HELENA, Mont. - The public has one final day to submit comments on the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which clarifies where the Clean Water Act applies.

The rule is a safeguard put in place during the Obama administration to protect the country's rivers, streams and drinking-water supplies. However, current Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt has said the rule has to go to remove onerous regulations on businesses and farms.

Dave Chadwick, executive director of the Montana Wildlife Federation, said the rule took years to develop through many public meetings and a lot of scientific data.

"It's all been thrown out in a couple of months by an oil-and-gas industry lawyer from Oklahoma," he said. "We really need to have some perspective here about whose interest is the director of the EPA looking after here? And it's increasingly clear that he's not looking after the interests of the American people, fish, wildlife and all the other values that depend on clean water."

The Clean Water Rule protects the headwater, rain-fed, and seasonal streams of drinking water sources for 117 million, or about one in three Americans, according to the EPA. Chadwick said it also protects the Montana waters where folks enjoy world-class fishing. People can go online to regulations.gov to comment on the rule.

David Brooks, executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited, said he is concerned that repealing the rule already was a foregone conclusion. He said Pruitt put out a video with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, steering people's comments on the rule.

"Rather than direct the public to the EPA's website and docket to comment," Brooks said, "that video directs people to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association website, where they have a pre-written comment to be submitted that opposes the Clean Water Rule."

Repealing the rule is the first in a two-step process. Chadwick said the EPA will have to submit a new rule for public comment, leaving protections for clean water in limbo.

"Not only is that going to mean major chaos for regulated industries, obviously major chaos for fish, wildlife, everything we value, but it's also going to take time to develop that new definition," he said. "So, in the meantime, our water quality is going to be at risk."

The comments page is online at regulations.gov.


get more stories like this via email

Some Latinos in Arkansas were among 400 residents across 10 states polled about the health of the Mississippi River.

Both registered Republicans and Democrats were polled and all participants live close to the river.

Dave Metz, president of the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, said overall Latinos are concerned about pollution in the Mississippi, with 83% of them describing it as a national treasure and more than 50% of those polled said they feel it is threatened and it is their responsibility to care for it.

"We also see among Latino voters -- regularly -- stronger support for conservation proposals," Metz reported. "Stronger support for policy proposals designed to promote public health by reducing pollution."

The Mississippi River passes through all the states where the study was conducted. Among those surveyed, 74% said they are very or extremely concerned with the presence of pollution in all the country's rivers, lakes and streams.

The survey also found Latinos feel Congress should do more to protect and clean up the Mississippi River, ensuring the protection of water, air and wildlife, instead of producing more domestic energy through oil and gas drilling or mining.

Metz said 87% of those surveyed support the 30-by-30 goal of conserving 30% of America's lands, freshwater and oceans by 2030.

"Latinos express higher degrees of concern about air and water pollution -- and pollution on land as well -- than what we see among the rest of the population," Metz pointed out. "One reason for this obviously are environmental justice concerns. Many Latinos within the United States live in communities that are disproportionally burdened by sources of pollution."

Those polled said they would back legislation to provide funding to prevent the worst impacts of flooding, incentives for farmers to use sustainable practices and improve soil health and potential policies to create new national parks, monuments or wildlife refuges to protect areas for outdoor recreation.


get more stories like this via email

A federal agency is requiring Wyoming to update cost estimates for a large proposed dam in Carbon County, which has been under feasibility studies since 2008.

The West Fork Battle Creek Dam, proposed in the Medicine Bow National Forest, would be 700 feet long, about 25 stories tall and would create a 130-acre reservoir. The dam would provide late-season irrigation water to Wyoming and Colorado landowners at a projected cost of $80 million, according to a 2017 estimate.

Gary Wockner, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Save the Colorado, thinks it will cost about four times the estimate, partly due to its remote location.

"It'll be hard to get to, it'll be extremely difficult to engineer and build," Wockner contended. "In fact, it's so large and controversial, we believe that permitting and potential court challenges could cost $20 million to $30 million, alone."

The proposal requires a land swap between the U.S. Forest Service and the state, a trade state lawmakers in 2018 allocated nearly $5 million to investigate. The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, the federal agency responsible for granting permits, told the State of Wyoming Water Development Office to update the cost estimate for the dam. So far, the analysis itself has cost $1.5 million.

The estimate is a vital part of the cost-benefit analysis and determines who will fund the dam. The National Environmental Policy Act requires both an analysis of the proposed plan and several alternative plans, Wockner pointed out.

"Then, you pick what's called the 'least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,'" Wockner added. "You have to have a reasonable cost estimate in order to do the entire NEPA analysis correctly."

In 2023 scoping comments on the project, Wockner argued the analysis should include an estimate of greenhouse gases the project would emit, and effects on the already over-allocated Colorado River.


get more stories like this via email

Iowa is getting federal help to eliminate lead water pipes in the state.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is working with local water agencies, planning where to prioritize funds.

As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, cities and towns in Iowa are reducing the number of dangerous lead water lines.

The Iowa Environmental Council's Director of Climate Initiatives Cody Smith said even homes built as recently as 1988 are connected to the local water utility with lead lines - which leaves people at risk, even in Iowa's big cities like Des Moines and Council Bluffs.

"Particularly with the most vulnerable groups, such as unborn babies or young children, they have extreme and outsize risk related to exposure to lead through lead service lines," said Smith. "That can cause higher levels of lead in the blood and lead to developmental issues for children."

The State's Revolving Fund, which is the primary source for water infrastructure updates, has received more than $620 million as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

The IEC says more than 700 communities have benefited so far.

Beyond replacing lead pipes and updating water system infrastructure, Smith said Iowa could also benefit from help with what are known as non-point source projects.

"Which is runoff from agricultural fields and from livestock operations that lead to nutrient pollution in source water," said Smith. "And source water is water that's used for drinking water somewhere in the state."

Smith said those strategies can help farmers and local utilities reduce nitrates and other pollutants in the soil.

The Biden administration has a goal of replacing all lead water service lines in the U.S. by 2031.




get more stories like this via email