We encourage EPA to consider these issues during the rulemaking process, as well as the following: 1) additional uncertainty about assumable waters in response to ongoing Water of the United States proposed rulemaking; 2) limited state and tribal experience with assumption for other states and tribes to build on; 3) the possibility of allowing partial assumption; and 4) the impact of assumption on consistency with federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, National Historical Preservation Act, etc., considerations. Most importantly, we strongly encourage EPA to continue an engaged stakeholder process with states and tribes.
This Excel chart compares the Trump Administration’s proposed rule “Redefinition of Waters of the United States”, the 2015 Obama Administration rule defining Waters of the United States, and the regulatory definitions which existed before that. The chart provides brief information on how each defined various features/bodies of water, and where in the proposed redefinition of… Read More »
This document compiles questions asked by EPA in the proposed rule redefining Waters of the United States. In the proposed rule, EPA poses the questions after each section which discusses various definitions, terms, concepts, etc. The purpose of this document is to provide an easy-to-reference list of those questions for ACWA members and their states… Read More »
The following memorandum provides a brief overview of key elements within the proposed rulemaking, Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”. The summary is based on the pre-publication version of the proposed rule. This summary is meant to assist ACWA’s Membership in their review of the proposed rule as they prepare comments and provide… Read More »
Memo clarifying the waters the Corps will retain for permitting under section 404(g):
1. Waters that are jurisdictional under Sec. 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 provided that
a. Retained waters include tidal waters shoreward to their mean high water mark, or mean higher high water mark on the west coast, and
b. retained waters to not include those waters that qualify as “navigable” solely because they were “used in the past” to transport interstate or foreign commerce; and
2. wetlands adjacent to waters retained above, landward to an administrative boundary agreed upon by the state or tribe and the Corps.
3. For ease of implementation and to provide transparency the Corps will use the existing RHA section 10 lists of waters as a starting point, which could be amended by the Corps as appropriate consistent with applicable regulations and case law.
ACWA, ECOS and ASWM sent a letter to Administrator Pruitt expressing our appreciation for the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided in responding to our joint request that the agency actively engage in a discussion clarifying those waters that are subject to assumption by interested states, and those waters that should be retained… Read More »
The US District Court for the Southern District of WV held that WV’s failure to develop a TMDL for state waters with high conductivity requires EPA to either approve or disapprove WVDEP’s apparent intention to not develop conductivity TMDLs.
A summary of proceedings pertaining to WoUS definitions.
ACWA urges the Trump Transition team to consider opportunities & needs to ensure that water quality programs continue to improve the nation’s water quality.
A letter from ACWA, ECOS and ASWM to the USACE expressing disappointment in the Corps’ position on “traditional navigable waters” under the CWA
2016 Joel Beauvais Memo: Renewed Call to Action to Reduce Nutrients Pollution and Support for Incremental Actions to Protect Water Quality and Public Health