
“This isn’t about whether the Clean Water Act is beneficial. Of course it makes sense to require a permit to discharge potential pollutants into waterways, but when you define 97 percent of the land in Iowa as a waterway, you’re losing sight of the law’s intended focus. For instance, it makes sense to require a permit before dumping dirt or rocks into a river, but what the EPA defines as a waterway is so broad, it could require permission before moving soil on dry land. Ironically, this would discourage a lot of common sense projects to prevent erosion or control runoff that involve moving soil in areas now designated a ‘water of the United States.’ That would hamper ongoing efforts in Iowa to improve water quality under the Iowa Water Quality Plan, which the EPA approved.
“The result of this rule isn’t cleaner water, but a bigger roll of red tape. It won’t make our water any cleaner, but it would limit the property rights of individual Americans and control over their own land. Under EPA’s definition, WOTUS affects everyone from farmers to construction companies to golf course managers in their day-to-day decision making. These are all fields that create and sustain jobs. The rule is an absurd use of power to further an agency’s own political agenda.”
2 thoughts on “Grassley votes to defund “poorly conceived” Waters of the U.S. rule”
They also defunded the 1972 Noise Pollution Control Act in 1982 while Reagan was President. They seem to want conditions here in the US like China. Entrepreneurial greed thinks only of wealth and growth, and misses out on the reality that ecological balance and harmony are more important.
Please read this entire article, https://iowacoldcases.org/case-summaries/adam-lack/.