SALT LAKE CITY — Touted as the most comprehensive overhaul of the Clean Water Act since its birth 42 years ago, the proposed, so-called "Waters of the U.S." rule is spurring controversy across the nation.
Sportsmen's groups say it is vital for the protection of the nation's streams and wetlands, singularly the most significant piece of regulation reform to come along that will help protect a $200 billion industry of hunting and angling.
"The Clean Water Act is the best tool we have to protect the quality of our water resources, and its jurisdiction needs to be clear to work effectively," said Jimmy Hague, director of the Center for Water Resources with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
The partnership is among nearly 200 sportsmen's groups that have weighed in with support for the proposal, citing concerns about efforts to derail protections for wetlands, which they say have experienced a 140 percent increase in their rate of decline between 2004 and 2009.
"We commend your administration’s proposed Clean Water Act rule for the protections it restores to headwaters streams and adjacent wetlands, and ask that the final rule offer similar protections for other important yet presently unprotected waters," the groups wrote in support.
The deadline to comment on the proposed rule has been extended a couple of times given the intense interest by multiple groups, with this latest deadline looming Friday.
Hague said the proposed rule clarifies federal jurisdiction over seasonal streams — which involves 60 percent of the stream miles in the United States — and is particularly important to the Prairie Pothole region, which is home to upward of 70 percent of the ducks in North America.
The federal agencies proposing the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, say it does not add to or expand the scope of jurisdictional oversight and the proposal actually covers fewer water bodies than were protected in the 1970s.
"We are clarifying protection for upstream waters that are absolutely vital to downstream communities," said EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, with the agency adding that more than half of the nation's lakes, rivers and coastal waters once considered unsafe for fishing and swimming have now been cleaned up due to the Clean Water Act.
While federal regulators say the proposal is benign and clarifies protections for seasonal waterways as a result of two confusing U.S. Supreme Court decisions, a line of critics charges otherwise, including multiple Utah agencies that are crafting comments to be submitted with Gov. Gary Herbert's approval in time for Friday's deadline.
"Apparently there have been quite a few concerns from different areas of the state government," said Mike Styler, executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources. "The concern that I hear is that this rule is overreaching and encompasses too much."
The state Division of Water Quality is weighing in on the rule, as are the Utah State Division of Parks and Recreation, Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, Utah Department of Agriculture, Utah Department of Transportation, and the state Office of Energy Development.
John Harja, with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, said one of the chief complaints is that the proposed rule is too broad with definitions that aren't universally applicable from state to state.
"What constitutes an upland ditch in Utah is actually very different than an upland ditch in Kentucky," Harja said.
The National Association of Counties, joined by the American Farm Bureau Federation, are among the most vocal critics of the proposed rule, with each claiming it would invoke new and burdensome regulatory oversight.
Stormwater infrastructure, road construction, ditch maintenance projects and flood control projects would fall under Section 404 permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act, which would unleash a cumbersome, time-consuming process that would put basic "public safety" projects at risk, according to the National Association of Counties.
The proposal includes 56 conservation practices that would be exempt from Clean Water Act oversight, but farmers groups say the proposal is an inexcusable overreach that would affect all manners of farming.
“This proposed rule would dramatically expand the reach of extremely costly federal permitting requirements to cover countless land uses, including ordinary farming and ranching activities — even mowing grass in a ditch,” according to the American Farm Bureau's general counsel Ellen Steen. “Top-level EPA officials have portrayed farmers’ concerns as ‘ludicrous,’ when in fact they are perfectly valid. Farmers and other small-business owners and land owners deserve better than misinformation from their government.”
Uproar over the proposal and concern over its implications prompted the EPA to post an informational rebuttal called "Ditch the Myth," in which it attempts to dispel public misperception over its provisions.
Email: amyjoi@deseretnews.com
Twitter: amyjoi16