CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A normally boring rule-making process is turning into a water fight for lawmakers. At the request of the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, the state Department of Environmental Protection shelved three years of work updating nearly 100 water-quality standards on potentially toxic pollutants.

The question now comes before the Republican-controlled legislature. Public-health activist Maya Nye, pointed out the shelved updates are already a compromise. She said they don't cover important contaminants like C-8 or MCHM, known to have been in drinking water in the state.

"Let's just be clear that what is on the table is not what is most protective for the public health, period,” Nye said. “There are already a number of chemicals that aren't even identified. We know the human health effects, or we may not even know what the human health effects are."

The Manufacturers Association argues that the rules need to be more West Virginia-specific. The state Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining Committee may take the issue up as soon as Tuesday.

The Department of Environmental Protection gathered hundreds of pages of public comments and responses on the proposals before announcing it had agreed to withdraw the whole package. That was in November, during a legislative interim committee meeting. At that meeting, Manufacturers Association President Rebecca McPhail said the DEP rules needed more study.

"I guess, simply put, the changes that have been proposed to these human-health parameters without further analysis could create some uncertainty for industry and unnecessary burden, without scientifically demonstrating health benefits,” McPhail said.

The association has said West Virginians might differ from residents of other states in ways that could change the impact of water pollution, including average weight and typical consumption of water and freshwater fish. But according to DEP public statements, those were considered when the agency was writing the rules proposal.

More information is available at WVRivers.org.


get more stories like this via email

A federal agency is requiring Wyoming to update cost estimates for a large proposed dam in Carbon County, which has been under feasibility studies since 2008.

The West Fork Battle Creek Dam, proposed in the Medicine Bow National Forest, would be 700 feet long, about 25 stories tall and would create a 130-acre reservoir. The dam would provide late-season irrigation water to Wyoming and Colorado landowners at a projected cost of $80 million, according to a 2017 estimate.

Gary Wockner, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Save the Colorado, thinks it will cost about four times the estimate, partly due to its remote location.

"It'll be hard to get to, it'll be extremely difficult to engineer and build," Wockner contended. "In fact, it's so large and controversial, we believe that permitting and potential court challenges could cost $20 million to $30 million, alone."

The proposal requires a land swap between the U.S. Forest Service and the state, a trade state lawmakers in 2018 allocated nearly $5 million to investigate. The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, the federal agency responsible for granting permits, told the State of Wyoming Water Development Office to update the cost estimate for the dam. So far, the analysis itself has cost $1.5 million.

The estimate is a vital part of the cost-benefit analysis and determines who will fund the dam. The National Environmental Policy Act requires both an analysis of the proposed plan and several alternative plans, Wockner pointed out.

"Then, you pick what's called the 'least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,'" Wockner added. "You have to have a reasonable cost estimate in order to do the entire NEPA analysis correctly."

In 2023 scoping comments on the project, Wockner argued the analysis should include an estimate of greenhouse gases the project would emit, and effects on the already over-allocated Colorado River.


get more stories like this via email

Iowa is getting federal help to eliminate lead water pipes in the state.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is working with local water agencies, planning where to prioritize funds.

As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, cities and towns in Iowa are reducing the number of dangerous lead water lines.

The Iowa Environmental Council's Director of Climate Initiatives Cody Smith said even homes built as recently as 1988 are connected to the local water utility with lead lines - which leaves people at risk, even in Iowa's big cities like Des Moines and Council Bluffs.

"Particularly with the most vulnerable groups, such as unborn babies or young children, they have extreme and outsize risk related to exposure to lead through lead service lines," said Smith. "That can cause higher levels of lead in the blood and lead to developmental issues for children."

The State's Revolving Fund, which is the primary source for water infrastructure updates, has received more than $620 million as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

The IEC says more than 700 communities have benefited so far.

Beyond replacing lead pipes and updating water system infrastructure, Smith said Iowa could also benefit from help with what are known as non-point source projects.

"Which is runoff from agricultural fields and from livestock operations that lead to nutrient pollution in source water," said Smith. "And source water is water that's used for drinking water somewhere in the state."

Smith said those strategies can help farmers and local utilities reduce nitrates and other pollutants in the soil.

The Biden administration has a goal of replacing all lead water service lines in the U.S. by 2031.




get more stories like this via email

Nearly a year after the U.S. Supreme Court left key watersheds unprotected by the Clean Water Act, the Polis administration has designated new protections for some 385 miles across 15 rivers and streams in the Upper and Lower Colorado, Eagle, Yampa and Roaring Fork river basins.

Chad Rudow, water quality program manager with the Roaring Fork Conservancy, said the Outstanding Waters designation is an important tool for protecting drinking water.

"Which means it's protecting the actual quality of the water, and that's the highest level of protection that can be given to a stream within the state of Colorado," he said.

The designation aims to protect existing high-quality waterways from any future degradation, including pollution from development, mining, oil and gas extraction, and other uses. It does not affect any existing uses in the watershed, so long as they don't degrade current water quality.

The designation, which won unanimous approval by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in late August, comes after years of work done by conservation groups.

Carrie Sandstedt, senior officer with The Pew Charitable Trusts, said protections are still needed for many streams in the state, and added that protecting water quality is critical not only for drinking water but also healthy wildlife habitat and ecosystems.

"This designation not only protects rivers and streams, it also protects their associated wetlands. It helps preserve important plant life and other species critical for healthy freshwater habitats," she said.

The designation also protects one of the state's biggest economic drivers. A recent study found that Colorado's river basins generated nearly $11 billion in outdoor recreation spending in 2019. Rudow noted clean water is essential for swimming, rafting and other activities across the Roaring Fork Valley.

"We have the second longest contiguous reach of Gold Medal water in our watersheds, so that's high-quality fishing streams. People come from all over the world, literally, to go fly fishing," he explained.