SANTA FE, N.M. - A proposal to abolish limits on how much pollution can be dumped into small streams and wetlands was challenged this week by conservation groups.

The legal challenge could open a major court battle over what waters are protected under the Clean Water Act. Critics say clean-water protections would revert to a level not seen in 50 years if the Waters of the U.S. rule proposed by the Trump administration is adopted.

Bryan Bird, southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, says the new rule would leave 90% of New Mexico's waters unprotected under the Clean Water Act.

"That's a lot of water," says Bird. "So, we are going to very likely have dirty water as a result of this - water that we can't swim in, water that we can't drink, water that's not good for wildlife."

Bird says polluters would no longer need a permit to release contaminated water into ephemeral streams and wetlands that aren't immediately adjacent to protected waters.

Western states have an abundance of ephemeral waters - water that flows only occasionally because of to rainstorms and snowmelt.

According to New Mexico's Environment Department, the rule change would eliminate about 40% of the state's water-pollution permits, including those held by wastewater treatment plants, hard-rock mines and coal mines.

Bird says the state's water could be especially vulnerable because New Mexico is one of three "non-delegated" states.

"The means that the EPA administers and issues all of our permits in New Mexico," says Bird. "So that basically means if we don't have federal protection for 90% of our water, then there's no protection; the state doesn't protect it."

He adds that drinking water for 280,000 people in New Mexico could be affected by the rule change.

Those challenging the new rule says it ignores the original intent of the Clean Water Act, which was bipartisan legislation passed by Congress in 1972 after state-by-state efforts failed to clean the nation's waters.

A new film documents the 2018 battle between Colorado environmentalists and the oil and gas industry over proposed fracking regulations.

The film also documents a grassroots effort by Colorado Rising to pass a ballot initiative which would create a 2,500-foot setback for all hydraulic fracturing wells in the state, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Sarah Schulte, organizing committee member of GreenFaith Boulder County, which recently previewed the film for about 100 members, said the film has a strong message.

"What probably makes the film pretty dramatic and kind of shocking is the length to which oil and natural gas industries in Colorado set out to thwart them," Schulte pointed out. "Not only with some of the tactics you might expect, but also some kind of more nefarious tactics sabotaging their signature gathering, for example."

In the end, the petroleum industry defeated the measure after a $50 million campaign opposing it. Schulte acknowledged Colorado Rising raised only $1 million for its campaign. After the election, the state adopted a 1,000-foot drilling setback from schools and residential property lines.

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, involves drillers injecting a mixture of chemicals underground to break up the shale and free the oil. The chemicals used in the process, which are sometimes toxic, can pollute groundwater and make the surrounding land unstable.

Schulte emphasized the movie had a powerful effect on the group's members.

"I think most people were pretty angry and maybe even a little sad after seeing how these kinds of politics play out in Colorado," Schulte observed. "They asked questions like what can we do next? How do you keep going when it's so difficult to fight such a big and powerful industry?"

The film, Fracking the System: Colorado's Oil and Gas Wars, is currently being previewed by select audiences. It has won the "Spirit of Activism" award at the Colorado Environmental Film Festival
and the "Environmental Award" at the 2024 DOCUTAH International Film Festival.

As part of an effort to restore the Mississippi River delta, an organization is collaborating with nature to address environmental challenges.

The Big Muddy is the second-longest river in North America, flowing more than 2,300 miles.

Simone Maloz, campaign director for the group Restore the Mississippi River Delta, said the coalition uses nature-based solutions to help tackle some of the river's environmental problems in Louisiana and Mississippi.

"We use the power and the sediment the river provides to help us to put solutions into place," Maloz explained. "For example, we might have an area of wetlands that needs to be nourished with freshwater sediment, we can tap into that wonderful resource that we have."

Maloz pointed out some farmers are turning to nature-based solution, using cover crops like clover or other plants to protect the soil. Cover crops typically grow in between primary crops, or are planted in the offseason to help keep nutrients on the ground so they do not become toxic in the water as runoff.

Maloz emphasized nature-based solutions are key to building resilient communities, which she said are those communities thinking about how to plan for climate change, such as floods, droughts, and rising sea levels, wildfires, hurricanes and coastal threats.

"What we know about resilient communities, whether you're on the coast, or whether you're not on the coast, is about how you can brace yourself for these impacts and how you can more quickly recover," Maloz stressed. "We know that when you include nature in those plans, it helps you to better do that."

Maloz added her group is involved in various projects along the Mississippi River, using sediment to replenish marshes, rebuild ridges and barrier islands and create habitats for migratory birds.


get more stories like this via email

The Iowa Environmental Council has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to invoke emergency powers to protect sensitive soil and groundwater in northeast Iowa.

The council is holding a public webinar today and wants the EPA to address groundwater contamination in northeast Iowa's so-called Driftless region. The groundwater there has a well-documented history of nitrate contamination.

Alicia Vasto, director of water program for the council, said the highly porous and soluble karst soil prevalent in the region is susceptible to contamination from centralized animal feeding operations.

"We did some analyses of private well data and public water systems and found that there was a lot of contamination of nitrate in those drinking water sources," Vasto reported. "The state has really failed to take action meaningfully that would address those problems."

The state has said it is constantly working to upgrade groundwater quality standards and is in the process of taking public input on creating yet another set of rules.

Vasto emphasized since the state has failed to address the water safety concerns for decades, the council and a coalition of other environmental groups have, in effect, gone above the state's head to the EPA, asking the agency to implement an emergency stop gap on nitrate pollution the way the agency did in neighboring Minnesota last year.

"We're asking that at, at minimum, the EPA would require the state of Iowa to do what they required the state of Minnesota to do under the same petition," Vasto explained. "Because the geology of northeast Iowa is the same as of southeast Minnesota."

The council's recommendations include calling on the EPA to create a communications plan with residents whose water could be at risk, create a drinking water sampling plan, and establishing a thorough permitting process for centralized animal feeding operations.


get more stories like this via email