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
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.
Disclosure: The National Wildlife Federation contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species and Wildlife, Energy Policy, and Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
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