click to enlarge
Courtesy EPA
Ellen Gilinsky
On a quick stopover in Vermont, officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week made the case for a proposed rule which — depending on who you ask — could either "clarify" or "extend" the jurisdiction of the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act.
It's spurred a national debate about the EPA's role in governing waters and preventing pollution. Under
the proposed rule, which is open for formal public comment until October 20, the EPA argues that the Clean Water Act applies to more than just major rivers and streams. The proposed rule would clarify that seasonal and rain-dependent streams, as well as wetlands near rivers and streams, would be protected under the Clean Water Act, and as such be subject to regulation for pollution and quality standards.
"We want to ensure that the whole system, from the headwaters down to the mouth, is protected," said Ellen Gilinsky, the senior water advisor for the EPA, during a site visit on Wednesday morning. In boots and rain gear, Gilinsky and other delegates from EPA offices in D.C. and Boston looked on as a soil conservationist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service led a tour of a restored wetland in Leicester. An NRCS easement turned the former agricultural land along the Otter Creek back into a functioning flood plain.
The so-called "Waters of the U.S." rule wasn't a hot topic of debate during the morning field trip — but it had been the night before, during a roundtable discussion at the University of Vermont.
The EPA contends that the new rule would reduce confusion by clarifying what bodies of water the Clean Water Act governs. They're not expanding jurisdiction or broadening coverage of the act, according to an
EPA website about the proposed rule — though that's exactly what critics have alleged. Last week a group of 30 Republican U.S. Senators introduced legislation to stop the proposed rule, which critics have called a "power grab."