The 2015 Obama rule change (which was actually a redefining of the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS) was never put into effect, so wiping the change off the board doesn’t bring harm to the environment. The question is, would the Obama rule change have ultimately improved water quality? My environmental engineers tell me that’s highly questionable. The end result would be more hoops, less approvals for farmland, housing, etc. and a big increase in costs for the projects that do get approval. Worse yet, some of the previously approved land-uses could be taken away, without compensation. The best way to improve water quality above the level of the fed Wetlands Protection Act regs is for the states to expand the WPA where deemed necessary. This already was and is happening but the Obama redefinition of WOTUS would hinder that. So, in the long run, keeping the definition as is and allowing the states to continue what they’ve been doing is what will result in the greatest increase in protection of our waters.
The 2015 Obama rule change (which was actually a redefining of the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS) was never put into effect, so wiping the change off the board doesn’t bring harm to the environment. The question is, would the Obama rule change have ultimately improved water quality? My environmental engineers tell me that’s highly questionable. The end result would be more hoops, less approvals for farmland, housing, etc. and a big increase in costs for the projects that do get approval. Worse yet, some of the previously approved land-uses could be taken away, without compensation. The best way to improve water quality above the level of the fed Wetlands Protection Act regs is for the states to expand the WPA where deemed necessary. This already was and is happening but the Obama redefinition of WOTUS would hinder that. So, in the long run, keeping the definition as is and allowing the states to continue what they’ve been doing is what will result in the greatest increase in protection of our waters.