The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has again extended the public comment period on the clarification of how the U.S. waters are defined. With an increasing number of comments submitted to the EPA, the agency extended the public comment period through Nov. 14 from the deadline of Oct. 20, which was the date set after the first extension.
In April 2014 the EPA proposed the waters of the U.S. rule, which will aim to clarify the Clean Water Act as applied to smaller bodies of water, like streams and ditches that flow to larger bodies of water that are already protected. Part of that clarification would be definitions of those smaller waterways and areas classified as wetlands.
Mike Giles, North Carolina Coastal Federation coastal advocate, said the federation submitted comments to the EPA about the rule change through the Southern Environmental Law Center. Giles said the federation views the potential change as a positive step toward ensuring the protection of the nation’s waterways and applauded the extension of the comment period.
“They have received such a large response and they see a need for more time for people to make informed comments,” Giles said during a Tuesday, Oct. 7 phone interview. “There are people who are saying the sky is falling and here comes the government again … but it is trying to clarify what the waters of the U.S. are and what the steps are if you do have an activity that is going to affect the waters.”
One of the local organizations concerned about the possible rule change is the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy (BASE). Tyler Newman, BASE senior governmental affairs director, said an unintended consequence of the rule change would be higher costs and more regulation for coastal businesses and municipalities if a permitting process is required for activity in those smaller bodies of water.
“When a beach town tries to proactively clean its ditches out before or after a hurricane, they are going to have to go through the [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] permitting process,” Newman said during a Tuesday, Oct. 7 phone interview. “If you think about how long it takes to go through the corps permitting process now, how do you do that for maintenance issues?”
Across North Carolina and the country a wide array of organizations and legislators have voiced concerns about the potential change. All four members of North Carolina’s congressional delegation have at least questioned the rule, with U.S. Senator Richard Burr opposed to it, and U.S. Congressmen Mike McIntyre and Walter E. Jones Jr. voting in favor of a bill in September that would block the change.
“If you didn’t know anything about it and you saw the range of groups who have issued formal comments … there are few if no issues where those groups are on the same page; but, on this, they are, so that should be an automatic red flag to everyone,” Newman said.
In a presentation on the issue during Wilmington City Council’s Monday, Oct. 6, agenda briefing, Wilmington environmental engineer Phil Prete said he had a different understanding of the proposal from Newman.
“In my reading of the rule it is not really a regulatory expansion but rather a clarification and regulatory containment,” Prete said. “It reduces the regulatory burden by providing for fewer disputed cases. They really don’t bring new terms into the rule but what they do is provide definitions to clarify terms that were already in the rules.”
Wilmington legislative affairs liaison Tony McEwan said one could easily connect the dots to make the case for either point of view.
“You talk to government officials and they will refute all this,” McEwan said. “However, you could very easily see how the dots could be connected to it being a very dire situation, for our region particularly.”
Giles said it would be tough to forecast the local impacts until the final language version of the change is released, which would not happen until after at least one other round of revisions following the close of the public comment period.
“I think the government and EPA regulators are trying to get as much public comment as possible because they saw the overwhelming response,” Giles said.
email [email protected]
