Tim Rider doesn’t understand why anyone would oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 Clean Water Rule. That’s because the objections aren’t as simple as he makes them out to be (“Maine Voices: Clean Water Rule will help sustain fishermen’s livelihoods,” April 16).

The rule gives the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers greatly expanded authority over every body of water and land, including things like prairie potholes and low spots in farmers’ fields, which might possibly, somehow convey pollution to “navigable” waters, no matter how far away, over which the EPA already has control.

The rule, which shoulders aside state authority and ignores previous Supreme Court decisions, won’t do much to reduce water pollution, but will cause no end of bureaucratic mischief, uncertainty and potential costs for anyone who has a wetland on their property and for small businesses engaged in activities like construction and agriculture. Those whom the EPA deems to be offenders would face crushing penalties even while challenges to agency findings were pending.

The rule is yet another example of the EPA’s failure to objectively consider both costs and benefits, and it will be up to the courts to stop another brazen power grab for which the agency has become infamous. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has already stayed the rule pending the outcome of challenges by 31 states.

We all want clean water, and the Clean Water Act of 1948, its amendments and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 already contain numerous provisions designed to limit pollution from runoff and protect the quality of drinking water. We don’t need another rule that extends the EPA’s heavy-handed overreach.

Martin Jones

Freeport