RALEIGH, N.C. -- The Southern Environmental Law Center and other groups have sued the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for redefining which waterways are protected under the Clean Water Act.

The move strips protections from more than half of the country's waters. Ben Prater, southeast's program director at Defenders of Wildlife, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said the rollback will have sweeping consequences.

"It would affect every region of the state, from the Carolina Bay and isolated wetlands and wide floodplains of the coast to the wetlands and ephemeral streams in the sandhills, as well as the headwater streams and bog wetlands," Prater said.

He said there is no scientific justification for the rule change, which is slated to go into effect on June 22.

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have said the rule is needed to clarify confusion surrounding which waters are protected and which aren't for farmers, landowners and businesses. The agencies have 60 days to respond to the lawsuit.

Prater said healthy wetlands and streams filter out pollution and stormwater and soak up excess floodwater. And he noted the state still is rebuilding from recent hurricane damage and historic floods.

"It'll affect folks' water quality, drinking water. It'll also affect fishing, fisheries, habitat," Prater said. "It really would have devastating consequences for wildlife."

He said the administration's move is ill-timed, as the COVID-19 pandemic puts the spotlight on North Carolinians' health.

"In the wake of this pandemic, removing environmental protections seems to have been status quo for this administration, but we're standing firm with our partners and with the public to ensure that drinking water and wildlife habitat are protected now and into the future," he said.

The lawsuit also contends the agencies failed to evaluate the impact of the rule change on the nation's water quality or give Americans a meaningful opportunity to comment on the gutting of protections for streams and wetlands.

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