. >> i believe in the house of representatives of the reforms nancy pelosi has pledged to accept based on my counterparts it is just too much power to few and i fear that it will not change. ariel hereelcoming today the trenton administration's proposal to offer the clean water protection act so first of all, let's talk about what the clean water actct is. >> thank you for having me. passed in 1972 essentially the firstr time the federal

government was taking a regulatory role and cleaning up the nation's waters back then it set the standards that municipalities had to be treating their municipal wastewater at factories and power plants also factories with the big impact of the law at the time but also included requirements for permits and also if you fill or dredge in the wetland. >> who enforces the clean water act is at the justice department? who enforces to make sure it is actually enforced? . >> most of the time it is the e epa. what you would think of as traditional polluters like a water treatment plant you're

not putting toxic chemicals to flow into the rivers and streams the army corps of engineer plays the role of the dredging of the wetlands actually look to determine is this federally protected and do you needki a permit if it violates all of that than the justice department is involved. >> so the rule changes is the waters of the united states what does that mean? . >> a lot of people would be surprised to learn 46 yearsn? ago nobody defined the term water so essentially ever since then every administration has to come up with their own definition that has been hotly debated it has gone to the supreme court three different times. >> so what is water? .

>> if you think of a watershed like the chesapeake bay that itself everyone would agree that is the water of the us you can boat and swim similarly the potomac river has constantly has water but when you get further upstream you have these debates what about a small stream that only flows? what if you have it doesn't even flows seasonally only after rainfall but it has a impact on pollution downstream? what about the wetlands or maybe not quite next to the streamss thousands of feet away that have an impact on water quality? that is what we are debating. >> what is the new epa proposal how does it affect

the view of the definition? . >> the new trump administration proposal is they would only cover intermittently so streams have to have water in them continuous flow at least sometimes those that only flow after rain or snow are not included in that is about 18 percent of streams in the country are no longer covered additionally thereou n excludina large number of wetlands about 51 percent they don't have a surface water connection so now they will be excluded. >> under the s new proposal is there an exact count how many streams or waterways?

how do we find that out? . >> that data is not perfect we do have some us geological survey does map streams taking into account their flow 80 percent there was that flow after rainfall is probably more than that especially in the west where that is common but the wetlands the best estimate we have it is 51 percent. >> canned the executive branch make this unilaterally what does it have to go through congress and the courts when you change any regulation this is something what the trump administration has tripped over when going to court so looking at this proposal is

this an accurate interpretation but are they following these other laws? . >> talking to ariel about the changes proposed to the clean water act we will open the phone lines. who is pushing for the rule change? .. >> a lot of industry groups, homebuildersrs the oil industry, the mining industry

did not like the version of this rule that the obama administration came upad with that covered some waterways that you would say it is dry most of the year or 4000 feet away from the stream so that is really far away most people will not consider a waterway but that do have contributions to water qualityli downstream so it should be noted the trump administration although it excludes some they were protected since the reaganwa administration. >> the current secretary has said he will leave does the interior department that covers a lot of the public land do they have anything to do with the clean water act rule? direct not directly they are not involved in writing it

although when the permit decisions are made the fisheries service can weigh in to say the wetlands are important for endangered specie species. >> so wide is the process of the change? they just say here are the new rules and you have to live with that or is there ae, process rigid in the federal register in a couple weeks than there is a 60 day comment period for the public than the administration has to respond to all of them and they're asking people should we include all the wetlands are the more we should exclude or where we should include? they have to read all those and come up with a final proposal expecting sometime next year than undoubtedly

that would be challenged in court. >> is or anybody who is opposing them? . yes the usual environmental groups are opposing this a lot like the fisherman groups because the sport fish people like to fish depend on the smaller wetlands and waterways for the lifecycle. >> let's go to our first caller from new york good morning. >>caller:: good morning how are you. it was complicated and unnecessary when water is free and natural and you make all these laws supposedly for

sustainability and water is your right to protect but it is a gift from god it is a natural right as a matter of fact going back a little bit the president of - - stated water is nottt a right and we don't have rights to this water but it is a way to control for what they have people are now arrested for collecting rainwater in bottles. there is a woman named deborah who has a very wonderful website about these water issues one is called stop the crime .net. but more importantly go to

jott truth .net in reality we've gotten so far away from god and his laws you have a right to make up your own laws which put a yoke around people's neck and people are getting tired of it. and that's why you have these riots going on in france. >> now calling from the democratic line. >>caller: good morning. i grew up in the sixties and seventies i remember the cuyahoga river was burning i remember the cancers that are caused by people drinking water that had chemicals in it i think we are going backwards.

and we need help the statement that elections have consequences and it's pretty serious i think. >> certainly the burning of the cuyahoga river that was a major impetus between the clean water act then they had to override it to get that through. >> i think the epa administrator for the signing ceremony earlier this week at the epa here is what he had to say when present trump took office started undue on regulatory burdens that was stifling economic development and innovation at the top of the list with the obama administration 2015 waters of the united states definition today epa and the army corps

are promote proposing a new definition for waters of the united states putting an end to the previous administrations powerer grab. are clearly defining the difference between a federally protected waterway and state protected waterways. and three, that we are providing the certainty the american public needs and in a manner that will be upheld by the courts. that is why we are closely following the language of the clean water act and the three supreme court decisions. host: does congress have any say over this rule change, and does

it matter that the houses is going from public enhanced to democratic hands? guest: any regulation when finalize is subject to the congressional review act, which within a certain amount of time, congress can come to vote. you would need both houses to be democrat for them to invalidate this in that way. have been instances when obama was president and he came out with his regulations where republicans tried to put writers .n appropriations bills we will see if house democrats try to go that route, but it is unclear whether that would be successful. host: do you think this will be challenged in court, and with this be challenged in federal court or state court? guest: host this is one of the issues where you expect it actually eventually to be back

at the supreme court. everybody is expecting it to go all the way. to john calling from hagerstown, maryland on the independent line. john, good morning. how are you doing today? host: just fine. caller: i would just like to say -- let's go to alan, calling on the republican line. alan, good morning. caller: i want to comment on the clean water act, something that happened when the clintons left the white house, there was a lot of damage called by that administration in the bathrooms and such, in the thousands. and also, there was stuff taken by the clintons themselves from the white house. it was, bute what

it was a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of materials. but i want people to be aware that when they left, they took many of the artifacts that were dear to us. who iset's try ray, calling from napa, california. ray, good morning. caller: i think it is ludicrous that they would water down the epa. i live in the bay area. to they are releasing into the bay? will they be able to release more under this watered down resolution? guest: any bay or ocean will still be protected under this, what we call a traditionally navigable waterway. those waterways have been covered since the 1890's. that will not change under the trump administration.

host: let's go to thomas, who is calling from illinois on independent line. thomas, good morning. caller: good morning. host: did i get that right, is it no-- --ler: it is host: wow. a completely different place. go ahead. caller: i am american indian, and i am 80 years old, and i have seen, experience, and watched as foreigners that have invaded our country from centuries ago, raped the land, raped thewater, people, and all they care about is their dad gum money. people,e european people who still have the european attitude that they can take anything they want or they

can do anything they want, because they have the money, they hassled the rest of us, and problem that we have in our country is the europeans that came here and they want to take everything, they do not care about preserving the land or the water or the people if it is not their own immediate family. host: let's try james, who is calling from nevada on the democratic line. james, good morning. james, are you there? caller: i am here, but i am from mississippi. host: oh, wow, you are from my home state. what part of mississippi are you from, james? caller: hattiesburg. host: down on the coast. what is your question? caller: i am a land surveyor. some people have outsmarted the government on that. theythey call dry land, if

land, theynks of dry just donate it to a college and don't pay taxes on it. most of the land i survey, it is not dry, so something should be done, because these people are having to give up land that they have been using for years and years that is not a wetland, that has nothing to do with wetlands. it is just another government project that some tree hugger dreamed up, because it is not wetlands. it is absolutely not wetlands. host: this is something you are talking about earlier, about the argument about what is water and what is not. this wetland issue, have you seen this argument before? guest: absolutely, and it is true that if you are a layperson, you might expect the lands to be wet, and they could be soggy or muddy or even at

times bone dry. that is why this regulation is so contentious, because average people might say oh, that does not look like a wetland, that does not look like water, but the reality is if you didn't go in and destroy it by putting in building on it or you did put some pollution in it, you would see an impact downstream. so it is really a question of how far up the estuary or the watershed can be federal government go up and reach? of course not all states cover wetlands or regulate wetlands, so in some of these cases in some of these states, those are completely without protection. host: you mentioned earlier you expect this to go to the supreme court sooner or later. what has the supreme court said in the past about the clean water act? have a push it forward, have they pushed it back? guest: their most recent case , andot much help, in 2006

it was 4-1-4. justice anthony kennedy have the standalone, and that they have to have a larger connection to call it a significant connection. george bushama and administrations, you can see small things that might be dry sometimes or might be far away, because they are saying this actually does have significant impact downstream if you do something to these wetlands. justice anthony scalia wrote his opinion for the conservatives on the court, and he that only waterways and wetlands with relatively permanent surface water connection to larger rivers and streams should be protected, and that is the opinion that the trumpet administration is going with with the regulation. host: how long does it take to these proposals through? will we see a final decision on

this from the administration in the next year, next two years? multipleake administrations to make these changes, or does it move pretty fast? guest: the administration is saying that they will finalize this by this summer that said, they were delayed in getting this proposal out. it was originally supposed to come out in august. ofare expecting hundreds thousands of commenters to weigh in on this proposal, and the trump administration is going to have to read every single one of them and address those concerns in the final rule, and that could take some time. if you are for this, if you're against this, how do you comment on it? guest: is you go to the epa website or the army corps upsite, it will come right once it is published there. host: let's go to laura in tennessee on the republican line. laura, good morning.

caller: my question is for the guests, please answer the question as to why you are penalized for reserving rainwater. and spraying on the sides of the roads, around the water supply, instead of like they used to, is mow. penalized for reserving rainwater? guest: not under this regulation. maybe there is a local ordinance or state ruled that folks are worried about, but that does not have much to do with people putting barrels out in collecting rainwater. go to troy in florida on the republican line. troy, good morning. caller: good morning. questioning whether the new clean water act will address the negative attributes of the geo-engineering that is going on in our skies every day and how it might impact the clean water. thank you. guest: this is not a new clean

water act. the clean water act is still in place. what we are seeing is a definition of what the clean water act covers, that is on the ground, in the waterways. host: the science advisory board, what does it have to do with the clean water act? guest: when the obama administration came out with their definition in 2015, before they wrote that definition, they authored what was called a conductivity report. under reviewed peer-reviewed, and the epa science advisory board also reviewed it and said yes, we agree that this is sound science. have been studies about the different ways different kinds of wetlands, different streams, pollution their heads to downstream water. document, a policy but it says here is a spectrum illusion, and the obama

administration took that knowing that justice kennedy wanted to see a significant report on the biological and chemical impact. the trump administration is not throwing out that science -- it is still there -- but they are saying this is a legal question, not a science question, and they said we should have been going with scalia's interpretation all along. host: just to reference here, what is the next step in this process? for those of us interested in following what is going on with the clean water act, how do we do that? guest: like i said, the public comment period is about to be open, so keep your eye on epa's bsite,e, army corps' we federalregistered.gov. that is where you can weigh in. host: we