{"id":4884,"date":"2019-04-12T21:09:36","date_gmt":"2019-04-12T21:09:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/environment\/?p=4884"},"modified":"2019-09-26T21:30:52","modified_gmt":"2019-09-26T21:30:52","slug":"emmett-clinic-submits-comments-opposing-trump-administrations-proposal-to-weaken-clean-water-act-protections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clinics.law.harvard.edu\/environment\/2019\/04\/12\/emmett-clinic-submits-comments-opposing-trump-administrations-proposal-to-weaken-clean-water-act-protections\/","title":{"rendered":"Emmett Clinic Submits Comments Opposing Trump Administration\u2019s Proposal to Weaken Clean Water Act Protections"},"content":{"rendered":"

April 12, 2019 – The Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic submitted comments<\/a> today in opposition to the Trump Administration\u2019s proposal to revise the definition of \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d under the Clean Water Act.\u00a0 This proposal, if finalized, will dramatically reduce the number of streams and wetlands that are protected under the Clean Water Act, with potentially catastrophic consequences for water quality across the country.<\/p>\n

The Clinic submitted the comments on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association<\/a> (\u201cNPCA\u201d).\u00a0 NPCA represents over 1.3 million supporters and members as \u201cthe voice of America\u2019s National Parks.\u201d\u00a0 It has been a leading independent, nonpartisan voice on natural resource issues since 1919.\u00a0 The rivers, streams, and lakes in many national parks across the country provide crucial habitat for fish and wildlife, offer recreational opportunities for visitors, and in many cases are central to the parks\u2019 unique character and value.\u00a0 The preservation of water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in national parks depends on the protection of upstream wetlands and ephemeral streams that would lose protection under the proposal.<\/p>\n

The precise scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has long been uncertain.\u00a0 The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue several times, most recently in fractured set of opinions in Rapanos v. United States<\/em>, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).\u00a0 To resolve this ambiguity, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the Obama Administration issued the Clean Water Rule, which identified simple categories of water subject to federal jurisdiction based on extensive scientific and technical analyses, including a synthesis of over 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific publications.\u00a0 The Trump Administration now proposes to replace that rule with a new one that will substantially reduce Clean Water Act protections and increase regulatory uncertainty.<\/p>\n

In the comments, the Clinic explains that:<\/p>\n