By Kristi Eaton for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Northern Rockies News Service for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

A coalition of groups focused on water rights filed a brief in June with the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to keep the court from narrowing the definition of federally protected waters.

Waterkeeper Alliance, San Francisco Baykeeper, Bayou City Waterkeeper, and nearly 50 additional Waterkeeper groups from across the country filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the case Sackett v EPA.

The clean water advocates are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling about the scope of wetlands protected under the landmark Clean Water Act.

The central question in Sackett v EPA is what standard should apply to determine protection for wetlands that are adjacent to traditional navigable waters and their tributaries. The petitioners in the appeal have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling that adjacent wetlands, including those on their Idaho property, merit federal protection, which would advance a narrow interpretation of the CWA. The amicus brief contends that, to achieve the law's objective, it must protect all waters that make up aquatic ecosystems, not just navigable waters. The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall.

"Idaho has unique geographical and hydrologic features that form 'closed basins' which would be excluded from federal pollution protection if Clean Water Act jurisdiction was reduced by constricting the definition of which 'waters of the United States' are federally protected," said Buck Ryan, executive director of Snake River Waterkeeper, in an interview with The Daily Yonder. "We joined in filing the brief to ensure these waterways - which are critical to water quality in the Snake River as well as for endangered species like bull trout - enjoy the federal statutory protections Congress intended in drafting the Act."

The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 to protect the health of the waters of the United States, promote healthy aquatic ecosystems, and regulate the discharge of pollutants into waterways.

In states like Idaho, Ryan said, "where industry and ag-friendly legislatures offer the bare minimum in terms of clean water safeguards, the federal Clean Water Act is the preeminent (and in many cases, only) guarantee of legal protection for rural communities to have fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water."

Kelly Hunter Foster, senior attorney with Waterkeeper Alliance, said many iconic and significant waters across the country lack continuous surface connections to traditionally defined navigable waters and could lose federal clean water protections that have been in place for nearly 50 years if the court were to adopt the petitioners' navigability theories.

"Congress originally designed the CWA to broadly protect all waters of the United States-not only those used for commercial navigation. The scope cannot be narrowed if we are to ensure the integrity of the law and the health of our waterways," Foster said in a press statement.

The Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the CWA occurs as the court has revisited long established precedents. Last month the court ruled that the Clean Air Act does not give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency blanket regulations against power plants. The Clean Air Act, initially passed in 1963 and revised many times since, was one of the nation's first and most influential environmental laws.

Waterkeeper Alliance Chief Executive Officer Marc Yaggi called the court's interpretation of the Clean Air Act a "gift to polluters and will pose a major threat to clean water."

"The majority's new major questions doctrine handcuffs the federal government's ability to respond to emergencies that weren't specifically contemplated at the time statutes are passed," Yaggi said in a press statement. "The idea that our current dysfunctional Congress might be expected to more directly authorize EPA to broadly 'tackle' the climate emergency is absurd. This sets a dangerous precedent not just for EPA and our climate, but for all agencies and future emergencies."

Albert Lin, a law professor at the University of California Davis who specializes in environmental and natural resources law, said in an interview with The Daily Yonder that the Clear Air Act and Clean Water Act cases seem to be asking two different questions. The Clean Air Act case used the major questions doctrine, he said, and he believes it's unlikely that will be the case in the Clean Water Act case.

"It seems unlikely given that the sort of question at issue in the Clean Water Act case, the extent of the government's regulatory authority over wetlands is an issue that the agencies - EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers - have been grappling with for decades," he said. "And that it's not the sort of situation as in West Virginia vs. EPA, where you had, at least the way the court puts it, EPA asserting this apparently new authority over how kind of energy is produced and distributed and generated."

Also in June, the Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which provided a constitutional basis protecting the right to abortion services.

Kristi Eaton wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email

As South Dakotans affected by recent record floods take stock of damages, researchers say water quality is among the concerns.

The state has been collecting damage data - but some impacts, like water contamination from livestock operations, are harder to quantify.

According to the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, coming into contact with or consuming manure-contaminated water can increase the risks of E. coli, giardia, and other waterborne illnesses. And those can lead to kidney failure, intestinal complications or cancer.

Amanda Starbuck, research director at Food and Water Watch, said public water systems are tested for these contaminants - but private, rural wells may not be.

"There's a lot of concerns about rural communities and their waters," said Starbuck, "and whether they have the ability, the financial resources, to test and to remediate any kind of contaminations that do stem from these factory farms."

Huge June rainstorms caused the Big Sioux River to swell up to 45 feet - breaking the previous record by seven feet, according to NASA, and inundating nearby farmlands.

Starbuck said South Dakota has some of the highest concentrations of confined beef, dairy and hog operations in the country.

Starbuck added that, according to a Food and Water Watch analysis, the state's factory farms produce nearly 22 billion pounds of manure each year.

"So, that's 17.5 times as much sewage as produced by the state's entire human population," said Starbuck. "So, we're talking about unsustainable amounts of livestock in these confinement operations."

She said the manure output should be of concern regardless of flooding. Still, river floodplains are expected to grow in coming years, according to a FEMA report.




get more stories like this via email

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