As the Clean Water Act turns 50 this month, parts of it are the subject of a U-S Supreme Court case. Sackett versus E-P-A might let factories, hog farms and wastewater plants pollute waterways in states that lack strong water-quality protections.

A decision in favor of the plaintiffs in the case has the potential to remove the Clean Water Act's protections for about half the nation's streams and wetlands. Jim Murphy Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, said the case could have sweeping repercussions across the U-S.

"Could potentially, depending on how the court rules, remove important federal protections from pollution and destruction for up to half of the nation's wetlands and maybe 60% to 70% of the nation's streams," Murphy said," including many streams that could provide the source waters for people's drinking supplies. "

A recent report from the National Wildlife Federation said if the plaintiffs are successful in the case, it would be "disproportionately felt by low-income communities and communities of color that already have inadequate water and wastewater infrastructure and face greater flood risk," Murphy said.

Connecticut has been making investments
toward improving water quality.

In recent months, the state has allocated state funds and received federal funding for a series of water infrastructure-related projects.

Nationally, Murphy found polls that show 75% of adults favor protections for more waterways, and want the Environmental Protection Agency to take the lead in protecting natural waterways.

"Again, these natural systems provide functions that are very, very hard to replace, and very expensive to replace through engineering and other means," Murphy said.

This is the second time the Sackett family has been before the Supreme Court in their 14-year legal battle. Their first time was in 2012, when they were granted the right to sue the E-P-A. A decision is expected in 2023.

Minnesota is giving its water quality standards a fresh look. With public input in their hands, officials are under pressure to add language about nitrate levels, a move some said is long overdue.

Nitrate pollution is often tied to farm runoff containing fertilizers and animal waste. There are standards for drinking water but conservation groups want a nitrate standard for lakes and rivers.

Trevor Russell, water program director for Friends of the Mississippi River, said the effort has been building for more than 15 years but final action has been hard to come by. While it is difficult to keep waterways perfectly clean, he pointed out it is helpful to have scientific thresholds.

"We want them to be relatively healthy for fish and other aquatic life," Russell explained. "That's what we're managing for when you set a water quality standard."

His group was encouraged to see wording on the topic in a draft proposal. Russell hopes the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency can hold off political pushback and not exclude it from the final plan. Public comment just wrapped up and the plan will soon be sent for federal review.

Minnesota has been aggressive in other ways to curb nitrate pollution, for which Russell gives the state credit.

The farming sector might not be overjoyed at the potential of a new nitrate standard but Russell noted many producers have joined the movement to limit their runoff. Still, he said even with actions like these, getting the problem under control will not be easy.

"About 15% of nitrogen application to Minnesota's farm fields is going to run off into our waters no matter what farmers do," Russell acknowledged. "It is the nature of nitrate and it is the risk that comes with our reliance on summer annual cropping systems that need to be fertilized."

If a nitrate standard is included, Russell emphasized Minnesota has a robust monitoring system in place to detect excessive levels, spurring a likely cleanup response. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency said updating the standards is required every three years. It also covers bacteria, which can make the water unsafe for swimming, as well as so-called "forever chemicals" from industrial waste.

A new study by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality found nitrate levels have continued to rise across the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area.

The report found about 40% of the wells tested exceed the limit of safe nitrate levels for drinking water. Exposure to nitrates can lead to blue baby syndrome, birth defects, thyroid problems and cancer, among other things.

Kaleb Lay, director of policy and research for the advocacy group Oregon Rural Action, said the state has known about the high levels of nitrate in the area for decades but has not done enough to address the issue.

"The state's approach has been basically just voluntary measures to reduce groundwater pollution," Lay explained. "Unsurprisingly, what we've seen ever since is nitrate levels continue to go up."

Lay pointed out synthetic fertilizer, liquefied manure and wastewater are the main sources of nitrate pollution in groundwater. Factory farms, including a major dairy supplying the brand Tillamook, spread their waste on Oregon fields. Lay added the contamination disproportionately impacts low-income Hispanic communities, many of whom work on the polluting farms.

Oregon Rural Action started testing wells in 2022, Lay noted, and has found disturbing levels of contamination.

"Hundreds of people were drinking water that was polluted by nitrates and had no idea," Lay reported. "They hadn't been warned about it."

A good place to start reining in the problem, according to Lay, is to collect more data. Senate Bill 747 would require farms 200 acres or larger to report how much fertilizer they use. It would allow the state to identify overuse and advise where farmers could use less fertilizer.

In written testimony, Oregon farmers opposed to the bill said they do not overuse fertilizer and are burdened by too many regulations.


get more stories like this via email

Legal action continues in efforts at cleaning up a portion of Ohio's waterways.

The Ohio EPA has been added as a defendant, along with the U.S. EPA, in a lawsuit filed by the Board of Lucas County Commissioners, the City of Toledo, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center, arguing the two agencies failed to have an effective plan to prevent dangerous amounts of phosphorus from occupying Lake Erie. Phosphorus produces cyanobacteria which appears in water as blue-green or brownish algae.

Sandy Bihn, executive director of the nonprofit Lake Erie waterkeeper, calls the EPA's control plan ineffective.

"We've got now, just in the last two years, an increase of 100,000 cattle coming into the Maumee watershed, most of it unpermitted, piles of manure on the ground here, there, and everywhere," Bihn pointed out. "You can actually physically see the manure running off into the streams."

Bihn noted commercial fertilizer phosphorus use has decreased by almost 40% but livestock is increasing and with that comes more manure runoff. She stressed the agencies being sued are more focused on the phosphorus in farmers' chemical fertilizers.

With the reduction in phosphorus, farmers are still having good yields. However, the number of livestock increases, which creates more untreated manure that seeps into nearby land and water. Excessive phosphorus pollution is joined by E. coli bacteria, pathogens, and other harmful pollutants in Ohio waterways and streams.

"About 90% of it is from runoff from the fields; agricultural runoff, and the two major sources of that are commercial fertilizer and manure," Bihn explained. "The path to reducing those harmful algal blooms is simply to reduce the sources, which is not something the programs are focusing on."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said swallowing water, eating fish or blue-green algae supplements contaminated with cyanobacteria can damage a person's liver and central nervous system or cause death.


get more stories like this via email