LANSING, Mich. - The American public will have 30 days to comment on the Trump administration's plan to repeal and replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule, once it's published in the Federal Register.

Jan Goldman-Carter, wetlands and water resources director for the National Wildlife Federation, said the move would remove pollution limits from streams and wetlands that supply a third of the nation's drinking water and which also are home to countless fish and wildlife species.

"The American public has long thought - since the 1972 act - that their water is protected, their wetlands are protected, their streams are protected from pollution," she said. "None of us can really take that for granted anymore."

The Clean Water Rule restored protections under the Clean Water Act for headwaters, streams and wetland habitat that had been left uncertain because of convoluted U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Current Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has argued that rolling back the measure will provide certainty to farmers and other businesses by returning regulatory authority to states.

Carter said western states rely on clean water to fuel their multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industries. She pointed to polls that show nearly 80 percent of hunters and anglers favor Clean Water Act protections. Dozens of craft brewers also have come out in support of the 2015 measure. Carter said a majority of the nation's stream miles and wetland acres are at stake.

"All of those smaller streams are at significant risk, and then would literally be removed from Clean Water Act protections under the proposal that the administration is headed toward," she said.

According to the Environment America Research and Policy Center, the Clean Water Rule, supported by more than 80 percent of small-business owners, was expected to generate more than $400 million annually in economic benefits. Public comments can be submitted at Regulations.gov.

The EPA plan is online at epa.gov/wotus-rule, and the Environment America brief is at environmentamericacenter.org.


get more stories like this via email

Both water quantity and quality are important in the dry climate of Nevada. Now, a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency could roll back protections for the state's water resources.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said he wants to reduce protections granted under the Clean Water Act in an effort to undo "unfair burdens" on farmers and landowners. The 1972 federal law aims to maintain and restore the nation's waters.

Natasha Majewski, climate and energy consultant for the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said the waters covered by the act have changed over the years, but it is all an interconnected system.

"Lincoln County doesn't have the same amount of resources as Clark County, and yet water is still flowing from that county into tributaries such as the Muddy River," Majewski pointed out. "That goes into the Colorado River. That will end up being drinking water."

In 2023, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of "waters of the United States." It determined only wetlands physically connected to other federally-recognized waters qualify for protection.

Majewski noted while Nevada has its own water laws, federal regulation is needed to maintain a baseline for all states. This week, listening sessions about the proposal will be held for government agencies and Native American tribes.

The Trump administration has said it wants to reduce "red tape" for business and industry but conservationists fear loosening restrictions will cause more pollution in Nevada's wetlands and ephemeral streams. Majewski argued water should not be a partisan issue.

"It is important that all Nevadans, whatever kind of political side they are on, are able to understand these issues more," Majewski stressed. "Because water, it surpasses the administration that it's currently in."

Majewski added changing water protections could affect the quality of the Colorado River and would cause complications due to the amount of agencies managing the river.

"The Colorado River and its different tributaries that come in, it is such a patchwork of people that manage those water sources," Majewski explained.

Montana officials have denied a petition asking the state to designate the Big Hole River as "impaired" by pollution.

Two conservation groups collected data over five years and found levels of nutrients in the Big Hole River exceeded thresholds, in some parts, by twofold or threefold, which could harm aquatic habitats, contaminate drinking water and affect fishing and other tourism business. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality said the petitioners used the wrong metrics.

Guy Alsentzer, executive director of the conservation group Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, said it is an example of politics "undermining good science."

"At minimum, we feel that the state owes us a written explanation, with some detail, about exactly why it believes it can deny a petition that has clearly satisfied the scientific basis for developing a pollution cleanup plan," Alsentzer explained.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality argued the petition's data does not abide by a state law passed in 2021. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, however, officially disapproved of the law.

Alsentzer has requested the EPA weigh in, adding once high nutrient levels are proven, it is up to the Department of Environmental Quality to determine the causes.

"In the case of most Montana rivers, it's going to be a combination of human land use patterns," Alsentzer noted. "Sometimes it's subdivisions, sometimes it's septics, sometimes it's a municipality and sometimes it's farm fields or big cattle feeding lots."

Alsentzer stressed keeping waterways healthy is both "good common sense" and "good economics." According to the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Beaverhead County's hunting and angling economy adds an estimated $74 million to area households annually and $167 million to businesses and organizations.


get more stories like this via email

A new report found 122 million Americans drink water with high levels of cancer-causing chemicals, frequently from runoff at livestock factory farms.

Researchers at the Environmental Working Group looked at water systems from 2019 to 2023. They found 6,000 water systems at some point had unsafe levels of "trihalomethane," which disinfects water contaminated with manure. The city of Baltimore and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission tested above the Environmental Protection Agency limit for the chemical a combined 255 times.

Anne Schechinger, agricultural economist and Midwest director of the Environmental Working Group, said the pollution affects everyone in the state.

"You can live miles and miles from ag, but still have ag pollutants in your drinking water," Schechinger pointed out. "You might see this report and think, 'Well I live in a city. I'm not anywhere near ag.' That doesn't mean that livestock manure is not impacting your drinking water."

Higher trihalomethane levels in drinking water can cause colon or bladder cancer, heart defects and stillbirths.

Schechinger argued President Donald Trump could reduce pollution by unfreezing funds helping farmers use healthier agricultural practices. Funds are currently frozen as Trump's Department of Government Efficiency tries to cut spending it views as wasteful.

"We can be putting more conservation practices on farm fields, like stream buffers or grass waterways, that really stop the flow of manure into water," Schechinger recommended. "That's something that was intended for this year, but the Trump administration has frozen the majority of agricultural conservation funding."

Schechinger added consumers can protect themselves by getting a water filter. Filters can help take chemical runoff out of drinking water.


get more stories like this via email