Have not read through all of this but I did get an email forwarded to be from NAFO discussing this.

1. WATER POLICY:
Obama admin proposes broader protection for wetlands, streams
Annie Snider, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The Obama administration unveiled a regulatory proposal today that would bring nearly all rivers, streams and creeks under the protection of the Clean Water Act and add clarity on which wetlands would receive protection.
The proposal, which hews closely to a draft leaked last fall, would bring roughly $2 in benefits for every dollar it costs, according to U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which jointly proposed the rule.
"The health of our rivers, lakes, bays and coastal waters depend on smaller interconnected streams and wetlands that feed them," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said on a call with reporters. "These places are where we get our drinking water and where our families hunt, fish, swim and play."
The rule is aimed at clarifying which streams, creeks, bogs and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act following two muddled Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 that left both industry and agencies in regulatory limbo (Greenwire, Feb. 7, 2011).
That the rule was proposed at all is a major win for environmental groups, sportsmen and other supporters of a broader take on federal jurisdiction.
After the second Supreme Court decision in 2008, the George W. Bush administration established an approach to claiming jurisdiction over waters that greens faulted as too narrow. In the years since, they have attempted both legislatively and administratively to get more waters and wetlands automatically covered.
"Whether we look back to the recent spill in West Virginia that left 300,000 people without drinking water or ahead to the dead zones that will blight Lake Erie and the Chesapeake Bay this summer, it's obvious that our waterways are not as clean or safe as we need them to be -- for our drinking water, for recreation, or for the health of our ecosystems and wildlife," said Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America.
"Today's action by the EPA will help ensure that all our waterways get the protection they need so we can enjoy them for years to come."
According to U.S. EPA, the vast majority of waters in the southwestern United States do not flow year round. Such waters have been in regulatory limbo following two confused Supreme Court decisions but would receive federal protections under today’s proposal. Map courtesy of the EPA.
But the proposal would have major impacts for homebuilders, oil and gas companies, and agribusinesses that have been pushing back since the rulemaking effort began.
Industry groups and their congressional allies have called the proposal a power grab and said it will have broad implications across the economy (Greenwire, Nov. 13, 2013).
They have also questioned the administration's economic analysis showing that benefits outweigh costs (E&ENews PM, Dec. 20, 2013).
"The 'waters of the U.S.' rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
The Obama administration is making a concerted effort to reach out to the rule's foes, particularly those in agriculture.
The proposed rule would maintain all current exemptions for agriculture, and McCarthy said today EPA worked with the Department of Agriculture to develop and include a list of 53 additional exemptions for agricultural conservation practices.
'Significant' connection
The rule proposal would place all tributaries -- including those that flow only seasonally or when it rains -- under federal jurisdiction, meaning that a permit would be required for anyone who wanted to fill those areas or discharge pollution into them.
The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Rapanos v. United States threw protections for "intermittent" and "ephemeral" streams into question, and in many places they simply have not been regulated.
EPA says about 60 percent of U.S. stream miles fall into the "intermittent" category.
It's an even more pressing issue in the West. A 2008 EPA study says 94 percent of Arizona's streams don't flow year-round, 89 percent of Nevada's are dry most of the year, and 88 percent of New Mexico's are not perennial.
Geographically isolated wetlands -- like the Great Plains' Prairie Potholes -- have also been a major question mark following the two high court decisions.
Under today's rule proposal, wetlands that are adjacent to jurisdictional waters would be regulated, but geographically isolated wetlands would still require a regulator to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it significantly affects factors such as flooding, pollution or species downstream.
The Obama administration has added a specific request for comment on this issue, though.
"The agencies are interested in comments, scientific and technical data, case law, and other information that would further clarify which 'other waters' should be considered similarly situated for purposes of a case-specific significant nexus determination," the rule states, noting that situations could, for instance, be broken down by ecological regions or hydrologic landscape regions.
However, McCarthy said that for other types of waters to be ruled jurisdictional, one would have to show not just that there is a downstream connection but that it is a "significant" connection.
"These other upstream waters must be shown to have a significant nexus to downstream water quality," McCarthy said. "If you're a pond or a wetland, it's not enough to show that the connections simply exist; you have to show that that pond or wetland -- either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region -- significantly affects the alteration of physical, chemical or biological integrity of other jurisdictional waters that the Clean Water Act was intended to protect."
The rule also specifically asks for comment on whether there are categories of waters that could automatically be ruled outside of jurisdiction without a case-by-case analysis.
The agencies will be accepting public comment on the proposed rule for 90 days after it is published in the Federal Register.