Clean Waters Act - Revoked

Cootmeurer

Six Pointer
Didn’t really revoke it - but clarified to state surface waters with continuous connection

Pputs a nail in the Biden Rule that expanded coverage using the “nexus” rule. In this ruling NONE of the justices, even the ultra liberal ones, endorsed the “nexus” rule.

By tomorrow their should be a statement from Biden (ghost written) that
“Condemns the Ultra MAGA republicans and their puppet Supreme Court for poisoning the trans and LGBTQ children with water that I formally protected. Within 5 years all the millions of deaths in the USA will be directly attributed to ultra MAGA AR15 poisoned water. “
 
Last edited:

stiab

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
This situation originally got really bad with new regs under Obama, when any moist ditch in the midwest came under the EPA's jurisdiction. And then Biden told him "Here, hold my beer", which was probably a Bud Light.
 

bigten

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
This situation originally got really bad with new regs under Obama, when any moist ditch in the midwest came under the EPA's jurisdiction. And then Biden told him "Here, hold my beer", which was probably a Bud Light.

Heck, not even a moist ditch in some cases. While building a road several years ago via pre-approved plans, in one spot we had to shift the boundaries several feet due to environmental engineer finding a clump of bullrush smaller than the size of a car hood...That is only one example of the headaches we dealt with at times..
 

Soilman

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Thankfully, the wetland provisions for the Food Security Act, administered by USDA are written down in law by congress and cannot so easily be changed as can the Clean Water Act. This back and forth, depending upon which administration is in power has got to be a nightmare for the US Army Corps of Engineers, not to mention anyone having to deal with them and the CWA.
 

todobien

Eight Pointer
In a concurring opinion Justice Kavanaugh (joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson),criticizes the majority opinion, noting that it effectively reads out the plain meaning of “adjacent,” effectively rendering it a synonym for “adjoining,” a term narrower than Congress intended. He also points out that for 45 years, under eight presidential administrations with radically different political views, EPA and ACE have regulated wetlands when separated from “waters of the United States” by “man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, or the like,” reflecting a “consistency in interpretation [that] is strong confirmation of the ordinary meaning of adjacent wetlands.


He also points out that the distinction between “adjacent” and “adjoining,” is likely to have significant real world consequences. Pollutants from wetlands can flow across or under small sections of dry ground (like levees, berms and dunes) to waters of the United States, and the majority’s “continuous surface connection” test may wind up adversely affecting water quality and flood control.
 

todobien

Eight Pointer
Heck, not even a moist ditch in some cases. While building a road several years ago via pre-approved plans, in one spot we had to shift the boundaries several feet due to environmental engineer finding a clump of bullrush smaller than the size of a car hood...That is only one example of the headaches we dealt with at times..
Was it the clump of bullrush only or did the area meet the other criteria for wetlands too. I wonder if a wetland determination/delineation had been done during the planning process? Any reason the person for whom the road was being built didn't apply for a permit to fill those wetlands vs moving the road? Those permits are issued very regularly and for small wetlands some don't even require reporting.
 

Southern

Ten Pointer
With all of the myriad of wetland rules, how in the world are people still clearing wet woods in Hyde County to build duck impoundments? I feel like wetland laws are all about who you know and knowing what their interests are so you can exploit them.
 

bigten

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Was it the clump of bullrush only or did the area meet the other criteria for wetlands too. I wonder if a wetland determination/delineation had been done during the planning process? Any reason the person for whom the road was being built didn't apply for a permit to fill those wetlands vs moving the road? Those permits are issued very regularly and for small wetlands some don't even require reporting.

No other criteria other than a slight depression in the grade that at times held moisture. State road, dirt being widened, built and set up to pave. We had all the plans, pre-approved with all pipes, drives, ditch spans, roadbed etc. UNTIL that small clump of weed was spotted by environmental.... (DOT has their own environmental engineers that absolutely love to force others to go above and beyond the existing laws)
And that is only one of quite a few issues we've run into with them. Some maybe made just a wee bit of sense, but many didn't.
 

Soilman

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
No other criteria other than a slight depression in the grade that at times held moisture. State road, dirt being widened, built and set up to pave. We had all the plans, pre-approved with all pipes, drives, ditch spans, roadbed etc. UNTIL that small clump of weed was spotted by environmental.... (DOT has their own environmental engineers that absolutely love to force others to go above and beyond the existing laws)
And that is only one of quite a few issues we've run into with them. Some maybe made just a wee bit of sense, but many didn't.
Sounds like that was a "rule" created by the DOT EE. I'm betting that the COE had already approved the project and what your EE did was totally unnecessary.
In my experience with the COE, if you are up front and honest with them, they will work with you. That doesn't mean what you might have to do won't be the simplest or easiest, or least expensive, but if you follow their directions, they won't be such a headache. But, if you try to sneak something past them and they find out, they are merciless.
 

bigten

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Sounds like that was a "rule" created by the DOT EE. I'm betting that the COE had already approved the project and what your EE did was totally unnecessary.
In my experience with the COE, if you are up front and honest with them, they will work with you. That doesn't mean what you might have to do won't be the simplest or easiest, or least expensive, but if you follow their directions, they won't be such a headache. But, if you try to sneak something past them and they find out, they are merciless.

Yes. On all assessments.
His "rules and decisions" fully depended on how he felt that specific day and how well he "liked" you at the time. Same with our division safety director...
 

cncwmg

Four Pointer
With all of the myriad of wetland rules, how in the world are people still clearing wet woods in Hyde County to build duck impoundments? I feel like wetland laws are all about who you know and knowing what their interests are so you can exploit them.
Someone just got smacked by the EPA for clearing wetland right off 264, so I've heard. Pretty dumb to do it right where everyone sees it.

A lot of the duck impoundments meet the definition of restoring wetland on "prior converted" land. The pinewoods might be wet but if they've been ditched or drained at all the hydrology has been altered and certain programs will allow you to build your impoundment.
 
Top