.@LCVoters vs. @Waterkeeper on Clean Water Rule

When I read the League of Conservation Voters’ perspective on the new Clean Water Rule that restores “pollution protections to the small streams and wetlands that contribute to the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans,” I was thrilled. But then I read what the Waterkeeper Alliance had to say about it, and I wasn’t so sure.

Here’s what Waterkeeper posted on the Clean Water Rule: “[It] reduces the agencies’ jurisdiction to protect waters that have previously been covered by the Clean Water Act since the 1970s. The rule redefines what exactly constitutes the Waters of the US, exempting streams and rivers and allowing these waters to be filled with toxic coal ash and other waste. The rule also grants immunity to industrial-scale livestock facilities and includes an exclusion that allows industries to escape treatment requirements by impounding waters of the United States and claiming the impoundment is a waste treatment system, or by discharging wastes into wetlands…The narrowing of jurisdiction proposed by the EPA and the Corps is not supported by sound science or legal precedent.”

How could two reputable organizations have such different perspectives? Help me out, friends. Is the Clean Water Rule clean–or dirty? Please share in comments below. Thanks!