Colorado lawmakers are considering legislation to restore protections to key waters and wetlands struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in a decision leaving more than half of the nation's water supply at risk of industrial pollution.

Margaret Kran-Annexstein, director of the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club, said House Bill 1379 is in sync with Colorado voters, pointing to a recent survey which found nearly nine in 10 voters want to limit damage and pollution from development, industry and mining on wetlands and streams.

"Recent polling has found that massive majorities of Coloradans, whether they are Democrat, Republican or Independent, really support common sense water protections that would happen under this bill," Kran-Annexstein reported. "I think we can all agree that clean water is a necessity."

A coalition of conservation groups support the measure to create a permitting program for responsible development through the Colorado Department of Health and Environment.

Last month, Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, introduced an alternative proposal supported by the homebuilding industry, which would require a new division and staffing in the Department of Natural Resources.

Kran-Annexstein stressed clean, reliable water resources drive the economy and are vital for the health of communities. She believes the high court's ruling, claiming some waterways do not have significant connections to watersheds, was a win for corporate polluters who want to avoid permitting.

"In Colorado we know that there are a lot of streams and rivers and wetlands that run dry for certain parts of the year," Kran-Annexstein pointed out. "This ruling said that those waterways don't deserve protections and they don't count, just because they are seasonal."

Mountain states like Colorado are the source of drinking water for some 40 million Americans living in downslope states and Kran-Annexstein said the House bill is an opportunity to pass important and necessary protections after last year's Supreme Court decision.

"This decision left half of the waters across the United States unprotected by the Clean Water Act," Kran-Annexstein emphasized. "And really left it to states to make their own laws to protect state waters. And now it is the responsibility of states to step up and close that gap."

New York environmentalists want the Environmental Protection Agency to re-dredge the Hudson River. This comes after the agency released its latest five-year review saying more information is needed on the dredging efforts, although progress has been made. However, other reports show the EPA's dredging efforts failed, leaving the river riddled with PCBs.

Pete Lopez, executive director for science policy and advocacy with Scenic Hudson, said the EPA's reduction targets aren't being met.

"EPA has done its best to get massive amounts out of the river, but there are massive amounts left in the river, in our opinion, that are causing PCB levels to remain persistently high and dangerous. And, EPA is not addressing it. They're kicking the can down the road," he said.

Lopez thinks the agency should investigate where high levels of PCBs are and determine how to keep fish and humans safe from them. The EPA says more annual fish data can help discern whether the cleanup is meeting the expectations of the original plan. Once the data are available, the agency will issue an addendum to the current five-year report no later than the end of 2027. A public comment period on the five-year review is being held until October, with more information available at epa.gov/hudsonriverpcbs.

The river was dredged from 2009 to 2015 to remove 30 years' worth of chemicals General Electric dumped into it. Although the EPA warns against eating fish caught in the Hudson between Troy and Hudson Falls, people still eat them, which can lead to serious health impacts. Lopez said elected officials across party lines and different state regions want the EPA to take action in cleaning up the Hudson River.

"One would think that if 22 members of Congress, a U.S. senator and leaders of the Black and Puerto Rican caucus reached out, that you would step back and think about this, and maybe want to engage with them and talk with them."

Instead, he feels actions from the EPA have been "Pro-forma correspondence," sticking to the agency's assurance that the data aren't wrong.

Wyoming's irrigation infrastructure is aging and the state gets regular requests to update it but in some cases, project benefits may not outweigh the costs.

Parts of the Bighorn Basin are some of the driest in Wyoming, according to state data. The proposed Alkali Creek Reservoir Project would provide supplemental, late-season water to 33 irrigators across 13,000 acres of land, a design in the works since 2007.

Jason Mead, director of the Wyoming Water Development Office, said a recently announced potential design change, from an open irrigation ditch to a pipeline, added about $30 million to the dam's price tag. It also decreases the ratio of benefits to costs, a calculation the office does for any water storage project it works on.

"In regards to the grant and loan, we can grant up to 100% of a project per our criteria," Mead explained. "But it's not to exceed the public benefit."

Benefits include boating and fishing in the reservoir, the short-term benefits of dam construction and the indirect benefits to local and regional economies through increased crop production. Mead noted other considerations are the life expectancy of the dam, the ability and willingness of the users to pay for it and, of course, the direct benefit to irrigators themselves, who plan to use the water mainly for alfalfa, corn, sugar beets and barley. Opponents said the dam will disrupt natural watershed functions.

Dagny Signorelli, Wyoming director for the Western Watersheds Project, said the dam could reduce spring flows in Paint Rock Creek by 33%, in Medicine Lodge Creek by 16% and in Alkali Creek up to 100%.

"In general, dams disrupt natural river ecosystems by altering their flow patterns and reducing the frequency and intensity of natural flooding events," Signorell pointed out.

Signorelli added it could alter habitat for wildlife both upstream and downstream, with special concerns for trout, pronghorn, elk, mule deer and raptors. Plus, according to permit objections submitted by Western Watersheds Project in 2018, greater sage grouse use five breeding grounds within a four-mile radius of the project.


get more stories like this via email

Oregonians have until July 22 to submit comments on the implementation of new environmental restrictions for the state's largest farms.

When the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 85 last year, regulations were signed into law for Confined Animal Feeding Operations. Now, the Oregon Department of Agriculture is working to implement them.

Brian Posewitz, staff attorney for the group WaterWatch of Oregon, said the new rules will help protect one of Oregon's most important natural resources.

"All Oregonians should care about that, because all Oregonians should care about our water supplies, both in the streams and rivers as well as in the groundwater," Posewitz emphasized. "Because those water supplies are precious to everybody."

The regulations mean more closely monitoring the amount of water used by the large farms and considering the placement of the operations to reduce nitrate contamination in groundwater caused by manure. The move to protect Oregon's water supply coincides with an increase in demand for water as the state reenters its wildfire season.

As important as Oregon's water is, regulations often come with a price tag. Large ag operations could be more limited in their site selection, disposal of waste and use of water. The Oregon Farm Bureau predicted tougher rules will affect people's trips to the grocery store.

Lauren Poor, vice president of government and legal affairs for the bureau, thinks the new rules will make it harder to buy local, and wonders if the changes are justified.

"There wasn't a clear indication that there needed to be changes to this program to protect Oregon's waterways or Oregon's water supply," Poor contended.

According to Poor, the previous regulations were working, and continuously changing them can be difficult for producers. The deadline is July 22 to submit public comments to the Oregon Department of Agriculture before the regulations are finalized the end of this summer.


get more stories like this via email