Comments on: Waters of the US http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=waters-of-the-us EPA's Blog About Our World Thu, 23 May 2013 16:26:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Peggy White http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-42230 Peggy White Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:32:52 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-42230 Bolster local Economics! Ha. I live in a Superfund site and EPA have
been here for 20 some years. They have wasted YOUR TAX dollars
in a clean up. $30 million plus. They have moved dirt and changed
the criteria on several regulation plus ruin the infrastructure of our county.
The locals lost all their jobs do to such harsh EPA rulings and destroyed
our local economy. Try to let them come in to our life they are just
like IRS. We need to change who they answer to. We are all grown
adults and I personally found many lies or not all information handed
out to the people. Take your chance with EPA. NEVER!!!!!! I serve as
local elected official and seen way too much. Fire all of them.

]]> By: Peggy White http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-42228 Peggy White Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:20:06 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-42228 I personally think it is a outrage for the federal government to put
federal mandidates on what if’s. I have seen in my community water
bills up to $90.00 a month for our seniors for a what if. We have
continued to have federal government in to our lives we can only
lay back and do nothing of what is best for area. Government should
be for the people not against. Keep federal government out of Washing
ton and Idaho. We have brains and can do a better job.

]]> By: JC http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-42084 JC Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:40:42 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-42084 Regulation is fine, just quit making the individual land owner pay for it. Just try to get the EPA, USACOE or any state function that is suppose to provide regulation to do a wetland delineation on your property. Good luck, I’ve tried for seven years and all I got was advice to hire an environmentalist to do a study for the regulators to approve that cost me thousands. Either pay me for my property rights under the taking clause of the fifth amendment or work with me to benefit water quality, don’t force me to pay others.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-41672 Anonymous Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:26:22 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-41672 How will these waters be protected? I have seen first hand municipalities dumping raw sewage into our water system because it was financially economical to do so. I believe the permitting system can work but as we all know that can be bought out as well. I think too often the responsibility has been put to a government that is only looking at one side of the issues, I think the responsibility should be laid upon the people and industry first.

]]> By: Kay B. Day http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-41228 Kay B. Day Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:42:42 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-41228 States and local communities have a vested interest in protecting their waters. The federal government has, on more than one occasion, failed to do the job the central powers have assumed control over.

The matter should be left to the states in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.

Punitive measures are being considered for the state of Florida, for example, by the federal government. This will harm the species at the top of the eco-chain, humans, by inflicting damage on the economy by using questionable science.

Protecting every body of water in the U.S. is not a power delegated to the federal government.

]]> By: Lorelei E http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-41161 Lorelei E Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:27:52 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-41161 It is vitally important to protect ALL water sources and watersheds. As our population continues to grow the demand for clean water grows as well. The small feeder streams that lead into larger ones are deserving of protection as well. Development and agriculture need to be regulated so that water sources and water sheds are not impacted.

]]> By: Jon http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-41135 Jon Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:48:56 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-41135 “The Administration’s framework outlines a series of actions underway and planned across Federal agencies to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth.”

I am a government employee for 22 years whose job it is to insure compliance with these regulations, and develops and implements Best Management Practices (BMP’s) on the lands we manage. It is even difficult for me in consultation with various agencies to get consistent interpretations of the lines on the ground. I am all for abiding by these regulations and creating a clear line in the sand. Currently the USGS is developing a National Elevation Dataset, and if done properly to the scale necessary would aid in the delineation of the established boundaries. If more areas need inclusion or some need exclusion then the scientist/experts could decide from a standard on a set basis.

The permitting process could be streamlined with a simple in or out of jurisdiction by using GPS coordinates typed into a map. The public could visualize and hopefully better understand why these areas need protection. This is a national issue whether on the east or west coast.

And extract from http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/nutrient/index.html “U.S. EPA expects states to establish numeric water quality standards for phosphorus and nitrogen and to carry out the other pieces of the Clean Water Act framework, as appropriate. U.S. EPA’s Inspector General issued a finding in 2009 that U.S. EPA had not done enough to get state numeric nutrient water quality standards established. In response, U.S. EPA has developed a “corrective action plan” which includes a commitment to identify states where federal promulgation of nutrient water quality standards is required. U.S. EPA has been petitioned and sued by various environmental groups for failure of states to establish numeric nutrient standards, so there is mounting pressure on U.S. EPA and states to address nutrients by developing numeric nutrient water quality standards.
States have concerns on the issue of numeric nutrient water quality standards. They raise two main points:
1. There is not a straightforward relationship between nutrient concentration in the water and adverse effects, so a statewide “one size fits all” standard that meets the test of scientific defensibility is almost unachievable; and
2. The Clean Water Act programs are effective for point sources but do not assure reductions from non-point sources that are often the predominant contributors of nutrients in a particular watershed. “

I am concerned that we are keeping the exemptions for farmers with the problems with pesticide and sediment runoff. Most of these pesticides photo degrade on land but become trapped in the sediments in our waters. The NRCS has some good BMP’s to help with the farmers. I believe that we should have the exemptions with the farmers only if they abide by certain established BMP’s.

]]> By: Cliff http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-41133 Cliff Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:09:21 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-41133 The jurisdiction of the EPA and USACE relative to the CWA’s authority and definitions has long been debated (Is a cattail a wetland?). It is also acknowledged that environmental regulation is required to balance environmental, economic and political interests. For example, the Corps dredging projects across the country have caused untolled environmental harm and degredation. However, those activities facilitate economical transportation of goods and materials, resulting in lower prices for the consumer. There are sufficient federal, state and local controls in place to protect the environment, but to some extent they have been ignored, or trumped by political gain. Adding addtional regulation and bureaucracy in it self will not improve the environment, expansion of jurisdiction may take away from existing, productive oversite. We all complain about the price of gas, milk and bread. There are environmentally friendly best management practices developed for nearly all consumer driven activities, but they come with a price. True environmental stewrdship comes from the willingness to pay the real price of goods and services, which includes environmental protection.

]]> By: Robert Ressl http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-41132 Robert Ressl Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:31:25 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-41132 The changes are needed to improve the clarity of what is being protected. However, also needed is implementation (enforcement) of the current and future rules. Implementation based on voluntary compliance seems to be the preferred method. It is inadequate and leads to terrible abuse of the rules and long term problems that are not being solved. Along with these changes we need more people who are enforcing the implementation of the rules. Look at nearly any federal program and so many of its problems can be traced back to abuse of the implementation caused by no one looking at and enforcing the proper implementation of the requirements. Medicare fraud, the fraudulent loans made that drove up housing prices and resulted in collapse of the market, storm water BMP’s that are for show (silt fence is a joke), the $1000 dollar hammer for space, etc. Every new or change in the regulations only results in more of the same because there are too few people enforcing and verifying the implementation of the regulations.

]]> By: Steve http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/06/waters-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-41104 Steve Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:43:25 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=7811#comment-41104 Pete/Dave,

I whole heartedly agree with both of you. If one looks at the discussions that took place when the CWA was first brought up, it was intended soley for those waters that had “true” commerce issues. The states have virtually no power over the waters that run through their jurisdictions. I agree that EPA needs to focus on the big picture, let the states handle the rest of the picture. We have niether the personnel, time, or money at the Fed level to move any sort of permit at an efficient rate.

Industry has no problem being regulated, the problem industry has is the lack of efficieny on behalf of the agency, the inapropriate and inconsistent use of the federal policy, and the overall lack of understanding that in order for our economy to move, the agencies need to stop reinventing the wheel for every permitting issue.

The basis of the CWA is noble and just…the implementation of the Act to stifle business, control land planning etc is an extreme misuse of power and flys in the face of everything the Act was intended to do.

As stated previously, flooding is not a CWA issue…..allowing development in Flood palins without proper engineering/insurance etc is the issue. The lack of federal spending, will and understanding to upgrade our infrastructure to facilitate clean water distribution, and protect the public is a different discussion altogether.

]]>