2 ms·

The media spin of and your account, while different, are both very different from what I hear from my partner the environmental engineer. The media would lead

The media spin of and your account, while different, are both very different from what I hear from my partner the environmental engineer. The media would lead you to believe farmers have stock piles of 50 gallon chemical drums they're waiting to pour into our lakes and streams. My partner's take is that a wetland, natural or otherwise is a protected habitat that can't just be destroyed. Farms have such wetlands and land developers are finding they can't just buy up farm land and plop developments on it due to wetlands. That seems to make the most sense to me being that Trump is a developer.

rayiner 7y ago
Just because wetlands should be protected doesn’t mean that they are protected under the Clean Water Act. (Congress doesn’t have the authority to regulate every body of water in the US. It’s limited to regulating the “channels of interstate commerce.”) States can, and do, regulate intrastate wetlands. And they can do it more efficiently, because they already handle permitting of local construction projects.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  It's actually up to the Army Core of Engineers to determine if a wetland is under the CWA. They aren't blanket included or excluded.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The Army Corps of Engineers makes decisions on individual wetlands, but they have to follow the statutory definition in the Clean Water Act. (And the Clean Water Act can only be interpreted in a way consistent with the Constitutional limits on Congress’s power to regulate intra-state activity.)
    - cptskippy 7y ago
      So what exactly are you arguing? The CWA stipulates what is covered and the Army Core of Engineers is responsible for interpretation. My point was that the rules rollback wasn't about farmers wanting to pollute or regulation of water ways, but rather about eliminating restrictions and regulations that inhibit land development on wetlands. Nothing you have said challenges that assertion, you just seem to be hung up on whether or not the Fed has the right to regulate something.

rayiner 7y ago

Just because wetlands should be protected doesn’t mean that they are protected under the Clean Water Act. (Congress doesn’t have the authority to regulate every body of water in the US. It’s limited to regulating the “channels of interstate commerce.”) States can, and do, regulate intrastate wetlands. And they can do it more efficiently, because they already handle permitting of local construction projects.

cptskippy 7y ago
It's actually up to the Army Core of Engineers to determine if a wetland is under the CWA. They aren't blanket included or excluded.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The Army Corps of Engineers makes decisions on individual wetlands, but they have to follow the statutory definition in the Clean Water Act. (And the Clean Water Act can only be interpreted in a way consistent with the Constitutional limits on Congress’s power to regulate intra-state activity.)
  - cptskippy 7y ago
    So what exactly are you arguing? The CWA stipulates what is covered and the Army Core of Engineers is responsible for interpretation. My point was that the rules rollback wasn't about farmers wanting to pollute or regulation of water ways, but rather about eliminating restrictions and regulations that inhibit land development on wetlands. Nothing you have said challenges that assertion, you just seem to be hung up on whether or not the Fed has the right to regulate something.