Clean Water Rule Response to Comments Mass Mailing Campaigns


Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Clean Water Rule Comment Compendium
Mass Mailing Campaigns

The Response to Comments Document, together with the preamble to the final Clean Water
Rule, presents the responses of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department
of the Army (collectively "the agencies") to the more than one million public comments received
on the proposed rule (79 FR 22188 (Apr. 21, 2014)). The agencies have addressed all significant
issues raised in the public comments.

As a result of changes made to the preamble and final rule prior to signature, and due to the
volume of comments received, some responses in the Response to Comments Document may not
reflect the language in the preamble and final rule in every respect. Where the response is in
conflict with the preamble or the final rule, the language in the final preamble and rule controls
and should be used for purposes of understanding the scope, requirements, and basis of the final
rule. In addition, due to the large number of comments that addressed similar issues, as well as
the volume of the comments received, the Response to Comments Document does not always
cross-reference each response to the commenter(s) who raised the particular issue involved. The
responses presented in this document are intended to augment the responses to comments that
appear in the preamble to the final rule or to address comments not discussed in that preamble.
Although portions of the preamble to the final rule are paraphrased in this document where
useful to add clarity to responses, the preamble itself remains the definitive statement of the
rationale for the revisions adopted in the final rule. In many instances, particular responses
presented in the Response to Comments Document include cross references to responses on
related issues that are located either in the preamble to the Clean Water Rule, the Technical
Support Document, or elsewhere in the Response to Comments Document. All issues on which
the agencies are taking final action in the Clean Water Rule are addressed in the Clean Water
Rule rulemaking record.

Accordingly, the Response to Comments Document, together with the preamble to the Clean
Water Rule and the information contained in the Technical Support Document, the Science
Report, and the rest of the administrative record should be considered collectively as the
agencies' response to all of the significant comments submitted on the proposed rule. The
Response to Comments Document incorporates directly or by reference the significant public
comments addressed in the preamble to the Clean Water Rule as well as other significant public
comments that were submitted on the proposed rule.

This compendium, as part of the Response to Comments Document, provides a compendium of
the technical comments submitted by commenters as part of mass mailing campaigns. Comments
have been copied into this document "as is" with no editing or summarizing. Footnotes in regular
font are taken directly from the comments.

1

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Summary

The mass-mailing and petition letter campaigns made up the majority of the over one million
comment letters received by the Docket. These letters addressed many of the major issue areas,
often overlapping each other both in terms of content as well as specific wording. Almost all of
the mass mailing campaign letters were brief and followed a similar format. The letters provided
a clear statement of support or opposition to the proposed rule, citing one or more issues as
reasons to support the position taken and to advocate for a particular direction for the final rule.
Those that expressed support for the rule generally also supported a broader scope of
jurisdiction, while those who expressed opposition to the rule supported a narrower scope of
jurisdiction.

The overwhelming majority (90%) of the mass mailing campaign commenters expressed support
for the proposed rule. The most common issues raised in the mass mailing campaign letters that
expressed support for the rule were their desire to see the final rule protect all streams and
wetlands, concerns about the loss of the functions and services those waters provide, particularly
about protecting our supply of clean drinking water, and concerns about vulnerability to
pollution and destruction of waters that are not protected. The most common issues raised in the
mass mailing campaign letters that expressed opposition to the rule were concerns about an
expansion of the scope of the Clean Water Act, concerns about various burdens that might be
imposed on them as a result, concerns about regulating small or dry waters, concerns about the
adequacy of the exemptions, and concerns about regulation of ditches. The majority of the mass
mailing campaign letters that expressed opposition to the rule were written by commenters
concerned about farming or direct management or use of the land. The mass mailing campaigns
varied widely in the number of identical copies or signatures, from under ten to over two
hundred thousand.

This topical compendium follows a different format from the other topical compendiums because
of the nature of the mass mailing campaigns and petition letters. While the other topical
compendiums are a collection of comments excerpted from letters to facilitate topical summaries
and responses, the mass mailing campaigns have been copied into this document in their entirety
and "as is" with no editing or summarizing. This is because the mass mailing campaign letters
were brief and generally addressed a number of issues with less detail than the comments
included in the topical compendium. The agencies have thus provided responses at a summary
level, building on the agency responses in the topical comment compendiums which are more
detailed and more technical in nature.

2

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #0091 [33 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as the American Farm Bureau Federation-al

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a farmer and I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean
Water Act.

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters - many of which are not even wet
or considered waters under any common understanding of that word.

By increasing federal jurisdiction over lands by calling them "waters of the U.S." the rule would
allow the federal government veto power over farming and other land uses. It would negatively
impact North Dakota's two biggest industries: agriculture and energy.

Farmers and ranchers like me will face huge roadblocks to ordinary land-use activities, like
building fences and spraying for or pulling weeds, not to mention insect control.

Since there is no legal right to a Clean Water Act discharge permit, EPA will have ultimate
control to deny a permit and restrict a farmer's ability to farm. The proposed rule is nothing short
of a license for EPA to dictate all land-use across the country.

The exemptions EPA claims will protect farmers already exist. In fact, the proposed rule would
narrow them.

The exemptions are part of an interpretive rule or guidance document, not the proposed rule
itself, so they can change at the drop of a hat. Farmers can't depend on them.

Congress did not intend to allow EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate
farmland just because water occasionally flows across it. EPA should respect the limits set by
Congress

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make
changes to the land - even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect
water quality regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It is one of the values I hold as
a farmer or rancher.

Farmers and ranchers like me will be severely impacted. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the
proposed rule.

Agency Response:

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The agencies note that all comments on the Interpretive Rule are outside the scope of this
rule. However we also note that the IR was withdrawn on January 29, 2015, as directed by
Congress in Section 112 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act,
2015, Public Law No. 113-235. The memorandum of understanding signed on March 25,
2014 by the EPA, the Army, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, concerning the
interpretive rule was also withdrawn.

The agencies reiterate that nothing in this rule changes the exemptions that Congress has
provided for certain discharges from CWA permitting associated with farming, ranching,
and forestry practices. The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing
statutory exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance,
certain activities and discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming,
ranching, and silviculture operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a
result of the rule. Section 404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of
maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently
serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways,
and bridge abutments or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the
construction or maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not
construction, of drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule
has not changed these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS
determinations. The Joint Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

(NRCS) and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for
the Clean Water Act and the Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains
valid. The final rule does not change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the
tools used for delineating wetlands.

The maintenance exemption provided within the Clean Water Act remains unchanged by
this definition. The agencies' longstanding policy was summarized in a joint memorandum
issued on May 3,1990 entitled "Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Program and
Agricultural Activities" states "[mjinor drainage that is exempt under Section 404(f) is
limited to discharges associated with the continuation of established wetland crop
production (e.g., building rice levees) or the connection of upland crop drainage facilities to
waters of the United States. Minor drainage also refers to the emergency removal of
blockages that close or constrict existing drainage ways used as part of an established crop
production. Minor drainage is defined such that it does not include discharges associated
with the construction of ditches which drain or significantly modify any wetlands or
aquatic areas considered as waters of the United States."

The final rule includes a provision that waters subject to established, "normal" farming,
silviculture, and ranching activities are not "adjacent" waters. Given this provision, the
agencies recognize the utility in providing further clarification on these terms as reflected
in the agencies' implementing regulations (40 C.F.R § 232.3(c)(1)) to mean established and
ongoing activities to distinguish from activities needed to convert an area to farming,
silviculture, or ranching and activities that convert a water to a non-water. The rule
reflects this framework by clarifying the waters subject to the activities Congress exempted
under Section 404(f)(1) are not jurisdictional by rule as "adjacent." It is important to
recognize that "tributaries," including those ditches that meet the tributary definition, are
not "adjacent waters" and are jurisdictional by rule.

There is no statutory definition of "ongoing." However, the regulations do highlight the
types of activities that are considered with regard to "established" operations. 40 CFR
232.3(c)(l)(ii)(A) provides clarity on what is considered an "established" or ongoing
farming, silviculture, or ranching operation: "To fall under this exemption, the activities
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be part of an established (i.e., ongoing)
farming, silviculture, or ranching operation, and must be in accordance with definitions in
paragraph (d) of this section. Activities on areas lying fallow as part of a conventional
rotational cycle are part of an established operation."

Finally, the agencies note that if an activity takes place outside the waters of the United
States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or
not it was part of an established farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Doc. #0092 [108,072 on-time duplicates, sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense
Councill

Dear Environmental Protection Agency, I just signed Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC)'s petition "Ohio: don't let polluters poison our water" on Change.org. I urge you to
finalize the Army Corps of Engineers' and Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean
Water Act Waters of the U.S. rule as soon as possible, follow the science that shows how water

5

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

bodies are interconnected, and fully protect all of the waterways that have important connections
to one another.

Basic clean water protections for headwater streams and wetlands have been in question for too
long. I strongly support protecting the nation's streams, ponds, wetlands and other waters from
pollution. The proposed rule is an important step towards achieving this goal. Preserving our
sources of clean drinking water is of the utmost importance. Finalizing a strong rule will secure
Clean Water Act protections for countless streams and wetlands, which help supply the drinking
water of more than 117 million Americans.

The rule as proposed is a major improvement. I urge you to further strengthen the final rule to
fully protect wetlands and other waters found outside of the floodplain of covered waterways.
Science shows that the health of these waters influences stream flow, water quality and wildlife
in waters downstream.

I urge you to continue to stand up to special interests that oppose these important — and popular -
- clean water protections. EPA has already received more than 100,000 letters in support of
moving forward with this rule to protect streams, wetlands, rivers and other waters from
pollution or destruction. Hunting and angling organizations, public health professionals and
hundreds more local elected officials, farmers, citizens, brewers and other business leaders have
spoken out in support of enhanced protections.

As one of the many supporters of this critical initiative to protect our waters from pollution, I
thank you and urge you to finalize a strong Waters of the U.S. rule that includes full protection
for the nation's waters as soon as possible.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule interprets
the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters,
and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the
best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and
extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

The final rule reflects that the scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the
stream channels and riparian/floodplain wetlands or open waters that together form river
networks are clearly connected to downstream waters in ways that profoundly influence
downstream water integrity. However, the connectivity and effects of non-floodplain
wetlands and open waters are more variable and thus more difficult to address solely from
evidence available in peer-reviewed studies. The final rule provides for case-specific
determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the agencies'
assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial
seas.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #0093 [7,140 on-time duplicates, sponsored by the American Riversl

Dear Environmental Protection Agency,

As a supporter of American Rivers, I urge you to move forward to finalize the rulemaking
proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to
clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act. This rulemaking effort is critical to restoring
protections for the small streams and wetlands that contribute to our drinking water supplies,
filter out pollutants, and help to protect us from flooding.

Despite thirty years of historically comprehensive protections under the Act, small streams and
wetlands are no longer guaranteed to be covered by the Clean Water Act. These waters may now
be vulnerable to pollution and degradation following two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and
2006. The legal chaos that resulted from these decisions has caused significant declines in Clean
Water Act implementation and enforcement. It puts significant burdens on the Agencies to
repeatedly prove what we already know scientifically - that small streams and wetlands are
integrally linked to the health of downstream waters.

I strongly support efforts to better protect small streams and wetlands. The proposed rule is an
important step forward to restoring protections for streams, ponds, wetlands, and other waters.
As part of this effort, I urge you to strengthen the proposed rule by more fully restoring
protections to other waters, such as prairie potholes and vernal pools.

What happens upstream, in small streams and wetlands, affects downstream rivers, lakes, and
beaches where we swim and fish. From the smallest headwater streams to the Mississippi River,
science proves that these waters are connected - physically, chemically, and biologically.

I thank you for your efforts to better protect clean water and urge you to finalize a strong rule
that more fully restores protections for our nation's waters.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation
is based not only on legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also
on the agencies' technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA
over the past four decades. In this final rule, the agencies are responding to those requests
from across the country to make the process of identifying waters protected under the
CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-
reviewed science.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands, are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

Doc. #0571 [31,139 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as the Clean Water Action - A1

I urge EPA to finalize a strong rule to clarify that all streams, wetlands and other water resources
are protected under the Clean Water Act. Every water body in the U.S. is important and needs
protection.

Clean water is vital to me and my family - we rely on clean places to swim and play, and sources
of safe water to drink. For too long there has been confusion about which streams and wetlands
are protected, even though it is clear that Congress intended for all water to be safeguarded when
the Clean Water Act passed in 1972.

Please keep the Clean Water Act strong and effective and finalize a rule that will improve the
health of our nation's rivers, lakes and bays by protecting the small streams and wetlands they
depend on.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #0659 [4,887 on-time duplicates, sponsored by the PennEnvironment (email)!

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

All our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from and swim in without risk of
pollution — from our local rivers and streams, to iconic waters they feed into like Delaware River
and Susquehanna.

Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left many of our smaller waters
unprotected, including those that feed and filter the drinking water for 8 million Pennsylvanians.

Please move forward as quickly as possible to finalize a strong rule that will restore Clean Water
Act protections to all Pennsylvania's waterways and protect our environment and health.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

country to make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to
understand, more predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

Doc. #0660 [3,550 on-time duplicates, sponsored by the National Audubon Society (email)!

To Environmental Protection Agency,

As a strong advocate for bird conservation, I support the proposed Waters of the United States
rule to clarify the Clean Water Act's protection of our nation's critical wetlands and streams, and
I urge you to promptly finalize the rule.

Wetlands and streams are indispensable habitat for hundreds of species of birds and other
wildlife, including Northern Pintail, American Bittern, Semipalmated Plover, Prothonotary
Warbler, and many more. These waters also filter pollution, provide drinking water for over 100
million people, and safeguard our communities from storms.

Yet these waters have remained in legal limbo for years, even though the science is clear that
streams and their adjacent wetlands should be covered under the Clean Water Act. Streams and
wetlands significantly affect the quality of other covered waters, such as rivers and lakes.

Other wetlands, such as prairie potholes, which are vital breeding habitat for ducks, also have a
significant impact on the quality of downstream waters, and I urge you to cover these waters as
well.

Thank you for your work to fulfill the goals of the Clean Water Act. Please finalize this rule as
soon as possible so that birds, other wildlife, and our communities can thrive with the security of
clean and abundant water.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule
interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters,
interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal
precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical
expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In
this final rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to
make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand,
more predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that
feed them have to be clean too. This is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is
informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific
literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands
are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

Doc. #0661 [1,935 on-time duplicates, sponsored by the Environment Colorado (email)!

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

All our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from and swim in without risk of
pollution—from our local rivers and streams, to iconic rivers like the Colorado. Unfortunately,
loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left many of our smaller waters unprotected, including
those that feed and filter the drinking water for 3.7 million Coloradans.

It makes sense that pollution in streams and wetlands affects larger waterways downstream.

Please move forward to protect our environment and our health by restoring Clean Water Act
protections to all America's waterways, including all our streams and wetlands.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #0662 [379 on-time duplicates, sponsored by the Environment Washington (email)!

Dear EPA Administrator, EPA Administrator McCarthy,

All our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from and swim in without risk of
pollution—from our local rivers and streams, to iconic waters like Puget Sound, the Columbia
River and Lake Chelan. Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left many of our
smaller waters unprotected, including those that feed and filter the drinking water for 117 million
Americans.

It makes sense that pollution in streams and wetlands affects larger waterways downstream.
Please move forward to protect our environment and our health by restoring Clean Water Act
protections to all America's waterways, including all our streams and wetlands.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

Doc. #0663 [486 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
[Creation Justice Ministries - al

Dear Administrator McCarthy -

Water is the cradle of all life and an expression of God's grace. And we are polluting and using
our water in an unsustainable manner. We must use all the tools available to us to care for God's
gift of water here in the United States. Water knows no bounds and this clarification will allow
us to protect sources of water that we all depend on from streams and wetlands to rivers, bays,
and lakes. I am grateful for this proposed rule that ensures protection for God's waters and our
communities.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Finally, I urge you to finalize this rule as proposed in a timely fashion so that we can protect
headwater streams, ponds, and wetlands from pollution. By doing so, not only can we help
protect all of Creation, but we can also help protect the supply of drinking water, so essential for
human life.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

Doc. #0664 [224 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
[Creation Justice Ministries - bl

Dear Administrator McCarthy -

As a Presbyterian Christian, water is central to my spiritual life and sacred to all of God's
creation. I am writing to thank for your recent proposal addressing waters of the United States
that would clarify what waterways can be protected under the Clean Water Act.

Water is the cradle of all life and an expression of God's grace. We are polluting and using our
water in an unsustainable manner. We must use all the tools available to us to care for God's gift
of water here in the United States. Water knows no bounds and this clarification will allow us to
protect sources of water that we all depend on, from streams and wetlands, to rivers, bays, and
lakes. I am grateful for this proposed rule that ensures protection for God's waters and our
communities.

Also, you should know that the most recent Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly
(2012) acknowledged protection of the environment as vital to the Christian faith, supported a
strong and proactive EPA, and affirmed a statement urging strong oversight authority over
waters of the U.S. In particular, I am very concerned about "fracking" and its devastation to the
environment. We should be working on improving renewable energy. I add to that concern,
mountain top removal, a harmful and terrible way of extracting coal while dumping poisonous
residue into the valleys poisoning streams and atmosphere.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

So, once again, I thank you for taking a stand for waters of the U.S. and I urge you to finalize
this rule as proposed in a timely fashion, so that we can protect headwater streams, ponds, and
wetlands from pollution. By doing so, not only can we help protect all of Creation, but we can
also help protect the supply of drinking water, so essential for human existence and all other life.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

Doc. #0665 [119 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) - [Trout
Unlimited - al

Comments Clean Water Docket:

The Clean Water Act is one of the most important tools for protecting trout and salmon habitat
and providing good fishing opportunities. As an angler, I am writing to thank the Environmental
Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers for their draft rule on the jurisdiction of the
Clean Water Act. Protecting wetlands and headwater streams means protecting important fish
habitat, and protecting habitat means more fishing opportunities for America's anglers, who
contribute $48 billion every year to the economy.

America's sportsmen and women strongly support this rule, and ask the EPA and Corps of
Engineers to restore robust protections for certain headwater streams as the rule moves forward.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, and provide important habitat for fish
and wildlife, the smaller streams and wetlands that feed them have to be clean too. This is
confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is informed by a review of more than
1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. This well-established body
of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands are important to the long-term
health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule protects these waters.

Doc. #0666 [6,166 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
[Livestock Water Quality!

Dear EPA/Corps,

As a landowner who must use the land to make a living and feed the world, I am disappointed by
your proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) rule redefining "waters of the U.S." As a cattle rancher I
am proud to be the primary steward of the natural resources on my property. I strive to care for
the air and the water because the well-being of my cattle, and my family, depend upon it. That
care does NOT and should NOT require a federal permit each time my cattle walk through a
damp spot, or I drive my tractor across the pasture. The net effect of such a regulation will not be
an improvement to the environment, but will place an enormous burden on landowners like
myself. Please consider the following comments in evaluating the need for rule.

First, the definition as proposed is illegal based on the Commerce Clause of the U.S.

Constitution, the framework and goals of the CWA, Congressional intent and Supreme Court
rulings. Each places a limit on federal jurisdiction over the nation's waters. Currently, your
proposed rule has practically no limit whatsoever. As an example, you now have included my
agricultural ditches into the category of "tributaries?" This is inappropriate. The two exclusions
you have provided for ditches are not adequate to alleviate the enormous burden you just placed
on the entire agriculture community. "Ditches" should not be waters of the U.S. Farm ponds
should not be waters of the U.S. Dry washes, dry streambeds, and ephemeral streams should not
be waters of the U.S. Second, the proposed definition annihilates the federalist system that
underpins the CWA. There is a line at which point the states must be allowed to take over. This
proposal has obliterated that important and fundament line. By expanding the definition of
tributary, expanding the definition of "adjacent", and expanding the category of "adjacent
wetlands" to "adjacent waters," you have delivered a devastating blow to my cattle ranch.
Administrator McCarthy has told farmers and ranchers to "just read the proposal;" well I have. I
am not only concerned about the ability of agency regulators being able to apply vague terms and
phrases to wrap every wet depression on my place into the definition of WOTUS, but I am left in
an even more confused state than under the status quo. You have failed, miserably in fact, at
providing the "clarity" you purport to want to achieve.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Third, the agencies are wrong to imply that the proposal will not have an impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Almost the entire cattle industry is composed of small businesses.

Most, like mine, are family-run, and the families that run them are not millionaires. We work
hard every day to keep our cattle and our families in good health. Regulations, like your
proposal, make it hard to keep our small businesses financially viable. More red tape is the last
thing my ranch needs, because it gets in the way of me putting environmentally friendly practices
on the ground, many of which are not included in your list of 56. This proposal will have a
negative impact on my small business and hundreds of thousands like it across the country.

In sum, I believe the EPA and the Corps should not finalize their proposed definition for "waters
of the U.S." and should scrap the entire rule. There are too many fundamental problems with the
proposal. By starting fresh, the agencies could potentially have meaningful dialogue and
outreach with the cattle industry. As proposed it violates the law, will not benefit the
environment, and will have a negative impact on small businesses like mine.

Agency Response

Congress enacted the CWA "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters," 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a), and to complement statutes that
protect the navigability of waters, such as the Rivers and Harbors Act. The CWA is the
nation's single most important statute for protecting America's clean water against
pollution, degradation, and destruction. To provide that protection, the Supreme Court has
consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA reaches beyond waters that are
navigable in fact. Peer-reviewed science and practical experience demonstrate that
upstream waters, including headwaters and wetlands, can significantly impact the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters - playing a crucial role in
controlling sediment, filtering pollutants, reducing flooding, providing habitat for fish and
other aquatic wildlife, and many other vital chemical, physical, and biological processes.

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades. The final rule clarifies and will simplify implementation of the CWA consistent
with its purposes through clearer definitions and increased use of bright-line rules. The
agencies emphasize that, while the CWA establishes permitting requirements for covered
waters to ensure protection of water quality, these requirements are only triggered when a
person discharges a pollutant to the covered water. In the absence of a pollutant discharge,
the CWA does not impose permitting restrictions on the use of such water. The scope of
regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing regulation.
Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than under the
existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some existing
categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity regarding
which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which permitting
authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404 CWA
permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The agencies recognize the vital role of the agricultural community in providing the nation
with food and fiber and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of
the agencies to minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture
community, and recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve
natural resources and water quality on agricultural lands.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The following types of ditches are excluded in the final
rule: "(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary;
(B) intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or
drain wetlands; (C) ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into
a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics developed in the bottom of the ditch.

Normal farming, ranching and silviculture will continue to enjoy exemptions from most
CWA permitting whether or not the activity is in a "Waters of the U.S.". The rule has
expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United States, such as
artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions incidental to mining
or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland swales, and stormwater
and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Finally, EPA and the Army determined to seek wide input from representatives of small
entities; such outreach, although voluntary, is also consistent with the President's January
18, 2011 Memorandum on Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation, which
emphasizes the important role small businesses play in the American economy. This
process enabled the agencies to hear directly from these representatives, throughout the

17

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

rule development, about how they should approach this complex question of statutory
interpretation, together with related issues that such representatives of small entities may
identify for possible consideration in separate proceedings. The agencies prepared a report
summarizing their small entity outreach, the results of this outreach, and how these results
have informed the development of this rule. This report, Final Summary of the
Discretionary Small Entity Outreach for the Revised Definition of Waters of the United
States (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-1927), is available in the docket.

Doc. #0853 [38 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -

Dear Ms. Downing and Ms. Jensen:

I am a concerned citizen, one who feeds his family from helping pond and lake owners manage
their liquid assets and having clean water is very important to me. Your proposed rule is a
significant expansion of the Clean Water Act that will affect every American, and have
significant impact on my business and community due to the proposed increased jurisdiction
over all waters. Due to the proposed rule's complexity, additional time is needed for me to
review and respond to the rule and all its implications for my business, community and state.

I am respectfully requesting an extension of the public comment period, for an additional 90
days, on the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed
Rule Defining "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act. 76 Fed. Reg.
22,188 (Apr. 21, 2014).

Agency Response

The agencies believe that sufficient time has been provided for review of the rule, with the
public comment period running for over 200 days.

Doc. #1953 [424 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
[American Farm Bureau Federation - bl

To Whom it May Concern:

I am a farmer and I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

the Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean
Water Act.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make
changes to the land - even if those changes would benefit the environment. Protecting water
quality is already a priority to my family and our farm and does not need to be legally required
by the EPA for me to do so. It is one of the values I hold as a farmer or rancher.

Farmers and ranchers like me will be severely impacted. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the
proposed rule.

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, to make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Also for added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered
waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-
filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and
non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry
land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not
an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified
which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.
The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Doc. #1954 [826 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Pennsylvania Farmers (webVI

I am a farmer and I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of "waters of the U.S." under the
Clean Water Act.

Clean water is important to me and my family, but this proposal seeks to control my land, not
improve water quality. The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable
waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters-many of
which are not even wet or considered waters under any common understanding of that word.

Pennsylvania farmers do not believe that the proposed rule provides clarity or certainty, as EPA
has stated, nor do we believe it is necessary to better protect water quality. Pennsylvania already
has a very strong set of laws, regulations and programs in place to keep our water clean. Our
Clean Streams Law, Dirt and Gravel Road Program, and Flood Plain Management Act, as well
as our mandated state standards for the land application and storage of manure are just a few
parts of the strong framework we have in place to protect our water. And even more important is
the value that I, as a farmer, place on being a good steward of the land-something that reaches far
deeper than any law or regulation.

Farmers like me will be severely impacted by the proposed rule, and I ask that you withdraw it.
Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Doc. #1955 [296 on-time duplicates, sponsored by members of The Wildlife Society (webVI

As a member of The Wildlife Society, I commend the Agency's endeavors to restore protections
under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Founded in 1937, The Wildlife Society is a non-profit
scientific and educational association of nearly 10,000 professional wildlife biologists and
managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education. I
appreciate the time and effort the agency has made in conducting a comprehensive internal,
interagency, and public process to clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act that is both legally
and scientifically sound.

I urge you to complete the rule-making process in a timely fashion and reinstate protections for
all tributaries, wetlands, adjacent waters, and those with a significant nexus to waters defined as
navigable under the CWA.

Without this rule, our water quality will suffer, fish and wildlife populations will diminish, and
economic benefits from recreation will plummet. By some estimates, 76 percent of prairie
pothole wetlands and 90 percent of the remaining wetlands in the Great Lakes could go
unprotected, resulting in up to $30 billion in annual flooding damages and the loss of $122
billion in fish and wildlife recreation.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The continental U.S. has already lost over half its original wetlands and there has been an
alarming 140 percent increase in the rate of wetland loss between 2004 and 2009. Millions of
ducks, geese, and other waterfowl utilize the prairie pothole region in the Midwest alone - for
breeding and migratory stopover habitat. Mainly because of agricultural practices, the pothole
region is the most threatened wetland system in North America. Under current CWA guidance,
prairie potholes are considered 'isolated' because they do not have direct overland connections to
navigable waters. However, it has been shown that prairie potholes provide important surface
water storage and flood attenuation functions and are connected to navigable waters via
groundwater flow. In this case, as in others, it is vitally important that the proposed rule allow the
prairie pothole region to be considered an ecoregion of similarly situated waters when evaluating
for a significant nexus.

In addition to prairie potholes, many other waters such as tributaries and ephemeral and
intermittent streams and wetlands are extremely important to maintaining the biological integrity
of all waters in their proximity. Many wildlife species, including certain ducks, gulls, freshwater
turtles, fish, and amphibians regularly move between permanent and temporary waters during
their life cycle - they need both in order to survive. If the inland wetlands, streams and tributaries
wildlife depend on are not afforded protection under the CWA, they may be adversely impacted
and disrupt the biological integrity of the entire landscape.

Further, a clear understanding of the Clean Water Act's reach and application is essential to the
regulated community and the American public. Farmers and other landowners cannot confidently
proceed with planned projects without knowing which waters on their land are under jurisdiction
of the CWA. The public relies on the ecological services provided by rivers, lakes and bays,
which are fed by smaller wetlands, lakes, and streams. If some of these smaller bodies of water
remain unprotected, ecological services such as flood and storm surge protection and pollution
filtration will be lost.

Please consider the enormous value of all bodies of water in this country to wildlife, their
habitats, and ourselves as you move forward in the rule making process.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

Doc. #1956 [90 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
[American Farm Bureau Federation - cl

I am writing today to comment on your proposed rule which significantly expands the scope of
"navigable waters" subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. I am also writing to urge you to
extend the comment period for an additional 90 days as farmers and ranchers need additional
time to make their voices heard on this important rule. As I read the proposal, it would allow the
federal government to regulate most ditches, small and remote "waters" and ephemeral drains
where water flows only when it rains. Many of these areas are not even wet most of the time and
look more like land than like "waters."

Because of the proposed rule, farmers, ranchers and other landowners will face roadblocks to
ordinary land-use activities-like fencing, spraying for weeds or insects, or even pulling weeds.
The need to establish buffer zones around grassed waterways, ephemeral washes and farm
ditches could make farmlands a maze of intersecting "no farm zones" that could make farming
impractical.

The farming and ranching exemptions in current law are important, but they have been very
narrowly applied by the agencies-and they will not protect farmers and ranchers from the
proposed "waters" rule. EPA's so-called exemptions will not protect farmers and ranchers from
the proposed "waters" rule. If farmlands are regulated as "waters," farming and ranching will be
difficult, if not impossible.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. I would also again urge you
to extend the public comment period for an additional 90 days in order to ensure adequate time
for farmers and ranchers to comment on this issue.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The agencies believe that sufficient time has been provided for review of the rule, with the
public comment period running for over 200 days.

Doc. #2481 [12,221 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Sierra Club (email) - Identified as
Sierra Club - al

Dear WOTUS Docket McCarthy,

Thank you for your effort to clarify which waters of the United States are protected under the
Clean Water Act and for restoring a common sense approach to protecting our nation's lakes,
rivers, and streams. Clean water is an undeniable necessity for the health of our families, our
environment, and our economy— not to mention our enjoyment. And as your agencies have
recognized with this rule, ensuring the protection of bodies of water upstream is vital to keeping
pollution out of our waters downstream.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I strongly support the effort of the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of
Engineers and urge them to finalize a rule that is protective of all streams and wetlands —
including wetlands outside of floodplains — that directly influence the physical, chemical and
biological integrity of the nation's rivers, lakes and bays.

For the past decade, there has been confusion over which streams and wetlands are covered by
the Clean Water Act because of polluter-friendly court decisions and subsequent Bush
administration policies. This confusion has put the drinking water of over 117 million people at
risk. One in three Americans relies on public drinking water supplies that are fed by polluted
headwater or seasonally-flowing streams.

To protect Americans' drinking water, health, and recreation opportunities, we must protect all of
America's wetlands and waterways. Today's rule will help make that possible. I applaud the
efforts of the EPA and US ACE and urge them to finalize a strong rule as quickly as possible.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

Doc. #2482 [53,294 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Sierra Club (email) - Identified as
Sierra Club - bl

EPA:

Our wetlands, lakes, and streams provide essential and economically valuable services, including
flood protection and control, surface water filtration, groundwater recharge, and support for
economic activity that depends on clean water and healthy populations of fish and wildlife.

I applaud the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for using peer-reviewed scientific studies
to document how wetlands and headwater streams impact the integrity of our rivers, lakes, and
bays. Furthermore, I strongly support the Obama Administration relying on science to inform
and advance a transparent rule-making process to protect these streams and wetlands.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I ask that the EPA build on the science of their report, "Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to
Downstream Waters" and quickly move to a rule making process to protect our smaller streams
and wetlands. The strength of the report's science and conclusions are key to restoring Clean
Water Act protections to smaller waters that influence the health of our nation's rivers, estuaries,
and drinking water supplies.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

The Clean Water Rule is informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds
of streams and wetlands are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so
our Clean Water Rule protects these waters. The rule is based on the law and the latest
science, and has been informed and refined by public input. The rule reflects the judgment
of the agencies when balancing the science, the statute, the Supreme Court opinions, the
agencies' expertise, and the regulatory goals of providing clarity to the public while
protecting the environment and public health.

Doc. #2483 [2,014 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Trout Unlimited - bl

Comments Clean Water Docket:

The Clean Water Act is one of the most important laws for protecting trout and salmon habitat
and providing good fishing opportunities. As an angler, I am writing to thank the Environmental
Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers for their draft rule on the jurisdiction of the
Clean Water Act. Protecting isolated wetlands, and seasonally flowing intermittent, ephemeral
and headwater streams means protecting important fish habitat. At the end of the day, protected
habitat means more and better fishing opportunities for America's anglers, who contribute $48
billion every year to the economy.

America's anglers and hunters strongly support this rule, and ask the EPA and Corps of
Engineers to maintain robust protections for these important streams and wetlands as the rule
moves forward.

26

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

Doc. #2484 [99,793 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Earthiusticel

Dear Environmental Protection Agency,

Thank you for reading my letter.

Clean water is essential to our everyday lives. Restoring important Clean Water Act (CWA)
protections to our nation's streams, wetlands, and other important waters will provide us with the
certainty that we need as Americans to know that our water is safe.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should strengthen the proposed "Waters of the
United States" rule by incorporating the scientifically-supported inclusion of certain "other
waters," like vernal pools, or playa lakes for example, and finalize this rule quickly.

I urge EPA to ensure that this proposed rulemaking accurately captures the important functions
of streams, wetlands, and other important waterways, and finalize this important rulemaking
quickly. As the science clearly indicates, smaller waters influence the health of ALL of our
nation's water sources and drinking water supplies. Those waters, many of which are treasured
community assets, must be protected so that we can ensure that waters falling under the Clean
Water Act are indeed clean and safe.

I strongly support the "Waters of the United States" rulemaking, and encourage EPA to
strengthen the proposed rule by including "other waters" categorically under Clean Water Act
jurisdiction. The science makes clear that protections for streams, wetlands, and other water
bodies, left vulnerable by previous administration policies, must be restored as quickly as
possible.

Clean water is essential to the health of my family, friends, community, and to me personally. I
urge you withstand dirty water politics and to move forward on finalizing this rule immediately.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule interprets
the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters,
and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the
best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and
extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that
feed them have to be clean too. This is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is
informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific
literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands
are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

Doc. #2485 [13,432 on-time duplicates, sponsored by National Wildlife Action Fund
(email)!

Dear Protection Agency,

I am writing in support of the administration's proposed rule restoring and clarifying Clean
Water Act protections for wetlands and streams.

Restoring Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands is essential to fish and wildlife,
flood protection, and the health of the more than 117 million Americans who get their drinking
water from public supplies fed in whole or in part by streams vulnerable to pollution.

28

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I urge you to strengthen, not weaken, the Clean Water Act by further clarifying and restoring
clean water protections through the rulemaking process. I urge you to clearly restore protections
for all streams, all adjacent wetlands, and the many other waters important to fish and wildlife,
such as prairie potholes, Carolina bays, vernal pools, and playa lakes, where the science shows
their importance to healthy watersheds.

Please issue a final clean water rule this year that once again protects the millions of wetland
acres and stream miles that are at high risk of pollution and destruction.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule interprets
the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters,
and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the
best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and
extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that
feed them have to be clean too. This is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is
informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific
literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands
are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

29

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #2486 [450 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership (email)

To whom it may concern, and Environmental Protection Agency,

Thank you for proposing a rule that will clarify Clean Water Act protections for the waters I rely
on for hunting and fishing. This action is critically important to the conservation of aquatic
habitat, especially wetlands and headwater streams.

Many of the waters currently at risk of pollution and destruction are smaller streams that, though
they may only flow for part of the year, are spawning grounds for trout, salmon and other fish.
The wetlands at risk provide nesting habitat for most of the waterfowl in America. Taken
together, these waters form the building blocks of a $200 billion a year sportsmen's economy and
are necessary for me to enjoy quality time in the field hunting and fishing.

In addition, wetlands and headwater streams are integral parts of our watersheds. They help
supply drinking water to more than 117 million Americans and are important to the overall
health of downstream aquatic resources. We must protect these waters to protect the quality of
our larger waters downstream.

With cleaner water comes better access to hunting and fishing opportunities. I urge you to
finalize this rule so we can better preserve my sporting heritage for generations to come.

Agency Response

Doc. #2487 [66 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 21

Dear Ms. Downing and Ms. Jensen:

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I am a Golf Course Superintendent and a land owner and clean water is very important to me.
Your proposed rule is a significant expansion of the Clean Water Act that will affect every
American, and have significant impact on my employer and community due to the proposed
increased jurisdiction over all waters. Due to the proposed rule's complexity, additional time is
needed for me to review and respond to the rule and all its implications for my business, personal
land, community and state.

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, to make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The agencies believe that sufficient time has been provided for review of the rule, with the
public comment period running for over 200 days.

Doc. #2488 [38 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership - bl

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for proposing a rule that will clarify Clean Water Act protections for the waters we
rely on for hunting and fishing. This action is critically important to the conservation of aquatic
habitat, especially wetlands and headwater streams.

Many of the waters currently at risk of pollution and destruction are smaller streams that, though
they may only flow for part of the year, are spawning grounds for trout, salmon and other fish.
The wetlands at risk provide nesting habitat for most of the waterfowl in America. Taken
together, these waters form the building blocks of a $200 billion a year sportsmen's economy and
are necessary for outdoor enjoyment and quality time in the field hunting and fishing.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

With cleaner water comes better access to hunting and fishing opportunities. Sportsmen like me
urge you to finalize this rule so we can better preserve our sporting heritage for generations to
come.

Agency Response

Doc. #2489 [35 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 31

I am writing in support of the administration's proposed rule restoring and clarifying Clean
Water Act protections for wetlands and streams.

Restoring Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands is essential to fish and wildlife,
flood protection, and drinking water supplies.

I urge you to adopt these rules that clarify the protections under the Clean Water Act. In addition,
please do not weaken them in any ways. It would be good to support the Clean Water by clearly
restoring protections for all streams, all adjacent wetlands, and the many other waters important
to fish and wildlife, such as prairie potholes, Carolina bays, vernal pools, and playa lakes, where
the science shows their importance to healthy watersheds.

I am asking you to issue a final clean water rule this year that once again protects the millions of
wetland acres and stream miles that are at high risk of pollution and destruction.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

Doc. #2490 [37 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 41

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy:

I am writing to oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of its proposed
rule on the Definition of the Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act, Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880. While EPA has stated this rule will offer clarity, simplify the
regulatory process, and improve protection of water resources in the United States, I believe the
proposed rule does none of those things. Instead, this rule will hurt the agriculture industry as
well as many other businesses, and damage the American economy that depends on the services
agriculture and other industries provide. Further, it will interfere with states' efforts to develop
water protection programs that really work and which do not depend on such burdensome
regulation, so the rule doesn't even benefit the environment like EPA says it will.

Here is what this rule will do to our farms in Michigan:

• The rule would make man-made ditches, tiny broken streams, and wet areas in fields
subject to EPA regulation as "waters of the U.S." even though they hardly ever have
water in them. This was not Congress' intention when it wrote the Clean Water Act.

• Agricultural exemptions do not cover all normal farming practices and do not apply to
new lands. We would need permits for nutrient application, pest control, and earth
moving in any location the new rule says could impact a newly expanded "water of the
U.S.," meaning farming can't operate or expand without a lot of delay and cost.

• EPA can take months or years to answer a permit application, and can deny permits
wherever it wants. This puts farmers into situations of uncertainty, rather than clarity.

• Mitigating wet areas that would now be considered "waters of the U. S." just to farm our
existing fields could cost tens of thousands of dollars per acre. This only adds to the
burden and cost for farmers, for little or no environmental benefit, given the weak

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

evidence for connection of those wet areas to the navigable waters the Clean Water Act
was intended to protect.

• The rule limits private property rights by telling us where and how we can farm. This
clearly goes beyond Congressional intent for the Clean Water Act, and beyond the limits
set on EPA jurisdiction through multiple Supreme Court decisions.

• If farming gets harder and more expensive, food gets more expensive. This hurts the
American consumer even if they don't know what their tax dollars now pay to regulate.
The assumption that Americans value protecting the water that flows through a man-
made agricultural ditch only after a heavy rain the same as they value the Florida
Everglades is absurd.

• EPA's economic analysis doesn't show the true cost for farmers, landowners, and
businesses, and those people can be hurt badly by the expanded regulations.

• This rule would put Michigan's Wetlands Law in violation of the Clean Water Act. We
would lose our delegated authority which Michigan has used to provide valuable
protection of wetlands with agencies that have local contact with us as farmers.

• Michigan has the Michigan Ag Environmental Assurance Program—MAEAP—that
helps farmers protect water quality in our state. This voluntary program works, and is
better for farmers than more government regulation. Congress intended states to have the
authority to make their own land use and water quality decisions, and for the EPA to ride
roughshod over state programs is a gross overreach of the agency's authority.

In summary, this rule so wrongfully changes the definition of a "water of the United States" that
I request that EPA rescind the proposed rule entirely. Implementing this rule would put a heavy
burden on farmers, driving some out of business, will force an increase in prices for vital
American-grown food, and will take away states' ability to manage their own programs with real
environmental benefit. The rule must be rescinded to fix these problems. Thank you for your
time and attention.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. We also note that States and tribes, consistent with
the CWA, retain full authority to implement their own programs to more broadly and
more fully protect the waters in their jurisdiction. Under section 510 of the CWA, unless
expressly stated, nothing in the CWA precludes or denies the right of any state or tribe to
establish more protective standards or limits than the Federal CWA. Many states and
tribes, for example, regulate groundwater, and some others protect wetlands that are vital
to their environment and economy but which are outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the
CWA. Nothing in this rule limits or impedes any existing or future state or tribal efforts to
further protect their waters. In fact, providing greater clarity regarding what waters are
subject to CWA jurisdiction will reduce the need for permitting authorities, including the
states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404 CWA permitting programs, to make
jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Finally, the agencies note that if an activity takes place outside the waters of the United
States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or
not it was part of an established farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Doc. #2491 [80 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment Virginia (email)!

All our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from and swim in without risk of
pollution—from our local rivers and streams, to iconic waters like the Potomac River and the
Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left many of our smaller
waters unprotected, including those that feed and filter the drinking water for more than 2 million
Virginians.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

It makes sense that pollution in streams and wetlands affects larger waterways downstream like
the Chesapeake. Thank you for taking the initial step to protect all of our waterways from
pollution.

Please move forward to protect our environment and our health by restoring Clean Water Act
protections to all America's waterways, including all our streams and wetlands.

Agency Response

Doc. #2492 [101 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as National Write Your Congressman!

Regarding the Definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act,
I am opposed to the EPA's proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880).

This is nothing more than another federal government land grab.

This proposal would open the door for more environmental groups suing private property
owners.

The EPA is "picking and choosing" its science while trying to take another step toward outright
permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country.

As a constituent of yours, I would like to know your thoughts on this issue.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

A proud member of National Write Your Congressman.

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #2493 [357 on-time duplicates, sponsored by the Supporters of the Izaak Walton
League of America (email)!

Dear Water Docket, EPA:

As a supporter of the Izaak Walton League of America, I value clean water and support this rule
proposed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency to restore
protections under the Clean Water Act to more of our headwater streams and wetlands.

Upstream waters are the source of rivers, lakes, and drinking water. Headwater streams and
wetlands filter pollutants from drinking water, reduce flooding, and provide important habitat for
fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife. They provide drinking water to many millions of Americans
and support good fishing, hunting, boating, and other water-based recreation. A healthy network
of waters benefits the economy and local communities and creates jobs.

Most waters in this country are connected. In order to maintain clean water, we need to ensure all
of our waters are well managed. No one should be able to destroy or pollute waterways just
because they live or work farther upstream than other people and businesses.

Please issue a final rule that protects our headwater streams and wetlands. All tributaries and all
wetlands adjacent to them should be protected. Please include protections for other important
waters such as prairie pothole wetlands, playa lakes, and vernal pools. These waters provide vital

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife and are an important part of our country's network of
waters.

Thank you for issuing this important rule.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule interprets
the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters,
and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the
best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and
extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that
feed them have to be clean too. This is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is
informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific
literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands
are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

Doc. #2494 [2,112 on-time duplicates, sponsored by American Farm Bureau Federation
(email) - Identified as American Farm Bureau Federation - dl

To Whom it May Concern:

38

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I am a farmer and I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean
Water Act.

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters — many of which are not even wet
or considered waters under any common understanding of that word.

The proposed rule significantly expands the scope of "navigable waters" subject to Clean Water
Act jurisdiction. As I read the proposal it would allow the federal government to regulate most
ditches, small and remote "waters" and ephemeral drains where water flows only when it rains.
Many of these areas are not even wet most of the time and look more like land than like
"waters."

Because of the proposed rule, farmers, ranchers and other landowners will face roadblocks to
ordinary land-use activities—like fencing, spraying for weeds or insects, discing or even pulling
weeds. The need to establish buffer zones around grassed waterways, ephemeral washes and
farm ditches could make farmlands a maze of intersecting "no farm zones" that could make
farming impractical.

The farming and ranching exemptions in current law are important, but they have been very
narrowly applied by the agencies—and they will not protect farmers and ranchers from the
proposed "waters" rule.

EPA's so-called exemptions will not protect farmers and ranchers from the proposed "waters"
rule. If farmlands are regulated as "waters," farming and ranching will be difficult, if not
impossible

Farmers and ranchers like me will be severely impacted. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the
proposed rule.

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The final rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the
United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled
depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-
wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land.
As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an
intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified
which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #2495 [194 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Alabama Farmers Federation!

I am writing to offer comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army
Corps of Engineers rule regarding the definition of waters of the United States. I respectfully
request the agencies withdraw this rule.

This rule will have dire implications for farms and businesses. By significantly expanding the
scope of navigable waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, previously unregulated areas
such as ponds, ditches and puddles could easily fall under federal regulation and scrutiny. The
potential for increased costs and time delays related to obtaining permits for simple, everyday

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

farm activities would place undue burdens on farmers who already deal with countless federal
rules.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm or make changes to the
land. Farmers were the first stewards of the land and continue to take great pride in ensuring our
nation's land and water resources are cared for properly. This rule simply goes too far.

Alabama farmers will be severely impacted by this bad rule. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the
proposal.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Doc. #2911 [939 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Citizen Letter 1

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

The EPA has proposed a rule that would close f

loopholes in the Clean Water Act and reinstate

much-needed protections for wetlands and streams in Washington state and across the U.S.

I'm writing to urge you to finalize this rule and ensure it protects valuable and irreplaceable
waterways from development and pollution.

We all need clean water-for drinking, for recreation, for the health of our wildlife and
ecosystems. But in the past decade the Bush administration and Supreme Court dismantled many
Clean Water Act protections and exposed more than half of America's and Washington's streams
and 20 million acres of wetlands to unchecked development and pollution. These are places
where we get our drinking water, where Americans fish, swim and play every day.

The rule proposed by the EPA is a vital step in reversing damage to our wetlands and waterways.
It would protect critical fish and wildlife habitats, vast recreation areas and drinking water
sources for many Americans, including 2 million Washingtonians. I urge you to finalize a rule
protecting all waterways.

Please let me know how you intend to address this issue.

Agency Response

1 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

Doc. #3162 [20,248 on-time duplicates, sponsored by National Parks Conservation
Association (emaiOl

Dear Administrator of the EPA McCarthy,

I strongly support the recently released EPA and Army Corps' Clean Water Protection Rule
(EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880) as an important step towards protecting the waters in and around our
national parks.

For years the Clean Water Act protected all wetlands and tributaries in and around parks.
However, many of these wetlands, small streams, and lakes have been at increased risk of
pollution and destruction following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 (SWANCC) and 2006
(Rapanos). These rulings and subsequent agency guidance have created a confusing, time-
consuming, and frustrating process for determining what waters are protected under the Clean
Water Act and state laws.

This lack of protection has taken its toll, especially for wetlands and intermittent and headwater
streams, slowing permitting decisions for responsible development and reducing protections for
drinking water supplies and critical habitat. More than half of our 401 national parks have
waterways that are impaired and polluted. Over 117 million Americans, including many visitors
to national parks, get their drinking water from surface waters.

Protecting and restoring wetlands and streams is critical to protecting the waters in our national
parks. Healthy wetlands improve water quality by filtering polluted runoff from farm fields and
city streets that otherwise would flow into rivers, streams, and great water bodies across the
country. Wetlands and tributaries provide vital habitat to wildlife, waterfowl, and fish, reduce
flooding and provide clean water for drinking, fishing, swimming, and paddling in national
parks.

I support the Clean Water Protection Rule and so should you.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and
extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

Doc. #3163 [36,651 on-time duplicates, sponsored by League of Conservation Voters
(email)!

Dear Office of Water,

I strongly support the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
efforts to restore Clean Water Act protections to our nation's valuable streams and wetlands
under the proposed Clean Water Rule. I urge you to quickly finalize this commonsense approach
and ensure that all of our waters— from our local rivers and streams, to iconic waters like the
Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes—are protected from dangerous pollution.

Right now, many of our streams, wetlands, headwaters, and tributaries, including those that
provide at least part of the drinking water for 117 million Americans, are unprotected. Our
wetlands filter pollution and protect against floods while our many waterways serve as critical
habitat for wildlife. These waterways are also important economic drivers in our communities,
supporting businesses as varied as farmers to craft brewers to clean technology, all of whom
need clean water to thrive.

This rule has received strong support from a vast variety of stakeholders, including farmers,
small businesses, hunters and anglers, public health professionals, and elected officials.

I appreciate the EPA and Army Corps' use of sound science in crafting this important rule, and
encourage the agencies to make it even stronger by protecting certain classes of other waters,
such as prairie potholes, that the science demonstrates are clearly connected to the health of
downstream waters.

I urge the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to stand up against big polluters and special
interests who want to keep their free pass to pollute our waterways. Please quickly finalize these
commonsense safeguards for our streams, wetlands, tributaries, headwaters, and other waters to
ensure that all Americans have access to clean, healthy water.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Doc. #3164 [56 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Board Members and Stock Holders of
Blue Hills Gulf Corporation (emaiOl

Dear Ms. Downing and Ms. Jenson :

As Board Members and Staff of Blue Hills Golf Corporation clean water is very important to us.
The proposal is a significant expansion of the "Clean Water Act" that will affect every American,
and will have significant impact on our business and community due to the proposed increase
jurisdiction over all waters. Due to the proposal's complexity, additional time is needed for us to
review and respond to the proposal and all its implications for our business, community, and
state.

We are respectfully requesting an extension of the public comment period, for an additional 90
days, on the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Proposed
Rule Defining "Waters of the United States" under the Clean Waters Act. 76 Fed. Reg. 22, 188
(April 21, 2014)

As members of the Board of Directors and staff of Blue Hills Golf Corporation we are
submitting our names along with the other stock holders of Blue Hills Golf Corporation.

Dear Ms. Downing and Ms. Jensen :

We the stock holders of Blue Hills Golf Corporation are very interested in clean water and it is
very important to us. Your proposed rule is a significant expansion of the Clean Water Act that

2 First letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

3 Second letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

will affect every American, and have significant impact on our business and community due to
the proposed increased jurisdiction over all waters. Due to the proposed rule's complexity,
additional time is needed for us to review and respond to the rule and all its implications for our
business, community and state.

We are respectfully requesting and extension of the public comment period, for an additional 90
days, on the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed
Rule Defining "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act. 76 Fed. 22,188 (Apr.
21, 2014).

Agency Response

The agencies believe that sufficient time has been provided for review of the rule, with the
public comment period running for over 200 days.

Doc. #3726 [39 on-time duplicates, sponsored by members of the Indiana Association of
County Highway Engineers and Supervisors (paper)!

Dear Sir or Madam,

As members of the Indiana Association of County Highway Engineers and Supervisors, we are
writing in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Corps of
Engineers (Corps) release of their proposed rule which would expand federal jurisdiction under
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The county highway system accounts for 68%4 of all public roads
in Indiana. Based on the amount of roadways under county jurisdiction and our preliminarily
review of the proposed rulemaking, we believe the expanded definition which includes small
waters that are purported to have a "significant nexus" will have a substantial impact on the
maintenance, construction, and management of our county highway system .in Indiana.

The broadened definition of small waters to include "significant nexus" will likely expand the
number of county owned facilities affected by the Corps jurisdiction. Increasing jurisdictions and

4 Calculated percentage based on INDOT Certified Mileage Publication (March 2012).

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

requirements will directly impact county budgets by delaying projects, increasing permitting and
mitigation costs, and increasing construction costs. With limited funding resources, counties will
likely reduce the number of projects or base project decisions on permitting and mitigation costs
rather than safety. Indiana county highways have a rate of 34.3 serious injuries per 1000
collisions5, which is the highest rate of serious injuries on any roadway system in Indiana. We
cannot afford to let the higher costs associated with this definition affect the choices we make on
our roads.

Based on our preliminary review of the rule, we would request that the proposed rule as written
be abandoned. If new criteria are needed in order to satisfy recent court rulings, we suggest that
you involve local government and industry stakeholders in order to redefine the jurisdictional
boundaries for which the Corps and EPA should be responsible for. If you believe we have not
provided enough information to base your decision on, we would request that the time frame for
comment be extended to allow us to assemble additional information for your review.

Agency Response

The final Clean Water Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our
families, our communities, and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean
water to operate. Streams and wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing,
hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing. The agencies' economic
analysis indicates that indirect incremental benefits exceed indirect incremental costs. The
rule reflects the judgment of the agencies when balancing the science, the statute, the
Supreme Court opinions, the agencies' expertise, and the regulatory goals of providing
clarity to the public while protecting the environment and public health. The rule is based
on the law and the latest science, and has been informed and refined by public input.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, to make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades. The rule will clarify and simplify implementation of the CWA consistent with its
purposes through clearer definitions and increased use of bright-line rules. The agencies
emphasize that, while the CWA establishes permitting requirements for covered waters to
ensure protection of water quality, these requirements are only triggered when a person

5 Indiana Crash Facts 2012, Indiana Criminal Justice Institute Publication.

47

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

discharges a pollutant to the covered water. In the absence of a pollutant discharge, the
CWA does not impose permitting restrictions on the use of such water.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under the CWA, including maintenance of ditches, nor does it change the availability of
general permits and emergency permits for highway construction and maintenance
activities. In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches
themselves to provide greater clarity and consistency, to exclude from the definition of
waters of the United States : "(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or
excavated in a tributary; (B) intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or
excavated in a tributary or drain wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or
through another water, into a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
[rule]." Further, the rule also clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch
otherwise meets the terms describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at
paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not
become a jurisdictional water of the United States if wetland characteristics developed in
the bottom of the ditch. Where a ditch is excavated in or relocates a covered tributary, only
the segment of the ditch actually excavated in or relocating the covered tributary would be
considered jurisdictional. For example, an entire roadside ditch does not become subject to
jurisdiction because a portion of it is excavated in or relocates a tributary.

Doc. #3728 [236 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as American Farm Bureau Federation - el

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act.
The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make
changes to the land — even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect
water quality regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It is one of the values I hold as
a farmer or rancher.

Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters— many of which are not even wet
or considered waters under any common understanding of that word. I write in opposition to the
proposed rule.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. The rule
has also expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United States,
such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions incidental to
mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland swales, and
stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As discussed in the
Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent to regulate all
ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which ditches are
excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch Compendium
for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #4154 [31 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 51

I think this proposed rule is a very bad idea and I am encouraging the EPA to ditch the rule
immediately. It has been asked, "What's the problem with requiring farmers to obtain federal
permits"" Well, first of all, Congressional action and the Supreme Court rulings don't authorize
this broadening of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The other big problem is that permits would
likely be required for every typical farming activity, such as building a fence, applying fertilizer
or spraying weeds. Some of these permits could take months, or even years, to obtain and there is
no guarantee the permit would be granted. This jeopardizes important conservation projects and
can hinder a farmer's efforts to improve our soil and water resources. And if a farmer is found to
be out of compliance" Fines of $37,500 per day can be assessed, and farmers could be subjected
to citizen lawsuits from activists who want to expand CWA jurisdiction.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. The rule
has also expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United States,
such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions incidental to
mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland swales, and
stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As discussed in the
Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent to regulate all
ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which ditches are
excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch Compendium
for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #4720 [202 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Cattle Producers (paper)!

I am a Kansas cattle producer and want to address the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) recently proposed expansion of their
federal authority over "waters of the U.S."

The EPA and Corps continue to give themself authority which they do not have. As a producer, I
share my concerns that the agencies are overreaching and attempting to control private property
which they have no authority to do. The EPA has made comments that long standing exemptions
for agriculture will remain unchanged, but that is not true. This rule would require me, as a cattle
producer, to get permission to move cattle, to run my tractor, to build a pond, or to do any daily
task and chore. Therefore, misleading the public to believe that it is also protecting family
farmers and ranchers is absurd. Still, the agencies continue to patrol the properties of good
Americans in attempts to control private property.

Under this proposal, I may be required to get permits for my own land, develop and get approval
for plans of action for what the EPA considers "spills". The unwarranted fines of more than
$35,000 a day could easily drive me out of business and destroy what my family has worked so
hard to accomplish.

I am a steward of the environment. My animals require clean water to be healthy. I take care of
my resources so that it is there for generations to come. Yet, the EPA and Corps have created a

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

burdensome rule that only causes harm and in the process, these agencies are taking away my
rights.

This is an extreme overreach by the government, and I stress that this rule should be immediately
withdrawn.

Agency Response

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. The rule
has also expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United States,
such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions incidental to
mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland swales, and
stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As discussed in the
Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent to regulate all
ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which ditches are
excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch Compendium
for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #4765 [48 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Park Slope United Methodist Church
(paper)!

Dear Administrator McCarthy -

As a Christian, water is central to my spiritual life and sacred to all of God's creation. I am
writing to thank for your recent proposal addressing waters of the United States that will clarify
what waterways can be protected under the Clean Water Act. We are polluting and exploiting
our water in an unsustainable manner, and must use all the tools available to us to care for God's
gift of water.

I urge you to finalize this rule as soon as possible, and protect our upstream waters and wetlands.
By doing so we help protect all of Creation, and protect our supply of drinking water, so
essential for human life.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

Doc. #4908 [21 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 281

I stand adamantly opposed to this rule and am begging you to use common sense and ditch it,
immediately. Meaningful progress from voluntary water quality programs that are run by states
are far better than a one-size-fits-all mandatory federal program like the one being proposed.
Congress, not federal agencies, writes the laws of the land. When Congress wrote the Clean
Water Act, it clearly wrote that the law applied to navigable waters. Is a small ditch navigable" Is
a stock pond navigable" Is a puddle in your back yard navigable" I don't believe so. Just another
power grab. How does that improve water quality" The principles of private property and land
ownership instill in an individual the responsibility and the desire to improve property for an
owner's good and the rest of society (Pride in ownership). We've seen the past decades'
conservation work beginning to show results with improved fisheries and improved water
quality. It's always better when farmers and landowners install conservation work out of a self-

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

desire to make the property the best it can be, rather than being dictated by bureaucrats in
Washington who don't understand Iowa farming. DITCH THIS RULE!

Agency Response

Finally, the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. We also note that if an
activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a
discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an established
farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Doc. #4987 [13 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 61

I am strongly opposed to this rule and believe it should be ditched! There has likely never been a
greater threat to our ability to farm than this proposed rule. It is a tremendous regulatory
expansion from where we are today, and I don't think that we can really understand all of the
problems or the level of control that the federal government could have over farmers if it is
enacted. The EPA has really launched a major rewrite of existing law and changed long-held
definitions and practices. Any inch of land that contains water, even for a very short time, would
be under federal regulatory control. It goes way beyond streams, rivers, wetlands and other
things we usually think of as wet areas, and really covers an entire state like Iowa. It means the

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

federal government can regulate things like ditches and puddles, and even areas where puddles
once existed. I don't think that's what Congress intended when they wrote the Clean Water Act.

Agency Response

Doc. #4988 [39 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 71

I am urging you to immediately ditch this rule. Under the proposal, government regulations
would be extended to ditches, gullies, wet spots, adjacent non-wetlands, and other areas that are
away from navigable waters. The rule would also extend federal jurisdiction to areas that may
hold water for only a short period of time after a rain storm, which we have had a lot of in Iowa
this summer. The expansive language in the proposed rule would mean that farmers could be

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

forced to apply for federal permits and work through government red tape to do normal
activities, such as building a terrace, constructing a waterway, applying fertilizer or even planting
a tree. The rule proposed by the two regulatory agencies goes well beyond the navigable waters
that Congress cited when it passed the CWA in 1972. And it also appears to be an end run
around two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that decided the Clean Water Act does not give the
federal government control over all water.

This proposed rule would present a clear intrusion on property rights of landowners.

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #4989 [13 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 81

I am becoming ever more concerned about the EPA and the rules and regulations that it wishes
to impose upon the American People.

The proposed rule Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 is of great concern as it is
impossible for the EPA to control every ounce of water on the planet. This is just another attempt
at controlling the rights of citizens to own real property and the water rights that go hand in hand
with the rights of ownership.

Since the EPA cannot control or regulate waters outside of the United States of America, it is
only common sense to know that the agency cannot watch every drop of water entering the USA.

It is my belief that the EPA is overreaching its authority by trying to redefine regulated water and
water ways.

I believe that the EPA needs to withdraw this proposed rule. The continued attempts to control
the rights of the people through Unconstitutional regulations by an agency with No
Constitutional Authority will only force the people to demand that Congress defund the EPA.

Agency Response

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal
waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that feed them have to be clean too. This is
confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is informed by a review of more than
1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. This well-established body
of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands are important to the long-term
health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule protects these waters.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #4990 [1,091 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
Identified as Unknown 91

I am opposed to rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) to clarify the definition of "waters of the United States" under the
Clean Water Act (CWA).

The proposed rule greatly expands the jurisdiction of the EPA and Corps beyond the scope of the
CWA. The proposed definition could be interpreted to include every place where water collects
and runs off, regardless of the significance of the connection to downstream waters, frequency of
flow, or even presence of water.

This rule would be inclusive of water features that have never been considered "waters of the
United States" before such as ditches, waterways, farm ponds, and other areas where water only
flows after heavy rainfall. The proposed rule also includes non-water features such as flood
plains and areas adjacent to "waters of the United States."

The expanded interpretation of "waters of the United States" moves federal jurisdiction into
fields and pastures in a way that was never contemplated by Congress. Rather than creating
clarity, the rule blurs the line between agricultural storm water runoff and point source pollution.

Implementation of this rule will result in farmers and ranchers having to apply for water quality
and/or dredge and fill permits for normal farming practices. This would add unnecessary costs
and delays detrimental to farming activities. It exposes my farm to more regulatory uncertainty,
excessive fines, and threat of litigation through CWA lawsuits.

While EPA claims that agricultural exemptions have been maintained, the exemptions offered in
the proposed rule do not extend to activities such as pest control, fertilizer applications, or a
number of other normal farming practices that need to be implemented as part of responsible
land stewardship.

The proposed rule provides no clarity. In fact, it creates unneeded regulatory burdens and legal
uncertainties. I implore EPA and the Corps to withdraw this damaging piece of rule making as
soon as possible.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #4991 [167 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Georgia Farm Bureau (email) - Identified
as Georgia Farm Bureau - a6l

Ditch the Rufr

Oppose FPA Overreach

; -j-j ^ —:

' . .A

•tow#: /-|H. fx,? tyjlJS :

PKMMNt

imat; _

MJiiL,

|^„I _

ll.

Agency Response

6 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #4992 [41 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 101

Please ditch this rule. I am very opposed to its adoption. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers
have said they have made exemptions to protect farmers. I do not believe them. The new
exemptions that the agencies have cited narrow current exemptions, and they only apply to one
aspect of the CWA, the dredge and fill permit program. Many farming activities would come
under their proposal if they are done on land that holds rainwater or contributes flow to a stream.
The exemptions are available only to farmers who have been farming that particular farm
continuously since 1977. In addition, the exemptions require mandatory compliance with
(NRCS) standards, which have been voluntary when cost-share is provided. Additionally, the
NRCS has authority to change the standards at any time they deem necessary.

Finally, there is nothing stopping the EPA and the Corps from changing or removing some or all
of the "so-called" exemptions without public notice. EPA and the Army Corps say they don't
intend to expand their jurisdiction, it is easy to see that this will dramatically expand their reach
into Iowa agriculture.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The agencies note that all comments on the Interpretive Rule which is referenced in this
comment are outside the scope of this rule. However we also note that the IR was
withdrawn on January 29, 2015, as directed by Congress in Section 112 of the Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriation Act, 2015, Public Law No. 113-235. The
memorandum of understanding signed on March 25, 2014 by the EPA, the Army, and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, concerning the interpretive rule was also withdrawn.

Doc. #5085 [963 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Missouri Farm Bureau (paper)

This proposal will be a serious threat to farming and ranching, homebuilding, energy production
and other land uses. The "Waters of U.S." proposed rule lets EPA regulate small ponds, ditches,
rainwater flowing through low spots and isolated wet spots, the same as if they were a river or
other navigable waterways. The proposed rule would let EPA tell farmers how to farm, or even
keep them from farming. EPA has claimed to exempt 56 specific conservation practices, but
countless routine farming activities like applying fertilizer or manure, or even pulling weeds
would need a permit. Congress never meant or directed the EPA to require permits for ordinary
farming and ranching.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

IT'S TIME TO DITCH THE RULE

I OPPOSE the U. S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' proposed rule "Definition of
'Waters of the U.S.' under the Clean Water Act," Docket No. EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0880.

Sincerely,	

County, State	

Why should the EPA control
what doesn't flow?

IT'S TIME TO

DITCH

Km FARM BUREAU

ditchtherule.fb.org I

This ditch is dry on my farm today,
not a puddle anywhere.

IT'S TIME TO

DITCH

| MSSOUV

FARM BUREAU

ditchtherule.fb.org

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and

62

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #5215 [15 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Unknown 111

Defining Waters of the United States has been difficult. To declare all water interconnected and
all water to be, "Waters of the United States" will damage my ability to farm and impact the
value of my property.

Our fragile economy will not benefit from this over-reaching potential to regulate virtually all
activities in the name of protecting water quality.

Waters of the United States must be navigable, as defined by Congress. This proposed rule could
ultimately lead to the unlawful expansion of federal regulations to cover routine farming and
ranching practices, as well as other common private land uses, such as building homes.

The exemptions allowed for agriculture are inadequate to protect farms from this burdensome
rule.

The proposed exemptions will only apply to farming that has been ongoing since the 1970s, not
new or expanding farms. Even for those farms, the exemptions do not cover weed control,
fertilizer use or other common farming practices. The narrow exemptions offer no meaningful
protection for the hundreds of thousands of farmers and ranchers whose operations and
livelihoods are threatened by this expansion of EPA's regulatory reach.

I and my family opposed this rule and encourage the EPA to withdraw it to meet the intent of
Congress and the Supreme Court's rulings.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

CWA permitting programs, to make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #5216 [44 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Unknown 121

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is in reference to the proposed rule identified above regarding the "Definition of
'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act." This proposed rule was published in
the Federal Register on April21, 2014, Vol. 79, No. 76.

I am a landowner, and I urge EPA and the Corps of Engineers to withdraw this proposed rule.
This rule will expand federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act by defining
tributaries so broadly as to include areas that only have water flow during periods of heavy
rainfall.

This change will authorize the federal government to regulate land use around these "tributaries."
The eventual result of this overreach is that landowners will be required to obtain federal permits
to change the use of their land. This rule will infringe on my private property rights.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Our nation's economy is based on the responsible use of private property by property owners. I
take that responsibility seriously. I do not believe there is a need for additional protection for my
property provided by the federal government.

I urge the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to withdraw this proposed rule.

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. Waters that flow in response to seasonal or
individual precipitation events are jurisdictional tributaries only if they contribute flow,
either directly or indirectly, to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the
territorial sea, and they possess the physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary
high water mark, which may be spatially discontinuous. A bed and banks and other
indicators of ordinary high water mark are physical indicators of water flow and are only
created by sufficient and regular intervals of flow. These physical indicators can be created
by perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral flows. Where such features do not contribute
flow downstream and/or do not have a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, they are
not jurisdictional tributaries. To further emphasize this point, the rule expressly indicates
in paragraph (b) that ephemeral reaches that do not meet the definition of tributary are
not "waters of the United States."

Doc. #5432 [11 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Unknown 301

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a farmer, and I am writing to submit comments to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding the
definition of Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters many of which are not even wet or
considered waters under any common understanding of that word.

I am extremely concerned that I will now have to comply with rules for normal farming
practices. Farmers have never had to seek pre-approval from any federal agency to conduct

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

normal farming practices. The difference is that now farmers are more likely to be sued by the
government or citizens groups claiming they did not fully comply with NRCS standards or that
their practices are not all listed in the statute and in the interpretive rule.

The rule will require me to get a permit if there are jurisdictional wetlands (low spots) or
ephemerals (drainage areas) within farm fields or ditches beside or within my farm field. If a tiny
amount of pesticide or fertilizer fall into those features (intentionally or not), this would be an
unlawful discharge of pollutant that would trigger liability of up to $37,500 per discharge per day
without an NPDES permit.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm, or make changes to the
land even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect water quality
regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It is one of the values I hold as a farmer.

Farmers like me will be severely impacted; therefore, I ask you to withdraw the proposed rule.
Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Corps clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations. For added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on
waters that are not considered waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and
ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions incidental to mining or construction,
constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater
detention basins constructed in dry land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the
agencies have explained that there is not an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the
final rule the agencies have further clarified which ditches are excluded from coverage
under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on
the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Doc. #5456 [19 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Residents of Pennington County, SD
(paper)!

Dear Environmental Protection Agency:

I, am in strong opposition to the expansion of the Clean Water Act

as currently proposed. It is impractical for the federal government to regulate every ditch, pond
and puddle that may or may not have some tenuous connection to a body of water currently
defined as "navigable". The EPA is far exceeding their applicable regulatory, statutory and
constitutional limits.

I live in Pennington County, SD which consists of 2, 784 square miles of land area that 100,948
people call home. We are proud to have Mount Rushmore and the beautiful Black Hills in our
county with nearly 3 million tourists visiting annually. Tourism is vital to our economy and the
impacts of having impaired waters would be devastating to our region. Pennington County also
has 972,225 acres of agricultural land that is equally vital to our economy who also depend on
clean water resources.

This proposal would cause significant hardships to local farmers and ranchers by taking away
local control of the land uses. The costs to the local agricultural community would be enormous.
This would lead to food and cattle prices increasing significantly. The effects will continue to
magnify from there. The overall costs to the counties, municipalities and ultimately the taxpayers
will be detrimental.

Let our local governments regulate themselves. We know what our needs are better than the
Federal Government does. They acknowledge that being proactive in protecting water quality is

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

far more cost-effective than remediation. My County has taken a proactive approach to
protecting our water resources and they are committed to continuing to do so into the future,
without the need for additional federal regulation. My County would experience a major impact
as more waters would become federally protected and subject to the new rules or standards.
Additional taxes would then be essential to meet the new standards and the taxpayers of this
Country have had enough!

I am strongly opposed to further regulations as proposed in the Clean Water Act expansion.
Thank you for considering my comments and position on this critical issue.

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. Waters that flow in response to seasonal or
individual precipitation events are jurisdictional tributaries only if they contribute flow,
either directly or indirectly, to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the
territorial sea, and they possess the physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary
high water mark, which are physical indicators of water flow and are only created by
sufficient and regular intervals of flow. These physical indicators can be created by
perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral flows. Where such features do not contribute flow
downstream and/or do not have a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, they are not
jurisdictional tributaries.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #6080 [37 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as American Farm Bureau Federation - G1

To Whom It May Concern:

The proposed rule would subject private land conservation projects to added regulatory burdens
and costs therefore creating a disincentive to landowners pursuing important and needed
conservation projects that benefit watersheds, waterfowl, and riparian habitats.

The majority of wildlife habitat in the continental United States is on private land and there
should be no disincentives to their improved conservation and management. Requiring
landowners to obtain Corps permits for routine erosion control and soil stabilization work,
including improving and protecting riparian areas, would reduce the number of those projects on
private lands and habitat and wildlife may suffer.

Farmers like me will be severely impacted; therefore, I ask you to withdraw the proposed rule.
Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

country to make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to
understand, more predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

Doc. #6876 [224 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Nebraska Beef Producers (postcard)

I am a beef producer from Nebraska. I work hard every day to provide the best care for my cattle
and be a steward of natural resources.

The "Waters of the U.S." rule illegally expands EPA jurisdiction. Will hurt farmers and ranchers.
And will not protect the environment.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Quit regulating from a cubicle and come spend a day with me on my land. I would love to give
you a tour.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of the agriculture community in providing the nation
with food and fiber and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of
the agencies to minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture
community, and recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve
natural resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the
Corps clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available
peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations. Finally, the rule does not affect or modify in any way
the many existing statutory exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for
agriculture.

Doc. #6877 [241 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Conservation Federation of Missouri
(postcard)!

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

Thank you for proposing the Clean Water Rule that will restore and clarify the "Waters of the
United States" safeguarded by the Clean Water Act. I support the proposed rule's protections
for headwater streams and wetlands, and urge you to take additional steps in the final rule
to restore protections for prairie potholes and other important waters.

These protections are vital for the survival of many fish and wildlife species that depend on
wetlands and pure, clean streams tor their habitat. They are also essential to protecting the
drinking water for 117 million Americans.

Thank you again tor taking this important first step to protect America's waters.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

Doc. #6878 [3,885 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (postcard)!

FACT:

It's time to Ditch the Rule

The Waters of the U.S. proposed rule lets EPA
regulate small ponds, ditches, rainwater
flowing through low spots and isolated wet
spots - as if they were navigable waterways.
The proposal is a serious threat to farming and
ranching, homebuilding, energy production
and other land use.

I oppose the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Proposed Rule Regarding
Definition of "Waters of U.S." Under the Clean
Water Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-20 11-
0880

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

FACT:



The proposed rule would let EPA tell farmers
how to farm - or even keep them from farming.
EPA has claimed to exempt 56 specific
conservation practices, but countless routine
farming activities like applying fertilizer or
manure, or even pulling weeds would need a
permit. Congress never meant to require
federal permits for ordinary farming and
ranching.

Name:

tvania

DITCHTHERUIE.FB.ORG

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which

74

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which
ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule. Finally, the
rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions under
CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. We also note that if an activity takes place
outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does not need
a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an established farming, silviculture or
ranching operation.

Regarding the reference to the conservation practices contained in the Interpretive Rule,
the agencies note that all comments on the Interpretive Rule are outside the scope of this
rule. However we also note that the IR was withdrawn on January 29, 2015, as directed by
Congress in Section 112 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act,
2015, Public Law No. 113-235. The memorandum of understanding signed on March 25,
2014 by the EPA, the Army, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, concerning the
interpretive rule was also withdrawn.

Doc. #6879 [77 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (postcard) -
Identified as Unknown 131

Docket No. EPA-HQ-QW-2011-0880

I am writing today to comment on your proposed rule which significantly expands the scope of
"navigable waters" subject to the Clean Water Act jurisdiction by the EPA. I am in opposition to
this expansion and feel it would be detrimental to my agricultural community.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. In this final rule, EPA
and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under
the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the
best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and
experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters
protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the
law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the
foundation of our nation's water resources.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #6924 [352 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Harvest Co-Op Markets (paper)

Administrator McCarthy ,

For over 10 years, Harvest Co-op Markets has had the One Minute Activist letter writing
program. We produce a letter monthly in our stores and online on an issue concerning food, food
safety, health, the environment or community issues. In that time, we have mailed over 100
different issue letters. If you wish to respond to the enclosed letter to our over 4,000 members en
mass, you can send an email to me at cdurkin@harvest.coop for posting on our website
www.harvest.coop.

Thank you for your attention.

Administrator McCarthy ,

I urge you to finalize the Army Corps of Engineers' and Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. rule as soon as possible, follow the science that
shows how water bodies are interconnected, and fully protect all of the waterways that have
important connections to one another.

The rule as proposed is a major improvement. I urge you to further strengthen the final rule to
fully protect wetlands and other waters found outside of the floodplain of covered waterways.

7 First letter example submitted under sponsoring agency

8 Second letter example submitted under sponsoring agency

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Science shows that the health of these waters influences stream flow, water quality and wildlife
in waters downstream.

I urge you to continue to stand up to special Interests that oppose these important-and popular-
clean water protections. EPA has already received more than 100,000 letters in support of
moving forward with this rule to protect streams, wetlands, rivers and other waters from
pollution or destruction. Hunting and angling organizations, public health professionals and
hundreds more local elected officials, farmers, citizens, brewers and other business leaders have
spoken out in support of enhanced protections.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial

seas.

Doc. #6925 [4,089 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Georgia Farm Bureau (postcard)

Ditch the Rule

Waters of the U.S.

(WO I l S)

EPA DOCKET #:
EPA-HO-OW-2011-0880
Definition of Waters of the
United States Under the
Clean Water Act
I urge EPA to withdraw
the proposed rule
because it:

•	Expands federal authority

•	Is against the will
of Congress

•	Ignores the Supreme Court

•	Infringes on private property
rights

Name & Address

Additional Comments:
(Optional)

FARM
BUREAU

s

Ditch the Rule

Stop EPA from Controlling
Our Land and Water

Let EPA Hear from You

TAKE ACTION TODAY!

www.gfb.org/ditchtherule

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,

78

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

Doc. #6926 [1,796 on-time duplicates, sponsored by American Farm Bureau Federation
(postcard)!

FACT:

The Waters of the U.S. proposed rule lets EPA regulate
small ponds, ditches, rainwater flowing through low
spots and isolated wet spots - as if they were navigable
waterways. The proposal is a serious threat to farming
and ranching, homebuilding, energy production and
other land use.

FACT:

The proposed rule would let EPA tell formers how to
farm -or even keep them from forming. EPA has
claimed to exempt 56 specific conservation practices,
but countless routine forming activities like applying
fertilizer or manure, or even pulling weeds would need a
permit. Congress never meant to require federal permits
for ordinary farming and ranching.

It's Time to Ditch the Rule

I oppose the U.S. EPA and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Proposed
Rule Regarding Definition of
"Waters of U.S." Under the Clean
Water Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0880

Name:

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

IT'S TIME TO

DITCH

RULE

DITCHTHERULE.fb.org

AmtricM Farm
Bunau Federation"

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which

80

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #6940 [82 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Mineral Owners - al

As a mineral owner I oppose the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers rule to clarify the definition of Waters of the United States Under the Clean
Water Act. This ridiculous proposal would grant the EPA authority over most ditches, ponds,
isolated low-lying wet areas, and dry gulches that carry water only after heavy rain. It is one of
the most egregious examples of federal regulatory overreach. It will cost the U.S. economy
billions of dollars and add several thousand dollars in surface compliance costs to every oil and
gas well drilled to develop our private property. It will reduce the economic viability of my
private minerals and will decrease not only our family income. It will also reduce the tax revenue
flowing to the U.S. Treasury, states and communities nationwide. This rule is fatally flawed and
must be rejected.

Agency Response

The final Clean Water Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our
families, our communities, and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean
water to operate. Streams and wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing,
hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing. The agencies' economic
analysis indicates that indirect incremental benefits exceed indirect incremental costs. In
this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are
protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court
decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical
expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of
identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and
consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. Waters that flow in response to seasonal or
individual precipitation events are jurisdictional tributaries only if they contribute flow,
either directly or indirectly, to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the
territorial sea, and they possess the physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary
high water mark. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity regarding which waters are
subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which permitting authorities,
including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404 CWA permitting
programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #7190 [394 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 141

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

I urge you to finalize the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed Clean Water Act Waters, Waters of the U.S. rule, as soon as possible, follow the
science that shows how water bodies are interconnected, and fully protect all of the waterways
that have important connections to one another.

Basic clean water protections for headwater streams and wetlands have been in question for too
long. I strongly support protecting the nation's streams, ponds, wetlands, and other waters from
pollution. The proposed rule is an important step toward achieving this goal. Preserving our
sources of clean drinking water is of the utmost importance. Finalizing a strong rule will secure
Clean Water Act protections for countless streams and wetlands, which help supply the drinking
water of more than 117 million Americans.

The rule as proposed is a major improvement. I urge you to further strengthen the final rule to
fully protect wetlands and other waters found outside the floodplain of covered waterways.
Science shows that the health of these waters influences stream flow, water quality, and wildlife
in waters downstream.

I urge you to continue to stand up to special interests that oppose these important—and
popular—clean water protections.

EPA has already received more than 100,000 letters in support of moving forward with this rule
to protect streams, wetlands, rivers, and other waters from pollution or destruction. Hunting and

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

angling organizations, public health professionals, and hundreds more local elected officials,
farmers, citizens, brewers, and other business leaders have spoken out in support of enhanced
protections. As one of the many supporters of this critical initiative to protect our waters from
pollution, I thank you and urge you to finalize a strong Waters of the U.S. rule that includes full
protection for the nation's waters as soon as possible.

Agency Response

Doc. #7191 [35 on-time duplicates, sponsored by North Como Presbyterian Church,
Roseville, MN (email)!

Dear Administrator McCarthy -

Water is the cradle of all life and an expression of God's grace. We are polluting and using our
water in an unsustainable manner. We must use all the tools available to us to care for God's gift
of water here in the United States. Water knows no bounds and this clarification will allow us to
protect sources of water that we all depend on, from streams and wetlands, to rivers, bays, and
lakes. I am grateful for this proposed rule that improves protection for God's waters and our
communities.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk. This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require
protection in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

Doc. #10635 [2,189 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Clean Water Action (postcard)!

I urge EPA to finalize a strong rule to ensure
that all streams, wetlands and other water
resources are protected under the Clean
Water Act. Every water body in the U.S. is
important and needs protection.

Clean water is vital to my family and me.
We rely on clean places to swim and play, and
sources of clean water to drink. Please keep
the Clean Water Act strong and effective so
we can continue to protect clean water.

NAME

ADDRESS

Signature.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Protect Clean

I support the Administration's proposal to restore
Clean Water Act protections to streams and wetlands.

Agency Response

Doc. #10636 [104 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Unknown 151

I farm in the hills of middle Tennessee. The water quality in our streams has improved over the
last several decades, partly because of the efforts of farmers like me. The proposed water rule

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

will make it harder, not easier, to continue making progress in improving water quality. We
typically experience 50 inches of precipitation, some of it in rather intense storms. Almost every
square foot of my farm is "wet" at some time during the year. I simply cannot do what I need to
do to protect my farmland and water quality if I have to get a permit, or try to find out if I need a
permit, every time I need to repair a ditch, build a terrace, stop a gully, move a fence, protect an
eroding stream bank, or drain a new mudhole. The things that need to be done just will not get
done, and water quality will suffer.

Please withdraw the proposed rule. It is bad for water quality and bad for farmers like me.
Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. Waters that flow in response to seasonal or
individual precipitation events are jurisdictional tributaries only if they contribute flow,
either directly or indirectly, to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the
territorial sea, and they possess the physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary
high water mark. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity regarding which waters are
subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which permitting authorities,
including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404 CWA permitting
programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #10637 [155 on-time duplicates, sponsored by grower-members of Delmarva Poultry
Industry, Inc. (paper)l

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

My name is and I have raised turkeys on my farm for the past years.

I'm writing to strongly oppose the EPA's and the Army Corps of Engineers' recently proposed
"Definition of "Waters of the United States Under the Clean Water Act" rule. I have followed the
proposal since its publication in April, and am firmly convinced it will dramatically expand

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

federal authority over ditches, ponds and other waters of nearly any size, flow and frequency that
may be located on my property.

EPA has announced that the rule's intention is to clear up confusion over what is considered a
"Water of the United States." and to reduce uncertainty for everyone. It has also argued it is not
expanding its jurisdiction or adding to the scope of waters already protected under the Clean
Water Act. However, reading the "fine print" buried in the actual language of the rule gives
producers like me little confidence that this will actually be the case.

As an example, EPA has stretched the definitions of "tributary," "adjacent waters" and other
terms and then linked them together in a way that allows the agency almost limitless authority
over my property and the activities on my farm. Even the routine management of my family's
operation could be subject to potential permitting, enforcement and penalties of up to $37,500
per day.

Given this potential impact on my own farm, it is simply impossible to believe EPA's claim that
the proposed rule would increase by only 2.7 percent nationwide those waters currently subject
to federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. It is also impossible to believe that the compliance cost
is not significantly higher than what the agency claims, since it appears that land uses in much of
my community and the rest of rural America will be affected.

EPA has also issued a so-called "interpretive rule" in coordination with USDA to assure farmers
that over 50 conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will be exempt from
permitting requirements governing dredging and filling activities under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The new interpretive rule has many serious problems, not least of which is that it was
issued as effective immediately without providing farmers an opportunity to submit comments
on whether it works by providing the benefits EPA claims it does. It is clear at this point it does
not.

EPA and the Corps have gone too far in this attempt to clarify which waters are the "waters of
the U.S." — we strongly oppose this effort and request that the agency withdraw the rule and
start over.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

87

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The rule has increased the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which
ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #10638 [65 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Clean Water Action - Jil

I urge the EPA to finalize a strong rule clarifying that all streams, wetlands and other water
resources are protected under the Clean Water Act. Every water body in the U.S. is important
and needs protection.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

For too long there has been confusion about which streams and wetlands are protected, even
though it is clear that Congress intended for all water to be safeguarded when Act passed was in
1972.

Our water supply, as well as wildlife, depends on a strong Clean Water Act that protects small
streams and wetlands, as well as our rivers, lakes and bays. I also strongly urge that seasonal
wetlands be recognized and protected as well.

Agency Response

Doc. #13109 [218,542 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment America - Identified
as Environment America-F9!

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy,

Our iconic waterways make America a great place to live.

Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left our country's smaller waterways
unprotected, putting the places we kayak, fish and boat at risk of toxic pollution.

To ensure all our waterways are protected, we urge you to close loopholes in the Clean Water
Act now.

9 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Doc. #13960 [995 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 171

I support the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers
to restore Clean Water Act protections to safeguard our nation's water resources—including
streams and wetlands that supply drinking water to approximately 117 million Americans.

The health of rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters depends on the streams and wetlands where
they begin. These waterways provide many benefits to communities—they help avert floods,
recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife.
Streams and wetlands are also economic drivers because of their role in fishing, hunting,
agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing.

Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has protected our nation's water resources from unregulated
pollution and disruption. I support EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880, the proposed
rule to clarify and restore Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands, which has
undergone rigorous review and scientific analysis.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #13961 [942 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Sierra Club - cl

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #13962 [577 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 181

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

I am writing you to express my serious concerns regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) proposed rule defining what are waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act.
The rule represents an unprecedented increase in jurisdiction and must not be finalized without
first undergoing significant revision.

It is important that my concerns with the proposal not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to
protect water quality. As a farmer, I know how important it is that I manage my land responsibly
to minimize the amount of sediment and nutrients that flow into surface water systems that
connect to downstream rivers, lakes, and beyond. My commitment to good stewardship practices
will continue irrespective of this rule.

If the EPA is sincere in stating that the intent of the rule is to provide clarity while not imposing
any new constraints on how I farm, then there is no reason for EPA to claim federal authority
over drainage features and wet areas in or near my fields that only hold water after a heavy rain.
These things never were and never will be fishable or swimmable, nor should they be. They do
not need to be subject to federal jurisdiction for me to do my job and manage my soil and water
resources. If good soil and water management and improved water quality is what EPA seeks to
achieve, I implore you to have a conversation with me and my fellow farmers about how we
responsibly pursue that goal. Making these features on my farm jurisdictional is simply not the
way to do this.

My concerns with the proposed rule fall into four broad categories. First is the tremendous
uncertainty that I face because of the way the rule defines what is a tributary and what is an
adjacent water subject to the Clean Water Act. Second is how unmistakable it is that the
proposed rule represents a significant expansion of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction relative
to anything that has ever been in rulemaking before. Third, relative to the scope of jurisdiction,
while it may be true that some ditches are not waters of the U.S. under the proposed rule, the fact
is that vast numbers of ditches are or could be subject to federal jurisdiction. Lastly, if these or
other drainage features and waters like them that are located on my farm are made jurisdictional,
I fear I would face serious risk of lawsuits challenging my use of fertilizers and pesticides that
may come in contact with those features as a violation of the Clean Water Act unless I have a
federal national pollution discharge permit.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

On the issue of uncertainty, the rule's definitions create open, practical questions in my fields as
to whether literally dozens of features are jurisdictional. Would a federal regulator look at my
drainage features and see the so-called "bed, bank and ordinary high water mark" that defines a
tributary and which would make them waters of the U.S.? Would a regulator look at some of my
drainage features and decide they are located where former ephemeral streams used to flow,
which would make them jurisdictional? The ditches in or at the edges of my fields and roadways
that collect the drainage water from these in-field features, would they be found to be
jurisdictional? Some of my ditches have standing water in portions of them, and have some
marshy-type vegetation. Do these portions of the ditches meet the "wetlands" definition, and if
so, does that make the entire ditch a water of the U.S.? These and many other questions
regarding features on my farm are created by your proposed rule, which has done anything but
made me more certain and more clear about how the Clean Water Act applies to my farm.

Relative to the scope of proposed jurisdiction under the rule, I find it simply breathtaking. I look
around my community and I see drainage features, some in farm fields or next to them, that have
a bed and bank and water mark but that only have water in them when it rains. If the EPA thinks
that it has always has had federal control over these features and the water in them, I want you to
know that is certainly news to me. After two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have told the EPA
that it has interpreted its jurisdiction too broadly, it is stunning to me that you would propose
such a massive expanse of area as being under your authority.

On the matter of ditches, I am confused as to what is "upland" under the rule, and I am quite
unsure what an upland ditch that is constructed wholly in uplands actually is. Assuming that I
have some of these on my farm and that they flow less than permanently, then they would not be
jurisdictional. You must understand, though, that there are large numbers of ditches in farm
country that do not or very well may not meet that definition. As I discussed above, former
ephemeral streams that have been modified to serve as ditches are common. So are ditches that
drain farmland in floodplains. So are field-side and roadside ditches that collect that drainage
water. Even ditches that I have excavated can develop, as I noted above, vegetation that looks
marshy. Many if not all of these will be subject to federal jurisdiction under the rule.

Lastly, please understand that when these features in or next to farm fields are found to be waters
of the U.S. how serious a threat it is that my use of pesticides and fertilizers will be challenged if
I do not have a national pollution discharge permit. Every farmer in the country has heard of the
National Cotton Council case that has led to permits for aquatic pesticides. If the features in my
fields become waters of the U.S., I or my fellow farmers will face similar lawsuits. This is a very
real risk created by the proposed rule which you must not ignore. I and other farmers like me
want to do the right thing on our farms for water quality. Fortunately, there are many practices
we are engaged in and will continue to pursue that are practical, affordable, and science based
that have real, observable benefits. Let's fix the rule so that farmers like me can focus on that
good work and not on the uncertainty created by this proposed rule.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. Waters that flow in response to seasonal or
individual precipitation events are jurisdictional tributaries only if they contribute flow,
either directly or indirectly, to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the
territorial sea, and they possess the physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary
high water mark, which may be spatially discontinuous. A bed and banks and other
indicators of ordinary high water mark are physical indicators of water flow and are only
created by sufficient and regular intervals of flow. These physical indicators can be created
by perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral flows. Where such features do not contribute
flow downstream and/or do not have a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, they are
not jurisdictional tributaries. To further emphasize this point, the rule expressly indicates
in paragraph (b) that ephemeral reaches that do not meet the definition of tributary are
not "waters of the United States."

Also for added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered
waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-
filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and
non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry
land.

Ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as "waters of the United
States" since the late 1970s. In 1977, the United States Congress acknowledged that ditches
could be covered under the CWA when it amended the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to exempt specific activities in ditches from the need to obtain a CWA section 404
permit, including "construction or maintenance of...irrigation ditches, or the maintenance
of drainage ditches" (33 U.S.C. §1344). By these actions, Congress did not eliminate CWA
jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities taking place in them
from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term "upland" in the rule
created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In order to increase
clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion language states:
"(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; (B)
intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or drain

94

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a
water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics developed in the bottom of the ditch.

The rule would not change existing CWA permitting requirements regarding the
application of pesticides or fertilizer on farm fields. A NPDES pesticides general permit is
required only when there are discharges of pesticides into waters of the United States. The
CWA provides NPDES permitting exemptions for runoff from agricultural fields and
ditches. Discharges from the application of pesticides, which includes applications of
herbicides, into irrigation ditches, canals, and other waterbodies that are themselves
Waters of the United States, are not exempt as irrigation return flows or agricultural
stormwater, and do require NPDES permit coverage. Some irrigation systems may not be
Waters of the United States and thus discharges to those waters would not require NPDES
permit coverage.

Doc. #13963 [150 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 191

Dear EPA Docket,

As a Montanan with many neighbors who work on their property, the EPA's new proposal under
the Clean Water Act is unacceptable. Expanding control under the Clean Water Act is part of the
agency's troubling pattern of attempting to appropriate powers explicitly not granted by Congress
under any plain-English meaning of current law. Pressing farmers and other business owners into
a permitting process for nearly any waterway right down to a puddle is another regulatory burden

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

that would simply weigh down commerce. Does the EPA really expect a dairy farmer, for
example, to get a special permit for milk that may run off into a ditch or puddle? Or for a bone-
dry riverbed that may be on their property? These compliance costs are simply not something
most small business owners can absorb. Please reconsider this proposal.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Doc. #13964 [39 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Cement Makers (email)!

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers' joint proposal to redefine 'navigable waters' pursuant to
the Clean Water Act (CWA) falls short of the Administration's goal of clarifying state and
federal jurisdiction over the nation's water bodies. If federal regulators move forward with a
final rule as proposed, the result will be a dramatic and unjustified expansion of federal
jurisdiction over the nation's 'water bodies,' thereby increasing permitting costs and creating
major delays of, and possibly preventing entirely, key construction and infrastructure projects.

As a cement maker, I have serious concerns about the impact of expanded CWA jurisdiction
over limestone quarries. Cement makers site their plants adjacent to large geologic deposits of
limestone and routinely make capital investments to access this raw material in the most efficient
manner possible over the course of several decades. These investments can maximize production
when expanding a facility that meets increased demand, thereby adding even more high-quality
jobs to their payrolls. Additional CWA permitting requirements would not only provide
disincentives to make these long-term investments, but jeopardize relatively recent investments
in plant upgrades. Furthermore, EPA's own Science Advisory Board (SAB) has not yet issued its
analysis of the connectivity report which EPA indicated was to serve as the scientific basis to the
proposal. EPA only recently sent the proposal to the SAB, contradicting agency claims that it
would rely on the SAB analysis to develop the proposal, and raising concerns about the
transparency of this particular rulemaking.

To establish a climate of regulatory certainty, which is the EPA's stated intent for the CWA
proposal, I urge you to withdraw the rule as soon as possible. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to comment on this very important rule for my industry.

Agency Response

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

Finally the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under the CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for certain activity types.

Doc. #13965 [1,481 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Georgia Farm Bureau (GFB) (email) -
Identified as Georgia Farm Bureau (GFB) - b10l

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act.

This rule negatively affects me as a farmer.

10 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

Finally the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. The agencies also note
that if an activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not
involve a discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an
established farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Doc. #13966 [499 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environmental Law and Policy Center
(email)

Dear Docket Center,

I support the "Waters of the U.S." rulemaking proposed by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers because it restores the original intent of the Clean Water Act in protecting
America's creeks, brooks, streams and wetlands.

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The Clean Water Act was designed to protect our water from the Mighty Mississippi to my
neighborhood creek but rollbacks over the past decade have eroded the law, leaving the drinking
water sources for over 100 million people unprotected. Creeks, brooks and streams make up
more than half the river-miles in the nation and flow into larger waterways like rivers and lakes.
Along with wetlands, they also provide vital services, like filtering pollution, reducing the risk of
flooding and providing important wildlife habitat.

This is a big deal. Anglers spend billions of dollars fishing all kinds of waters. Manufacturing
companies use trillions gallons of fresh water every year. Farmers depend on freshwater for
irrigation. Americans of all stripes visit coastal areas each year. A healthy economy very much
depends on a healthy environment. Water resources are so interconnected that we cannot hope to
protect our celebrated waterways the Mississippi River and the Great lakes without also
protecting the backyard brooks, community creeks and steady streams that feed them.

Please approve the proposed "Waters of the U.S." rulemaking to better protect America's waters.
Agency Response

Doc. #13967 [525 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 201

Dear U.S. EPA:

I write in support of the Administration's proposed rule affirming Clean Water Act protections
for wetlands and streams.

Affirming Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands is essential to the health of
more than 117 million Americans who get drinking water from streams vulnerable to pollution.

100

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I urge you to affirm protections for all streams, adjacent wetlands, prairie potholes, Carolina
bays, vernal pools, and playa lakes. All of these waters are critical for flood control and for fish
and wildlife.

We need a final clean water rule this year that protects the millions of acres of wetlands and
miles of streams that are at risk from pollution and destruction.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule interprets
the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters,
and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the
best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and
extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that
feed them have to be clean too. This is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is
informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific
literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands
are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

101

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #13968 [385 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future
(PennFuture) (email)!

I support the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule to restore Clean Water Act
protections to 20 million acres of wetlands and 2 million miles of streams. These intermittent and
headwaters streams serve as part of the drinking water supply for 117 million Americans and 8
million Pennsylvanians, and it's just common sense to keep them clean.

Wetlands and streams store water, serving as reserves during times of drought and reduce flood
damage to downstream communities during storm events. Pennsylvania's streams and wetlands
also support a strong outdoor economy. In 2011, 4.5 million people spent $2.8 billion on
wildlife-related recreation in Pennsylvania with fishing generating $485 million.

The U.S. Supreme Court created considerable confusion with its rulings in SWANCC and
Rapanos and for nearly a decade industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and elected
officials have been asking for a rulemaking to clarify the muddied jurisdictional waters. Now is
the time to restore the Clean Water Act and protect our precious water resources. I support the
proposed standard and strongly oppose any attempts to weaken it.

Agency Response

Doc. #13969 [78 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Farmers from Indiana (email) -
Identified as American Farm Bureau Federation - f|

To Whom It May Concern:

I own a farm in Indiana and I raise corn and soybeans. I farm land that drains into a ditch.
Drainage is important in raising crops on my farm, which is important for feeding this country.

102

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I want to thank you for considering my comments about the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed rule defining regulated waters of the U.S. under the
Clean Water Act.

I am concerned that this rule change will bring the ditches and erosion features on my farm under
federal regulation. I also believe that this rule will likely reduce voluntary implementation of
conservation practices which are important management practices for protecting water quality. I
recognize that there are proposed exemptions in the rule, but they do not provide the assurances
needed that ditches and other features on my property will be exempt. The exemptions really just
raise concerns that it is more likely than not that my farm may fall under federal regulation. In
fact, the proposed exemptions seem to significantly narrow the exemptions already provided by
Congress in the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm or make changes to the
land, even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect water quality
regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It is one of the values I hold as a farmer.

Farmers like me will be severely impacted. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the proposed rule.
Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

103

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Regarding ditches, ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as
"waters of the United States" since the late 1970s. In 1977, the United States Congress
acknowledged that ditches could be covered under the CWA when it amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to exempt specific activities in ditches from the need to obtain
a CWA section 404 permit, including "construction or maintenance of...irrigation ditches,
or the maintenance of drainage ditches" (33 U.S.C. §1344). By these actions, Congress did
not eliminate CWA jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities
taking place in them from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term "upland" in the rule
created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In order to increase
clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion language states:
"(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; (B)
intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or drain
wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a
water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics developed in the bottom of the ditch.

Regarding the mention of conservation practice exemptions, the agencies note that all
comments on the Interpretive Rule are outside the scope of this rule. However we also note
that the IR was withdrawn on January 29, 2015, as directed by Congress in Section 112 of
the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act, 2015, Public Law No. 113-
235. The memorandum of understanding signed on March 25, 2014 by the EPA, the Army,
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, concerning the interpretive rule was also
withdrawn.

104

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #13999 [284 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as River Citizenl

To Whom It May Concern:

Because of this confusion, many previously protected waters lack adequate protection, leaving
drinking water supplies for one-third of Americans at risk.

The rule clarifies the types of waters that are and are not covered under the Clean Water Act. In
addition to traditionally navigable waters, interstate waters, the territorial seas and
impoundments of "waters of the United States", the proposed rule clarifies that the tributaries to
these covered waters as well as waters that are along the banks of, or in the floodplain of,
covered waters (including tributaries) are categorically protected. Waters that lie outside of the
floodplain, also known as "other waters," require a case-by-case analysis. The proposed Clean
Water Rule keeps in place the exemptions for normal farming and ranching activities, such as
plowing, seeding, harvesting, construction of stock ponds and irrigation ditches.

While the rule could go further in restoring historical protections, it puts back in place the ability
to regulate headwater streams and intermittent streams—like those waters that feed into the
drinking water supplies for 18 million people who live along the Mississippi River.

The Mississippi River is our nation's River. It supports a robust economy that depends on the
River to be healthy and clean, provides habitat for fish and wildlife and is a rich part of our
nation's history. But the Mississippi is only has healthy as the tributaries that feed into it.

As a River Citizen, I urge you to strengthen the proposed rule by more fully restoring protections
to other waters, such as prairie potholes and vernal pools.

Thank you for considering my comments in support of the Waters of the U.S. rulemaking. I urge
the US EPA and the Corps of Engineer to move forward as quickly as possible to finalize these
rules clarifying the protections offered under the Clean Water Act.

Agency Response

105

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

Doc. #14000 [1,125 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Supporters of the Surfrider
Foundation (email)!

As a supporter of the Surfrider Foundation, I urge you to finalize the Army Corps of Engineers'
and Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. rule as
soon as possible. This rulemaking effort is critical to restoring protections for the small streams
and wetlands that contribute to our drinking water supplies and impact the health of downstream
coastal waters. Their protection has been uncertain for too long.

What happens upstream, in small streams and wetlands, affects downstream rivers, lakes, and
beaches where we swim, surf and fish. Clean water is very important to me personally, as I spend
a lot of time at the beach and recreating in coastal waters.

Besides the obvious recreational opportunities that upstream waters provide, they also provide
critical ecosystem services such as flood protection and filtering out pollutants for water quality
protection.

I strongly support the proposed rule for the clear protections it restores to headwaters,
intermittent and ephemeral streams, and to wetlands and other waters located near or within the
floodplain of currently protected waterways. I further urge you to strengthen the final rule by

106

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

clarifying that important wetlands and other waters located beyond floodplains are also
categorically protected under the Clean Water Act.

Clean water is necessary to support both healthy communities and strong economies, and I urge
you to finalize a strong rule that more fully restores protections for our nation's waters.

Agency Response

Doc. #14001 [457 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Sierra Club (email) - Identified as
Sierra Club - dl

Dear Environmental Protection Agency,

Thank you for acting to protect our nation's — and my state's — precious water resources. Clean
Water Act protections for Arizona's rivers and streams is critical. I urge you to finalize a strong
rule regarding the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act was enacted to protect "waters of the United States" and to prevent
pollution of these waters. Unfortunately, there has been much confusion about what constitutes a
water of the United States, which has put at risk our waters, our health, and our economy, not to
mention the threats to our wild places and wildlife. By clarifying which waters are protected
under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers
have recognized the importance of our waters and have put the overall welfare of our state and
our nation ahead of the big polluter interests.

107

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Here in Arizona, the Clean Water Act is truly essential for our rivers and streams. Many of the
waters in Arizona do not flow consistently and are either ephemeral or intermittent. The Clean
Water Act ensures that the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of these waters is restored
and/or maintained and provides funding for restoration projects to occur. Our waters — the San
Pedro, Santa Cruz, and rivers and tributaries throughout our state — would suffer without these
protections.

Thank you again for working to protect our health, recreation, economy, and wild places. Please
finalize a strong rule to continue and to enhance Clean Water Act protections for my state and
for our nation.

Agency Response

Doc. #14002 [14 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 211

Dear Environmental Protection Agency,

I request an immediate withdrawal of Definition of "Waters United States" Under the Clean
Water Act, Proposed Rule as published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2014. Though the
rule as proposed was developed following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers synthesis of hundreds of pages of U.S. Supreme Court opinions
and thousands of pages of technical publications developed over a period reaching as far back as
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 opinion in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) as influenced by the Court's 2006 decision in Rapanos v.
United States, the rule fails to provide clarity to the Clean Water Act and in fact creates a vast
amount of confusion that will highly restrict agricultural production in Florida as well as
throughout the United States of America via increased regulation and potential 3rd party
litigation in response to normal farming practices. The relatively flat topography of Florida and
the abundant rainfall averaging 50 inches per year creates a landscape of numerous isolated

108

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

wetlands, ephemeral washes and needed ditches that will likely be considered "waters of the
U.S." under the proposed rule. Increased jurisdiction could severely restrict farming and
ranching activities and possibly prohibit activities near ditches, washes or isolated wetlands.
Ordinary land-use activities such as fencing, spraying for weeds or insects, discing or even
pulling weeds may be prohibited or require a Federal permit, increasing fiscal expense and
adding an element of time that can create crop failure.

I fully support the EPA and the proposed rules.

The State of Florida has developed an extensive set of Best Management Practices (BMP)
manuals for all of the major crop types grown throughout Florida. These manuals, developed by
the University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences in cooperation with the
Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS) and approved by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection detail proactive measures that are implemented
by farmers to protect water quality and conserve resources, thus protecting the environment. This
approach to environmental protection is a positive approach that creates broad participation by
farmers. Once BMP participation is verified by FDACS, Florida Farm Bureau Federation
provides the County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship (CARES) program to
recognize farmers for their extensive environmental stewardship. The Definition of "Waters
United States" Under the Clean Water Act, Proposed Rule as published in the Federal Register
on April 21, 2014 creates a vast amount of confusion to the agricultural community that provides
the food and fiber for our nation and the world. Water quality requirements as noted in the Clean
Water Act are better addressed through a 'carrot' approach where good practices are encouraged
and rewarded rather than the 'stick' approach that leads to increased costs and litigation. For
these reasons, I encourage EPA to withdrawal the Definition of "Waters United States" Under
the Clean Water Act, Proposed Rule as published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2014.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which

109

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The agencies are not sure how to reconcile commenters' request that the rule be withdrawn
with the statement they fully support the proposed rule.

Doc. #14003 [162 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 221

Dear Staff at the EPA:

110

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I'm writing to share my support for the EPA's work to clarify the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)
rule. In Minnesota, we deeply value our clean water and work hard to clean up our impaired
waters. While Minnesota laws protect our streams and wetlands, I understand that 36 other states
do not have such protective laws and rely solely on the Clean Water Act to prevent pollution
from entering their streams and wetlands.

As a "Land of 10,000 Lakes" resident, I understand that our streams and wetlands provide
significant environmental and economic benefits. Each spring, we rely on our streams and
wetlands to minimize flooding of the Mississippi River and the Red River. Despite our
reputation for an abundance of water, we need streams and wetlands to recharge our quickly
dwindling groundwater supplies. Streams and wetlands also function as filters to help remove
pollutants. Our economy relies heavily on clean water for tourism, which includes fishing,
hunting and water recreation. We also need safe water for the agriculture, energy and
manufacturing portions of our economy.

I ask that the EPA continue to move forward with the rule clarification process to finalize a rule
that protects all of our nation's streams and wetlands from pollution. Please do not allow 60
percent of our nation's streams miles to go unprotected!

Agency Response

Doc. #14004 [693 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Progressive Secretarvl

To Whomever it May Concern:

Clean water is vital. Science has demonstrated the need to protect every body of water, including
streams and wetlands. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must act on that evidence.

Ill

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Strengthen the proposed "Waters of the United States" rule by including "other waters" under
Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Make sure that this rule accurately reflects the importance of
streams, wetlands, and other waterways.

Clean water is essential for everyone's health and well-being. I urge you to ignore political
pressure, embrace established scientific thought, and proceed to finalize this rule immediately.

Clean Water Act protections are a necessity in ensuring that all our water is safe.

Agency Response

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

112

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #14005 [1,976 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Trout Unlimited - cl

The Clean Water Act is one of the most important tools we have for protecting trout and salmon
habitat to ensure great fishing. As an angler, I am writing to support the Environmental
Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers draft rule on the jurisdiction of the Clean
Water Act, and I strongly oppose legislative efforts to derail the proposal.

Protecting wetlands and headwater streams means protecting important fish habitat, and
protecting habitat means more fishing opportunities for America's anglers, who contribute $48
billion every year to the economy.

America's sportsmen and women strongly support this rule, and urge to oppose legislative efforts
to derail it.

Agency Response

Doc. #14006 [453 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Colorado Trout Unlimitedl

The Clean Water Act is one of the most important laws for protecting trout habitat and providing
good fishing opportunities. As an angler, I am writing to thank the Environmental Protection
Agency and Army Corps of Engineers for their draft rule on the jurisdiction of the Clean Water
Act. Protecting seasonally flowing intermittent, ephemeral and headwater streams and their
associated wetlands means protecting important fish habitat. At the end of the day, protected
habitat means more and better fishing opportunities for America's anglers, who contribute $48
billion every year to the economy including $1.3 billion in Colorado alone.

Without this rule, regulatory uncertainty will continue and as many as 75% of Colorado's river
and stream miles - and 60% nationwide - will remain in a limbo with uncertain (at best)

113

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

protection under the Clean Water Act. Our rivers are interconnected and if we fail to protect
these 75% of headwater and tributary streams, we will also fail to protect the larger downstream
rivers as well. The EPA and Corps are right to recognize the significant nexus these feeder
streams have with downstream perennial waterways.

Colorado is a headwaters state, the birthplace of great western rivers - and our headwaters
deserve Clean Water Act protection. As an angler I ask the EPA and Corps of Engineers to
maintain robust protections for these important streams and wetlands as the rule moves forward.

Agency Response

Doc. #14007 [295 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as California Farm Bureau Federation!

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have been following the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed Rule
Redefining the Definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act, and am
concerned that farmers and ranchers will be negatively burdened by the Proposed Rule.

The Proposed Rule would modify existing regulations which have been in place for decades
regarding which waters fall under federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. In order to
comply with these new regulations, farmers and ranchers will become more and more reliant on
attorneys and consultants, making farming the land more difficult.

Farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land and care about the environment and water quality.
But this rule is confusing. Regional offices would be left to interpret and apply the regulations to
farms on an inconsistent basis. Farmers and ranchers know the ground they farm and should have
clear guidance about how to comply with the law.

114

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Third-party lawsuits have become the new norm for regulating farmers. Even if farmers protect
water quality and comply with the law, they could be forced to defend themselves in court.

Under the Proposed Rule, farmers, ranchers, and other landowners would face a tremendous
roadblock to ordinary land-use activities, from building a fence to treating for or pulling weeds to
controlling insects. These "roadblocks" are both costly and time consuming.

Getting a permit to plant grapes, build a fence, or clear out brush is not a simple task. It could
require consultation with state and federal agencies, hiring consultants, and waiting for
approvals. If the permit is obtained, it often includes paperwork and reporting requirements in
addition to any requirements aimed at protecting water quality. Violations of these paperwork or
reporting obligations carry potential penalties up to $37,500 per violation per day—and may be
enforced by EPA, the state, or even interested citizens groups. Farmers just want to continue to
farm and be stewards of the land, leaving it in better shape for future generations.

In addition to the Proposed Rule's impacts, farmers and ranchers also have to now comply with
the Interpretative Rule that requires compliance with previously voluntary NRCS standards for
normal farming and ranching activities.

The Proposed Rule, along with the Interpretive Rule, will have material economic impacts on
farms and ranches across the state. I believe that full consideration has not been given to the
permitting costs, the farming delays that may be encountered to implement the federal rule, and
the costs of new land use restrictions resulting from this federal rule. Therefore, due to the
numerous flaws described within, I respectfully request the Environmental Protection Agency to
withdraw the Proposed Rule redefining waters of the U.S. as well as the Interpretive Rule.

Thank you for considering my views.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

115

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and erosional features
such as non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed
in dry land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there
is not an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further
clarified which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please
refer to the Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final
rule. Finally, the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. We also note that if an
activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a
discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an established
farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Doc. #14008 [268 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 231

I support the Waters of the United States Proposed Rule to protect wetlands and streams, and
urge the EPA to finalize and implement this rule as soon as possible. Healthy wetlands and
streams provide many environmental and economic benefits to communities, including
improving drinking water quality, preserving biodiversity, and preventing flooding. Wetlands
serve as natural buffers, filtering out pollutants before they impact water sources and absorbing
floodwaters before they hit land. As the climate changes and we begin to see more extreme
weather events like Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Irene, wetlands can serve as an invaluable
protection against storm surges and flooding. In addition to filtering out pollutants, wetlands and
streams serve as a critical habitat for bird, plant, and wildlife species, with half of all threatened
and endangered species relying on wetlands at some point in their lifecycle. Protecting wetlands
and steams prevents billions of dollars in property damage from flooding each year, supports
multi-billion dollar fishing and tourism industries, and protects the drinking water sources of
over 100 million Americans.

The Clean Water Act sought to protect these vital resources over 40 years ago, but Supreme
Court decisions and federal guidance changes have rolled back these protections, allowing
polluters to contaminate, fill, and destroy streams and wetlands. All wetlands and streams, even
impermanent or isolated ones, protect downstream water sources and prevent flooding. It is

116

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

imperative that the EPA restores the protections promised in the Clean Water Act and prevents
pollution in all headwaters, streams, and wetlands.

Agency Response

Doc. #14009 [13 on-time duplicates, sponsored by employees of South Carolina's Titan
Farms (email)!

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act.
As an employee of South Carolina's largest peach, bell pepper and broccoli producer, Titan
Farms manages over 9,000 acres of agricultural land within Edgefield, Aiken and Saluda
Counties. Because of the proposed rule, my employers farming operation, area farmers, ranchers
and other landowners will face roadblocks to ordinary land-use activities like fencing, spraying
for weeds or insects, discing or even pulling weeds. The need to establish buffer zones around
grassed waterways, ephemeral washes and farm ditches could make farmlands a maze of
intersecting a€oeno farm zonesa€ that could make farming impractical.

The farming and ranching exemptions in current law are important, but they have been very
narrowly applied by the agencies and they will not protect farmers and ranchers from the
proposed a€oewatersa€ rule. Some individuals are claiming that farmers and ranchers should
have no concerns because they are a€oeexempteda€ from the rule are wrong. They need to be
educated that a€oenormal farming and ranchinga€ exemption only applies to a specific type of
Clean Water Act permit for a€oedredge and filla€ materials. There is no farm or ranch exemption
from Clean Water Act permit requirements for a€oepollutantsa€ like fertilizer, herbicide or pest
control products. Under the proposed rule, many common and necessary practices like weed
control and fertilizer spreading will be prohibited in or near so-called a€oewatersa€ unless you
have a Clean Water Act permit. Second, EPAa€™s new guidance on the a€oedredge and filla€

117

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

exemption actually narrows an exemption that already existed, by tying it to mandatory
compliance with what used to be voluntary NRCS standards. Third, EPA and the Corps of
Engineers have interpreted the a€oenormala€ to mean only long-standing operations in place
since the 1970sa€"not newer or expanded farming or ranching.

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters — many of which are not even wet
or considered waters under any common understanding of that word. I write in opposition to the
proposed rule.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which
ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including

118

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Doc. #14010 [42 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as American Businesses!

Dear Policy Maker,

As a business leader, I support the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule on water
safety because it will give the business community more confidence that vital sources of clean
water will be protected and will provide a consistent regulatory system based on sound science.

American businesses have always depended on the availability of clean water for their processes,
and historically, the EPA's regulation in this area has been a successful example of the vital
partnership between business and government. Whether companies are food producers, high-tech
manufacturers of silicon wafers, providers of outdoor recreation or beer manufacturers,
businesses rely on clean water to produce safe, high-quality products.

I applaud the EPA for taking steps to clarify that small streams, wetlands and other tributaries are
protected by the Act. Degradation and loss of wetlands and small streams can increase the risk of
floods, seriously threatening businesses. Moreover, dirty, polluted water creates unnecessary and
sometimes very difficult economic challenges for communities and businesses alike. This action
by the EPA is good for the environment and good for business.

119

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

The Clean Water Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families,
our communities, and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to
operate. Streams and wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting,
agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic
drivers and we all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and
carries pollutants with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection
from pollution and destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking
water from streams that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the
vital headwaters that flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly
protected. Millions of acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and
provide habitat for fish and wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #14011 [18,459 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment America (email) -
Identified as Environment America - al

All our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from and swim in without risk of
pollution — from our local rivers and streams, to iconic waters like the Chesapeake Bay and the
Great Lakes. Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left many of our smaller
waters unprotected, including those that feed and filter the drinking water for 117 million
Americans.

Thank you for taking a major step forward to restore Clean Water Act protections to America's
streams and wetlands and for your commitment to protecting our waterways.

Please move forward as quickly as possible to finalize a strong rule that will restore Clean Water
Act protections to all America's waterways and protect our environment and health.

120

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Doc. #14012 [569 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership (email) - Identified as Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership - cl

To whom it may concern, and Environmental Protection Agency,

I am a sportsman who relies on healthy fisheries and vibrant, working wetlands to enjoy quality
time in the field hunting and fishing. The Clean Water Act is the best tool we have to protect
these waters, and I support current efforts to clarify this law.

Many of the waters at risk of pollution and destruction today are smaller streams that are critical
fish habitat and spawning grounds and wetlands that provide nesting habitat for most of the
waterfowl in America. In addition, wetlands and headwater streams are integral parts of our
watersheds: They supply drinking water to more than 117 million Americans and are important
to the overall health of downstream aquatic resources.

We must protect these waters to support our outdoor heritage and promote public health for
generations to come. I urge you to restore Clean Water Act protections to these waters.

Agency Response

121

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, and to provide important habitat for
fish and wildlife, the smaller streams and wetlands that feed them have to be clean too. This
is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is informed by a review of more than
1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. This well-established body
of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands are important to the long-term
health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule protects these waters.

Doc. #14013 [1,960 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment California and
Wisconsin Environment (email)!

Dear McCarthy,

Our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from, and swim in without risk of
pollution. Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left many of our waters
unprotected, including those that feed and filter the drinking water for 117 million Americans.

Thank you for taking a major step forward to restore Clean Water Act protections to America's
streams and wetlands and for your commitment to protecting our waterways.

Please move forward as quickly as possible to finalize a strong rule that will restore Clean Water
Act protections to America's waterways and protect our environment and health.

Agency Response

Doc. #14014 [116 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Amigos Bravosl

Dear EPA,

122

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

As someone who is concerned about clean water in New Mexico's rivers, streams and lakes I am
writing to urge you to finalize the proposed Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. rule.

Clean water protections for many of New Mexico's waters have been in question for more than a
decade. This rule would clarify that tributary streams, including those that are intermittent and
ephemeral, are protected. This is critically important here in the arid southwest because over
90% of our rivers and streams are not perennial.

Water is precious in New Mexico. Every drop is used to nourish our communities, wildlife, and
landscape. Preserving our sources of clean water is essential for protecting our way of life. I urge
you to further strengthen the final rule to fully protect wetlands and other waters found outside of
the floodplain of covered waterways. Science shows that the health of these waters influences
stream flow, water quality and wildlife in waters downstream. I am especially concerned about
ensuring that waters in closed basins and playa lakes are again protected as they once were. I
urge you to explore avenues for restoring these protections.

Agency Response

Doc. #14015 [102 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Audubon Naturalist Societvl

Dear EPA:

123

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The Clean Water Act of 1972 intended to protect ALL small streams and wetlands in the United
States from pollution.

I care about clean water and the health of our local streams, wetlands and our drinking water
supply. My family and friends hike along these streams and recognize the importance of them to
our neighborhoods and the quality of our lives. Our drinking water supply in the DC metro area
depends on the small streams that drain into the Potomac River and other nearby rivers or
reservoirs.

Please finalize this rule to increase protection for our streams and wetlands.

Agency Response

Doc. #14016 [2,386 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility
(email)

Dear McCarthy,

Clean water is essential to all communities. Safe drinking water is a public health issue.

Thousands of U.S. residents become ill each year from drinking water contaminated with human
and animal waste, pesticides, and heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. Bacteria or parasites in
drinking water pose health risks of waterborne diseases, which some studies estimate to affect 7
million or more people each year.

We need the Clean Water Act to be as strong as possible and protect the streams and wetlands
that are the headwaters for the drinking water supplies for thousands of Americans.

124

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Science demonstrates that upstream sources — wetlands, lakes, and other waters — act together to
significantly influence the quality of downstream waters by contributing clean water for
drinking, irrigation, and recreation, filtering pollution, and reducing downstream treatment costs.

Also, as the climate changes and we see more extreme weather events, wetlands can serve as an
invaluable protection against flooding with its resultant accidents and spread of disease, as well
as high-turbidity episodes of silt-laden water that cannot be treated to drinking water quality.

I support a strong science-based, health-protective Waters of the U.S. regulation. I urge you to
finalize the rule as soon as possible and reinstate public health protections for our water sources
that were taken away years ago.

Agency Response

Doc. #14017 [740 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Rogue Riverkeeperl

To Whom It May Concern:

I support the EPA's work implementing the Clean Water Act that protects clean water that all
American's depend on for healthy swimming, drinking and fishing. I am writing today regarding
the proposed Waters of the United States rule. A strong, clear definition is essential to protecting
our nation's waters. The definition of "waters of the United States" must protect all streams,
wetlands, tributaries, lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and coastal waters from pollution to the fullest
extent allowed by law as intended by Congress.

Not only does this rulemaking effort need to proceed, but EPA needs to strengthen the definition
of "waters of the U.S." and remove certain limitations and exemptions that will undermine
important Clean Water Act protections.

125

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

All tributaries, including headwater streams, intermittent/ephemeral streams and ditched or
channelized streams, should be protected. Protection of headwater streams is essential to
maintaining downstream water quality in watersheds throughout the country.

Furthermore, ditches should not be categorically exempt because pollution from ditches harm
our rivers, lakes and streams. For example, huge farms currently discharge animal waste into
ditches that directly discharge to streams and rivers, and EPA is currently proposing to exempt
those ditches under the current draft rule. Exemption of waters that have long been protected by
the Clean Water Act would endanger public health and the environment, including drinking
water supplies, recreational users and fisheries. If EPA exempts waters from clean water
protections to accommodate agribusiness advocates, it would affect Clean Water Act protections
for a broad range of other pollution sources.

Please improve the proposed rule to increase protections for our critically important waterways
and all tributary streams from pollution.

Agency Response

Regarding ditches, in response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for
ditches to provide greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term
"upland" in the rule created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In
order to increase clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion
language states: "(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a
tributary; (B) intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a
tributary or drain wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through
another water, into a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A
ditch that meets any one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States.
Further, the rule also clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise
meets the terms describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4)
through (a)(8) of the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a
jurisdictional water of the United States if wetland characteristics developed in the bottom

126

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

of the ditch. However, if a ditch is excavated in or relocates a covered tributary, it would be
considered jurisdictional.

Doc. #14018 [199 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 241

I support the clean water rule because I care about quality of life where I live - clean drinking
water, healthy creeks, and seafood that is safe to eat.

This rule is a common sense solution to the uncertainty created by several court decisions
regarding the Clean Water Act. By clarifying which waters are protected, and which are not, we
are protecting both business and important drinking water sources.

Please support the rule as written - for all of our families.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The final Clean Water
Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities,
and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #14019 [105 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 251

Dear Administrator McCarthy & Assistant Secretary Darcy:

As a citizen that cares about clean water and the value it provides to our communities, I support
the new Clean Water Act rules proposed by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Clean Water Act has been one of our most important tools for cleaning up polluted waters
and preventing new pollution. However, court rulings in recent years have resulted in confusion
over which streams and wetlands are protected. Now, clarification on what waterways are and

127

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

are not protected under the Clean Water Act is needed. This rule makes it clear that Clean Water
Act protections apply to small headwater streams that flow into larger rivers and to wetlands
adjacent to these rivers.

These small streams and wetlands help reduce flooding, supply drinking water, filter pollution
and provide critical support and habitat for fish and wildlife in downstream waters.

Please approve the proposed Clean Water Act rules, and help ensure cleaner water that benefits
our communities, businesses, public health and quality of life.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The Clean Water Rule
strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities, and
our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #14020 [53 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Mineral Owners - bl

As a mineral owner I oppose the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers rule to clarify the definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the
Clean Water Act. This proposal presumes EPA Clean Water Act authority over most ditches,
ponds, isolated low-lying wet areas, and dry gulches that carry water only after heavy rain. It is
one of the most egregious examples of federal regulatory overreach in memory. It will cost the
U.S. economy billions of dollars and add several thousand dollars in surface compliance costs to
every oil and gas well drilled to develop my private property. It will reduce the economic
viability of my private minerals and will decrease not only my family income, but also the tax
revenue flowing to the U.S. Treasury, states and communities nationwide. This rule is fatally
flawed and must be rejected.

128

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways, erosional features
such as and non-wetland swales and rills, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins
constructed in dry land.

Regarding ditches, ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as
"waters of the United States" since the late 1970s. In 1977, the United States Congress
acknowledged that ditches could be covered under the CWA when it amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to exempt specific activities in ditches from the need to obtain
a CWA section 404 permit, including "construction or maintenance of...irrigation ditches,
or the maintenance of drainage ditches" (33 U.S.C. §1344). By these actions, Congress did
not eliminate CWA jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities
taking place in them from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term "upland" in the rule
created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In order to increase
clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion language states:
"(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; (B)
intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or drain
wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a
water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics developed in the bottom of the ditch.

129

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #14021 [16 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 261

Dear OW-Docket,

I just signed Caleb Laieski's petition "Keep Factories Away From Our Waterways" on
Change.org.

Dear Honorable Leadership, I am writing to urge your administration to enact a policy that
would require polluters to be at least one mile away from any waterway or body of water. I
would encourage this ban to prohibit Mining and Fracking Projects, Sewage Treatment Plants,
Coal/Power Plants and all major factories and polluters from being within one mile of any body
of water. We have had several recent incidents with companies dumping large amounts of
sewage, garbage and waste into our waterways and it is not acceptable. This policy would help
prevent companies from dumping waste and pollution into our waterways. Thank you for your
time and I look forward to your agency considering this suggestion. Keep up the important fight.
Regards,

Agency Response

Your comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

Doc. #14147 [102 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 291

I have significant concerns regarding how the proposed rule redefining 'waters of the United
States,' published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the agencies) for public comment will impact my company. The proposed rule
contains a complicated set of new regulatory definitions and ambiguous exclusions, as described
below. The proposal asserts federal control over waters that were previously under the sole
jurisdiction of the states, including many ditches, conveyances, isolated waters, and other wet
features.

The EPA and the Corps' proposed rule would overhaul the fundamental term 'waters of the
United States' for all sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The new definitions would apply
to many CWA programs administered by EPA, the Corps and the states, including Section 303
state water quality standards, Section 311 oil spill prevention control and countermeasures,
Section 401 state water quality certifications, Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits, and the Section 404 dredge and fill permit
program - as well as various reporting requirements under the National Contingency Plan for
CERCLA and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). These programs regulate many types of construction
activities across the nation and will therefore have a direct and significant impact on our

130

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

operations. The EPA has not provided any meaningful analysis of the potential for impact on
CWA programs other than the Section 404 program.

Looking at just the CWA Section 404 program, under current conditions, securing individual
permit coverage typically takes more than a year, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and
requires the support of expert technical consultants, and often lawyers. The current program also
imposes certain avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements. In addition, the act of
applying for permit coverage triggers mandatory consultation with multiple state and federal
agencies under, for example, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. In light of the scope of the proposed
jurisdictional expansion, it will be nearly impossible for my company to develop public or
private land containing drainage ditches, stormwater control basins, ponds or other water features
that are arguably subject to the rule's expansive jurisdictional reach without first obtaining a
costly federal CWA permit.

Specifically, I have serious objections to the regulatory language that would, for the first time,
categorically claim ditches as 'waters of the United States/ Notwithstanding the exclusions in
the proposal, CWA jurisdiction would reach many ephemeral ditches (e.g., roadside, irrigation,
stormwater) that serve limited aquatic functions and values, and may flow only intermittently
and indirectly over a great distance to reach navigable water. The proposal would trigger
additional CWA requirements (e.g., Section 404 dredge and fill permits) before any construction
work could be performed in the frequently dry channels that run along the 3.9 million miles of
roads in our U.S. highway system. (Roadside ditches that make up a 'Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System' and drain runoff already are covered by the CWA's NPDES program.) This
would slow economic growth by delaying and increasing the cost of vital public and private
infrastructure repairs currently underway in every state and major city across the nation. It would
also put more motorists at risk and cause harm to downstream receiving waters. Permit
authorization and compensatory mitigation would likely be required just to maintain the
important functions of ditches that serve to convey, re-distribute and filter out the pollutants in
stormwater runoff.

I also oppose any regulatory language that would extend CWA jurisdiction to stormwater control
basins and ponds of any size or function that ultimately drain to an otherwise regulated 'water of
the United States.' It is unclear whether or not such stormwater controls would qualify for any of
the exclusions in the proposal. On a majority of regulated construction sites, current NPDES
permit requirements have led contractors to build temporary basins to hold rainwater that has
'run off the surrounding job site and slowly release it to receiving waters via an outlet control
structure and/or under-drainage system. EPA is now pushing cities to require that contractors
build permanent structural controls to treat, store, and infiltrate runoff onsite before it enters the
municipal storm sewer system. These stormwater control systems would, under this proposed
regulation, become 'waters of the United States,' forcing construction site operators to create
federally jurisdictional waters on their property to meet other requirements of the CWA.

Moreover, with this proposed rule, the agencies are effectively shifting the burden to the
regulated community to prove the application of the limited and ambiguous exclusions on a
caseby-case basis. This point is particularly prominent with regard to the exclusions for' water-

131

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

filled depressions incidental to construction activity and 'water-filled depressions excavated on
dry land for the purposes of obtaining sand and gravel/ Old maps and aerial photos may be the
only sources available to identify historic conditions in order to resolve third-party allegations of
violations of federal CWA laws; however, these tools often lack the level of resolution required
to make a proper determination. It will ultimately be up to the regulated community to provide
compelling evidence that an uneven surface area on the land (i.e., man-made wet area) first came
about during construction activity, or face complicated and layered reviews, costly penalties or
even citizen suits.

Another troubling aspect of this proposed rule is that the EPA chose not to wait for a final peer
review of their 'Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and
Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence' study. This study has been touted as the basis of the
proposed rule, but has not yet been peer reviewed by the EPA s own Science Advisory Board
(SAB). Additionally, EPA's economic analysis seriously underestimates impacted acreage and
completely ignores impacts to non-404 programs. Recognizing that state and local governments
are managing water resources that are not under federal control, it is unclear why the agencies
rushed through these and other important procedural steps designed to ensure that businesses like
mine are protected.

In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA and the Corps state that key U.S. Supreme Court
decisions 'resulted in the agencies evaluating the jurisdiction of waters on a case-specific basis
far more frequently than is best for clear and efficient implementation of the CWA' and that,
through this rulemaking, the 'agencies are providing clarity to regulated entities as to whether
individual water bodies' are or are not jurisdictional and discharges are or are not subject to
permitting.' I respectfully disagree with this finding. The proposal leaves many key concepts
unclear, undefined, or subject to agency discretion, resulting in more confusion for contractors in
the field, not less.

Agency Response

The Clean Water Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families,
our communities, and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to
operate. Streams and wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting,
agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing. The agencies' economic analysis
indicates that indirect incremental benefits exceed indirect incremental costs.

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades. In this final rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the
country to make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to
understand, more predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

The final rule reflects that the scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the
stream channels and riparian/floodplain wetlands or open waters that together form river

132

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

networks are clearly connected to downstream waters in ways that profoundly influence
downstream water integrity. However, the connectivity and effects of non-floodplain
wetlands and open waters are more variable and thus more difficult to address solely from
evidence available in peer-reviewed studies. The final rule provides for case-specific
determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the agencies'
assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial
seas.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. Waters that flow in response to seasonal or
individual precipitation events are jurisdictional tributaries only if they contribute flow,
either directly or indirectly, to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the
territorial sea, and they possess the physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary
high water mark, which may be spatially discontinuous. A bed and banks and other
indicators of ordinary high water mark are physical indicators of water flow and are only
created by sufficient and regular intervals of flow. These physical indicators can be created
by perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral flows. Where such features do not contribute
flow downstream and/or do not have a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, they are
not jurisdictional tributaries. To further emphasize this point, the rule expressly indicates
in paragraph (b) that ephemeral reaches that do not meet the definition of tributary are
not "waters of the United States."

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land.

Regarding ditches, ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as
"waters of the United States" since the late 1970s. In 1977, the United States Congress
acknowledged that ditches could be covered under the CWA when it amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to exempt specific activities in ditches from the need to obtain
a CWA section 404 permit, including "construction or maintenance of...irrigation ditches,
or the maintenance of drainage ditches" (33 U.S.C. §1344). By these actions, Congress did
not eliminate CWA jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities
taking place in them from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term "upland" in the rule
created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In order to increase
clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion language states:
"(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; (B)
intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or drain
wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a

133

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics developed in the bottom of the ditch.

Where a ditch is excavated in or relocates a covered tributary, only the segment of the
ditch actually excavated in or relocating the covered tributary would be considered
jurisdictional. For example, an entire roadside ditch does not become subject to
jurisdiction because a portion of it is excavated in or relocates a tributary.

As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an
intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified
which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502. Finally, the agencies note that if an activity takes
place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does
not need a CWA permit.

Doc. #14435 [10,813 on-time duplicates, sponsored by TakePart.com (web) - Identified as
TakePart.com - al

To: Environmental Protection Agency

I urge you to finalize the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed Clean Water Act, Waters of the U.S. rule, as soon as possible, follow the science that
shows how water bodies are interconnected, and fully protect all of the waterways that have
important connections to one another.

Basic clean water protections for headwater streams and wetlands have been in question for too
long. I strongly support protecting the nation's streams, ponds, wetlands, and other waters from
pollution. The proposed rule is an important step toward achieving this goal. Preserving our
sources of clean drinking water is of the utmost importance. Finalizing a strong rule will secure
Clean Water Act protections for countless streams and wetlands, which help supply the drinking
water of more than 117 million Americans.

The rule as proposed is a major improvement. I urge you to further strengthen the final rule to
fully protect wetlands and other waters found outside the floodplain of covered waterways.
Science shows that the health of these waters influences stream flow, water quality, and wildlife
in waters downstream.

I urge you to continue to stand up to special interests that oppose these important and popular
clean water protections.

134

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

EPA has already received more than 100,000 letters in support of moving forward with this rule
to protect streams, wetlands, rivers, and other waters from pollution or destruction. Hunting and
angling organizations, public health professionals, and hundreds more local elected officials,
farmers, citizens, brewers, and other business leaders have spoken out in support of enhanced
protections. As one of the many supporters of this critical initiative to protect our waters from
pollution, I thank you and urge you to finalize a strong Waters of the U.S. rule that includes full
protection for the nation's waters as soon as possible.

Agency Response

Doc. #14436 [47 late duplicates, sponsored by Choose Clean Water Coalition (DVD)l

This media is not available in Regulations.gov. Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be

made as follows:

In person/writing:

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center
1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334
Washington, DC. 20004
Telephone:

202-566-1744

Fax:

202-566- 9744
Email:

docket-customerservice@epa.gov

135

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

There is no comment contained in this docket number.

Doc. #14437 [106 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Rural Coalition et al. (webVI

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

We, the 106 undersigned organizations, who use and depend on our rivers systems from the
headwaters, wetlands and tributaries to floodplains and bays, call on you to put the Clean Water
Act (CWA) back to work on all U.S. waters. We join our diverse voices with the farmers,
ranchers, and other rural leaders quoted herein and undersigned, in a joint call to EPA to restore
clarity by approving a final Waters of the USA rule.

We support the rule for the reasons Mr. Alfonzo Abeyta, a fifth generation Colorado rancher,
highlights in a new video on why restoring CWA protection is important for agriculture and rural
communities: 11 "Farmers know that everything is connected. Snow from the mountains feeds the
streams. The streams feed the rivers. The rivers feed us. You can 7 grow food without water
without water nothing survives it is our job to protect it. " (http://www. rmfu. ors/colorado-
farmer-r-e-m-featured-in-waters-of-the-u-s-video/)

We support the Clean Water Act because it has worked in every state improving water quality,
stemming the loss of wetlands and safeguarding streams, lakes and wetlands. That is, it worked
until two Supreme Court decisions Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC)
v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) and Rapanos v. United States (2006) created uncertainty
regarding what waters are protected, and curtailed CWAs scope.

Water is the lifeblood for agriculture, small businesses and recreation. We don't want to go back
to the day when two-thirds of our waterways were too polluted for fishing, swimming or
drinking. Therefore those of us in rural communities, agriculture and other small business need
the full protection of the Clean Water Act restored to the countless miles of tributary and
seasonal streams, wetlands and rivers that sustain our communities.

Communities need a strong CWA to address severe and continuing threats like chemicals from
mining operations that leaked arsenic into the Alamosa River in Colorado, killing all the fish and
compromising the water supply; the arsenic, boron, chromium, and manganese from coal ash,
dumped for years into the Dan River by Duke Energy, exceeding the facility's "compliance
boundary and polluting rural water supplies; as well as the tides of phosphorus washed from
fertilized farms, cattle feedlots and leaky septic systems upstream that contributed to an algae
bloom in Lake Erie which compromised water sources for the cities. We are concerned about the
growing contamination in many areas that leaves waterways still too polluted to sustain
agriculture, recreation and many other uses.

11 Video clip (1:10 - 1:22): "Farmers know that everything is connected. Snow from the mountains feed the streams.
The streams feed the rivers. The rivers feed us. You can't grow food without water.. .it is our job to protect it."
(http://www.rmfu.org/colorado-farmer-r-e-m-featured-in-waters-of-the-u-s-videoA

136

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

As producers and others who depend on clean water, we know well that how water is cared for
upstream affects river systems downstream. Small streams feed our local sources of drinking
water and support traditional irrigation systems and agriculture for tribal, acequia, historic land
grant and our diverse farming communities. Wetlands protect our communities from flooding,
and support fish, wildlife, livestock and recreation. The entire river system provides drinking

12

water sources in rural areas and cities alike, and is vital to small businesses as well.

We support the rule because we recognize our shared responsibility to protect our entire river
systems including the streams and wetlands that nourish the rivers for fishing, boating,
recreation, flood control, local water systems and to meet the needs of our com-munities, our
farmers, ranches and fishers, our businesses, and protect these bioregions for future generations.

Many of the undersigned groups have submitted their own comments supporting the completion
of the rulemaking process while proposing specific and beneficial improvements. We believe
EPA should take these views into account in issuing the final rule.

As farmers and small businesses that share the water, we need a regulatory scheme that is clear,
predictable, timely, and focused on protecting aquatic resources. We support the rules
exemptions for commonplace farm and ranch operations and incentives for voluntary
conservation practices. We also urge EPA and NRCS to review and retain all of the exemptions
and exclusions from the Clean Water Act for the farming and agriculture community including
exempting them from the need to obtain a 404 permit when using any of 56 conservation
practices - practices that are good for farmers, ranchers, and for clean water.

We further urge the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the USD A Natural Resources and
Conservation Service to strengthen protections and include resources in the rule to protect the
rights of Tribal nations and traditional acequia and land grant communities, to uphold
requirements for tribal consultation and action, and to help acequia and land grant communities
and all diverse farmers and ranchers comply with the rule.

We all—in the agriculture, rural, environmental, conservation, sports men and women and
business communities—support this rule and accept our shared responsibility to protect the water
that one in three people in this nation depend upon to live. Final approval of the "Waters of the
U.S." rule - with improvements proposed in the comment process - would provide clarity that
we as a society depend up clean water and the essential benefits that it brings to communities,
residents, fish, wildlife, and plants. We urge you to finalize this rule expeditiously to restore
protections to many of the waters originally protected by the Clean Water Act and ensure the
health of our waterways. We don't want to go backwards.

12 A national scientific poll conducted for the American Sustainable Business Council found 80% of small business
owners favor federal protection of upstream headwaters and wetlands as proposed in the new "Waters of the U.S."
rule. Support for clean water was broad and deep regardless of political affiliation—78% of Republicans and 73% of
independents, joined 91% of Democrats in supporting the clarifying of federal rules to apply to head— land waters
and wetlands. 71% of small business owners said that clean water is necessary for jobs and a healthy economy, 67%
are concerned that water pollution could hurt their business in the future and 62% say that government regulation is
needed to prevent water pollution. (Poll conducted by Lake Research Partners, on June 4— 10, 2014, of small
business owners (2 to 99 employees), with a margin of error of +/— 4.2%, is available online here:
http ://bit.ly/CleanW aterReport

137

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers and producers in providing the nation with
food and fiber and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the
agencies to minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community,
and recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. The rule does not affect or modify in any
way the many existing statutory exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for
agriculture.

We also note that States and tribes, consistent with the CWA, retain full authority to
implement their own programs to more broadly and more fully protect the waters in their
jurisdiction. Under section 510 of the CWA, unless expressly stated, nothing in the CWA
precludes or denies the right of any state or tribe to establish more protective standards or
limits than the Federal CWA. Many states and tribes, for example, regulate groundwater,
and some others protect wetlands that are vital to their environment and economy but
which are outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the CWA. Nothing in this rule limits or
impedes any existing or future state or tribal efforts to further protect their waters. In fact,
providing greater clarity regarding what waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction will
reduce the need for permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized
section 402 and 404 CWA permitting programs, to make jurisdictional determinations on a
case-specific basis.

138

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #14438 [478 on-time duplicates, sponsored by North Carolina Cattlemen's Association
(email)

Dear EPA/Corps,

As a landowner who must use the land to make a living and fee the world, I am disappointed at
your proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) rule redefining "waters of the United States." As a cattle
farmer, I am proud to be the primary steward of the natural resources on my property. I strive to
care for the air and the water because the well-being of my cattle, and my family, depend upon it.
That care does NOT and should NOT require a federal permit each time my cattle walk through
a damp spot, or I drive my tractor across the pasture. The new effect of such a regulation will not
be an improvement to the environment, but will place an enormous burden on landowners like
myself. Please consider the following comments in evaluating the need for the rule.

First, the definition as proposed is illegal based on the Commerce Clause of the U.S.

Second, the proposed definition annihilates the federalist system that underpins the CWA. There
is a line at which point the states must be allowed to take over. This proposal has obliterated that
important and fundamental line. By expanding the definition of tributary, expanding the
definition of "adjacent" and expanding the category of "adjacent wetlands" to "adjacent waters,"
you have delive3red a devastating blow to my family farm. Administrator McCarthy has told
farmers and ranchers to "just read the proposal"; well I have. I am not only concerned about the
ability of agency regulators being able to apply vague terms and phrases to wrap every wet
depression on my place into the definition of WOTUS, but I am left in an even more confused
state than under the status quo. You have filed, miserable in fact, at providing the "clarity" you
purport to want to achieve.

Third, the agencies are wrong that the proposal will not have an impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Almost the entire cattle industry is composed of small businesses. Most, like
mine, are family-run and the families that run them are not millionaires. We work hard every day
to keep our cattle and our families in good health. Regulations, like this one your propose, make
it hard to keep our small businesses financially viable. More red tape is the last thing my farm
needs, because it gets in the way of me putting environmentally-friendly practices on the ground,
many of which are not included in your list of 56. This proposal will have a negative impact on
my small business and hundreds of thousands like it across the country.

In sum, I believe the EPA and the Corps should not finalize their proposed definition for "waters
of the U.S.," and should scrap the entire rule. There are too many fundamental problems with the
proposal. By starting fresh, the agencies could potentially have meaningful dialogue and

139

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

outreach with the cattle industry. As proposed it violates the law, will not benefit the
environment, and will have a negative impact on our family farm and on other small businesses
like mine.

Agency Response

Protection of aquatic ecosystems, Congress recognized, demanded broad federal authority
to control pollution, for '[w]ater moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential that
discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.' In keeping with these views, Congress
chose to define the waters covered by the Act broadly." Id. at 132-33 (citing Senate Report
92-414). The Court also recognized that "[i]n determining the limits of its power to regulate
discharges under the Act, the Corps must necessarily choose some point at which water
ends and land begins."

140

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as "waters of the United
States" since the late 1970s. In 1977, the United States Congress acknowledged that ditches
could be covered under the CWA when it amended the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to exempt specific activities in ditches from the need to obtain a CWA section 404
permit, including "construction or maintenance of...irrigation ditches, or the maintenance
of drainage ditches" (33 U.S.C. §1344). By these actions, Congress did not eliminate CWA
jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities taking place in them
from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

Where a ditch is excavated in or relocates a covered tributary, only the segment of the
ditch actually excavated in or relocating the covered tributary would be considered
jurisdictional. For example, an entire roadside ditch does not become subject to
jurisdiction because a portion of it is excavated in or relocates a tributary.

141

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The rule has also expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the
United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled
depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-
wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Finally, the agencies note that if an activity takes place outside the waters of the United
States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or
not it was part of an established farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Regarding impacts to small entities, the EPA and the Corps determined to seek wide input
from representatives of small entities while formulating the proposed and final definition of
this term that reflects the intent of Congress consistent with the mandate of the Supreme
Court's decisions. Such outreach, although voluntary, is also consistent with the President's
January 18, 2011 Memorandum on Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job
Creation, which emphasizes the important role small businesses play in the American
economy. This process enabled the agencies to hear directly from these representatives,
throughout the rule development, about how they should approach this complex question
of statutory interpretation, together with related issues that such representatives of small
entities may identify for possible consideration in separate proceedings. The agencies
prepared a report summarizing their small entity outreach, the results of this outreach,
and how these results have informed the development of this rule. This report, Final
Summary of the Discretionary Small Entity Outreach for the Revised Definition of Waters
of the United States (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-1927), is available in the
docket.

142

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #14439 [52,083 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Evangelical Environmental Network
(email) I

Please find our over 109,000 comments from 52,083 unique individuals. I am attaching the
number of comments (who signed the petition), the petition language, the unique individuals and
comments from our website through November 14 2014.

As pro-life Christians, we believe that it is essential that the water we give our children is clean
and pure. We urge the EPA and Congress to do everything you can to make sure that all of our
waters, especially our headwaters, are protected.

Keep Our Water Safe

fr 00 0J 01 1! -

One Mom Shares What Clean Water Means to Her
Family

"Could I have some water?" It's a question nearly every parent hears before bedtime or after an
afternoon playing outside.

Keep Our Water Safe for Our KidsrClick here to Sign the Petition Below

Parents need to be able to trust that the
water we give our kids is clean and healthy.

That's why the Reagan administration put

protections in place to keep pollutants out of the headwaters that serve as the source
for our local water supplies.

Unfortunately, in recent years special interests have pushed to dismantle many of these
protections that have kept our families safe for decades.

Join pro-life Christians across the country urging our leaders to keep our waterways clean and
pure. Sign the petition below by clicking here. Then share why this is important to you on
Facebook and Twitter.

In Christ,

Rev. Mitch Hescox

143

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

PETITION

As pro-life Christians, we believe that it is essentia! that the water we
give our children is clean arid pure. We urge the EPA and Congress
to do everything you can to make sure that all of our waters,
especially our headwaters, are protected.

Click Here To Sign Your Name

Agency Response

Doc. #14662 [24 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment America (email) -
Identified as Environment America - bl

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy,

As a small business owner who relies on clean water, I urge you to finalize your rule to restore
critical Clean Water Act protections to waterways nationwide.

From recreational business owners to restaurateurs, we all know that clean water is critical to our
economy and the vitality of our communities. In addition, I personally depend on clean water for
my business. The health of our iconic waterways and stewardship of America's water resources
are integral to our economic success as well as our quality of life.

Shortsighted Supreme Court decisions opened up loopholes in the Clean Water Act, leaving the
smaller waterways that feed into the larger rivers we love and the drinking water for 117 million
Americans at risk of unchecked pollution. Our major waterways are only as clean as the streams

144

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

and wetlands that feed into them, and more than half of streams across the country currently are
inadequately protected.

To protect our waters, I urge you to move forward to finalize a rule to restore critical protections
to all these waters under the Clean Water Act.

By restoring the Clean Water Act, your administration will help ensure that our communities are
healthy and our local economies are strong.

I appreciate your commitment to protecting America's waterways, and I hope you will move
swiftly to ensure they are protected for years to come.

Agency Response

Doc. #14715 [1,073 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment America (email) -
Identified as Environment America - c 1

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy,

Our iconic rivers are part of what make Oregon such a great place to live.

Unfortunately loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left more than 61,000 miles of Oregon's
streams at risk - the same streams that feed our rives, such as the Rogue and the Deschutes.

uThis letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

145

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

To ensure all our waterways are protected, we urge you to close loopholes in the Clean Water
Act now.

Agency Response

Doc. #14716 [97 on-time duplicates, sponsored by American Sustainable Business Council
(email)!

Dear policymaker,

As a business leader, I support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule on
water safety because it will give the business community more confidence that vital sources of
clean water will be protected and will provide a consistent regulatory system based on sound
science.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The Clean Water Rule
strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities, and

146

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #14717 [13 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment America (email) -
Identified as Environment America - d14l

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy:

As a farmer, I write to thank you for proposing a rule to restore critical Clean Water Act
protections to waterways nationwide. I urge you to finalize the rule quickly to ensure our
waterways get the protection they deserve.

From cattle-ranchers to blueberry farmers, all farmers know how critically important clean water
is to our livelihoods and the vitality of our communities. Across the country, farmers depend on
clean water for crops, livestock, drinking water, and the wellbeing of our families.

Beginning in 1972, the Clean Water Act protected all of the nation's waters, from small,
unnamed streams to our greatest waterways coast to coast. But now, because of two bitterly
divided Supreme Court decisions, uncertainty threatens countless critical resources with
unchecked pollution, including headwater streams, tributaries, and wetlands.

The threat is enormous. According to EPA data, the drinking water sources of 117 million
Americans may no longer be protected. Our major waterways are only as clean as the streams
and wetlands that feed into them, and more than half our country's streams are now inadequately
protected from pollution.

Another major concern for farmers is protecting our wetlands. Wetlands are crucial to lessen the
severity of flooding. An acre of wetlands can typically hold at least 1 million gallons of flood
water. Over the last few years, severe floods have struck farmers and rural communities across

14 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

147

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

the heartland and in New England, devastating crops and families' homes. These floods could
become more severe unless our wetlands are clearly protected by the Clean Water Act.

To protect our cherished waters, I urge you to move forward with a rulemaking to restore critical
protections to these waters under the Clean Water Act and reaffirm the scope of the Clean Water
Act that existed for more than three decades.

By restoring the Clean Water Act, that your administration can put us back on track to be a
country where all farmers can depend on clean water for their crops and livestock, and all
Americans will have access to water that is safe for swimming, fishing, and drinking.

I appreciate your commitment to protecting America's waterways, and I hope you will move
quickly to ensure they are protected for years to come.

Agency Response

Doc. #14718 [3,567 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment America - Identified as
Environment America - e15l

* This letter is one example of the Mass Mailer submitted with this campaign.

15 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

148

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy,

Our iconic waterways make California a great place to live.

Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left California's smaller waterways
unprotected, putting the places we swim, fish and boat at risk of toxic pollution.

To ensure all our waterways are protected, we urge you to close loopholes in the Clean Water
Act now.

Agency Response

Doc. #14719 [4,572 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
Identified as Takepart.com - bl

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

149

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Clean Water Act protections for countless streams and wetlands, which help supply the drinking
water of more than 117 million Americans.

I urge you to continue to stand up to special interests that oppose these important—and
popular—clean water protections.

Agency Response

Doc. #16478 [14 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Hutchens Construction Company!

To Whom It May Concern:

150

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

We are representatives of Hutchens Construction Company located in Southwest Missouri and
Northwest Arkansas and write to raise major concerns over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and EPA's proposed rule to revise their definition of "Waters of the United States" under the
Clean Water Act. Our company, like many others in the industry, produces aggregates utilized
for critical infrastructure projects including highways, bridges and mass transit, as well as
environmental applications such as wastewater treatment, sewage control and drinking water
facilities.

Hutchens Construction Company owns and operates 4 Limestone Quarries located in Barry
County, MO and routinely obtains aggregate materials from a number of other producers located
throughout Southwest Missouri and Northwest Arkansas. These combined operations support
approximately 100 employees annually.

Quality aggregates are formed in specific areas, often in floodplains and dry stream beds that do
not have a discernible surface hydrologic connection to flowing streams and rivers.
Determination of the CWA's scope is critical to our company, impacting the costs of planning,
financing, constructing and operating aggregate facilities. Our major concerns with the proposed
rule are as follows:

•	The proposed rule would sweep in many marginally aquatic areas that only have a remote
and insubstantial impact on traditional navigable waters. In effect, the rule removes
"significant nexus" and replaces it with "any nexus."

•	The proposed rule allows the Corps field staff to make jurisdictional determinations
based on "desktop" studies without gathering site-specific information which will likely
lead to arbitrary and inconsistent determinations by Corps field staff.

•	Contrary to the claims of the EPA and the Corps, the proposed rule will actually cause
more confusion than clarity. The agencies "categorical" inclusion of all tributaries
defined by an observed "mark" on the landscape and its regulation of wetlands and waters
adjacent to tributaries based on vague "neighboring," "riparian," "floodplain" and
"shallow subsurface" connection criteria makes it virtually impossible to know what
areas are regulated and what areas are not.

•	The proposed rule's "watershed aggregation" approach in defining "significant nexus"
will lead to increased regulation of remote and ephemeral areas and increased mining
costs without providing any discernible ecological benefit.

•	The exclusions in the proposed rule (particularly for ditches) do not provide any real
clarity. While the proposed rule purports to exclude "drainage ditches," such ditches can
be regulated if they perform as intended by conveying water away from a site even
indirectly to a navigable water. Many existing drainage ditches would become subject to
onerous permitting and costly mitigation requirements.

•	The agency's reliance on its "connectivity study" essentially transforms a handpicked
aggyegation of scientific studies into the controlling legal interpretation of "waters of the
United States." The legal interpretation should start with the limits set out by Justice
Kennedy in his Rapanos opinion and determine how scientific evidence should be
interpreted to define a "bright line" between "any nexus" and "significant nexus."

•	EPA's economic analysis does not take into account the real costs of permitting and
mitigation and must be redone. EPA and the Corps must also convene a Small Business

151

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Regulatory Flexibility Act panel as required by law to assess the impacts on small
businesses that make up 70 % of NSSGA's membership.

• The proposed rule is so expansive that it will trigger numerous additional environmental
reviews to address such issues as endangered species and historic preservation, which
will make it even more difficult and costly for our company to ensure timely supply of
aggregates for public works projects essential to economic recovery.

• The proposed rule lacks any "grandfathering" provision. Our mine plans often call for
long-term, phased mining which depend on regulatory certainty to make sound business
decisions. Without clear grandfathering language, our mine plans are now at risk of being
subject to new and expansive jurisdictional determinations.

While we pride ourselves as being environmentally responsible, the broadened scope of the rule
would directly impact our operations, with little environmental benefit. These impacts would
increase costs on public works projects, so these increased costs are borne by the taxpayer. The
ability of our company to efficiently provide needed materials for critical infrastructure
such a roads, bridges and flood control projects essential to protect public health and safely
will be greatly impaired.

In closing, we urge EPA and the Corps to withdraw this proposed rule and work with our
industry and other stakeholders to craft a rule that is clear and that does not impose an undue
economic burden on our industry or the economic prosperity of America.

Agency Response

152

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

under this final rule compared to current practices.

The rule establishes a definition of significant nexus, based on Supreme Court opinions and
the science, to use when making these case-specific determinations. Significant nexus is not
a purely a scientific determination and neither is the agencies' interpretation of the scope of
"waters of the United States." Further, the opinions of the Supreme Court have noted that
as the agencies charged with interpreting the statute, EPA and the Corps must develop the
outer bounds of the scope of the CWA, while science does not provide bright lines with
respect to where "water ends" for purposes of the CWA. Therefore, the agencies'
interpretation of the CWA is informed by the Science Report and the review and comments
of the SAB, but not dictated by them.

The final rule recognizes that not all waters have a significant nexus to a traditional
navigable waters, an interstate water, or a territorial sea. In order to improve clarity, the
final rule expands the discussion of excluded waters and other features not regulated. In
response to comments, the final rule has expanded the section on waters that are not
considered waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry
land, water-filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed
waterways and non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins
constructed in dry land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have
explained that there is not an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the
agencies have further clarified which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean
Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of
ditches in the final rule.

The proposed rule included a broad provision (paragraph (a)(7) of the proposal) that
allowed for a case-specific determination of significant nexus for any water that was not
categorically jurisdictional or excluded. In consideration of comments expressing concern
over the proposed approach, the agencies made changes to provide for case-specific
determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the agencies'
assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of traditional navigable water, interstate waters, and the territorial seas
address concerns in the approach to "other waters."

The final rule provides a more detailed definition of significant nexus which includes a list
of nine specific functions that can be analyzed. When a significant nexus exists between a
water(s) and (a)(1) through (a)(3) water, that nexus exists even in absence of a positive
jurisdictional determination on the site. When a site specific jurisdictional determination
has been done it serves to identify the boundaries of the "waters of the United States."
Within a single point of entry watershed, over a period of time there will likely be multiple
jurisdictional determinations. For (a)(7) waters, if a case-specific significant nexus
determination has been made in the point of entry watershed, all waters in the subcategory in
the point of entry watershed are jurisdictional. For (a)(8) waters, the case-specific significant
nexus analyses must use information used in previous jurisdictional determinations, and if a
significant nexus has been established for one water in the watershed, then other similarly
situated waters in the watershed would also be found to have a significant nexus. This is
because under Justice Kennedy's test, similarly situated waters in the region should be
evaluated together. A positive significant nexus determination would then apply to all similarly

153

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

situated waters within the point of the watershed. A negative case-specific significant nexus
evaluation under (a)(7) or (a)(8) of all similarly situated waters in the point of entry watershed
applies to all similarly situated waters in that watershed. However, as noted above, a conclusion
that significant nexus is lacking may not be based on consideration of a subset of similarly
situated waters, because under the significant nexus standard the inquiry is how the similarly
situated waters in combination affect the integrity of the downstream water. The
documentation for each case should be complete enough to support the specific jurisdictional
determination, including an explanation of which waters were considered together as similarly
situated and in the same region.

Many commenters expressed concern that such a broad opportunity for case-specific
"waters of the United States" determinations would lead to too much uncertainty about the
jurisdictional status of waters in broad areas throughout the country. The rule provides for
case-specific determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the
agencies' assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the
territorial seas.

The agencies have determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as
jurisdictional by rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and
asserting jurisdiction only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant
and more than speculative and insubstantial. The agencies have also determined that the
single point of entry watershed is a more reasonable and technically appropriate scale for
identifying "in the region" for purposes of the significant nexus standard than ecoregions.
Additionally, the agencies may amend the rule as part of the rule-making process if
evolving science and the agencies' experience lead to a need for action to alter the
jurisdictional categories.

Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western
vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands are jurisdictional when they
have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial
seas. Waters in these subcategories are not jurisdictional as a class under the rule.

However, because the agencies determined that these subcategories of waters are "similarly
situated," the waters within the specified subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional
under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed in combination with all waters of a subcategory in
the region identified by the watershed that drains to the nearest point of entry of a
traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas (point of entry
watershed).

By clarifying the definition of "tributary," the agencies intend to make the determination of
jurisdictional waters independent of local nomenclature, such as "dry wash" and "arroyo."
Waters that flow in response to seasonal or individual precipitation events are
jurisdictional tributaries if they contribute flow, either directly or indirectly, to a
traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the territorial sea, and they possess the
physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, which may be
spatially discontinuous. A bed and banks and other indicators of ordinary high water mark
are physical indicators of water flow and are only created by sufficient and regular

154

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

intervals of flow. These physical indicators can be created by perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral flows. Where such features do not contribute flow downstream and/or do not
have a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, they are not jurisdictional tributaries.
The rule definition of "tributary" requires that flow must be of sufficient volume,
frequency, and duration to create the physical characteristics of bed and banks and an
ordinary high water mark. If a water lacks sufficient flow to create such characteristics, it
is not considered "tributary" under this rule. While some commenters expressed concern
that a feature that flowed very infrequently could meet the proposed definition of
"tributary," it is the agencies' judgment that such a feature is not a tributary under the
rule because it would not form the physical indicators required under the definitions of
"ordinary high water mark" and "tributary." To further emphasize this point, the rule
expressly indicates in paragraph (b) that ephemeral reaches that do not meet the definition
of tributary are not "waters of the United States."

The rule also clarifies that a water meets the definition of tributary if the water contributes
flow through an excluded feature such as an ephemeral ditch. While the water above and
below the excluded feature is jurisdictional if it meets the definition of tributary, the
excluded feature does not become jurisdictional.

Doc. #18968 [99,307 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Clean Water Action (paper)l

Clean water is vital to my family and me.

We rely on clean places to swim and play, and
sources of clean water to drink. Please keep
the Clean Water Act strong and effective so
we can continue to protect clean water.

NAME

ADDRESS

Signature,

155

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I support the Administration's proposal to restore
Clean Water Act protections to streams and wetlands

Protect Clean

Dear Sir /Madam'

Clean water is vital to my family and me. We rely on clean water for drinking, swimming and
other activities.

For too long there has been confusion about which streams and wetlands are protected, even
though it is clear that Congress intended for all water to be safeguarded when the Clean Water
Act passed in 1972.

Please keep the Clean Water Act strong and effective and finalize a rule that will improve the
health of all our nation's rivers, lakes, and bays by protecting the small streams and wetlands on
which they depend.

Agency Response

156

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19244 [50 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Clean Water Action Denver (web) -

Identified as Clean Water Action Denver- al

RE: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880

Agency Response

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Definition of
"Waters of the United States"
Under the Clean Water Act

NAME

ADDRESS

SIGNATURE

157

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters

Doc. #19265 [195 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Employees of Martin Marietta (paper)!

To Whom It May Concern:

As an employee of Martin Marietta, I am writing this letter to oppose the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and EPA's proposed rule to revise their definition of "Waters of the United
States" under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Martin Marietta is engaged in the production and sale
of crushed stone, sand and gravel, ready mix and cement with over 400 operations across the
United States, Canada, and the Bahamas. Our facilities produce aggregates that are utilized for
critical infrastructure projects, such as highways, bridges, transit, and water and wastewater
treatment plants.

EPA's proposed revisions of the CWAs jurisdiction will dramatically impact aggregate
operations in the nation with an increase in costs associated with expanding our operations, with
the potential to be barred from mining future reserves that will be needed as our economy grows
and our population continues to increase. Our major concerns with the proposed rule are as
follows:

• The proposed rule disregards congressional intent and is not consistent with three rulings
by the Supreme Court regarding the limits of federal jurisdiction.

• The proposed rule would sweep in many marginally aquatic areas that only have a remote
and insubstantial impact on traditional navigable waters - the rule removes "significant
nexus".

• The proposed rule provides no limit to federal jurisdiction and establishes new definitions
for tributary, neighboring, floodplain, and riparian area.

• The proposed rule leaves many key concepts unclear, undefined, and subject to the
agency's discretion. This vagueness will not provide the intended regulatory certainty that
the agency is professing and will require the regulated community to unnecessarily spend
resources in the courts to clarify the vagueness of the rule.

• The proposed rule allows the Corps field staff to make jurisdictional determinations
based on "desktop" studies without gathering site-specific information which will likely
lead to subjective and inconsistent determinations by Corps field staff.

• The proposed rule's "watershed aggregation" approach in defining "significant nexus"
will lead to increased regulation of remote and ephemeral areas, thus increased mining
costs without providing any apparent ecological benefit.

• The exclusion for ditches in the proposed rule does not provide any real clarity. While the
proposed rule contends to exclude "drainage ditches," such ditches can be regulated if
they convey water away from a site even indirectly to a navigable water. Thus, many
existing drainage ditches would become subject to onerous permitting and costly
mitigation requirements.

• The proposed rule will subject more activities to CWA permitting requirements, NEPA
analysis, mitigation requirements, and citizen lawsuits challenging local actions based on
the expanded jurisdiction by EPA and the Corps.

158

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

• EPA's economic analysis is flawed, because it does not take into account the real costs of
permitting and mitigation. The economic analysis relies on cost data that is almost 20-
year's old and is not adjusted for inflation. EPA and the Corps must also convene a Small
Business Regulatory Flexibility Act panel as required by law to assess the impacts on
small businesses.

While our company prides itself as being environmentally responsible, the broadened scope of
the rule would directly impact our operations, with little environmental benefit. In turn, these
proposed changes to the "Waters of the US" will increase the costs of public works projects
across our nation.

Agency Response

The rule establishes a definition of significant nexus, based on Supreme Court opinions and
the science, to use when making these case-specific determinations. Significant nexus is not

159

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

a purely a scientific determination and neither is the agencies' interpretation of the scope of
"waters of the United States." Further, the opinions of the Supreme Court have noted that
as the agencies charged with interpreting the statute, EPA and the Corps must develop the
outer bounds of the scope of the CWA, while science does not provide bright lines with
respect to where "water ends" for purposes of the CWA. Therefore, the agencies'
interpretation of the CWA is informed by the Science Report and the review and comments
of the SAB, but not dictated by them.

The final rule recognizes that not all waters have a significant nexus to a traditional
navigable waters, an interstate water, or a territorial sea. In order to improve clarity, the
final rule expands the discussion of excluded waters and other features not regulated. In
response to comments, the final rule has expanded the section on waters that are not
considered waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry
land, water-filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed
waterways and non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins
constructed in dry land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have
explained that there is not an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the
agencies have further clarified which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean
Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of
ditches in the final rule.

The proposed rule included a broad provision (paragraph (a)(7) of the proposal) that
allowed for a case-specific determination of significant nexus for any water that was not
categorically jurisdictional or excluded. In consideration of comments expressing concern
over the proposed approach, the agencies made changes to provide for case-specific
determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the agencies'
assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of traditional navigable water, interstate waters, and the territorial seas
address concerns in the approach to "other waters."

The final rule provides a more detailed definition of significant nexus which includes a list
of nine specific functions that can be analyzed. When a significant nexus exists between a
water(s) and (a)(1) through (a)(3) water, that nexus exists even in absence of a positive
jurisdictional determination on the site. When a site specific jurisdictional determination
has been done it serves to identify the boundaries of the "waters of the United States."
Within a single point of entry watershed, over a period of time there will likely be multiple
jurisdictional determinations. For (a)(7) waters, if a case-specific significant nexus
determination has been made in the point of entry watershed, all waters in the subcategory in
the point of entry watershed are jurisdictional. For (a)(8) waters, the case-specific significant
nexus analyses must use information used in previous jurisdictional determinations, and if a
significant nexus has been established for one water in the watershed, then other similarly
situated waters in the watershed would also be found to have a significant nexus. This is
because under Justice Kennedy's test, similarly situated waters in the region should be
evaluated together. A positive significant nexus determination would then apply to all similarly
situated waters within the point of the watershed. A negative case-specific significant nexus
evaluation under (a)(7) or (a)(8) of all similarly situated waters in the point of entry watershed
applies to all similarly situated waters in that watershed. However, as noted above, a conclusion

160

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

that significant nexus is lacking may not be based on consideration of a subset of similarly
situated waters, because under the significant nexus standard the inquiry is how the similarly
situated waters in combination affect the integrity of the downstream water. The
documentation for each case should be complete enough to support the specific jurisdictional
determination, including an explanation of which waters were considered together as similarly
situated and in the same region.

Many commenters expressed concern that such a broad opportunity for case-specific
"waters of the United States" determinations would lead to too much uncertainty about the
jurisdictional status of waters in broad areas throughout the country. The rule provides for
case-specific determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the
agencies' assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the
territorial seas.

The agencies have determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as
jurisdictional by rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and
asserting jurisdiction only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant
and more than speculative and insubstantial. The agencies have also determined that the
single point of entry watershed is a more reasonable and technically appropriate scale for
identifying "in the region" for purposes of the significant nexus standard than ecoregions.
Additionally, the agencies may amend the rule as part of the rule-making process if
evolving science and the agencies' experience lead to a need for action to alter the
jurisdictional categories.

Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western
vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands are jurisdictional when they
have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial
seas. Waters in these subcategories are not jurisdictional as a class under the rule.

However, because the agencies determined that these subcategories of waters are "similarly
situated," the waters within the specified subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional
under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed in combination with all waters of a subcategory in
the region identified by the watershed that drains to the nearest point of entry of a
traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas (point of entry
watershed).

By clarifying the definition of "tributary," the agencies intend to make the determination of
jurisdictional waters independent of local nomenclature, such as "dry wash" and "arroyo."
Waters that flow in response to seasonal or individual precipitation events are
jurisdictional tributaries if they contribute flow, either directly or indirectly, to a
traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the territorial sea, and they possess the
physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, which may be
spatially discontinuous. A bed and banks and other indicators of ordinary high water mark
are physical indicators of water flow and are only created by sufficient and regular
intervals of flow. These physical indicators can be created by perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral flows. Where such features do not contribute flow downstream and/or do not
have a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, they are not jurisdictional tributaries.

161

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The rule definition of "tributary" requires that flow must be of sufficient volume,
frequency, and duration to create the physical characteristics of bed and banks and an
ordinary high water mark. If a water lacks sufficient flow to create such characteristics, it
is not considered "tributary" under this rule. While some commenters expressed concern
that a feature that flowed very infrequently could meet the proposed definition of
"tributary," it is the agencies' judgment that such a feature is not a tributary under the
rule because it would not form the physical indicators required under the definitions of
"ordinary high water mark" and "tributary." To further emphasize this point, the rule
expressly indicates in paragraph (b) that ephemeral reaches that do not meet the definition
of tributary are not "waters of the United States."

Doc. #19374 [126 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Unknown 31 1

Administrator McCarthy:

I write to submit these comments in opposition to the EPA's proposed rule regarding "Waters of
the United States" under the Clean Water Act. This proposed regulation represents the largest
expansion of authority in the history of the Clean Water Act and would greatly impact the lignite
industry and private property rights.

Despite claims by the EPA that this rule will only clarify the federal government's jurisdiction
over waters of the U.S. — traditionally navigable waterways used for interstate commerce — it
will significantly expand what are considered waters of the U.S. and subject to permitting under
the Clean Water Act. Under the broad language and definitions proposed in the rule for anything
ranging from tributaries, ditches, adjacent wetlands, intrastate, and even "other" waters could be
regulated by the federal government.

This proposed rule is in direct contradiction to recent Supreme Court decisions that found that
the Clean Water Act does not support such an expansive meaning of waters of the U.S. In the
Rapanos decision, the Supreme Court went so far as to say that including "ephemeral streams,
wet meadows, storm sewers... within the meaning of'waters of the U.S.' has stretched the term
beyond parody." Yet these are precisely the types of water that could be regulated under the
proposed rule.

The proposed rule will have numerous impacts and greatly increase regulation on the lignite
industry without having any benefit on waters of the U.S. In the course of coal mining,
companies encounter many hydrological connections. For example, such language in the
proposed rule as "unbroken subsurface hydrological connection to jurisdictional waters," makes

16 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

162

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

it extremely likely that the federal government would be further involved in regulating mining
operations despite existing regulations to protect water quality and impacts to navigable
waterways.

The lignite industry has a proven track record of success in mitigating the environmental impacts
of its mining operations and reclaiming the land to a condition as good, or better, than it was
prior to mining, as well as taking special care with respect to impacts on waterways and water
quality. Given these facts, this proposed rule is a solution seeking a problem at best, and at worst
an overreaching, unprecedented, and unconstitutional expansion of federal authority. I request
that the EPA withdraw this rule.

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades. In this final rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the
country to make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to
understand, more predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Also for added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered
waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-
filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and
non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry
land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not
an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified
which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

163

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19375 [65 on-time duplicates, sponsored by National Association of Royalty Owners
and Southwest Kansas Royalty Owners Association (paper)l

RE: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880

Definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act

As a mineral owner I oppose the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers rule to clarify the definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean
Water Act. This proposal presumes EPA Clean Water Act authority over most ditches, ponds,
isolated low-lying wet areas, and dry gulches that carry water only after heavy rain. It is one of
the most egregious examples of federal regulatory overreach in memory. It will cost the U.S.
economy billions of dollars and add several thousand dollars in surface compliance costs to
every oil and gas well drilled to develop my private property. It will reduce the economic
viability of my private minerals and will decrease not only my family income, but also the tax
revenue flowing to the U.S. Treasury, states and communities nationwide. This rule is fatally
flawed and must be rejected.

Sincerely,

(Signature Line)

I am a mineral owner and member of Southwest Royalty Owners Association (SWKROA) and I
oppose the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rule
to clarify the definition of "Waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. This
proposal presumes EPA Clean Water Act authority most ditches, ponds, isolated low lying wet
areas, and dry gulches that carry water only after heavy rain. It is one of the most egregious
examples of federal regulatory overreach in memory. It will cost the U.S. economy billions of
dollars and add several thousand dollars in surface compliance costs to every oil and gas well
drilled to develop my private property. It will reduce the economic viability of my private
minerals and will decrease not only my family income, but also the tax revenue flowing to the
U.S. Treasury, states and communities nationwide. This rule is flawed and must be rejected.

Agency Response

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades. In this final rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the
country to make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to
understand, more predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

164

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19376 [12 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Kentucky Farm Bureau (paper) -
Identified as Kentucky Farm Bureau - al

I write in strong opposition to the rule changes proposed by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers that would essentially redefine how a water of the United States is determined under
the Clean Water Act guidelines. This clearly appears to me to be a huge expansion of federal
oversight into areas best left to the states.

Reading through the proposed rule, I am more confused than ever about what exemptions
farmers like me would have. It bothers me that for a document that is supposed to add clarity to
the Clean Water Act will probably result in my having to meet more regulatory guidelines, face
more restrictions on how I can farm my land, and probably spend a lot of hard earned dollars just
to be able to continue farming! Livestock on my farm are fenced out of streams and ponds, but I
wonder if my practices will be considered normal, or if I will have to redo, at my expense, many
of the practices I have installed that are currently protecting the environment. This is truly
frustrating!

I work hard to protect the water and soil on my farm because some day I want to pass it on to my
children. The proposed rule is supposed to make it clearer about how my farming practices
would be exempt, but the way I look at it, it really narrows the exemptions the Clean Water Act
already provides. This is a poorly thought out rule, and I ask the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to completely withdraw this proposed rule.

Agency Response

165

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #19377 [30 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Kentucky Farm Bureau (paper) -
Identified as Kentucky Farm Bureau - bl

Dear EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

166

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments in response to proposed rules from EPA and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to define "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water
Act. This proposed rule is deeply flawed. While the proposed rule says it seeks to provide clarity
in actuality it creates more ambiguity and confusion that will most likely result in an increased
chance of many farmers, including me, facing frivolous litigation, spending long hours seeking
unnecessary permits or having to maintain mountains of documentation rather than producing the
food Americans want and need.

Replacing the term "navigable" in the definition of the Clean Water Act, and replacing it with a
"significant nexus" concept will open the proposed rule to increased confusion. Terms used to
determine the significant nexus are often vague, and are definitely not always based on sound
science. Many times the terms are undefined relying on the best professional judgment of an
observer. The Connectivity Report that is referenced in the proposed rule uses some troubling
language, that while not always specifically mentioned in the proposed rule, are rooted in sound
science, and if used would result in a huge expansion of Federal jurisdictional oversight.

If imposed, this would impact the way I farm, and because of the lack of clarity contained in the
proposed rule it could also create a huge economic burden for me and my family. I feel this rule
has the potential to expand your jurisdiction to virtually any area of my farm including my
ponds, ditches and occasionally wet areas, even if they are isolated and protected. This is wrong!
Because of the confusion this proposed rule will generate, I call on EPA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to withdraw this rule completely!

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

167

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Also for added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered
waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-
filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and
non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry
land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not
an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified
which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that
feed them have to be clean too. This is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is
informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific
literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands
are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. The final rule provides for case-specific determinations
under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.

168

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19378 [29 late duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) - Identified
as Unknown 321

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding the definition of "Waters of the
U.S." under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters many of which are not even wet or
considered waters under any common understanding of that word.

Under the rule, Section 402 permits would be necessary for common farming activities like
applying fertilizer or pesticide or moving cattle if materials (fertilizer, pesticide, or manure)
would fall into low spots or ditches. Section 404 permits would be required for earthmoving
activity, such as plowing, planting or fencing, except as part of established farming operation
that has been ongoing at the same site since 1977 which in and of itself makes no sense.

Implementation of the rule would impose direct costs, delays, and uncertainty in planning.
Illinois' municipal governments and other jurisdictions such as towns, villages, counties,
townships, drainage districts, water districts, irrigation systems, transportation departments, and
municipal utilities will be profoundly impacted by the shift from state and local control of water-
related land uses to federal control.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm, or make changes to the
land; even if those changes would benefit the environment. Farmers work to protect water
quality regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA.

As agriculture, business, and local governments will be severely impacted, I ask you to DITCH
l lll RULE.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Corps clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

169

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

170

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19379 [1,360 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Idaho Farm Bureau and American
Farm Bureau (paper)!

I am writing to provide you with my concerns and comments regarding the proposed "Waters of
the U.S." regulation. Please note my objections to the implantation of this rule and I urge you to
withdraw it for the good of agriculture and our country's economic well-being.

This rulemaking was stimulated by two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that explicitly said that
there are limits to Federal jurisdiction regarding the Clean Water Act. This proposed rule ignores
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and the intent of the Clean Water Act, as authorized by
the U.S. Congress.

There must be site-specific understanding to determine if and when a water body should be
classified as "navigable waters" and when surface water has a "significant nexus" to impact
potential "navigable waters."

This proposed rule seems to have little or no practical scientific basis for expanding regulatory
actions. Ditches, canals, surface runoff and puddles should not be considered Navigable or
classified as Waters of the United States.

EPA must not eliminate the exemptions granted by Congress for normal activities at ongoing
operations, including agriculture.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United

171

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which
ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #19380 [106 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Georgia Farm Bureau Federation
(paper) - Identified as Georgia Farm Bureau - cl

DITCH THE RULE

Prefix, Mr. Mrs. Miss

First Name

172

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Last Name

Street Address

City

State

Zip Code

e-mail address

Phone Number

Comment to EPA

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has
stated. The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this
proposed rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make
changes to the land, even if those changes would benefit the
environment. I work to protect water quality regardless of whether it is
legally required by the EPA. It is one of the values I hold as someone
who is involved in agriculture. Farmers and Ranchers, like me will be
severely impacted if this rule is accepted. Therefore I ask that this
proposed rule be withdrawn.

Please add any
additional Comments

Authorization

By my signature below I give County Farm Bureau permission to
submit my "NO" vote to the EPA to stop the proposed rule change.

Signed: Date:

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

173

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19381 [57 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper)

Identified as Unknown 331

I am opposed to rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) to clarify the definition of "waters of the United States"
under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule greatly expands the jurisdiction of the EPA and Corps beyond the scope of the
Clean Water Act. The proposed definition could be interpreted to include every place where
water collects and runs off, regardless of the significance of the connection to downstream
waters, frequency of flow, or even presence of water.

174

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Implementation of this rule would add unnecessary costs and delays detrimental to normal land
management practices. It exposes landowners to more regulatory uncertainty, excessive fines,
and threat of litigation through Clean Water Act citizen lawsuits.

I encourage EPA and the Corps of Engineers to withdraw this rulemaking.

Agency Response

175

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19382 [52 late duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) - Identified
as Unknown 341

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;

I am strongly opposed to the rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the definition of "waters of the United States under
the Clean Water Act."

The proposed rule expands the jurisdiction of the EPA and Corps far beyond the intended scope
of the Clean Water Act. The proposed definition could be interpreted to include every place
where water collects and runs off, regardless Of the significance of the connection to down-
stream waters, frequency of flow or even presence of water.

The rule would be inclusive of water features that have never been considered "waters of the U.
S." before, such as ditches, waterways, farm ponds and other areas where water only flows after
heavy rainfall. The proposed rule also includes non-water features such as flood plains and areas
adjacent to "waters of the U.S."

The expanded interpretation of "waters of the U.S." moves federal jurisdiction into fields and
pastures in a way that was never contemplated by Congress. Rather than creating clarity, the rule
blurs the line between agricultural storm water runoff and point source pollution. Implementation
of this rule would add unnecessary costs and delays that would be detrimental to normal land
management practices. It also exposes landowners to more regulatory uncertainty, excessive
fines and the threat of litigation through Clean Water Act citizen lawsuits.

I strongly encourage the EPA and Corps of Engineers to withdraw this rulemaking.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Agency Response

176

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Protection of aquatic ecosystems, Congress recognized, demanded broad federal authority
to control pollution, for '[w]ater moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential that
discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.' In keeping with these views, Congress
chose to define the waters covered by the Act broadly." Id. at 132-33 (citing Senate Report
92-414). The Court also recognized that "[i]n determining the limits of its power to regulate
discharges under the Act, the Corps must necessarily choose some point at which water
ends and land begins."

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which
ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Finally, the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. We also note that if an
activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a
discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an established
farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Doc. #19383 [53 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper)

Identified as Unknown 351

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a concerned citizen interested in environmental regulations, and write to raise major
concerns over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA's proposed rule to revise their
definition of "Waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. After a thorough review

177

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

of the proposed regulations on the definition of Waters of the US, I have grave concerns with
regard to the impact of this new regulation.

I urge EPA and the Corps to withdraw this proposed rule and work with industry and other
stakeholders to craft a rule that is clear and that does not impose an undue economic burden for
the prosperity of America. The proposed rule overreaches federal authority by regulating streams
and ditches that have marginal environmental benefit, offers too many confusing and
contradictory definitions, and connects all waters, including subsurface flows.

These impacts would increase costs on public works projects, so these increased costs are borne
by the taxpayer. Our nation needs materials for critical infrastructure such a roads, bridges
and flood control projects essential to protect public health and safety.

In closing, I urge EPA and the Corps to withdraw this proposed rule and work with industry and
other stakeholders to craft a rule that is clear and that does not impose an undue economic
burden on the taxpayers of America.

Agency Response

178

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19384 [39 on-time duplicates, sponsored by North Dakota Stockmen's Association
(paper)!

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments about the Environmental Protection Agency's and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' proposed rule regarding the Definition of Waters of the United States
(WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

I am a cattle rancher and landowner, and I am deeply concerned about the proposed rule that
would significantly and inappropriately expand the scope of waters subject to CWA regulation
and federal jurisdiction over my property. The net effect of such a regulation will not be an
improvement to the environment, but an enormous burden on cattle ranchers like me.

These are some of my concerns:

The proposed definition is counter to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the
framework and goals of the CWA, Congressional intent and Supreme Court rulings. Each places
a limit on the federal jurisdiction over the nation's waters. The proposed rule has practically no
limit, regulating even small and remote waters, many of which are not even wet or considered
water under the common understanding of the word. As an example, the definition includes
agricultural ditches in the category of "tributaries."

By expanding the definition of "tributary," expanding the definition of "adjacent:' and expanding
the category of "adjacent wetlands" to "adjacent waters," this rule would deliver a devastating
blow to my cattle ranch, making me subject to expensive permits just to go about my business. I
am not only concerned about the ability of agency regulators being able to apply vague terms and
phrases to wrap every wet depression on my place into the definition of WOTUS, but I am left
more uncertain than I was before. The proposed rule fails to provide the clarity or certainty the
agencies said they aimed to achieve.

The agencies are wrong that the proposal will not have an impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Almost the entire cattle industry is composed of small, family-run businesses like
mine. Regulations, like this proposal, make it hard to keep our small businesses financially
viable. More red tape and costly, unnecessary permits are the last things my ranch need, because
they get in the way of me putting environmentally friendly practices on the ground, many of
which are not included in the list of 56 that are supposedly exempted through the Interpretive
Rule.

179

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

In summary, the proposed rule has many fundamental problems. It inappropriately expands the
federal government's jurisdiction, will not benefit the environment and will make it difficult to
farm and ranch. I urge you to abandon the proposed rule.

Thank you for the consideration of my comments.

Agency Response

180

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19385 [633 on-time duplicates, sponsored by American Farm Bureau and Idaho
Farm Bureau (paper)!

Thank you for allowing me to comment on this EPA proposed rule and please note my
opposition to this rule being implemented.

While water is truly the life blood of our nation and I support the effort to protect both its quality
and quantity, I do not agree that the USEPA should assert that more federal regulation is needed.
Every state has its own environmental protection agency and each is working to comply with the
federally mandated Clean Water Act.

Each water body, from spring to river to ditch to field has individual and site-specific qualities.
The EPA's assumption that all waters must be regulated as "water of the United States" is a pure
example of overregulation. Such a declaration will create more problems than it will solve. Let
local jurisdictions manage their water. USEPA has been hard pressed for many years to even
define or clarify what are the waters of the U.S.

Such broad assumptions to designate all waters as, "as water of the United States," will only
make protection of all waters more difficult, arbitrary and capricious.

Agency Response

181

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

downstream water integrity. However, the connectivity and effects of non-floodplain
wetlands and open waters are more variable and thus more difficult to address solely from
evidence available in peer-reviewed studies. The final rule provides for case-specific
determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the agencies'
assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial
seas.

The agencies note that States and tribes, consistent with the CWA, retain full authority to
implement their own programs to more broadly and more fully protect the waters in their
jurisdiction. Under section 510 of the CWA, unless expressly stated, nothing in the CWA
precludes or denies the right of any state or tribe to establish more protective standards or
limits than the Federal CWA. Many states and tribes, for example, regulate groundwater,
and some others protect wetlands that are vital to their environment and economy but
which are outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the CWA. Nothing in this rule limits or
impedes any existing or future state or tribal efforts to further protect their waters.

Doc. #19386 [68 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance
Companies (paper)17!

I write today in opposition of the proposed rule changes to the Clean Water Act guidelines. I
believe the proposed rule changes would greatly expand the scope of "navigable water" giving
Clean Water Act jurisdiction to areas Congress never intended.

I am greatly concerned with the expanding regulatory oversight these changes would create and
how this will affect the American Landowner's ability to manage their own land. I believe that
the American Farmer is the true environmentalist and that the vast majority take water quality
very seriously. After all they live and raise families on these lands and plan for the next
generation will be able to do the same. Water quality is important to them because it is the life
blood of who they are and what they have worked for all their lives, it does not have to be legally
required by the EPA.

I am a second generation beef cattle farmer. I have a degree from the University of Kentucky in
Agriculture Economics. Throughout the years we have work with NRCS and our local Extension
Office to insure that we are using the most current practices to preserve our natural resources. I

17 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

182

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

am very proud of the product we produce and the positive impact we have on our environment. I
fear that the proposed rule could affect my ability to continue my farming operation.

In closing I would like to strongly urge the EPA and the Corps to withdraw this proposed rule
change. I fear this rule change would expand the EPA and Corp jurisdiction to areas of privately
owned land that were not intended by Congress to be included in The Clean Water Act. Due to
the vast issues that will be unique to each state I feel that areas mentioned in the proposed rule
change would be better served by state agencies than by federal agencies. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinion on this very important issue.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Finally, the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. The agencies note that
if an activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a
discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an established
farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

183

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19387 [26 late duplicates, sponsored by Oklahoma Farm Bureau (paper)!

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

The Oklahoma Farm Bureau (OKFB) is a general farm organization and the voice of agriculture
in Oklahoma. OKFB represents farmers and ranchers with operations of all sizes and who raise a
wide variety of crops and livestock. OKFB is a true grassroots organization, with members in all
of Oklahoma's 77 counties. OKFB derives its policy positions directly from its members.

The OKFB Public Policy Department is in constant contact with members across Oklahoma. Our
members believe this is potentially the largest government overreach they've ever seen. They
have strong concerns about not only how the proposed rule will impact their operations, but also
future generations. Many OKFB members submitted comments online, however, a few members
preferred we submit hard copies of their comments. Please accept the following written
comments on behalf of OKFB members.

If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you for
your consideration in this matter.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

184

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not
an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified
which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #19388 [18 late duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (postcard) -
Identified as Unknown 361

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

As a person of faith, water is central to my

Spiritual life and sacred to all of God's creation. Name

I am writing to thank for your recent proposal

Addressing waters of the United States that would

Clarify what waterways can be protected under the Address

Clean Water Act.

The clarification that EPA is providing will allow us to Address (line 2)
Protect sources of water-streams, wetlands, and rivers-

That we and the rest of God's creation depend on.

City, State, Zip

Finally, I urge you to finalize this rule as proposed in a
Timely fashion so that we can help protect the supply
Of drinking water, so essential for human life.

Sincerely,

185

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

¦H

cfej

Faith Voices

Protect our Louisiana Waters

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. The Clean Water Rule
strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our families, our communities, and
our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean water to operate. Streams and
wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap fioodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #19389 [2,172 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Southern Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance (postcard)I

I oppose Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-QW-201 1-0880 that expands the jurisdiction of Waters
of the U.S.

This proposed rule:

• Expands federal authority to include small and remote waters; including those which are
dry most of the year.

186

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

•	Effectively redefines navigable waters and is a misinterpretation of congressional intent.
The EPA is acting outside the scope of their authority.

•	Ignores the Supreme Court which has upheld limits to the federal water jurisdiction.

•	Infringes on private property rights by empowering the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to regulate activities in and around virtually all water on private land.

•	Needs to be withdrawn from consideration.

Comments:	

NAME	

ADDRESS	 ZIP CODE.

PHONE NUMBER	

IT'S TIME TO

DITCH

nivi—1 ¦ I ¦

I lUl ft I ;!, 8

DITCHTHERULE.fb.org

Agency Response

Congress enacted the CWA "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters," 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a), and to complement statutes that
protect the navigability of waters, such as the Rivers and Harbors Act. The CWA is the
nation's single most important statute for protecting America's clean water against
pollution, degradation, and destruction. To provide that protection, the Supreme Court has
consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA reaches beyond waters that are
navigable in fact.

Protection of aquatic ecosystems, Congress recognized, demanded broad federal authority
to control pollution, for '[w]ater moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential that
discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.' In keeping with these views, Congress
chose to define the waters covered by the Act broadly." Id. at 132-33 (citing Senate Report
92-414). The Court also recognized that "[i]n determining the limits of its power to regulate
discharges under the Act, the Corps must necessarily choose some point at which water
ends and land begins."

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable

187

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades.

Doc. #19390 [9 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (postcard) -
Identified as Unknown 371

It's Time to Ditch the Rule

I oppose the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed Rule regarding the
definition of Waters of the United States. Establishment of this rule will impose a risk to and a
burden on my farming operation. The expansion of jurisdiction over more small, isolated
wetlands and land features like ditches and ephemeral drains will lead to control of land beyond
the scope of the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainly as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm, or make changes to the
land — even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect water quality
regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It is one of the values I hold as a farmer.

Sincerely,

Agency Response

188

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

Doc. #19391 [447 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (postcard) -
Identified as Unknown 381

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

I am a poultry farmer. I'm writing to strongly oppose the EPA's and the Army Corps of
Engineers' recently proposed "DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT" rule. I am convinced this rule will dramatically expand
federal authority over ditches, ponds and other waters of nearly any size, flow and frequency that
may be located on my property. This could cause the routine management of my family's
operation to be subject to potential permitting, enforcement and penalties of up to $37,500 per
day.

EPA has also issued a so-called "interpretive rule" in coordination with USDA to assure farmers
that over 50 conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will be exempt from
permitting requirements governing dredging and filling activities. The new interpretive rule has
many serious problems, not least of which is that it was issued as effective immediately without
providing farmers an opportunity to submit comments on whether it truly provides the benefits
EPA claims it does. It is clear at this point it does not.

189

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

EPA and the Corps have gone too far in this attempt to clarify which waters are the "waters of
the U.S." — we strongly oppose this effort and request that the agency withdraw the rule and
start over.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

190

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

2014 by the EPA, the Army, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, concerning the
interpretive rule was also withdrawn.

Doc. #19392 [40 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Unknown 391

Enclosed: Original Letter and three copies

	No one federal agency should have that much control or the lands of this great country!

	Let the states manage their own land and water rights.	

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

States and tribes, consistent with the CWA, retain full authority to implement their own
programs to more broadly and more fully protect the waters in their jurisdiction. Under
section 510 of the CWA, unless expressly stated, nothing in the CWA precludes or denies
the right of any state or tribe to establish more protective standards or limits than the
Federal CWA. Many states and tribes, for example, regulate groundwater, and some others
protect wetlands that are vital to their environment and economy but which are outside the
regulatory jurisdiction of the CWA. Nothing in this rule limits or impedes any existing or
future state or tribal efforts to further protect their waters. In fact, providing greater
clarity regarding what waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction will reduce the need for
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, to make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #19393 [14 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (paper) -
Identified as Unknown 401

To Whom It May Concern

I strongly OPPOSE the proposed regulation, Waters of the United States (WOTUS) which the
EPA is pushing through. This regulation will vastly increase the jurisdiction of the EPA over
ponds, ditches, isolated wetlands, ephemeral streams or intermittent streams. In other words, the
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers would have jurisdiction over ALL types of waters! In fact,
the only thing definitely excluded from jurisdiction are swimming pools and koi ponds!

With the EPA redefining the WOTUS, this would require ranchers/farmers to obtain permission
of the federal government anytime they needed to expand, do maintenance, or perform routine

191

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

activities like driving a tractor acrossed a field. Almost all ranching/farming activities would now
touch a "water of the U.S." as proposed in the expanded and vague definition.

This is an overreach of the EPA federal agency. They cannot regulate what Congress refused to
legislate. Congress has twice refused to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act that would have
removed the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act. Navigable is the key word. If the EPA
can remove that word from the CWA, then they have control of all water and OUR private
property rights.

A limit to federal jurisdiction is essential to maintaining the appropriate federal-state balance,
which should be the hallmark of the Clean Water Act. Congressmen and Senators should not
allow EPA and the corps to trample on our Constitutional rights. Please put a stop to this
WOTUS regulation NOW.

Agency Response

192

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19394 [81 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Kentucky Farm Bureau (paper) -
Identified as Kentucky Farm Bureau - cl

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm, or make changes to the
land — even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect water quality
regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It is one of the values I hold as a farmer.

Farmers like me will be severely impacted. This proposed rule could affect the way I build
fences, fertilize my crops or control weeds on my farm. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the
proposed rule.

Agency Response

193

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

Doc. #19395 [481 late duplicates, sponsored by Missouri Coalition for the Environment
(paper)!

Petition asking the EPA to promulgate Default Water Quality Standards for Missouri, so that
we can finally see the Clean Water Act framework fully implemented to protect our waters.

Protect All Waters of the U.S. in Missouri: Establish effective use protections for all of our
streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands. In early 2014 the State of Missouri submitted a proposed
modification to the extent of protected waters in Missouri, a long overdue improvement that
should have been completed in the 1980's. Unfortunately, this new rule still falls far short of the
default protections required by the Clean Water Act, and it also continues to defy the rebuttable
presumption by arbitrarily excluding thousands of lakes, tens of thousands of stream miles, and
hundreds of thousands of acres of vital wetlands. In light of the recent proposed rulemaking by
the Corps of Engineers and the EPA, clarifying the extent of the Waters of the U.S. , we implore
the EPA to promulgate a rule in Missouri that will finally bring us into compliance with the basic
terms of the Clean Water Act. By assigning default fishable/swimmable uses to All Waters of the
United States in Missouri, we may finally catch up with the rest of the country in terms of
protecting Missouri's extraordinary water resources. This petition will be submitted to the

194

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

USEPA Headquarters, USEPA Region 7, MO Department of Natural Resources, the MO Clean
Water Commission & the U.S. Federal Register.

Agency Response

This comment is outside of the scope of the Clean Water Rule as it deals with a petition for
EPA to promulgate water quality standards for Missouri waters.

Doc. #19396 [515 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Texas Farm Bureau (paper)l

EPA- Clean Water Act

First Name:	

Last Name:	

Address:	

City:	State:	Zip:	

Email Address:	

Phone Number:	

RE: Comments on the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding
Definition of "Waters of the U.S." Under the Clean Water Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0880

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act

*Write Comments in Space Provided

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters — many of which are not even wet
or considered waters under any common understanding of that word. I write in opposition to the
proposed rule.

EPA proposal threatens private property rights

195

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

(Coleman, Texas)—Time is running out for Texans to let the Environmental Protection Agency
know it's time to ditch the rule. The deadline to comment on the EPA's proposed changes to the
Clean Water Act is Oct. 20.

"The EPA wants to take the word 'navigable' out of the Waters of the U.S. definition," Keith
Philips, Coleman County Farm Bureau President, said. "Allowing the agency to expand their
regulatory will give them unlimited power over all waters— including ditches, ponds and areas
that occasionally flood."

After the EPA released its proposal, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) launched the
"Ditch the Rule" campaign to bring awareness to EPA's action.

"If the EPA is allowed to regulate all bodies of water, including ditches and ponds, they can tell
people how to use and work their land," Keith said. "They'll be able to require permits for things
people do every day. If a permit isn't granted, we'll be unable to work our own land or face fines
for doing so anyway."

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

196

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #19399 [795 on-time duplicates. Miscellanea mass comment items (email) - Identified

as Unknown 41 1

Dear EPA/Corps,

This proposed rule would be the worst thing to ever happen to American agriculture. The states
are very capable of protecting our water resources. This proposal has the potential tomato the
U.S. food-dependent instead of having a food surplus. It will not help our water, it will just be
about government control of land.

First, the definition as proposed is illegal based on the Commerce Clause of the U.S.

18 This letter is one example submitted under the sponsoring agency.

197

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

an even more confused state than under the status quo. You have failed, miserably in fact, at
providing the "clarity" you purport to want to achieve.

Third, the agencies are wrong to imply that the proposal will not have an impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Almost the entire cattle industry is composed of small businesses.

Agency Response

198

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands.

We also note that States and tribes, consistent with the CWA, retain full authority to
implement their own programs to more broadly and more fully protect the waters in their
jurisdiction. Under section 510 of the CWA, unless expressly stated, nothing in the CWA
precludes or denies the right of any state or tribe to establish more protective standards or
limits than the Federal CWA. Many states and tribes, for example, regulate groundwater,
and some others protect wetlands that are vital to their environment and economy but
which are outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the CWA. Nothing in this rule limits or
impedes any existing or future state or tribal efforts to further protect their waters. In fact,
providing greater clarity regarding what waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction will
reduce the need for permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized
section 402 and 404 CWA permitting programs, to make jurisdictional determinations on a
case-specific basis.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. Waters that flow in response to seasonal or
individual precipitation events are jurisdictional tributaries only if they contribute flow,
either directly or indirectly, to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the
territorial sea, and they possess the physical characteristics of a bed, banks, and ordinary
high water mark, which may be spatially discontinuous. A bed and banks and other
indicators of ordinary high water mark are physical indicators of water flow and are only
created by sufficient and regular intervals of flow. These physical indicators can be created
by perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral flows. Where such features do not contribute
flow downstream and/or do not have a bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark, they are
not jurisdictional tributaries. To further emphasize this point, the rule expressly indicates
in paragraph (b) that ephemeral reaches that do not meet the definition of tributary are
not "waters of the United States." In addition, the rule provides greater clarity regarding
which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which permitting
authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404 CWA
permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as "waters of the United
States" since the late 1970s. In 1977, the United States Congress acknowledged that ditches
could be covered under the CWA when it amended the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to exempt specific activities in ditches from the need to obtain a CWA section 404
permit, including "construction or maintenance of...irrigation ditches, or the maintenance
of drainage ditches" (33 U.S.C. §1344). By these actions, Congress did not eliminate CWA
jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities taking place in them
from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term "upland" in the rule

199

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In order to increase
clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion language states:
"(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; (B)
intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or drain
wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a
water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics (e.g. hydric soils, hydrophytic plant communities,
etc.) developed in the bottom of the ditch.

Where a ditch is excavated in or relocates a covered tributary, only the segment of the
ditch actually excavated in or relocating the covered tributary would be considered
jurisdictional. For example, an entire roadside ditch does not become subject to
jurisdiction because a portion of it is excavated in or relocates a tributary.

The rule has also expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the
United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled
depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-
wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

Finally, the agencies note that if an activity takes place outside the waters of the United
States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or
not it was part of an established farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Regarding impacts to small entities, the EPA and the Corps determined to seek wide input
from representatives of small entities while formulating the proposed and final definition of

200

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

this term that reflects the intent of Congress consistent with the mandate of the Supreme
Court's decisions. Such outreach, although voluntary, is also consistent with the President's
January 18, 2011 Memorandum on Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job
Creation, which emphasizes the important role small businesses play in the American
economy. This process enabled the agencies to hear directly from these representatives,
throughout the rule development, about how they should approach this complex question
of statutory interpretation, together with related issues that such representatives of small
entities may identify for possible consideration in separate proceedings. The agencies
prepared a report summarizing their small entity outreach, the results of this outreach,
and how these results have informed the development of this rule. This report, Final
Summary of the Discretionary Small Entity Outreach for the Revised Definition of Waters
of the United States (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-1927), is available in the
docket.

Doc. #19400 [28 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Montana Conservation Voters Educatoin
Fund (email)!

Dear EPA,

I strongly support the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
efforts to restore Clean Water Act protections to our nation's valuable streams and wetlands
under the proposed Clean Water Rule. I urge you to quickly finalize this commonsense approach
and ensure that all of our waters from our local rivers and streams, to iconic waters like the
Missouri River and Flathead Lake are protected from dangerous pollution.

Right now, many of our streams, wetlands, headwaters, and tributaries, including those that
provide at least part of the drinking water for 117 million Americans, are unprotected. In fact,
nearly a quarter of Montanans get their drinking water from sources that could be no longer
protected without action. Our wetlands filter pollution and protect against floods while our many
waterways serve as critical habitat for wildlife. These waterways are also important economic
drivers in our communities, supporting businesses as varied as farmers, craft brewers, clean
technology, all of which need clean water to thrive.

This rule has received strong support from a vast variety of stakeholders, including farmers,
small businesses, hunters and anglers, public health professionals, and elected officials.

I urge the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to stand up against big polluters and special
interests who want to keep their free pass to pollute our waterways. Please quickly finalize these
commonsense safeguards Montana's streams, wetlands, tributaries, headwaters, and other waters
to ensure access to clean, healthy water.

201

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Doc. #19401 [24 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 421

As a cattle rancher who works on the land to make a living and feed the world, I am disappointed
with the proposed rule redefining "waters of the U.S." Every day, I strive to be a steward of the
natural resources entrusted in my care because the well-being of my cattle - and my family -
depend upon it. That care does not and should not require a federal permit each time my cattle
walk through a damp spot, or I drive my tractor across the pasture. The net effect of such a
regulation will not be an improvement to the environment, but an enormous burden on cattle
ranchers like me.

These are some of my concerns:

First, the proposed definition is counter to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the
framework and goals of the CWA, Congressional intent and Supreme Court rulings. Each places
a limit on the federal jurisdiction over the nation's waters. The proposed rule has practically no
limit and would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters by regulating even small and

202

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

remote waters, many of which are not even wet or considered water under the common
understanding of the word. As an example, the definition includes agricultural ditches in the
category of "tributaries." This is inappropriate. "Ditches" should not be waters of the United
States. Farm ponds should not be waters of the United States. Dry washes, dry streambeds and
ephemeral streams should not be waters of the United States.

Second, the proposed definition destroys the federalist system that is at the foundation of the
CWA. There is a line at which point the states must be allowed to take over. This proposal has
obliterated that important, fundamental line. By expanding the definition of tributary, expanding
the definition of "adjacent," and expanding the category of "adjacent wetlands" to "adjacent
waters," this rule would deliver a devastating blow to my cattle ranch. I am not only concerned
about the ability of agency regulators being able to apply vague terms and phrases to wrap every
wet depression on my place into the definition of WOTUS, but I am left in an even more
confused state than under the status quo. The proposed rule fails to provide the clarity or
certainty the agencies said they aimed to achieve.

Third, the agencies are wrong that the proposal will not have an impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Almost the entire cattle industry is composed of small, family-run businesses
like mine. Regulations, like this proposal, make it hard to keep our small businesses financially
viable. More red tape and costly, unnecessary permits are the last things my ranch need, because
they get in the way of me putting environmentally friendly practices on the ground, many of
which are not included in the list of 56 in the rule.

In summary, the proposed rule has many fundamental problems. It inappropriately expands the
federal government's jurisdiction over water, will not benefit the environment and will make it
difficult to farm and ranch. I urge you to abandon the proposed rule.

Agency Response

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable

203

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

204

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities taking place in them
from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term "upland" in the rule
created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In order to increase
clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion language states:
"(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; (B)
intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or drain
wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a
water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics (e.g. hydric soils, hydrophytic plant communities,
etc.) developed in the bottom of the ditch.

Where a ditch is excavated in or relocates a covered tributary, only the segment of the
ditch actually excavated in or relocating the covered tributary would be considered
jurisdictional. For example, an entire roadside ditch does not become subject to
jurisdiction because a portion of it is excavated in or relocates a tributary.

The rule has also expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the
United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled
depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-
wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

205

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Regarding impacts to small entities, the EPA and the Corps determined to seek wide input
from representatives of small entities while formulating the proposed and final definition of
this term that reflects the intent of Congress consistent with the mandate of the Supreme
Court's decisions. Such outreach, although voluntary, is also consistent with the President's
January 18, 2011 Memorandum on Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job
Creation, which emphasizes the important role small businesses play in the American
economy. This process enabled the agencies to hear directly from these representatives,
throughout the rule development, about how they should approach this complex question
of statutory interpretation, together with related issues that such representatives of small
entities may identify for possible consideration in separate proceedings. The agencies
prepared a report summarizing their small entity outreach, the results of this outreach,
and how these results have informed the development of this rule. This report, Final
Summary of the Discretionary Small Entity Outreach for the Revised Definition of Waters
of the United States (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-1927), is available in the
docket.

Doc. #19402 [151 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 431

I respectfully urge EPA to finalize the proposed rule to restore protections under the Clean Water
Act.

The proposed rule is needed to clarify State authority to protect local waterways and headwater
streams while also offering more navigable permitting processes at the local and State level.
Now more than ever, we are seeing the devastating effects of failing to protect our treasured
networks of rivers and streams.

From Charleston, WV, to Toledo, Ohio, to the Elk River in North Carolina, water pollution is
posing catastrophic threats. Citizens from across the Nation need enforceable and transparent
regulations to protect their quality of life, their health, and the legacy that they leave behind for
future generations.

We cannot delay the protection of our nation's streams, adjacent wetlands, and other critical
waters. For the sake of our local economies, our families' health, and our community's quality of
life, I support this rule.

Thank you for your consideration and your work to protect and restore local waterways, the
Potomac River, and the Chesapeake Bay.

Sincerely yours for clean water.

206

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Doc. #19403 [429 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 441

Dear EPA:

I support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineer's
"Definition of "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act Proposed Rule."

Water is vital to Colorado's economy and way of life. It supports our environment, agriculture,
growing cities, outdoor recreation industry, tourism and so much more. But currently our rivers,
streams and wetlands are not fully protected from pollution, waste materials, or destruction.

I support EPA's proposed rule because it brings much needed clarity to the Clean Water Act and
will help protect our rivers, farms, ranches, and drinking water. As we face unprecedented
population growth, and in turn development along wetlands and waterways, it is more important
than ever that we support this important rulemaking by the EPA and Army Corps.

207

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Please enact these common sense rules to protect our rivers and wetlands.

Agency Response

Doc. #19404 [36 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Ohio Environmental Council (email)!

Dear EPA,

I am writing in support of the Administration's proposed rule restoring and clarifying Clean
Water Act protections for wetlands and streams.

Restoring Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands is essential to fish and wildlife,
flood protection, and the health of the more than 5.2 million Ohioans who get their drinking
water from public supplies fed in whole or in part by streams vulnerable to pollution.

I urge you to strengthen, not weaken, the Clean Water Act by further clarifying and restoring
clean water protections through the rulemaking process. I urge you to clearly restore protections
for all streams, all adjacent wetlands, and the many other waters important to fish and wildlife;
such as vernal pools, which are critical to healthy watersheds.

208

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Please issue a final clean water rule this year that once again protects the numerous wetland acres
and 69% of Ohio's stream miles that are at high risk of pollution and destruction.

Agency Response

Doc. #19405 [1,572 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Sierra Club PA Chapter (email)!

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy,

I applaud the new Clean Water Rule, announced on March 25, written to restore protections to
small streams and many wetlands and to urge protections for all waters. The Environmental
Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed to restore historic Clean
Water Act protections to hundreds of thousands of miles of streams and millions of acres of
wetlands. When this policy is finalized, we hope that streams and wetlands that directly influence
the water quality of our nation's rivers, lakes and bays will once again be protected from
pollution and destruction.

The proposed rule is long overdue and will benefit millions of people across the country and in
Pennsylvania. Many of the headwater streams and wetlands in rural Pennsylvania are currently
not receiving full Clean Water Act protection. The rule is a critical step toward protecting
streams and wetlands that feed our drinking water supplies, filter pollutants and safeguard
communities from flooding.

For the past decade, there has been confusion over which streams and wetlands are covered by
the Clean Water Act because of poorly reasoned court decisions and past administration policies.

209

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

This confusion has put the drinking water of over 117 million people at risk. One in three
Americans relies on public drinking water supplies that are fed by headwater or seasonally-
flowing streams. For example, in Pennsylvania, 58 percent of streams are headwater or seasonal,
feeding the drinking water supplies of 8.2 million residents of Pennsylvania.

While this rule would restore Clean Water Act protections to streams and most wetlands - it
would actually compress, not expand, Clean Water Act protections compared to the historical
scope of the Clean Water Act prior to a 2001 Supreme Court decision. The proposed rule also
preserves existing exemptions for farming, mining, and other land use activities. We ask that you
reconsider the exemptions that you propose to preserve.

I urge you to use this opportunity to finalize a strong rule to restore protections to all water,
including seasonal wetlands and other waters. Every water body is important to our natural
environment and a strong rule will improve the health of our nation's rivers, lakes, and bays,
which depend on the smaller water bodies that feed into them.

Agency Response

Doc. #19406 [1,620 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Audubon Florida (email)!

Dear Docket,

I strongly support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers immediately adopting and implementing their proposed Clean Water Act rule which
clarifies what wetlands and waters are protected and which are not. I have seen the incredible

210

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

damage and public expense caused by historic and continuing wetland destruction in Florida.

This rule will help stem wetland losses and impacts to our vital water resources and wildlife.

It makes no sense for us as taxpayers to invest billions of public dollars for restoring the
Everglades, and other important places like the Great Lakes or Chesapeake Bay, when the
wetland protection rules don't stop continuing wetland losses in the same places.

Thank you for considering my comments in support of this long overdue rule clarifying water
and wetland protections.

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Corps clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

Doc. #19407 [2,330 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 451

Dear Water Docket:

I write to express my concerns about the EPA and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' proposed
rule on the definition of "Waters of the United States."

211

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The proposed rule would expand Federal authority far beyond any common-sense interpretation
of the term "navigable waters" in the original Clean Water Act, as it could now include dry
stream beds, isolated farm ponds, lowland ditches, and any other water under a case-specific
determination by the EPA.

Allowing EPA to extend its authority this way would be harmful for many sectors of the
economy. Farmers, businesses large and small, as well as municipalities and counties, public
utilities, and individual landowners have all spoken about the harmful economic impacts the rule
would cause by blocking the creation jobs and growth.

The Small Business Administration recently offered comments strongly opposing the proposed
new rule, stating that the rule would impose significant and direct economic costs.

In addition, several State governments indicate the EPA has not fully considered various
stakeholder interests, and may be encroaching upon the role and powers of States in protecting
their own waters.

While I fully support the protection of our nation's waters, I ask that the EPA withdraw this
detrimental proposal. A more informed discussion needs to be conducted that would ensure the
protection of America's waterways while balancing the need for economic growth and landowner
rights.

Agency Response

212

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19408 [191 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 461

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding "Definition of'Waters of the U.S.' Under the Clean Water
Act."

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of "navigable waters" subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote "waters"—many of which are not even wet
for most of the year.

Because of the proposed rule, farmers and other landowners will face roadblocks to ordinary
land-use activities—like fencing, spraying for weeds or insects, spreading manure, discing and
other normal farming activities. The need to establish buffer zones for crops and livestock
around grassed waterways, ephemeral washes and farm ditches could make farmlands a maze of
intersecting "no farm zones" that could make farming impractical. Farms in New York are often
made up of smaller fields and this could take significant land out of production.

There is so much uncertainty in this rule that it will be difficult for any agency or official to
certify that I am operating in compliance with the law. NRCS already has significant delays in
making determinations and this rule change will require an exponential increase in the number of
determinations that must be made on a feature-by-feature basis.

This rule will consider dry land on my farm as "waters of the U.S." and open my business up to
third-party lawsuits from anyone who doesn't agree with my farming practices. Under this rule
it's possible for farms to be subject to a "discharge" violation even if it is into a dry feature. This
type of liability could cost money and time to defend myself, even if I'm doing everything right.
The lack of clarity in this rule means that different interpretations could easily lead to legal
problems for my family and my farm, which could threaten our business.

My state of New York already has an exemplary and comprehensive water quality strategy.
Farmers work with the state departments of Environmental Conservation and Agriculture and
Markets, along with Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) professionals, to develop and implement thorough water quality plans and
environmental stewardship programs. New York is already a leader in protecting our natural
resources.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm or make changes to the
land—even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect water quality
regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It's one of the values I hold as a farmer.

Farmers like me and my family will be severely impacted. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the
proposed rule and work with stakeholders and state regulators to develop something that makes
sense and can be easily implemented on the ground.

213

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Also for added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered
waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-
filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and
non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry
land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not
an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified
which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

The rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory exemptions
under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. For instance, certain activities and
discharges are exempt as part of established, ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture
operations under CWA 404(f)(1)(A), which has not changed as a result of the rule. Section
404(f)(1)(B) exempts dredge and fill activities "for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and bridge abutments
or approaches, and transportation structures." Additionally, the construction or
maintenance of irrigation ditches, as well as the maintenance, but not construction, of
drainage ditches are exempt activities under CWA 404(f)(1)(C). This rule has not changed
these exemptions. There is no change in the treatment of NRCS determinations. The Joint
Guidance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) Concerning Wetland Determinations for the Clean Water Act and the
Food Security Act of 1985, (dated February 25, 2005) remains valid. The final rule does not
change the definition of wetlands nor in any way change the tools used for delineating
wetlands.

214

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19409 [69,369 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organizing For Action (email)!

For decades, the Clean Water Act has protected our natural resources, and kept drinking water
safe. Right now uncertainty is allowing polluters and special interests threatening the upstream
sources of the lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that 117 million Americans count on for their drinking
water. This plan would protect more than 2 million miles of streams, and millions of acres of
wetlands. I support the proposed common—sense protections for the Waters of the United
States.

Agency Response

Doc. #19410 [288 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 471

Dear Administrator McCarthy and Assistant Secretary Darcy:

215

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I support the proposed rule to clarify the definition of "Waters of the United States" under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should finalize the rule
to provide strong and unambiguous protection to our nation's headwaters, intermittent and
ephemeral streams, wetlands and other associated waters.

As a Wisconsin resident, I recognize the vital importance of such waters to water quality in my
state. 62 percent of stream waters in Wisconsin are in headwater streams, contributing to larger
water bodies and ultimately the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. Protecting tributary
waterways is vital to protect the larger waters that make Wisconsin an outstanding place to live,
work and play. But over half of Wisconsin's streams do not flow year-round or do not have
streams flowing into them, meaning that their protection is ambiguous under current rule.

In addition to feeding larger water bodies, tributaries and wetlands have important functions on
their own. In Wisconsin, intermittent and ephemeral trout streams provide recreation for
residents and tourists. Intermittent, ephemeral and headwater streams provide drinking water for
roughly 400,000 Wisconsin residents. The state's five million acres of wetlands provide
invaluable ecosystem services like flood protection, water pollutant filtering, and habitat for
listed species.

The regulatory gray area currently surrounding such waters puts traditional navigable waters at
risk of contamination from unprotected connected waterways. Moreover, the case-by-case
determination of CWA protection is inefficient and time-consuming. The proposed rule provides
much-needed certainty and clarity to the scope of the CWA.

I respectfully urge the EPA to finalize the proposed rule to ensure strong protections for the
water bodies vital to the health of my family and my community.

Agency Response

216

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial
seas.

Doc. #19411 [494 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 481

Dear Nancy Stoner,

As a hog farmer, I'm very concerned about the proposed rule from the Environmental Protective
Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to define "water of the United States" (WOTUS)
under the Clean Water Act.

Given the uncertainty the rule would create and the potential negative impact it would have on
my farm, I request that EPA and the Corps withdraw the proposed WOTUS rule and work with
farmers and others affected by this regulation to draft a rule that's workable, cost effective and
provides clarity about what is and what is not "waters of the United States."

As it is proposed, the WOTUS rule would categorically grant to EPA and the Corps jurisdiction
over millions of miles and millions of acres of farm land features that previously have not been
lawfully regulated. While the agencies' previous WOTUS rules have been very broad, they never
before defined these features as WOTUS. Furthermore, the Supreme Court twice found those
previous rules and their broad interpretation to be unlawful, going far beyond what Congress
intended. The proposed rule categorically would classify as waters of the United States ditches,
ephemeral streams and even intermittent streams that may have minor flows for short periods of
time, and any seasonally wet areas in the farm fields associated with these features. As a result, a
host of normal farming practices, such as applying fertilizers and pesticides and, potentially,
even planting crops, around these features would be illegal unless covered by a federal permit.

I am also very concerned that this rule will be used by activists to target my farm. Again, given
the uncertainty created by the rule, "citizens lawsuits" could be filed against any farm that has a
drainage feature - nearly all farms do - alleging that it is a "water of the United States" that must
be regulated and that much of the surrounding land has a connection to that drainage feature and,
therefore, also be regulated.

In short, the proposed WOTUS rule would fundamentally change agriculture in America,
negatively affecting farmers, rural communities and, ultimately, the U.S. economy and food
supply. This ill-advised regulation must be withdrawn.

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Corps clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and

217

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways, erosional features
such as and non-wetland swales and rills, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins
constructed in dry land.

Regarding ditches, ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as
"waters of the United States" since the late 1970s. In 1977, the United States Congress
acknowledged that ditches could be covered under the CWA when it amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to exempt specific activities in ditches from the need to obtain
a CWA section 404 permit, including "construction or maintenance of...irrigation ditches,
or the maintenance of drainage ditches" (33 U.S.C. §1344). By these actions, Congress did
not eliminate CWA jurisdiction of these ditches, but rather exempted specified activities
taking place in them from the need for a CWA section 404 permit.

In response to comments, the agencies have revised the exclusions for ditches to provide
greater clarity and consistency. The agencies recognize that the term "upland" in the rule
created concern, because "upland" itself was not explicitly defined. In order to increase
clarity, the term "upland" has been removed. The revised ditch exclusion language states:
"(A) ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; (B)
intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary or drain
wetlands; (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a
water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this [rule]." A ditch that meets any
one of these three conditions is not a water of the United States. Further, the rule also
clearly states that these exclusions apply even if the ditch otherwise meets the terms
describing jurisdictional waters of the United States at paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of
the rule. For example, an excluded ditch would not become a jurisdictional water of the
United States if wetland characteristics developed in the bottom of the ditch.

Finally, the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. We also note that if an
activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a
discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an established
farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

218

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19412 [13,946 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 491

Dear Member of Congress,

All our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from and swim in without risk of
pollution—from our local rivers and streams, to iconic waters like the Chesapeake Bay and the
Great Lakes. Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left many of our smaller
waters at risk, including those that feed and filter the drinking water for 117 million Americans.

Please oppose any dirty water riders that would keep the Environmental Protection Agency and
Army Corps of Engineers from moving forward with their rulemaki ng to restore Clean Water
Act protections to America's waterways.

Agency Response

Doc. #19414 [633 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Michigan Farm Bureau (postcard)

jrS

219

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

I oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of its proposed rule on the
Definition of the Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act, Docket No. EPA—
HQ—OW- 2011-0880. While EPA has stated this rule will offer clarity, simplify the regulatory
process, and improve protection of water resources, "believe the proposed rule does none of
those things.

Instead, this rule will hurt the agriculture industry, as well as many other businesses. It will
damage the American economy that depends on the services agriculture and other industries
provide. Further, it will interfere with states' efforts to develop water protection programs that
really work and which do not depend on such burdensome regulation. The rule does not benefit
the environment like EPA says it will. The rule must be rescinded to fix these problems. Thank
you for your time and attention.

Agency Response

Doc. #19416 [19 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Kentucky Farm Bureau (paper) -
Identified as Kentucky Farm Bureau - dl

I submit these comments in response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed rule to define "Waters of the United States" under
the Clean Water Act (CWA).

I strongly believe the proposed rule changes are unnecessary and an over reach by federal
government and the Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed regulation broadens the
scope of CWA jurisdiction beyond constitutional and statutory limits established by Congress

220

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

and recognized by the Supreme Court. In addition to raising serious legal issues, the proposed
rule fails to provide clarity or predictability, and raises practical concerns with regard to how the
rule will be implemented.

This proposed rule has many areas of concern. First and foremost, as mentioned this proposed
rule would create confusion rather than clarity. It concerns me how this could lead to farmers
facing increased frivolous litigation over what are considered "normal" agricultural practices.
The proposed rule would change the role of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
from that of providing assistance to producers wanting to install best management practices that
would improve water health to a more regulatory role. I am also concerned with how the
referenced "Connectivity Report" creates a significant nexus by utilizing stated factors that
would create a connection to currently regulated waters based on proximity, or even biological
connections that would, by EPA's own words and map examples, greatly expand regulatory
oversight to areas that would only occasionally contain water. This again could lead to increased
litigation, and most importantly reduce my ability to best manage my land resources unless I
obtain costly, and time consuming permits.

The jurisdiction of Kentucky ditches, drainage areas, grass waterways, and other areas
mentioned in the proposed rule changes would be better served by state agency more familiar
with the issues unique to Kentucky, not federal agencies. I strongly urge the EPA and the Corps
to withdraw this proposed rule. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this very
important issue.

Agency Response

221

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

the rule includes new ditch exclusions. Reference the Ditch Compendium for a full
discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #19417 [207 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (email) -
Identified as Unknown 501

As a property owner, cattle producer, and American citizen, I am deeply concerned for my rights
as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers attempt to federalize
more and more land across the country. The new Waters of the United States proposal subjects
nearly all waters in the country to regulation, subsequently giving them control over all land near
or connected to that water.

Despite the claims by EPA that their proposal does not expand the reach of the Clean Water Act,
the way the proposal is written, there is no other interpretation. The vague and subjective
wording gives regulators the authority and access to nearly any water, and with it, all land-use
activities including ranching.

When passed in 1972, the CWA created a regulatory permitting system to control discharges,
including dirt, manure, fertilizer, litter, pesticides into navigable waters. The term navigable is
defined in the CWA as "waters of the United States" and nothing more. This vague definition has
provided the implementing federal agencies with the enormous loophole to systematically gain
more and more regulatory authority over smaller and less significant "bodies of water" — a term
used loosely over the past 40 years.

Despite Supreme Court rulings striking down broad interpretations of their authority over
isolated waters, the agencies keep trying to expand federal jurisdiction over ditches, ponds and
puddles. Instead of providing the needed clarity that so many people have asked for, the agencies
instead have put out a proposed rule that muddies the water even further. Their actions have only
created more questions for farmers and ranchers. The agency's interpretive rule simply added

222

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

more layers of government bureaucracy on top of that created by the agency's proposed
definition.

The vast overreach of this regulation is unprecedented and if it is not withdrawn, this expansion
will hurt a number of industries and small businesses. I will not stand to have my rights taken
from me in the land of the free. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers MUST withdraw this
rule.

Through the years, I have found that people want to do a good job of preserving the environment
and most will do much more of the right things when allowed to do it without being regulated.
We already spend too much time filling out forms to verify our stewardship.

Agency Response

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions

223

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which
ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #19418 [887 on-time duplicates, sponsored by members of North Carolina Association
of Realtors et al. (email and paper)!

As a member of the North Carolina Association of REALTORS® (NCAR), I write to urge you
to withdraw the proposed rule that would expand jurisdiction over more waters of the U.S.

NCAR is committed to the protection of America's water resources but if finalized, this rule will
result in dramatic negative impacts on future economic development and growth.

Nearly every sector of the economy including housing, agriculture, utilities, energy production,
and transportation needs permits required under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to conduct their
daily operations. Just as importantly, private property owners who want to develop their own
land must also frequently obtain these permits. Twice the Supreme Court has affirmed that both
the U.S. Constitution and the CWA limits federal authority over intrastate waters, yet EPA and
the Corps—through this proposed rule—are again attempting to expand the scope of federal
jurisdiction beyond anything that ever existed under the CWA.

In fact, if this rule were to be finalized, my own business and the activities of my clients would
be negatively impacted. Part of my business includes selling land for development and obtaining
permits under the CWA is already time consuming and expensive. Any increase in the number of
permits required to develop a property will hinder that development and impede economic
growth in the Wilmington area.

While the water quality protections provided by the CWA are vital, so too is the ability of
investors and private property owners to utilize the existing permitting process to spur economic
development.

224

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Only Congress can change the jurisdiction and authority of the CWA. I therefore respectfully
request that you withdraw the proposed rule expanding authority over more waters of the U.S.
until such time as Congress decides that a change should be made19.

Agency Response

To Whom It May Concern20:

As a REALTOR® association that is concerned about clean water, property rights and economic
development, we urge you to withdraw your proposed rule that would expand jurisdiction over
more waters of the United States.

19 First letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

20 Second letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

225

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

REALTORS® are committed to the protection of America's water resources but if finalized, this
rule will not have a measureable impact on water quality and will severely hinder future
economic development and growth.

Nearly every sector of the economy - including agriculture, housing, and energy production -
needs permits required under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to conduct their daily operations. Just
as importantly, private property owners who want to develop their own land must also frequently
obtain these permits. The Supreme Court has affirmed that both the U.S. Constitution and the
CWA limits federal authority over intrastate waters, yet EPA and the Corps - through this
proposed rule - are attempting to expand the scope of federal jurisdiction beyond anything that
ever existed under the CWA. An expanded scope over more waters of the U.S. will mean more
waters under EPA jurisdiction, more permits and loss of property rights.

In fact, if this rule were to be finalized, our economy would be negatively impacted. Commercial
and residential construction virtually stopped during the recent economic downturn. These
industries, which have close ties to our industry, are just beginning to recover. Increasing the
permits needed to sell properties will impede growth and harm our local economy just as it is
beginning to improve.

While the water quality protections provided by the CWA are vital, so too is the ability of private
property owners to utilize their property to spur economic development.

Only Congress can change the jurisdiction and authority of the CWA. We respectfully request
that you withdraw the proposed rule expanding authority over more waters of the U.S. until such
time as Congress decides that a change should be made.

Agency Response

226

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing. The agencies' economic analysis
indicates that indirect incremental benefits exceed indirect incremental costs.

To Whom It May Concern21:

As a REALTOR® who is concerned about clean water, property rights and economic
development, I urge you to withdraw your proposed rule that would expand jurisdiction over
more waters of the U.S. REALTORS® are committed to the protection of America's water
resources but if finalized, this rule will not have a measurable impact on water quality and will
harm property rights and severely hinder future economic development and growth.

Nearly every sector of the economy including agriculture, housing, and energy production needs
permits required under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to conduct their daily operations. Just as
importantly, private property owners who want to develop their own land must also frequently
obtain these permits. The Supreme Court has affirmed that both the U.S. Constitution and the
CWA limits federal authority over intrastate waters, yet EPA and the Corps - through this
proposed rule - are attempting to expand the scope of federal jurisdiction beyond anything that
ever existed under the CWA. An expanded scope over more waters of the U.S. will mean more
waters under EPA jurisdiction, more permits and loss of property rights.

While the water quality protections provided by the CWA are vital, so too is the ability of private
property owners to utilize their property to spur economic development.

Only Congress can change the jurisdiction and authority of the CWA. I therefore request that you
withdraw the proposed rule expanding authority over more waters of the U.S. until such time as
Congress decides that a change should be made.

Agency Response

21 Third letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

227

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA reaches beyond waters that are
navigable in fact.

To Whom It May Concern22:

As a REALTOR® who is concerned about clean water, property rights and economic
development, I urge you to withdraw your proposed rule that would expand jurisdiction over
more waters of the U.S. REALTORS® are committed to the protection of America's water
resources but if finalized, this rule will not have a measureable impact on water quality and will
severely hinder future economic development and growth. This is not a good 'fix.'

The Supreme Court has affirmed that both the U.S. Constitution and the CWA limits federal
authority over intrastate waters, yet EPA and the Corps - through this proposed rule - are
attempting to expand the scope of federal jurisdiction beyond anything that ever existed under
the CWA. This is nothing more than bureaucratic over reach with more permits and loss of
property rights—with no commensurate benefit to water quality.

If this rule were to be finalized my own business and the activities of my clients would be
negatively impacted. I assist my clients to buy and sell irrigated land in northern Arizona with
water rights extending back to the early 1900s. Putting new regulation and permit requirements
on them will be time-consuming and expensive with no environmental benefit. All you are
bringing is increased costs and another impediment to economic growth.

22 Fourth letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

228

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

I request that you withdraw the proposed rule expanding authority over more waters of the U.S.
until such time as

Congress decides that a change should be made.

Agency Response

Doc. #19433 [1,317 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Nebraska Corn Growers Association
et al. (paper)!

To Whom It May Concern23:

The included letters have been signed by farmers, ranchers, business owners, landowners and
other Nebraskan's who are deeply concerned with the proposed "waters of the U.S." rule. They
know that if enacted as proposed, the rule would greatly expand the federal government's

23 First letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

229

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

jurisdiction over land that Congress never intended to be regulated under the federal Clean Water
Act (CWA).

The attached letters were collected as part of a coalition of Nebraska organizations who came
together to oppose the proposal. Common Sense Nebraska's purpose is to build awareness and
understanding of the EPA/Army Corps of Engineers' proposal and the impacts it would have on
Nebraska. As our respective coalition members have traveled the state over the past several
months, it is clear that Nebraskans are deeply concerned with the proposed rule and believe that
it should be withdrawn.

As always we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and would be happy
to any questions you may have.

Dear President Obama and Administrator McCarthy :

We are writing today to express our opposition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed "Waters of the U.S." rule. This
proposed rule represents a great expansion of federal authority and is of critical concern to
farmers, ranchers, business owners and practically all of Nebraska's citizens. If the proposed rule
is allowed to move forward, anyone who turns dirt with a shovel could be subject to greater
regulatory burdens and could face more legal scrutiny.

Ever since this proposal was released, your administration has spent a lot of time talking about
the "certainty" this new rule provides. To be frank, the only certainty provided is that every place
where water flows or stands, including puddles, ponds, ditches, and areas where water runs or
pools during or after heavy rain, could now fall under the full regulatory authority of the federal
government. We urge you to withdraw the rule and work to provide "certainty" that doesn't
include the regulation of virtually all water everywhere!

Agency Response

24 Second letter example submitted under sponsoring agency.

230

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19434 [73 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Missouri Coalition for the Environment
(postcard)!

I care deeply about clean water and support the Waters of the U.S. rulemaking that is underway
by the US EPA and the Corps of Engineers. I believe this rulemaking will clear up confusion
about how clean water programs are understood and implemented. In Missouri, tens of thousands
of rivers and streams, thousands of lakes, and nearly all of our wetlands lack water quality
standards. Clean water is vital for public health, our economy, and our agriculture. Over half of
Missourians rely on surface waters for their drinking water supply. We also depend on wetlands
to provide flood storage, habitat, and water filtration. All waters are connected and I urge you to
adopt propos- le and ensure that these protections are extended to all waters in Missouri.

Agency Response

Doc. #19435 [75 late duplicates, sponsored by Gulf Restoration Network (postcard)!

Our waterways should be clean enough to drink from, fish from, and swim in without
risk of pollution. I urge you to finalize EPA's proposed Clean Water Act Waters of

the U.S. rule as soon as possible, follow the science that shows how water bodies are
interconnected, and fully protect all of the waterways that have important connections
to one another.

231

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Wetlands and clean water are vital for Gulf of Mexico communities, as they provide
drinking water, fishing opportunities, and flood protection. Thank you for this major
step towards protecting our waterways and wetlands.

Name

Address

City. State

Zip

Phone

I'd Like to get more involved in protecting the Gulf Coast
I am a farmer, and I'm for Clean Water.

I am a member of the Farm Bureau and I'm for Clean Water

Agency Response

Doc. #19436 [62,882 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Committee For A Constructive
Tomorrow (webVI

On proposed rule redefining the Waters of the United States pursuant to the Clean Water Act:
"Ditch the rule!"

Statement To President Barack Obama, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers:

The proposed rule represents an expansion of federal regulatory authority beyond the language
and intent adopted by Congress in the Clean Water Act.

GULF

RESTORATION
NETWORK

healthygulf.org

232

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The Supreme Court twice rejected attempts by regulators to assert authority over isolated waters
ruling that waters must have a continuous surface connection" or significant nexus to navigable
waters.

Congress repeatedly voted not to adopt policies similar to those in the proposed rule. If the rule is
adopted it usurps congressional authority.

The proposed rule would bring vast amounts of land under federal control adding unnecessary
and redundant red tape to areas currently adequately regulated by state and local governments.

EPA's cost-benefit analysis is deeply flawed, employing decades old cost estimates that were not
adjusted for inflation, or current economic and market conditions.

We, the undersigned, declare that the proposed rule will place undue regulatory burdens and
limitations on people attempting to responsibly use their land, adds new regulatory dead weight
to the economy and would produce no meaningful gains for the environment or the nation and
should not be promulgated.

Agency Response

Congress enacted the CWA "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters," 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a), and to complement statutes that
protect the navigability of waters, such as the Rivers and Harbors Act. The CWA is the
nation's single most important statute for protecting America's clean water against
pollution, degradation, and destruction. To provide that protection, the Supreme Court has
consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA reaches beyond waters that are
navigable in fact.

Protection of aquatic ecosystems, Congress recognized, demanded broad federal authority
to control pollution, for '[w]ater moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential that
discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.' In keeping with these views, Congress
chose to define the waters covered by the Act broadly." Id. at 132-33 (citing Senate Report
92-414). The Court also recognized that "[i]n determining the limits of its power to regulate
discharges under the Act, the Corps must necessarily choose some point at which water
ends and land begins."

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable
waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on
legal precedent and the best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies'
technical expertise and extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four
decades.

This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to
understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while
protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water

233

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

resources. The Clean Water Rule strengthens the protection of waters for the health of our
families, our communities, and our businesses. Our nation's businesses depend on clean
water to operate. Streams and wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing,
hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing. The agencies' economic
analysis indicates that indirect incremental benefits exceed indirect incremental costs.

Doc. #19437 [11 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Clean Water Action (web) - Identified as
Clean Water Action - m

RE: Docket; ¥-2011-0880

I . S. Environmental Protection Agency
Definition of
"Waters of the United States"
ler the Clean Water Act

NAME

ADDRES S

Signature,

Agency Response

234

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #19438 [18 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Clean Water Action (web) - Identified as
Clean Water Action - E

RE: Docket; ¥-2011-0880

I . S. Environmental Protection Agency
Definition of
"Waters of the United States"
Under the Clean Water Act

NAME

ADDRES S

Signature.

Agency Response

235

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19439 [47 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Coleman County Farm Bureau (web) -
Identified as Coleman County Farm Bureau - al

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act

*Write Comments in Space Provided

Agency Response

236

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #19440 [40 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 511

1 urge EPA to finalize a strong rule to ensure
that all streams, wetlands and other water
resources are protected under the Clean
Water Act. Every water body in the U.S. is
important and needs protection.

Clean water is vital to my family and me.

We rely on clean places to swim and play, and
sources of clean water to drink. Please keep
the Clean Water Act strong and effective so

Agency Response

NAME

ADDRES S

Signature.

237

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19441 [52 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 521

Clean water is vital to my family and me.

We rely on clean places to swim and play, and
sources of clean water to drink. Please keep
the Clean Water Act strong and effective so

Agency Response

Doc. #19462 [3 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Coleman County Farm Bureau (web) -
Identified as Coleman County Farm Bureau - bl

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act

NAME

ADDRES S

Signature.

238

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

*Write Comments in Space Provided

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters — many of which are not even wet
or considered waters under any common understanding of that word. I write in opposition to the
proposed rule.

Agency Response

In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that
are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme
Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies'
technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process
of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Also for added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered
waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-
filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and
non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry
land.

Doc. #19463 [5 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Coleman County Farm Bureau (web) -
Identified as Coleman County Farm Bureau - cl

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act

239

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

*Write Comments in Space Provided

Agency Response

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Doc. #19467 [33 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Clean Water Action Denver Office (web)
- Identified as Clean Water Action Denver - b

Clean water is vital to my family and me.
We rely on clean places to swim and play, and
sources of clean water to drink. Please keep
the Clean Water Act strong and effective so

III, S, Environmental Protection Agency
Definition of
"Waters of the United States"
Under the Clean Water Act

NAME

ADDRESS

Signature.

240

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Doc. #19494 [70 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Clean Water Action Denver (web) -
Identified as Clean Water Action Denver - cl

www.cleanwateractton.org

Agency Response

A CLEAN V'VVl l-K
J ACTION

14^.4 Eye Street, NW
Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Dote

RE Dock* FD lPA-Ha-QW-2011-08i0

Clean water is vital to my family and trio. We rely
on clea*i water for rirtnkbg, swimming and other

activities.

For too long there has been confusion about which
str earns and wetlands are pi elected, even though
it is clpdr that Congress intended for all water to be
safeguarded whec the Clpan Water Act passed in 1972

Plcasi? keep the Clean WatPr Act sti ong and effective
and finalize a ru /*

241

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

that all streams, wetlands and other water
resources are protected under the Clean
Water Act. Every water body in trie to. is
important and needs protection.

Docket fD E PA-HQ-OW-2011-0880
1 urge EPA to finalize a strong rule to ensure

U S Environments! Protection Agency

Definition of
"Waters of the United States"
Under the Clean Water Act

Clean water is vital to my family and me,

We rely on clean places to swim and play,
sources of clean water to drink. Please ke
the Clean Water Act strong and effective
we can continue to protect clean water.

242

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

protects these waters.



if£: bs&gr /D - ftZOij~(MS0

wc/fcs $

.a,i

^'rJ^ye	^wf

S'
&

Zzrjf	57 Str? ^

/y^/xi iaXy ro*

-J" A~

\r r'.K:*~.*-" /si •-

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule interprets
the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters,
and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the
best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and

243

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

&WTTA|VtA*tV 11 O I-' i L- x- .

(A-cm wtetr M of \°C\i-

ne-edJ -h? k?c- pmmtdJ moU

xwOwtXt- pwitctfvn-frr
CtU woma X)o&\€i Pi-tare*-
tamtam hsattVt ot a/r
woMnUdi lev vacating
mA madLwcm^-

you,

M^rTna YvpyWvvsim

via% ficm J

Denver, (jo min

Agency Response

Re- Docm fD tPA-HQ-OW-mi-owo
Okan wtucr ija ywammowiz>)

244

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

wetlands are economic drivers because they support fishing, hunting, agriculture,
recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Pollution threatens these economic drivers and we
all know the dangers of pollution upstream: water flows downstream and carries pollutants
with it. Right now, many streams and wetlands lack clear protection from pollution and
destruction. One in 3 Americans, 117 million of us, get our drinking water from streams
that are vulnerable. Sixty percent of the nation's stream miles - the vital headwaters that
flow downstream after rain or in certain seasons - aren't clearly protected. Millions of
acres of wetlands that trap floodwaters, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife are at risk.

Doc. #19501 [17 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 531

I am writing as a lawn care and landscape professional to encourage the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to rescind its proposed
Waters of the U.S. regulation.

My company helps homeowners and businesses maintain their lawns and landscapes and take
pride in their communities. Pesticides and fertilizers are important tools in maintaining green
spaces and protecting people and property from pests, such as ticks and rodents that can carry
diseases. They are also used to control weeds that can exacerbate allergies. Unfortunately, the
use of these beneficial products may be limited under the proposed Waters of the U.S. regulation.
The rule could also impact my ability to install trees, grass, and other plants that play a vital role
in reducing runoff and erosion, filtering groundwater, and sequestering carbon dioxide.

The proposed rule will expand the scope of waters subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
regulation well beyond the laws' intent. Under the proposed rules definition of a tributary, many
additional natural and man-made water bodies, including residential lakes, ponds, fountains, golf
course water hazards, ditches, and areas that are only wet during rainfall events, could be subject
to federal regulation. The new designations will create confusion for lawn care and landscape
professionals like myself and make it more difficult to maintain my customers property.

Please withdraw this proposed rule.

Agency Response

245

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable,
and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and
wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

Doc. #19502 [583 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
Identified as Unknown 541

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

As an employer in the construction industry, I am writing in response to the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) above-referenced notice
of proposed rulemaking to redefine "waters of the United States" under all Clean Water Act
(CWA) programs, which was published on April 21, 2014, at 79 Fed. Reg. 22188.

The CWA imposes substantial permitting and regulatory requirements on projects near waters
covered by the act. The proposed rule, however, does not adequately define "waters of the
United States" and other key concepts under CWA programs. As a result, the regulations fail to
provide the information I need to comply with the law. Inevitably, this will lead to a flood of

246

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

unnecessary and excessive permitting requests with associated and equally unnecessary project
delays and increased costs.

The uncertainty surrounding what will actually be considered "waters of the United States" under
this proposal, coupled with the EPA's and Corps' broad authority to make determinations, could
chill any construction near waterways that could conceivably be covered by the rule. This will
almost certainly lead to fewer projects overall and negatively impact job creation in the
construction industry.

For the reasons outlined above, I urge EPA and the Corps to withdraw the proposed rule.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this matter.

Agency Response

Doc. #19503 [124 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
Identified as Unknown 551

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding the definition of Waters of the
U.S. under the Clean Water Act.

Under the rule, Section 402 permits would be necessary for common farming activities like
applying fertilizer or pesticide or moving cattle if materials (fertilizer, pesticide, or manure)
would fall into low spots or ditches. Section 404 permits would be required for earthmoving

247

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

activity, such as plowing, planting or fencing, except as part of established farming operation
that has been ongoing at the same site since 1977which in and of itself makes no sense.

Implementation of the rule would impose direct costs, delays, and uncertainty in planning.

Illinois municipal governments and other jurisdictions such as towns, villages, counties,
townships, drainage districts, water districts, irrigation systems, transportation departments, and
municipal utilities will be profoundly impacted by the shift from state and local control of water-
related land uses to federal control.

The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is
clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm, or make changes to the
land; even if those changes would benefit the environment. Farmers work to protect water
quality regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA.

As agriculture, business, and local governments will be severely impacted; therefore, I ask you to
DITCH THE RULE.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural resources
and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the
scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters are defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule than
under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

Also for added clarity, the rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered
waters of the United States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-
filled depressions incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and
non-wetland swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry
land. As discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not
an intent to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified

248

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

which ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the
Ditch Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Doc. #19508 [537 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
Identified as Unknown 561

I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers proposed rule regarding Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act.

This is unconstitutional and a violation of my Rights.

The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of navigable waters subject to Clean
Water Act Jurisdiction by regulating small and remote waters many of which are not even wet or
considered waters under any common understanding of the word. I write in opposition to the
proposed rule.

249

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Agency Response

Doc. #19509 [338 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) -
Identified as Unknown 57

I am very opposed to this proposed rule.

The proposed rule definitions extend federal jurisdiction broadly to croplands across Iowa, which
will require federal permits for applicators of crop protection products widely across Iowa under
the National Cotton Council v EPA court ruling. This results in duplicate federal bureaucracy
and red tape as crop protection product use on croplands is already adequately regulated by EPA
through pesticide registration.

Ag retailers, crop advisors and related agribusinesses are the primary sources of information and
technologies to Iowa farmers, the proposed rule creates more confusion over how to advise
farmers what areas and activities require complicated and time-consuming federal permits. EPA
has made verbal statements about the proposed rule which vary greatly from the written rule text,
which has added confusion to what is covered by the rule and how to comply.

250

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

The expansive language in the proposed rule would mean that farmers could be forced to apply
for federal permits and work through red tape to do normal farming activities such as; building a
terrace, constructing an in-field waterway, or even applying crop protection products and crop
nutrients. This proposed rule is burdensome to farmers and goes beyond environmental
protection to being a clear intrusion on the property rights of farmland owners.

The proposed rule will slow down the environmental progress by Iowa farmers, because of the
federal bureaucracy and red tape of having to obtain unneeded federal permits. Iowa farmers
need to be able to continue rapid adoption of environmental practices, rather than focus to
staying legal under complicated and very slow bureaucracy of obtaining federal permits.

Upland waters which are upstream of navigable waters should continue to be the responsibility
of the states, through state environmental programs such as the nationally recognized Iowa
Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

Federal jurisdiction under the proposal would be extended to ditches, gullies, wet spots, adjacent
non-wetlands, and other areas in or near cropped fields that are away from navigable waters.

This will result in any future water quality nutrient standards being applied directly to cropped
lands and which are above the possible locations for edge-of-field and off-field environmental
practices that will be needed to meet those standards.

We need to let the nationally-recognized Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy work. I urge you to
Ditch This Rule.

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to
minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. We also note that States and tribes,
consistent with the CWA, retain full authority to implement their own programs to more
broadly and more fully protect the waters in their jurisdiction. In this final rule, EPA and
the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the
Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best
available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and
experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters
protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the
law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the
foundation of our nation's water resources.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404

251

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

252

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Doc. #19564 [282 late duplicates, sponsored by Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association (paper)!

KECEWiP
NOV 11 2011
AM DOCKET CENTER

X	%*•&£	,V*| S*1'¦

"• C

V"-	*4^-.

i?/"	^	.

I	<•—

^	**AiA P/"-\ {->-\

4j SV.

5.%^ /y



•7

<£L

PG®TWAF?Kep
WOK I 7 2Qit
^"OCKETea^,

Sender is. a protiel member of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association

Agency Response

The agencies recognize the vital role of farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber
and are sensitive to their concerns. The final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to

253

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

minimize potential regulatory burdens on the nation's agriculture community, and
recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and landowners to protect and conserve natural
resources and water quality on agricultural lands. The agencies recognize the vital role of
farmers in providing the nation with food and fiber and are sensitive to their concerns. The
final rule reflects the intent of the agencies to minimize potential regulatory burdens on the
nation's agriculture community, and recognizes the voluntary work of farmers and
landowners to protect and conserve natural resources and water quality on agricultural
lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army clarify the scope of "waters of the United
States" that are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute,
Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the
agencies' technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute. This rule makes
the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the
streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation's water resources.

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to offer you my comments on the "waters of the US" (WOTUS) proposed
rulemaking that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers published in the Federal Register on April21, 2014.1 am seriously concerned about
the scope of jurisdiction that the federal agencies are claiming under the Clean Water Act.

Most of the areas that are being categorically claimed as WOTUS are far too remote to merit that
treatment. Moreover, many of the features are dry most of the time, and comparable numbers of
these features have water in them at most only for short periods. It is inappropriate for the federal
agencies to do this and unnecessary. Dry drainage features will never be fishable and swimmable
and do not need to be made jurisdictional in order for us to work together to protect the quality of
waterways that are clearly jurisdictional.

As a farmer and rancher in southwest Oklahoma, where we are in our 4th year of severe drought,
we are very serious about water and water quality. I do not have any streams that run over a few
days after a big rain. Most have not run in 3 to 4 years now.

I am just as concerned about clean water as anyone, but feel that we do not need the E.P .A. or
the Corps of Engineers involved in our farming and ranching operations.

I work very closely with the NRCS in trying to conserve water and protecting the quality of it
through conservations practices on my farm.

I urge you to NOT implement this rule as proposed.

Agency Response

254

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

resources and water quality on agricultural lands. In this final rule, EPA and the Army
clarify the scope of "waters of the United States" that are protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-
reviewed science, public input, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience in
implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected
under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and
peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation
of our nation's water resources.

The final rule reflects that the scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the
stream channels and riparian/floodplain wetlands or open waters that together form river
networks are clearly connected to downstream waters in ways that profoundly influence
downstream water integrity. However, the connectivity and effects of non-floodplain
wetlands and open waters are more variable and thus more difficult to address solely from
evidence available in peer-reviewed studies. The final rule provides for case-specific
determinations under more narrowly targeted circumstances based on the agencies'
assessment of the importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial
seas.

The scope of regulatory jurisdiction in this rule is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined as "waters of the United States" under the rule
than under the existing regulations, in part because the rule puts important qualifiers on
some existing categories such as tributaries. In addition, the rule provides greater clarity
regarding which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing the instances in which
permitting authorities, including the states and tribes with authorized section 402 and 404
CWA permitting programs, make jurisdictional determinations on a case-specific basis.

The rule has expanded the section on waters that are not considered waters of the United
States, such as artificial lakes and ponds created in dry land, water-filled depressions
incidental to mining or construction, constructed grassed waterways and non-wetland
swales, and stormwater and wastewater detention basins constructed in dry land. As
discussed in the Ditch Compendium, the agencies have explained that there is not an intent
to regulate all ditches. In fact, in the final rule the agencies have further clarified which
ditches are excluded from coverage under the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Ditch
Compendium for a full discussion on the treatment of ditches in the final rule.

Finally, the rule does not affect or modify in any way the many existing statutory
exemptions under CWA Sections 404, 402, and 502 for agriculture. We also note that if an
activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a
discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an established
farming, silviculture or ranching operation.

Doc. #19586 [53 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Environment Florida (webVI

Dear EPA Administrator McCarthy,

255

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

From Tampa Bay to the Everglades, our iconic waterways make Florida a great place to live.

Unfortunately, loopholes in the Clean Water Act have left Florida's smaller rivers, streams and
wetlands unprotected, putting the places we kayak, fish and boat at risk of toxic pollution.

To ensure all our waters are protected, we urge you to close loopholes in the Clean Water Act
now.

Agency Response

Doc. #19601 [55 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 581

I urge EPA to finalize a strong rule to ensure
that all streams, wetlands and other water
resources are protected under the Clean
Water Act. Every water body in the U.S. is

III, S, Environmental Protection Agency
Definition of
"Waters of the United States"
Under the Clean Water Act

256

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

important and needs protection.

Clean water is vital to my family and me.
We rely on clean places to swim and play, and
sources of clean water to drink. Please keep
the Clean Water Act strong and effective so

NAME

ADDRESS

Signature.

Agency Response

Doc. #19602 [15 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 591

Clean water is vital to my family and me.
We rely on clean places to swim and play, and

NAME

ADDRESS

ers

e €ie

257

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

sources of clean water to drink. Please keep

the Clean Water Act strong and effective so Signature

Agency Response

Doc. #19603 [52 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organization Unknown (web) - Identified
as Unknown 601

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

I support the EPAs proposed definition of Waters for the United States. This rule will help
restore your authority to protect all of the water in the United States, in exactly the way that
Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act.

A strong Clean Water Act is necessary to address threats to the water that farmers, ranchers, and
communities depend on — from chemical spills from mining operations that have leaked arsenic
into a Colorado river, to the heavy metals leached from coal ash at coal-fired power plants, to
destructive saltwater spills, fracking fluids and other chemicals used in oil and gas drilling and
production that have contaminated waters in states across the West.

258

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Farmers, ranchers, and others who are potentially regulated by the Clean Water Act need clear,
predictable regulations that are focused on protecting water quality, so exemptions for
commonplace everyday farming and ranching practices that don't pollute the water are critical. I
urge you to make sure those exemptions are clear and dependable.

Your approval of the Waters of the U.S. rule will provide the clarity and certainty we need that
we will have clean water and all of the benefits that it provides to communities, farmers and
ranchers, recreation, fish, wildlife and all of the environment. The Clean Water Act is one of the
great success stories of public policy protecting our environment and our economy at the same
time. This proposed definition, if adopted with the needed provisions for farmers and ranchers,
will be an important part of carrying that success forward.

Agency Response

Doc. #19616 [12,294 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Organic Consumers Association
(web)l

I am deeply concerned about protecting our drinking water. I support the Waters of the U.S.
rulemaking currently underway by the US EPA and the Corps of Engineers. I believe this
rulemaking will clear up confusion surrounding the implementation of clean water programs.

The longstanding confusion has allowed many previously protected waters from having adequate

259

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

protection, leaving drinking water supplies for one-third of Americans at risk.

The proposed rule addresses the massive growth of expansive factory farms while keeping in
place the exemptions for normal farming and ranching activities, such as plowing, seeding,
harvesting, construction of stock ponds and irrigation ditches.

Agency Response

Doc. #19661 [200 on-time duplicates, sponsored by Banning Ranch Conservancy (web)l

To the EPA and ACOE:

The Banning Ranch Conservancy urges you to move forward to finalize the rulemaking
proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to
clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act. The Banning Ranch Conservancy and The Sierra Club

260

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

Angeles Chapter's Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force aim to preserve and conserve
Banning Ranch, which at 401 acres, is the last large parcel of unprotected coastal open space in
Orange County, California. In addition, Banning Ranch includes wetlands and rare vernal pools.
This rulemaking effort is critical to restoring protections for the vernal pools that make up
sensitive habitat and enable biological diversity. It also serves the purpose of the Clean Water
Act to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.

Despite thirty years of historically comprehensive protections under the Act, small streams,
wetlands, and vernal pools are not guaranteed to be covered by the Clean Water Act. These
waters may now be vulnerable to pollution and degradation following two Supreme Court
decisions in 2001 and 2006. For example, after the SWANCC decision, the EPA concluded the
following:

"SWANCC squarely eliminates CWA jurisdiction over isolated waters that are intrastate
and non-navigable, where the sole basis for asserting CWA jurisdiction is the actual or
potential use of the waters as habitat for migratory birds that cross state lines in their
migrations.... The EPA and the Corps are now precluded from asserting CWA
jurisdiction in such situations, including over waters such as isolated, non-navigable,
intrastate vernal pools, playa lakes and pocosins." (68 FR 1995 (2003))."

Currently, the reviewing agencies and Courts may be significantly burdened to repeatedly prove
what we already know scientifically - that small streams, wetlands, and vernal pools are
integrally linked to the health of downstream waters and biological integrity. The protection of
vernal pools serves the purpose of the Act. For instance, the EPA itself states, "Vernal pools are
a valuable and increasingly threatened ecosystem, often smaller than the bulldozer that threatens
to destroy them. More than 90% of California's vernal pools have already been lost." (See
http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/vernal.cfm). The remaining 10% of California vernal pools
are at risk. This is exemplified by the case of the vernal pool complex at Banning Ranch.

This vernal pool complex, which is one of only two coastal vernal pool complexes in Orange
County recognized by the USFWS, and the only vernal pool complex containing critical habitat
for the endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), contains up to 50
separate vernal pools. Over 35 of these pools have been documented to contain either listed or
non-listed branchiopods. During overflow periods, these vernal pools drain into arroyos on the
property, which, in turn, drain into immediately adjacent coastal tidal marsh wetlands. Coveted
by developers for its flat terrain and ocean views, the Banning Ranch vernal pool complex is
under the very real threat of development. Clarification of rules on vernal pools is therefore
urgently needed.

The agencies have specifically requested comment on expanding the list of waters that are
jurisdictional by rule. It is my position that said list of waters should be expanded to include
vernal pools that are established to be reservoirs of biodiversity, connected genetically to other
locations, and aquatic habitats through wind and animal mediated dispersal. Such vernal pools
include those found in Banning Ranch. By establishing that such vernal pools are waters
jurisdictional by rule, protection of vernal pools will be more feasible and clear under the law.
We strongly support efforts to better protect small streams and wetlands. The proposed rule is an
important step forward to restoring protections for streams, ponds, wetlands, and other waters.

261

-------
Clean Water Rule Response to Comments - Mass Mailing Campaigns

As part of this effort, I urge you to strengthen the proposed rule by more fully restoring
protections to other waters, such vernal pools.

Agency Response

Protecting the long-term health of our nation's waters is essential. This final rule interprets
the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters,
and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the
best available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies' technical expertise and
extensive experience in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. In this final
rule, the agencies are responding to those requests from across the country to make the
process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more
predictable, and more consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science.

To keep our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters clean, the smaller streams and wetlands that
feed them have to be clean too. This is confirmed by the science; The Clean Water Rule is
informed by a review of more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed and published scientific
literature. This well-established body of science tells us what kinds of streams and wetlands
are important to the long-term health of the water downstream so our Clean Water Rule
protects these waters.

The rule provides for case-specific determinations based on the agencies' assessment of the
importance of certain specified waters to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas. The agencies have
determined that categories of non-adjacent waters will not be defined as jurisdictional by
rule, thereby recognizing that a gradient of connectivity exists and asserting jurisdiction
only when the connection and the downstream effects are significant and more than
speculative and insubstantial. Under paragraph (a)(7), prairie potholes, Carolina and
Delmarva bays, pocosins western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie
wetlands are jurisdictional when they have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable
water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. Waters in these subcategories are not
jurisdictional as a class under the rule. However, because the agencies determined that
these subcategories of waters are "similarly situated," the waters within the specified
subcategories that are not otherwise jurisdictional under (a)(6) of the rule must be assessed
in combination with all waters of a subcategory in the region identified by the watershed
that drains to the nearest point of entry of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
or the territorial seas (point of entry watershed).

262

-------