing and Day at the Capitol, plus the latest on China trade talks, the Clean Water Rule, PDMP bill, and Missouri legislature priorities.

On this episode of Missouri Farm Bureau's Digging In we talk with Director of National Legislative Programs Spencer Tuma. Spencer fills us in on the new Farm Bill, the Market Facilitation Program, and the new Clean Water Rule.

This is our final podcast of 2018, and it is Episode #23 of The Voice of Louisiana Agriculture Podcast. We cover a lot of news on this final podcast of the year. Don Molino attended the USA Rice Outlook Conference in San Diego and brings us several stories from that meeting. Avery Davidson attended the DTN/Progressive Farmer Ag Summit in Chicago and reports on a very special award given to a young Louisiana farm couple. In our “Grassroots Government” segment, we welcome back Congressman Ralph Abraham to give us a recap on all of the activity that went down on the 2018 Farm Bill over the past week. He will also give us his opinion of the new Clean Water Rule issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. Bobby and Melissa Morris of West Baton Rouge Parish are our guests on this week's “In the Field.” Then we finish things off with a look at the grain markets, the cattle market and the Louisiana Ag Calendar. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This is our final podcast of 2018, and it is Episode #23 of The Voice of Louisiana Agriculture Podcast. We cover a lot of news on this final podcast of the year. Don Molino attended the USA Rice Outlook Conference in San Diego and brings us several stories from that meeting. Avery Davidson attended the DTN/Progressive Farmer Ag Summit in Chicago and reports on a very special award given to a young Louisiana farm couple. In our “Grassroots Government” segment, we welcome back Congressman Ralph Abraham to give us a recap on all of the activity that went down on the 2018 Farm Bill over the past week. He will also give us his opinion of the new Clean Water Rule issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. Bobby and Melissa Morris of West Baton Rouge Parish are our guests on this week's “In the Field.” Then we finish things off with a look at the grain markets, the cattle market and the Louisiana Ag Calendar. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Our Climate, Clean Air, & Energy Fellow Caitlin McCoy speaks with Sarah Winner, Staff Attorney of the Center for Coalfield Justice and Interim Executive Director of the Three Rivers Waterkeeper, about the proposed Clean Water Act rule on the revised definition of “Waters of the United States” and the potential implications of the new rule for stream and wetland protection. Learn more about the rule here https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2017/09/defining-waters-of-the-united-states-clean-water-rule/ and visit our website here https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/ Thanks to Harvard University Center for the Environment for their help with this podcast! Full transcript available here http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-10-Caitlin-Winner-WOTUS.pdf

Matt Schoenfeldt and Gary Morrison do their traditional “Can you smell the Onion?” segment. Then they talk in detail about the farm bill. During the discussion they cover three suggestions for it; work requirements for food stamps, farm subsidies, and Obama era ‘Clean Water Rule’. They wrap up the show with a story from the Kavaugh hearings that Gary found humorous for its ill humor.

This is the fifth in a five-part series. You can find the first installment here. US Environmental Protection Agency boss Scott Pruitt is gone – not because of his environmental malfeasance, but because his $43,000 phone booth, his $100,000 trip to Disneyland, and his attempts to get his wife a lucrative job were too tacky even for an administration built on bling. His replacement, Andrew Wheeler, is less embarrassing but more dangerous. A coal lobbyist until last year, Wheeler is also a long-time adviser to climate-science denier James Inhofe and a sure bet to continue Pruitt’s policies – albeit with more stealth and fewer attention-grabbing abuses of power. Pruitt’s departure comes just one week after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his own retirement from the US Supreme Court, and those two departures have overshadowed the publication of a document that Pruitt and Army Public Works boss Ricky James dropped on us last Friday – a document that mentions Kennedy 64 times and illustrates as well as anything the underhanded way Pruitt subverts environmental protections: not through argumentation, but through sabotage in the name of regulatory certainty (and just in time for summer break). It’s a document that will show up on the Federal Register any day now, and that you and any member of the public will then have 30 days to comment on, but which you’ll only understand if you know a bit of history, and that’s by design. It’s part of an effort to torpedo a Supreme Court opinion that Kennedy penned in 2006 – an opinion that builds on decades of precedent and practice, and that provides the foundation for the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule (also known as the “Clean Water Rule”), which sets the ground rules for determining which of the waters of the United States are protected by the Clean Water Act (CWA). If Wheeler and James can rescind that rule, they’ll manage to undermine the popular Clean Water Act without the voting public knowing until it’s too late, and last week’s document is part of their effort to do just that. Specifically, it’s a supplemental notice to the Trump Administration’s year-old proposal to repeal the WOTUS rule and instead “recodify” the mess that predated it in accordance with an opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia – an opinion mostly ignored by courts and practitioners, for reasons we covered in earlier installments of this series. Scalia, as we saw in part three, believed the CWA should only protect “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water” – basically, lakes rivers, and streams, but not the wetlands or creeks that feed them, and not waterbodies that only flow intermittently. The repeal would leave 80 percent of US waterways unprotected by federal authorities, and it’s one part of a multi-pronged attack on WOTUS that includes a two-year delay on its implementation and a more insidious order to ignore the local scientists and specialists who review dredging permits and instead “involve the Administrator’s Office early on in the process of developing geographic determinations” – a move that Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) described as “a crude Clean Water Act coup d’état.” “This latest move by Pruitt is his Plan B as it is becoming increasingly clear that his Clean Water rewrite plan is illegal and will be tossed out in court,” she said. In this, the fifth, final, and long-overdue installment in a five-part series on the Clean Water Rule, we try to offer a clear and simple explanation of the state of WOTUS in the current administration. You can see the first installment here. More on the Bionic Planet Podcast The story continues below, but I’ll also be editing audio from the interviews I conducted with Shrader and others for this series into episode 32 of the Bionic Planet podcast, which which I hope to have ready over the weekend. You can access Bionic Planet via iTunes, TuneIn, Stitcher, and pretty much anywhere you access podcasts, as well as on this device here: Timeline The story continues below, but here is a timeline to help you keep key dates in order: June 19, 2006: The Supreme Court’s Rapanos v United States split decision introduces massive uncertainty over what are and are not protected waters, sparking hundreds of court cases and demands for clarity. Over time, Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” guidance becomes the rule of the land. August 27, 2015: As the Obama Administration prepares to implement the WOTUS Rule, a district court in North Dakota issues a preliminary injunction against the rule until arguments can be heard, essentially freezing the rule in 13 states. October 9, 2015: The Sixth Circuit Court issues a nationwide stay, which the Obama Administration begins to fight before the 2016 elections sweep Donald Trump into office. February 28, 2017: Donald Trump signs an executive order instructing the EPA to scrap the WOTUS rule and “consider interpreting the term ‘navigable waters’…in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia.” July 27, 2017: Pruitt and acting Army Civil Works boss Douglas Lamont publish their proposal to rescind the 2015 WOTUS Rule – a move that cannot be challenged in court until the rule becomes official. January 22, 2018: The Supreme Court rules that challenges to the WOTUS rule must be filed in district courts, forcing the Sixth Circuit Court to vacate its nationwide stay but leaving the North Dakota injunction intact. February 6, 2018: With the Sixth Circuit Court’s stay vacated, Pruitt and Lamont implement an “applicability date” two years in the future – namely, in February, 2020 – sparking an immediate court challenge. March 30, 2018: EPA boss Scott Pruitt directs the agency to ignore local experts and defer instead to his own office when issuing permits. June 29, 2018: Pruitt and James issue a supplemental notice to the earlier proposal. The new notice summarizes existing court challenges and argues that their existence introduces more uncertainty than existed before the rule was created. July 5, 2018: Scott Pruitt resigns, and former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler is named his replacement. New Notice, Old Arguments Last week’s supplemental notice will soon be listed in the Federal Register, after which the public has 30 days to comment on it. Some organizations, like the American Farm Bureau, a longstanding WOTUS opponent, have welcomed the notice. “The issuance of this additional notice shows that EPA listened to public comments that showed confusion over what was being proposed and why,” they said in a statement. “This supplemental notice will provide a more meaningful opportunity for public comment by clarifying that EPA’s proposal is to permanently repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule because that rule was illegal in multiple respects.” Beyond clarifying the position, however, the notice does little to bolster the Administration’s claim that the existing rule should be repealed before the agency can “recodify” the mess that the rule was created to fix. After finding that the previous regime was riddled with uncertainty, the agency has a duty to explain why it must repeal the whole rule rather than leaving the rule in place while working to correct whatever problems the agency claims to have found in the rule. “It’s ironic that they claim they’re doing this to provide certainty, considering the fact that before 2015 there was a world of very little certainty,” says Bethany Davis-Noll, Litigation Director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “Getting rid of the 2015 rule doesn’t reduce regulatory uncertainty; it creates regulatory uncertainty.” In addition, the administration has yet to explain how returning to the confusing regime in place before the 2015 rule complies with the Clean Water Act or how the agency is justified in imposing forgone wetlands benefits on the public. “Without that explanation, this could be a pretty good lawsuit for anybody who wants to challenge the agency,” says Davis-Noll That is, in fact, a pillar of the suit currently underway to block the delayed implementation of the rule. The Lack of Analysis or Reason This series began back in February, when 11 states sued to block the delay in implementing the WOTUS rule, based in part on their contention that the new applicability date was pulled out of thin air while going through the motions of scientific review and public consultation as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. A key argument is that the Trump Administration ignored the existing cost/benefit analysis and failed to conduct one of its own. Columbia University Assistant Professor Jeffrey Shrader says the Trump Administration not only overstates the costs of implementing the rule, but ignores the benefits of scenic beauty, resilient agricultural systems, and income from mitigation banking. “They left out any benefit from mitigation or protection of wetlands,” says Shrader, who co-wrote an analysis called “Muddying the Waters: How the Trump administration is obscuring the value of wetlands protection from the Clean Water Rule”. Specifically, he points out, the administration simply ignored all wetland benefit studies published between 1986 and 2000 on the premise that their age makes them untrustworthy, but the administration also took its own cost analysis from the same period – despite the fact that more recent studies focused on coastal wetlands show that valuation benefits have increased since then. At the same time, the rise of mitigation banking has both reduced the cost of compliance and created income for people who restore degraded landscapes. The End of the Restoration Economy? Proponents of the repeal argue that states will pick up the slack, but current laws evolved because upstream cities and states had little inclination to do that. “About half of the states have laws on the books that say they cannot implement stricter protection for wetlands than the federal government, and those are the states where the largest at-risk wetlands are located,” says David Groves, a former policy advisor to the Obama Administration who now works as Director of Business Development at The Earth Partners, an environmental consultancy. “The vast majority of economic activity in the mitigation banking industry is in the southeast, which is made up of states with no state-level protections,” he adds. “Significantly reducing the scope of the Clean Water Act would present an existential threat to the mitigation banking industry and would destroy a huge amount of value.” The result, he says, would be more taxpayer spending overall, but the costs would flow to downstream states.  

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 2015 Clean Water Rule sought to clarify the jurisdictional limits of the Clean Water Act. But, the complex rule has triggered much confusion, controversy and litigation. The Trump administration now seeks to repeal and replace the Obama-era Clean Water Rule. In January 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court further complicated the issue by overturning the national stay and sending the case back to the federal district courts.

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, a case regarding the proper jurisdiction of federal circuit courts of appeals with respect to rules issued under the Clean Water Act.In 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Agency (the “Agencies”) issued a final rule intended to clarify the definition of “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act (the “Clean Water Rule”). Petitioner associations and companies filed suit in various federal district and appellate courts to challenge the Clean Water Rule, claiming that the definitional changes improperly expanded the Agencies’ regulatory jurisdiction and dramatically altered the existing balance of federal-state collaboration on water resource concerns. Many of the suits were eventually consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Clean Water Rule, Petitioners contended, is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and was improperly adopted without satisfying the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Petitioner National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”), which had brought its challenge in federal district court, then intervened in the Sixth Circuit litigation and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that judicial review must first take place in district court and that this case did not fall within the judicial review provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit ultimately rejected this argument and concluded that it could exercise jurisdiction over requests for review of the Clean Water Rule under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1369(b)(1)(F). That provision provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the federal circuit courts of appeals to review an action “issuing or denying any permit under section 1342, [the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System]....”The question presently before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that it had jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F) to assess a Clean Water Rule that did not actually “issu[e] or den[y] any permit,” but rather defined the waters that fall within the scope of the Clean Water Act.To discuss the case, we have Jonathan Adler, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, a case regarding the proper jurisdiction of federal circuit courts of appeals with respect to rules issued under the Clean Water Act.In 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Agency (the “Agencies”) issued a final rule intended to clarify the definition of “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act (the “Clean Water Rule”). Petitioner associations and companies filed suit in various federal district and appellate courts to challenge the Clean Water Rule, claiming that the definitional changes improperly expanded the Agencies’ regulatory jurisdiction and dramatically altered the existing balance of federal-state collaboration on water resource concerns. Many of the suits were eventually consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Clean Water Rule, Petitioners contended, is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and was improperly adopted without satisfying the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Petitioner National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”), which had brought its challenge in federal district court, then intervened in the Sixth Circuit litigation and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that judicial review must first take place in district court and that this case did not fall within the judicial review provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit ultimately rejected this argument and concluded that it could exercise jurisdiction over requests for review of the Clean Water Rule under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1369(b)(1)(F). That provision provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the federal circuit courts of appeals to review an action “issuing or denying any permit under section 1342, [the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System]....”The question presently before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that it had jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F) to assess a Clean Water Rule that did not actually “issu[e] or den[y] any permit,” but rather defined the waters that fall within the scope of the Clean Water Act.To discuss the case, we have Jonathan Adler, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

This week Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, visited us in Vermont and we got to pull him aside for a great podcast (and take him fishing for brook trout). Chris is a master at distilling complicated environmental issues down to their essence in the way anglers can understand them, and he enlightens us on some current issues like Pebble Mine, the Clean Water Rule, and western water laws. And it’s not all bad news! In the Fly Box, questions range from requests to have me MC a rehearsal dinner for a wedding (not gonna happen) to switching from trout to other species to getting another season out of a pair of waders. Plus questions on Village Idiots and herons and redfish and fishing diaries. Plus a couple of cool tips from listeners on fly tying.

Topic:Fresh Water, Climate Change, and Community Resilience In This Episode:[02:10] Guest Rebecca Wodder is introduced. [03:19] Rebecca expresses how the first Earth Day impacted her life and career path. [05:06] Rebecca tells if fresh water has always been the focus of her environmental career. [05:48] Rebecca talks about how water affects climate change. [09:18] Rebecca explains the degree to which our fresh-water supply is being threatened. [11:28] Rebecca describes the Clean Water Rule. [14:41] Rebecca shares which industries are most impacted by the 2015 Clean Water Rule. [16:26] Rebecca addresses natural capital and social capital. [18:33] Rebecca speaks about New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. [21:39] Rebecca states where people can learn more about her work (check out the Resources section below!). [23:10] Rebecca mentions the wisdom she would pass along to her younger self on Earth Day 1970. [25:52] Rebecca talks about whether she’s more hopeful now than she was in the past. Guest and Organization:Rebecca Wodder is a nationally known environmental leader whose conservation career began with the first Earth Day. As president of the national advocacy organization, American Rivers, from 1995 to 2011, she led the development of community-based solutions to freshwater challenges. From 2011 to 2013, she served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior. Previously, Rebecca was Vice President at The Wilderness Society, and Legislative Assistant to Senator Gaylord Nelson. In 2010, she was named a Top 25 Outstanding Conservationists by Outdoor Life Magazine. In 2014, she received the James Compton Award from River Network. In her writing and speaking, Rebecca explores how communities can enhance their resilience to climate impacts via sustainable, equitable approaches to rivers and freshwater resources. She serves on the boards of River Network, the Potomac Conservancy, and the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Take Away Quotes:“When the first Earth Day came along…my high school chemistry teacher asked if I would organize this event for the community. We really didn’t know what it was supposed to be about, but we knew it was intended to engage people and help them recognize the environmental issues that were so prominent at the time…The first Earth Day was just a great event in my life because it showed me how I could combine my passion for making a difference with my academic interests in science and biology.” “Water is the way that we experience weather, and weather is the way we experience climate change in our daily lives.” “Ultimately, the reason that we have a blue planet, the reason there is life on this planet is because of water. It is the fundamental reason for life.”   “One of the things that is so important about small streams is that they are the head waters, they are the sources of our drinking water, and something like one-third of all Americans get their drinking water—it starts with these small streams.” Resources:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/03/23/fight-attempt-kill-clean-water-rule/99540030/ (Fight the attempt to kill the Clean Water Rule) https://islandpress.org/book/the-community-resilience-reader (The Community Resilience Reader: Essential Resources for an Era of Upheaval)  https://islandpress.org/resilience-matters-2015-download (Resilience Matters: Forging a Greener, Fairer Future for All )(Free e-book!) https://www.rivernetwork.org/ (River Network) https://islandpress.org/urban-resilience-project (Island Press Urban Resilience Project)

BYU's Frederick Gedicks shares why a Muslim ban is a bad idea. Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University, on Farmers' concerns of the EPA water rule. Illinois Stat University's Brandon McDaniel explains how technology can ruin your love life. Apple Seed with Sam Payne. An inside look of the Limon Dance Company with director Colin Connor. Carnegie Hall's Daniel Levy goes behind bars as inmates compose music.

It's a much different picture for American natural gas, coal and power than just a few days ago as the US energy industry eyes a future under President-elect Donald Trump. Not only will key Washington appointees shift the tone of agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the...

The NYPD’s not-so-secret surveillance of Muslim-Americans, a hold on the new Clean Water Rule, and specious reasoning in a civil forfeiture case. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://www.ij.org/short-circuit/ NYPD surveillance: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/141688p.pdf?mc_cid=822bb07fe9&mc_eid=6e8e76319f EPA Clean Water Rule: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0246p-06.pdf?mc_cid=822bb07fe9&mc_eid=6e8e76319f Civil forfeiture fees: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/10/06/13-55266.pdf?mc_cid=51f2427403&mc_eid=6e8e76319f