NPR: Trump, Supreme Court And Waters Of The USA Rule
NPR's Greg Allen looks at the dynamics surrounding the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case involving the EPA's Waters of the United States rule. The rule has enormous ramifications for golf as more golf course water features could come under federal regulation. Allen points out that the rule could directly impact President Donald Trump's golf courses, and therefore, impact his selection of a Supreme Court justice.
The rule is opposed by a long list of industries, including manufacturers, farmers and golf course owners like Trump.
They have been filing lawsuits that have put the rule on hold. Bob Helland, with the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, says the average golf course has over 11 acres of streams, ponds and wetlands that could be affected. Under the rule, courses may now need federal permission before applying fertilizer or pesticides.
"Many of our routine activities would be deemed as a discharge into waters of the United States and could not move forward without getting a required permit," Helland said.
Allen notes that the rule could be eliminated sooner should Congress kill the rule and President Trump not veto it. Republican Sens. Joni Ernst and Deb Fischer have introduced a resolution to commence such a process.
ABC News is reporting that President Trump will be nominating a justice to fill the vacant seat on Tuesday.
Reader Comments (34)
Dmac, they only seem skewed to you because you have different views. And I'm not sure you have it quite right. When there is violence like that at Fort Hood, it's not NPR that doesn't want that labeled as terrorism, that is the typical modern right wing agenda: don't label anything terrorism unless it involves Islamic Extremism.
It's only one week into the administration, but people should get used to the media pointing out when the President's business interests may conflict with actions he may have to take. This time it's his golf courses, but it will come up again and again. That's actually the news media's job.
This path was a choice.
Interesting isn't it, the circumstances which compel people to do their jobs...
She also didn't reach the White House without releasing tax returns and without divorcing herself from her assets. Had she, she would be as fair game as our new President.
There is a low-level "destination" golf business here also. Those are concentrated closer to the resort areas of the Atlantic and coastal waterways. I don't hear much on that. More interest regionally in agricultural run-off affecting the Chesapeake bay.
I'm sure golf course superintendents are thrilled the best practices under the law are lacking. This isn't about an open pipe from a hexavalent tank or a pig farm to a waterway. Although the EPA sure is adept at dodging bullets fired from their own guns on that front. And I quote from the 2015 King Gold Mine spill: "The EPA has taken responsibility for the incident, but refused to pay for any damage claims filed after the accident on grounds of sovereign immunity." Care to guess what the government position would be had the private sector made such a mistake?
But as to donnie's deal-- he has already tossed the Constitution by refusing to follow Federal Judges orders, and the line to impeach him is being led by some of Bush 43's people The realization that he is having the opposite effect on the Muslin countries is actually increasing the danger to the US, not making us safer..
One only need look at the countries don singled out in his manifesto- no known terrorists have attacked us from any of them; but Egypt and Saudi Arabia have provided the USA with terrorists- AND- they are also countries where don the mon (sic) has business interests.
I don't care for HRC, but she would not have led to an increase in bomb shelter inquiries.
Interesting, doncha think, and isn't it ironic?
Otherwise it very well might not have been ready for the '91 Ryder Cup.
Golf courses in general are not environmentally friendly, contrary to whatever superficial awards might be presented as far as "Audubon Sanctuary" awards granted. Probably not even the one you personally tee it up on most occasionally.
Might be best to simply soften the level of hypocrisy here, unless you're willing to undertake your own investigative measures to make sure your preferred layout is "compliant."
You don't understand the process. After Congress "does the work" to write the law, one agency of the executive branch administers the law with the authority to write additional regulations to "iron out" the details. Once the agency opens investigations and eventually brings cases to Federal Court, flaws in the law will come to light, courts sometimes direct agencies to clarify the law with regulations, and agencies sometimes write additional regulations on their own. Sometimes agencies are "handed their hat" many times by Federal Courts. Its a process, and Congress fully understands that their laws are subject to human error and must have additional regulations written in the future. Regulatory laws are written by Congress. Regulations clarify Congressional laws and are written by Agencies of the Executive Branch subject to court challenges.
Compared to a protected wildlife sanctuary, no, they're not. Compared to a shopping center, parking lots, housing community, etc., they are way more environmentally friendly.
We have to be responsible for our actions more so our designs and upon the land we lay our ideas to rest. Sustainability was once the corner stone of GSA, but modern Designers and owners seem to have forgotten that in the end cost relates to sustainability, not just to the course but equipment too.
Green is nice but not necessary, we have to live with our environment and so should plan within the scope of what is right for the land and the game. We must shake off this 6-million-dollar man syndrome that with money we can do what we like because soon rather than later even the money runs out while sustainability may well stretches it way further.
However, we have not yet learnt the lesson, so many clubs and designers will start coming up against environmental issues that they just can't win, so, I say, remember 'land fit for Purpose'. It is indeed very important and may save your course, not to mention your collective reputations in the long run.
These are not new issues but old, however many have forgotten the very basics and taken the game and GCA into the realm of dreams not wet dreams but dry!
https://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/final-clean-water-rule
https://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule