SANTA FE, N. M. – New Mexico is among thirteen states suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its updated Clean Water Rule.

The lawsuit filed this week, claims the rule amounts to a power grab by the federal government, seeking greater control over state and local waters.

However, at the Center for Biological Diversity, Brett Hartl sees it differently. His group is concerned the updated Clean Water Rule actually removes protections for some waterways. Hartl, the center's endangered species policy director, is concerned the states are trying to further diminish the rule.

"They might be saying that this is a 'huge overreach,' but I have a feeling that behind closed doors they're probably, I think, fairly happy with what the final rule looked like," Hartl says. "But they're going to keep going, because once you smell blood in the water, you don't stop."

Supporters, including sportsmen's groups, say the Clean Water Rule needed the update, and that it restores protections for headwaters, some streams and wetland habitat left uncertain after two U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Hartl says previously, protections for wetlands were considered on a case-by-case basis, irrespective of location. He points out that the new rule mandates that wetlands be within 4,000 feet of a river or a stream to qualify for federal protections.

"In the old system, there was a chance to protect something that was more than 4,000 feet away from a stream - now there isn't," he explains. "The old system at least had the possibility to protect wetlands, and the new system doesn't."

The other states involved in the litigation are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.



get more stories like this via email

Groups working to curb climate change said a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control carbon emissions is a major setback in their fight.

The justices, on a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, ruled only Congress can set limits on carbon monoxide and other pollutants, in Arizona and elsewhere. Going forward, the EPA must have clear congressional authorization to formulate most regulations.

Kirti Datla, director of strategic legal advocacy for Earthjustice, said the ruling could affect other regulatory agencies as well.

"If a court thinks that what an agency is trying to do is too new or too big, or addressing too important of a problem, it's going to basically assume that Congress didn't give the agency that authority," Datla explained.

Climate-change activists vow to fight the ruling, but a deadlocked Congress will make it difficult. In recent years, Phoenix and other Arizona cities have passed resolutions calling for emissions cutbacks, but state regulators have not made them mandatory for energy producers.

Datla pointed out in its ruling, the high court invoked a rarely-used rule known as the "major questions doctrine," which blocks the EPA and potentially other agencies from setting regulations deemed "transformational" to the economy unless Congress approves them first.

"There's some reason for concern that all the environmental laws, and kind of the system that's existed for the last 50 years that we've taken for granted keeping us safe -- or at least, safer than we would have been -- are being challenged," Datla emphasized.

Datla noted the ruling negates an Obama-era doctrine which set carbon limits aimed at pushing states to use less coal and more alternative energy sources. She thinks the decision could also undo a recent executive order requiring all federal agencies to take steps to reduce their carbon footprints.

"I think the bottom line here is that the decision is bad, and that it takes a highly effective way of regulating emissions from power plants off the table," Datla asserted. "Those emissions are an incredibly important piece of solving the climate puzzle."

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, coal and other hydrocarbon-based fuels account for almost 80% of U.S. power generation, while renewables make up 12%. The Biden Administration's goal is to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2030, and make the nation carbon-neutral by 2050.

Oregon's estuaries - the wetlands where the ocean meets rivers and streams - are rich habitat for wildlife, and they even store carbon from the atmosphere to help fight climate change.

But the state's plans to manage them are now decades old. That's why Oregon is setting out to update them.

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development is piloting this revision project with the Yaquina River estuary management plan. Katie Ryan is the executive director of The Wetlands Conservancy, which is part of the update project on the Yaquina River.

"These estuary management plans are outdated," said Ryan, "and they just don't take into account the current challenges that land managers have in these estuaries."

Oregon's estuary plans were developed in the 1980s. However, some vital elements were left out of the original process, including the involvement of tribal nations.

This time around, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians is part of the steering committee and advisory group on the first revision of the Yaquina River plan.

Ryan said estuaries are an important part of Oregon's goal to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

"Our coastal wetlands store carbon and actually, in a lot of ways, hold more carbon than our forests do," said Ryan. "We just have quite a few left - tidal wetlands - than we do forests. So, they help with climate change by helping store carbon."

Ryan noted that estuaries also are rich and crucial habitats for shorebirds, as well as juvenile salmon. She said that's important for the economy.

"In terms of this robust fishing industry that happens on this Oregon coast, our estuaries are huge for helping to support those economies," said Ryan. "So, I think just looking at the economies that rely on our estuaries - we want to make sure that the plans, you know, take their business into account."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

As Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin pushes forward on plans to withdraw the Commonwealth from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), environmental activists are raising concerns over the plan.

The multistate compact aims to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution through carbon allowances and capping carbon dioxide emissions. It also funds Virginia's Community Flood Preparedness Fund, a program supporting strategies to mitigate and prevent flooding.

Andrea McGimsey, executive director of Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions, said pulling out of RGGI would end the initiative.

"Our rainfall is just getting a lot harder, we're seeing these deluges like we've never seen before, and the science backs that up," McGimsey pointed out. "Our communities are flooding more and more, and we need to prepare for that, because we know it's going to get worse."

A report commissioned by the governor found participation in the program will drive up energy bills for Virginia residents by about $2.39 cents per month, and more than $1,500 per month for industrial customers. The report's authors also contended the project has not borne out its intended benefits.

Annette Osso, managing director for Resilient Virginia, countered it is because the program is relatively new. Virginia completed its enrollment in RGGI in January 2021, and the Flood Preparedness Fund has only completed three grant rounds so far.

"You're either going to pay for it later, after a flood, or you're going to spend some money up front now to put in the mitigation," Osso contended.

One path the governor could take to back out of RGGI involves Virginia's seven-member Air Pollution Control Board.

Zander Pellegrino, northern Virginia organizer for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said Youngkin has been filling the board with his appointees, a process which will conclude tomorrow.

"He's going against the will of the General Assembly," Pellegrino emphasized. "There were numerous attack bills that were introduced this past legislative session that tried to do exactly this, that tried to repeal RGGI. He lost. They were voted down."

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is organizing a protest outside the state Capitol building tomorrow to protest Youngkin's efforts to pull out of RGGI. At noon, demonstrators will march backward around the building to symbolize the direction they say Youngkin is taking the Commonwealth.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.