CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- House Bill 2506 - nicknamed the "Cancer Creek Bill" by its critics - passed the West Virginia House of Delegates last week, but not before a public outcry pushed several delegates to oppose it.

The bill would permit more pollution in surface waters by changing how the state measures baseline stream flows. While it passed the House on a largely party-line final vote, several GOP lawmakers said they voted against it because of public input.

Delegate Jill Upson, a Republican from Jefferson County, said the feedback made her take a closer look at the potential impact on drinking water sources. She said that led to questions she didn't get good answers for.

"I was hearing from people not only back home, but from people around the state. I needed assurances that that additional discharge wouldn't add additional pollutants into the water,” Upson said. “And I just don't believe that I ever received enough assurance."

The bill is now under discussion in the state Senate. Supporters, including the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, argued it would be good for employment and provide regulatory relief for companies with waste to dispose of.

But the bill's opponents challenged its supporters to show where it would create a single new job. A lobbyist for the manufacturers confirmed that he could not, and Upson said the lack of specifics also affected her vote.

"If the manufacturers were wanting to see that legislation succeed, I believe, you know, it would be incumbent on them to put the information out there, so that the legislators could have all the data they needed to make an informed decision,” she said.

At the public hearing for House Bill 2506, Upson said she noted that "the overwhelming majority" of people who testified opposed the bill. Other Republican delegates have also said that the public objections pushed them to vote against the legislation.


get more stories like this via email

DURANGO, Colo. - Colorado's rivers and streams supply drinking water and outdoor recreation opportunities, and support biodiversity and wildlife, but less than 4% are fully protected.

New research by Conservation Science Partners found the majority of the state's 15,000 unprotected river miles could qualify for Outstanding National Resource Waters designations. The group's lead scientist, Caitlin Littlefield, said Colorado waterways are under increasing threat due to climate change and population growth.

"We really need to get out ahead of these changes and protect these rivers and streams that have the most integrity as soon as we possibly can," she said. "It's not something we're going to regret, and will only serve our wildlife, and our ecosystems and our human needs, in the future."

The report, commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, found the waterways meeting the most criteria for protections were in the western half of the state. It said Colorado's highest-value rivers - those that haven't been modified and contribute significant value to people, wildlife and ecosystems - include the headwaters of the Dolores River, Roubideau Creek and Taylor River.

Ashleigh Tucker, managing partner at 4Corners Riversports in Durango, said people travel great distances to experience Colorado's rivers and streams for paddle-boarding, rafting and fishing. She added that their value has become even more pronounced in the pandemic, when closures found more Coloradans seeking activities outdoors.

"Colorado's economy relies on outdoor recreation," she said, "and so it's definitely something that we need to be supporting and protecting for future generations, so that people can continue to come and see our beautiful rivers, and see them clean and free-flowing."

Outdoor recreation contributes $12.2 billion to the state's economy, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. Scientists identified a total of 662 river miles that scored in the top 25% statewide for meeting all Outstanding National Resource Waters criteria. Some 133 river miles ranked in the top 10% are headwater streams in the Gunnison, San Isabel and San Juan national forests.

---

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

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minnesota continues to battle aquatic invasive species in certain lakes. As the state fights these threats, there are calls for the Department of Natural Resources to develop a more robust management plan.

The state's overall blueprint for combating zebra mussels and other habitat-disrupting pests was written in 2009. DNR leaders have said they're putting a new plan together, with invasive species detected in more waterways this summer.

Jeff Forester, executive director of Minnesota Lakes and Rivers Advocates, said he hopes it's a comprehensive strategy, with better coordination of on-the-ground efforts.

"Nobody really knows what anybody else is doing, and it's not targeted toward specific and achievable goals. It's not coordinated," Forester said of the current plan.

He said the DNR should guide detailed collaboration between lake associations, county governments and others doing prevention work. The DNR has anticipated a new plan over the next year, and said it will include such information as the impact of climate change.

A bill in this year's Legislature called for a new management plan every five years. Ann Pierce, the DNR's deputy director of ecological and water resources, said that kind of timeline would require more federal reviews, potentially delaying prevention funding from Congress.

"Having to have the federal government have to review it, which takes time - sometimes up to a year - it's going to put kind of a roadblock in some of that annual granting process," she said.

However, Minnesota Lakes and Rivers has contended that those issues shouldn't be connected. It noted that the federal grants are a narrow scope in combating aquatic invasive species, and thinks the state should focus on its own plan. The bill's sponsor said there's room for compromise, but will keep pressing for urgency.

Carroll Schaal, lakes and rivers section chief for the Wisconsin DNR, which last updated its management plan in 2019, acknowledged that it was a big undertaking, and federal involvement was only one part of the approach.

"[The] federal money at stake isn't that significant," he said. "I mean, we're very appreciative of it. But you know, we're able to, with our own resources, adjust to the current conditions."

On the Minnesota side, the DNR said its planning doesn't prevent making an alteration if a crisis prompts one. But it insists required updates aren't optimal in carrying out a broader plan.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Opponents of rollbacks to the Trump-era Clean Water Act say 90% of New Mexico's waters were left unprotected and hope a recent court decision will be a turning point.

A federal judge ruled the Trump administration's 2020 "Navigable Waters Protection Rule" was too flawed to keep in place. That means for now, instead of falling under federal jurisdiction, the status of ephemeral or intermittent streams will be subject to case-by-case determinations.

Rachel Conn, deputy director of the water advocacy group Amigos Bravos in Taos, said arid states such as New Mexico need their own rules.

"We are a very dry state, as we all know, and we have many waters that don't flow year-round, and it is all of those waters that had been left unprotected," Conn observed.

The rule removed protections for hundreds of thousands of intermittent streams and wetlands that feed and support the Rio Grande. It also left others across the country vulnerable to pollution from development. Prior to the ruling, the Biden administration said it planned to repeal the Trump rule and issue new regulations under the Clean Water Act.

Conn argued a new approach is critical to New Mexico because it's the only Western state the Environmental Protection Agency has not authorized to manage its own discharge permitting program to protect surface water.

"We're one of only three states that hasn't gotten that delegation to do the permitting for discharges into waters," Conn explained. "You have to go through that process with the EPA to get that delegation."

Conn added water-advocacy groups want the Biden administration and agencies it oversees to implement flexible rules to address arid conditions.

"A one-size-fits-all approach that has been implemented in the past often results in western states like New Mexico being forced into a regulatory paradigm that's really been developed for more temperate conditions," Conn contended.

Farmers and real-estate developers opposed the 2015 change to clean-water laws under the Obama administration as federal overreach, while President Donald Trump called it unconstitutional.