U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, left, takes questions from the audience after delivering a speech at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass., Tuesday, July 30, 2013. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
Yesterday, I posted a brief item about the release by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of its new “Clean Water Rule” in which I noted that my inbox was filling up with responses about the EPA action.
The responses were pretty predictable, really. Just about every environmental group you could possibly name jumped out there to cheer lead about it. See, for example, this statement from a coalition of citizen groups:
Today the Obama administration closed loopholes that left the drinking water sources for more than 1 in 3 Americans at risk of pollution and destruction with the release of its long-awaited Clean Water Rule. A number of environmental, wildlife, and sportsmen groups praised the rule, which ensures Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands across the country, but warned that there are multiple efforts underway in Congress to weaken, undermine, or stop the rule completely.
On the other side of things, all of the industry groups I heard from were complaining strongly about the EPA rule. Here’s the National Mining Association:
We remain deeply concerned that the promised clarity from this rule comes at the steep price of more federal interference with state, local and private land use decisions. The U.S. federal permitting process is among the slowest, most costly and inefficient systems in the world. This rule faces a high hurdle in convincing us that the permitting process will improve now that only the most tenuous connections form the basis for imposing federal requirements on top of existing state protections.
West Virginia political leaders were also pretty predictable. Most said something along the lines of what Sen. Joe Manchin put in his prepared statement:
It is completely unreasonable that our country’s ditches, puddles and other un-navigable waters be subjected to the same regulations as our greatest lakes and rivers, and implementing this rule will certainly have a significant impact on West Virginia’s economy, hindering businesses, manufacturing and energy production.
Pretty much, most of the media coverage I read (see here, here and here for example), confined their story to the narrative that EPA and its friends on the environmental community love the rule, while business and industry — and their friends on Congress — hate it.
But then I came across this statement, issued by the Water Keeper Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity:
The “Clean Water Rule” issued today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reduces the agencies’ jurisdiction over waters that have been covered under the Clean Water Act since the 1970s. The final rule fails to protect streams and rivers that have historically been protected under the Clean Water Act, exempting industrial-scale livestock facilities, and allowing streams and rivers to be impounded or filled with toxic coal ash and other waste.
The preamble to the rule states: “The scope of jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as ‘waters of the United States’ under the rule than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some existing categories such as tributaries.”