{"id":85292,"date":"2017-10-08T13:36:02","date_gmt":"2017-10-08T17:36:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/madisoncountycourier.com\/?p=85292"},"modified":"2017-10-06T23:10:28","modified_gmt":"2017-10-07T03:10:28","slug":"schneiderman-leads-coalition-of-ags-in-challenging-legality-of-trump-epas-rollback-of-clean-water-protections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/madisoncountycourier.com\/?p=85292","title":{"rendered":"Schneiderman leads coalition of AGs in challenging legality of Trump EPA’s rollback of clean water protections"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Coalition: Proposed Repeal Of \u201cClean Water Rule\u201d Is \u201cArbitrary And Capricious And Not In Accordance With Law,\u201d EPA Administrator Pruitt\u2019s Involvement \u201cIllegal\u201d<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Repeal Would Put At Risk 5,700 Miles Of Streams That Feed Into NY\u2019s Drinking Water Sources \u2013Which Help Provide Drinking Water To 56% Of New Yorkers<\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, leading a coalition of nine Attorneys General, challenged the legality of a Trump Administration proposal to void the \u201cClean Water Rule\u201d that defines \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d under federal law.\u00a0 In comments addressed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the coalition charges that the proposed repeal of the Clean Water Rule \u2013 a rule designed to ensure the nation\u2019s lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands receive proper protection under the federal Clean Water Act \u2013 is \u201carbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law.\u201d\u00a0The coalition also charges that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt\u2019s involvement in the effort, after suing to negate the Clean Water Rule as Oklahoma Attorney General, is \u201cillegal\u201d and would render any repeal invalid.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Click here to read the comments<\/a>.\u00a0Joining Attorney General Schneiderman in the comments are the Attorneys General of California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cClean water is a basic right \u2013 fundamental to New Yorkers\u2019 health, environment, and economy,\u201dAttorney General Schneiderman\u00a0<\/strong>said.\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cThe Trump administration\u2019s attempt to repeal the Clean Water Rule would turn back the clock on hard-earned gains and jeopardize access to the clean, safe water on which we rely. Attorneys General will continue to fight back against the Trump administration\u2019s reckless assault on our nation\u2019s core public health and environmental protections.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A lake, river, stream, wetland, or any other kind of surface water is afforded protection under the Clean Water Act only if it is a \u201cwater of the United States.\u201d\u00a0Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 led to substantial uncertainty as to whether some waters \u2013 particularly, small, seasonal, or rain-dependent streams, wetlands, and tributaries \u2013 are considered waters of the United States.\u00a0As a result, roughly 20,000,000 wetland acres and 2,000,000 miles of streams in the Continental United States lost, or were placed in jeopardy of losing, their protections under the Clean Water Act.\u00a0These at-risk streams help provide drinking water to 117 million Americans \u2013 including 56 percent of New Yorkers.<\/span><\/p>\n

The decisions also potentially stripped 60 percent of our nation\u2019s streams \u2013 and at least 55 percent of New York\u2019s stream miles \u2013 and millions of acres of wetlands nationwide of federal protection.\u00a0 This left these waters \u2013 and the downstream waters with which they connect \u2013 vulnerable to increased flooding, pollution, damage to hunting and fishing habitat, and fouling of the drinking water supplies.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The 2015 Clean Water Rule clarified what types of waters are covered by the Clean Water Act.\u00a0The Rule was based on over 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific studies that demonstrated how many waters are connected by networks of tributaries, intermittent streams, and wetlands.\u00a0 Because of this \u201cinterconnectivity,\u201d physical, chemical, and biological pollution from wetlands and relatively small or infrequently-flowing upland streams often impact larger downstream waters, such as rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans.\u00a0All of the lower 48 states have waters that are downstream of other states; New York, for example, is downstream of 13 states.\u00a0As such, New York and other states are recipients of water pollution generated not only within their borders, but also from upstream sources outside their borders over which they lack jurisdiction.<\/span><\/p>\n

On July 27, 2017, the EPA and ACOE proposed to repeal the Clean Water Rule and reinstate regulations \u2013 adopted in 1977 \u2013 that had been in place prior to the Clean Water Rule.\u00a0It was these 40-year-old rules, whose dated science and lack of clarity as to which waters are \u201cwaters of the United States,\u201d that had led to years of confusing and inconsistent interpretations by agencies and federal courts.\u00a0Once the repeal rule is finalized, the reinstated, outdated 1977 regulations could remain in place indefinitely.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In their comments, the coalition of Attorneys General state that EPA and ACOE are in \u201cwholesale breach of foundational administrative law principles and the repeal rule is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law.\u201d\u00a0The coalition charges that, among other things, the agencies have:<\/span><\/p>\n