By Kristi Eaton for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Northern Rockies News Service for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

A coalition of groups focused on water rights filed a brief in June with the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to keep the court from narrowing the definition of federally protected waters.

Waterkeeper Alliance, San Francisco Baykeeper, Bayou City Waterkeeper, and nearly 50 additional Waterkeeper groups from across the country filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the case Sackett v EPA.

The clean water advocates are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling about the scope of wetlands protected under the landmark Clean Water Act.

The central question in Sackett v EPA is what standard should apply to determine protection for wetlands that are adjacent to traditional navigable waters and their tributaries. The petitioners in the appeal have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling that adjacent wetlands, including those on their Idaho property, merit federal protection, which would advance a narrow interpretation of the CWA. The amicus brief contends that, to achieve the law's objective, it must protect all waters that make up aquatic ecosystems, not just navigable waters. The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall.

"Idaho has unique geographical and hydrologic features that form 'closed basins' which would be excluded from federal pollution protection if Clean Water Act jurisdiction was reduced by constricting the definition of which 'waters of the United States' are federally protected," said Buck Ryan, executive director of Snake River Waterkeeper, in an interview with The Daily Yonder. "We joined in filing the brief to ensure these waterways - which are critical to water quality in the Snake River as well as for endangered species like bull trout - enjoy the federal statutory protections Congress intended in drafting the Act."

The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 to protect the health of the waters of the United States, promote healthy aquatic ecosystems, and regulate the discharge of pollutants into waterways.

In states like Idaho, Ryan said, "where industry and ag-friendly legislatures offer the bare minimum in terms of clean water safeguards, the federal Clean Water Act is the preeminent (and in many cases, only) guarantee of legal protection for rural communities to have fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water."

Kelly Hunter Foster, senior attorney with Waterkeeper Alliance, said many iconic and significant waters across the country lack continuous surface connections to traditionally defined navigable waters and could lose federal clean water protections that have been in place for nearly 50 years if the court were to adopt the petitioners' navigability theories.

"Congress originally designed the CWA to broadly protect all waters of the United States-not only those used for commercial navigation. The scope cannot be narrowed if we are to ensure the integrity of the law and the health of our waterways," Foster said in a press statement.

The Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the CWA occurs as the court has revisited long established precedents. Last month the court ruled that the Clean Air Act does not give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency blanket regulations against power plants. The Clean Air Act, initially passed in 1963 and revised many times since, was one of the nation's first and most influential environmental laws.

Waterkeeper Alliance Chief Executive Officer Marc Yaggi called the court's interpretation of the Clean Air Act a "gift to polluters and will pose a major threat to clean water."

"The majority's new major questions doctrine handcuffs the federal government's ability to respond to emergencies that weren't specifically contemplated at the time statutes are passed," Yaggi said in a press statement. "The idea that our current dysfunctional Congress might be expected to more directly authorize EPA to broadly 'tackle' the climate emergency is absurd. This sets a dangerous precedent not just for EPA and our climate, but for all agencies and future emergencies."

Albert Lin, a law professor at the University of California Davis who specializes in environmental and natural resources law, said in an interview with The Daily Yonder that the Clear Air Act and Clean Water Act cases seem to be asking two different questions. The Clean Air Act case used the major questions doctrine, he said, and he believes it's unlikely that will be the case in the Clean Water Act case.

"It seems unlikely given that the sort of question at issue in the Clean Water Act case, the extent of the government's regulatory authority over wetlands is an issue that the agencies - EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers - have been grappling with for decades," he said. "And that it's not the sort of situation as in West Virginia vs. EPA, where you had, at least the way the court puts it, EPA asserting this apparently new authority over how kind of energy is produced and distributed and generated."

Also in June, the Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which provided a constitutional basis protecting the right to abortion services.

Kristi Eaton wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


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