User:Wikibeanie/sandbox

Lead-in paragraph
this section being edited on live wiki page

Provisions (natalia)
this section being edited on live wiki page

Background (goka)
this section being edited on live wiki page

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001)[edit | edit source]
this section being edited on live wiki page

Rapanos v. United States (2006)[edit | edit source]
this section being edited on live wiki page

Development of Clean Water Rule[edit | edit source]
-2009 Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) stalls in congress. In that year, when approved it reaffirms federal jurisdiction over all waters of the United States and overturns the decisions of the United States in the two court cases mentioned above.

- 2011 The Proposed Guidance would provide more certain and predictable protections for many streams and wetlands by comparison to the existing and predictable protections for many streams and wetlands. The guidance still required a case-specific finding of significant nexus and CWA juridisction were likely to be established for these categories of water.

- 2014 Formal CWR proposed in March 2014 clarifying and partially restoring historic scope of waters protected under the CWA. Many scientific synthesis are done for CWR and concluded to be sufficient. The final review occurs by the Science Advisory Board and the CWR gets drafted.

- After a public comment period and numerous meetings with state entities, public and private stakeholders, former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy along with Assistant Army Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy signed the final rule on May 27, 2015 and becomes effective in August.

Partisan opposition
Government regulation and protection of fresh water supplies and watershed health is frequently perceived on the political right as a burden on economic growth and an infringement of landowner rights. The Clean Water Rule is part of a larger mobilization by the Obama administration to ingrain the presidency with an environmental legacy, which Republicans have viewed as an “over-reach” of executive power.

The pushback against the Clean Water Rule also include Democrats from "farm and energy states." Many state and local governments also consider the Clean Water Rule as an unconstitutional over-reach violating federalism principles and due process provisions outlined in the 10th and 14th amendments respectively. Some Congresspersons also proposes it violates the Constitutional Commerce Clause which gives Congress the authority over activities of the states and its citizens.

Public Opposition
Agriculture and farm organizations find the Clean Water Rule defines the waters of the United States too precisely. farmers worry that an expansion of government jurisdiction will leave their...

Federal stay
After thirteen states sued to block the rule, U.S. Chief District Judge Ralph R. Erickson issued a preliminary injunction hours before the rule was to take effect, blocking regulation in those states. A divided federal appeals court stayed the rule's application nationwide on October 9, 2015. The stay passed a 2:1 decision in the sixth circuit court the day before the rule was supposed to come into effect. Shortly after the stay, an auditor found the EPA was breaking the law by utilizing social media to communicate with the public about the status of the Clean Water Rule. It was deemed as federal propaganda. However it is noted that this was part of larger social media campaign under the obama administration in order to directly communicate citizens while bypassing mainstream news outlets.

Implications for stakeholders
this section being edited on live wiki page

Future under Trump administration (irene)
this section being edited on live wiki page

Implications for Native-American reservations (natalia)
The Clean Water Rule clarifies definitions and since tribal reservations are treated as states under the CWA, it extends more coverage for waters on native american land. This could have important implications for protection of water resources, that are seen as especially valuable to tribes, since they "face threats from [...] waste dumping, strip mining, fisheries loss, damming of traditional waterways..." Upon consultation, tribes who commented were in generally favor of the rule, but concerned about the potential for time consuming and difficult permitting or protection processes.