Clean Water Rule

On December 11, 2018, the EPA and Department of the Army signed a proposed rule revising the definition of "waters of the United States" to clarify federal authority under the Clean Water Act in a clear and understandable way. The proposed definition would replace the approach in the 2015 Rule and the pre-2015 regulations.

 

The proposed rule outlines six clear categories of waters that would be considered “waters of the United States:”

  • Traditional navigable waters (TNWs)
    • Under the proposal, traditional navigable waters would be large rivers and lakes, tidal waters, and the territorial seas—such as the Atlantic Ocean, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, and tidally influenced waterbodies, including wetlands, along coastlines—used in interstate or foreign commerce.
  • Tributaries
    • In the agencies’ proposal, tributaries would be rivers and streams that flow to traditional navigable waters—such as Rock Creek, which feeds to the Potomac River in Washington, D.C.
    • Under the proposal, these naturally occurring surface water channels must flow more often than just when it rains—that is, tributaries as proposed must be perennial or intermittent. Ephemeral features would not be tributaries under the proposal.
    • Tributaries can connect to traditional navigable waters directly, through other “waters of the United States,” or through other non-jurisdictional surface waters so long as those waters convey perennial or intermittent flow downstream.
  • Certain ditches
    • A ditch under the proposed rule would be an “artificial channel used to convey water.”
    • Under the proposal, ditches would be jurisdictional where they are traditional navigable waters, such as the Erie Canal, or subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
    • Ditches may also be jurisdictional where they satisfy conditions of the tributary definition as proposed and either 1) were constructed in a tributary or 2) were built in adjacent wetlands.
  • Certain lakes and ponds
    • Lakes and ponds would be jurisdictional where they are traditional navigable waters, such as the Great Salt Lake in Utah or Lake Champlain along the Vermont-New York border.
    • Lakes and ponds would be jurisdictional where they contribute perennial or intermittent flow to a traditional navigable water either directly, through other “waters of the United States,” or through other non-jurisdictional surface waters so long as those waters convey perennial or intermittent flow downstream, such as Lake Pepin in Minnesota or Lake Travis in Texas.
    • Lakes and ponds would be jurisdictional where they are flooded by a “water of the United States” in a typical year, such as many oxbow lakes.
  • Impoundments
    • Under the proposal, impoundments of “waters of the United States” would be jurisdictional.
  • Adjacent wetlands
    • Under the proposal, wetlands that physically touch other jurisdictional waters would be “adjacent wetlands,” such as Horicon Marsh in Wisconsin.
    • Wetlands with a surface water connection in a typical year that results from 1) inundation from a “water of the United States” to the wetland or 2) perennial or intermittent flow between the wetland and a “water of the United States” would be “adjacent.”
    • Wetlands that are near a jurisdictional water but don’t physically touch that water because they are separated, for example by a berm, levee, or upland, would be adjacent only where they have a surface water connection described in the previous bullet through or over the barrier, including wetlands flooded by jurisdictional waters in a typical year.

 

The proposal also clearly outlines what would not be “waters of the United States,” including:

  • Waters that would not be included in the proposed categories of “waters of the United States” listed above—this would provide clarity that if a water or feature is not identified as jurisdictional in the proposal, it would not be a jurisdictional water under the Clean Water Act.
  • Ephemeral features that contain water only during or in response to rainfall.
  • Groundwater.
  • Ditches that do not meet the proposed conditions necessary to be considered jurisdictional, including most farm and roadside ditches.
  • Prior converted cropland.
    • This longstanding exclusion for certain agricultural areas would be continued under the proposal, and the agencies are clarifying that this exclusion would cease to apply when cropland is abandoned (i.e., not used for, or in support of, agricultural purposes in the preceding five years) and has reverted to wetlands.
  • Stormwater control features excavated or constructed in upland to convey, treat, infiltrate, or store stormwater run-off.
  • Wastewater recycling structures such as detention, retention and infiltration basins and ponds, and groundwater recharge basins would be excluded where they are constructed in upland.
  • Waste treatment systems.
    • Waste treatment systems have been excluded from the definition of “waters of the United States” since 1979 and would continue to be excluded under this proposal; however, waste treatment systems are being defined for the first time in this proposed rule.
    • A waste treatment system would include all components, including lagoons and treatment ponds (such as settling or cooling ponds), designed to convey or retain, concentrate, settle, reduce, or remove pollutants, either actively or passively, from wastewater or stormwater prior to discharge (or eliminating any such discharge).

 

The proposed rule is subject to a 60-day public comment period, which begins once it is published in the Federal Register. Afterward, EPA and the Corps are expected to publish a final rule.

 

Find more information from the EPA here.

From American Farm Bureau Federation here.


Comments

Security Check
Please enter the text below
CaptchaImage
Can't read text above? Try another text.
Sacul546
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Sacul546
Great to hear that Wisconsin win in dairy case. Dairy items are imperative for the working of muscle tissues and assume an extraordinary job in developing time of kids and get essay review service from us. So I extremely like the article and Mr. Ben Bromley who introduced this article. Keep it up!