FRANKFORT, Ky. — A commission that helps control water quality in the Ohio River is looking to shed some of its duties.

For 70 years, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, known as ORSANCO, has set standards for pollution levels in the river to ensure the water is safe for drinking and recreation. But now, commissioners say their standards are redundant, as state and federal Environmental Protection Agency programs also have standards.

Environmental scientist Dr. Randi Pokladnik said it's problematic, since the Ohio River is still one of the most polluted in the country.

"How can you be redundant on testing the drinking water for 5 million people? I would rather err on the side of 'double testing' than not testing at all,” Pokladnik said. “And several states don't even test for some of the parameters that ORSANCO tests for."

ORSANCO is made up of commissioners from Kentucky and seven other states, and Pokladnik said it has 188 testing criteria that six states and the U.S. EPA do not. The commission will take public comments on the proposal to decrease its authority until next Monday, August 20.

In the absence of ORSANCO standards, Hank Graddy, water committee chair with the Kentucky Sierra Club, said he is convinced state pollution levels will vary, which can't help but affect overall water quality in the Ohio River. He said at a time when the federal EPA is trying to weaken the Clean Water Act, ORSANCO needs to hold onto its standards and expect states to comply.

"We do need a federal level, an interstate waterway level and a state level, and those are not redundant,” Graddy said. “Those are coming at it from different directions, and we need everything we can muster to clean up the Ohio River."

Graddy added that dropping the standards not only threatens drinking water, but also recreation on the river and the resulting tourist revenue.

"Louisville, Northern Kentucky, Cincinnati, Owensboro have all made major investments to try to get people back to the river swimming and canoeing and boating,” he said. “And yet, we still have pollution problems that can make people sick and that can cause injury to aquatic life."

ORSANCO has argued that without having to focus on water-quality standards, its scant resources can be directed to other duties, such as public outreach and spill mitigation and response.


get more stories like this via email

Iowa lawmakers are considering a bill that would require property owners to disclose the presence of lead water service lines during a real estate transaction.

Some of Iowa's residential water lines date back more than a century.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates at least half of the children in the United States are at risk of lead exposure from water lines.

The Iowa Environmental Council's Director of Climate Initiatives Cody Smith said the problem is especially acute in Iowa, where most of the homes built before 1980 have lead in the lines that bring water to the house, and added it will be extremely expensive to address.

"It's estimated that fixing Iowa's lead service line issue would cost about $900 million statewide," said Smith. "So, this is a pressing health concern for the children in our state."

Iowa is responding to a federal rule passed last year that requires all service lines that contain lead to be replaced by 2035.

House File 876 would require sellers to disclose that their house has lead service lines in a real estate transaction.

Iowa utility companies are notifying people if their house has lead in its service lines and offering assistance to remediate it.

Smith said homeowners can also find out for themselves if there's lead in their pipes.

"You can use, like, a penny to scratch your service line where it comes in to often the foundation of your home," said Smith. "And you'll see if it's copper. It it's copper, you're fine. Or if it's PVC plastic, you're fine. But oftentimes, it's going to be a lead service line."

HF 876 has passed the Iowa House and awaits action in the Senate.




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