A federal judge has rejected a Trump-era rule that put an end to federal protections for hundreds of thousands of small streams, wetlands and other waterways across the country
WASHINGTON – A federal judge has rejected a Trump-era rule that put an end to federal protections for hundreds of thousands of small streams, wetlands and other waterways and left them vulnerable to pollution from nearby development.
The Biden administration had already said it plans to repeal the Trump-era rule and issue new regulations defining which waterways are federally protected under the Clean Water Act. But Trump’s rule remained in place in the meantime, and environmental groups, Native American tribes and others said it could lead to the loss of wetlands, damage wildlife habitat and allow businesses and farmers to contaminate waterways. water.
Rosemary Márquez, a U.S. District Court judge in Arizona named by Obama, spoke with those groups on Monday, and determined that the Trump administration’s rule last year unduly limited the scope of protections. clean water. Márquez said the Environmental Protection Agency had ignored its own findings that small waterways can affect the well-being of larger waterways to those that flow.
The EPA, now led by Biden-appointed Michael Regan, said it is reviewing the decision and declined to comment. In June, Regan said the agency planned to issue a new rule that would protect water quality without overburdening small farmers.
The water rule – sometimes called “U.S. waters” or WOTUS – has long been a point of controversy. In 2015, the Obama administration expanded federal protection to nearly 60% of the nation’s waterways. As Obama’s rule also faced several legal challenges, Monday’s decision re-establishes a 1986 rule, which is broader in scope than Trump’s, but narrower than Obama’s, until new regulations are published.
According to a previous review by the Biden administration, the Trump rule allowed more than 300 projects to proceed without the federal permits required by the Obama-era rule. The review also found that Trump’s rule significantly reduced the protection of clean water in states like New Mexico and Arizona.
These changes were challenged judicially by six Native American tribes who said the Trump rule challenged the environmental approach of the law. Until it was repealed, the rule “caused irreparable damage to our nation’s waters,” said Janette Brimmer, a lawyer for Earthjustice, an environmental group that represented the tribes.
Gunnar Peters, president of the Wisconsin Indian Menominee Tribe, one of the tribes that sued, said federal water regulation “protects our history, our culture and the way of life of our people.”
Monday’s ruling goes into effect nationwide and could have an immediate impact. In Georgia, a proposed titanium mine just a few miles from the edge of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge may need federal approval after all. Last year, the Army Engineering Corps determined it no longer had jurisdiction over the project. On Tuesday, a spokesman for the Army Corps said it was too early to determine how the ruling would affect his involvement with the project.
Developers and other companies that will benefit from regulatory and financial relief under Trump’s rule are also affected. Proponents of less restrictive federal regulation say waterway protection should be left to states.
Chuck Fowke, president of the National Association of Home Builders, said the group was disappointed by Monday’s ruling. He said the decision would lead to confusion over where home builders could develop and will lead to “longer delays and higher housing costs.”
————
Phillis reported from St. Louis. Associated Press writer Kate Brumback in Atlanta contributed.
—————
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for environmental and water policy coverage. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For full AP environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/environment