MAGA gifts and grifts our drinking water
“Clean water protections
shouldn’t change with each administration,” said Betsy Southerland, former
director of the Office of Science and Technology in the
US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water. “Every
family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or
who’s in office.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed changes to the rule known as “Waters of
the United States”
(WOTUS), which has been the subject of debate and legal challenges in recent
decades. Under the Trump
administration, as in President Donald Trump’s first term, the EPA will
focus on regulating permanent bodies of water like oceans, lakes, rivers, and
streams.
The administration would more closely follow a 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett
v. EPA, which the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found this year would
remove federal protections from 60-95% of wetlands across the nation.
The Zeldin rule would eliminate protections for most
wetlands without visible surface water, going even further than Sackett
v. EPA in codifying a narrower definition of wetlands that should be
protected, said the Environmental Protection Network (EPN). The rule comes
after pressure from industry groups that have bristled over past requirements
to protect all waterways.
Wetlands provide critical wildlife habitats,
replenish groundwater, control flooding, and protect clean water by
filtering pollution.
The Biden administration required the Clean Water Act to protect “traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters,” but was constrained by the Sackett ruling in 2023.
Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food and Water Watch, said
the new rule “weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill,
drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast.”
“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting
profiteers plunder our waters—Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this
destruction,” said Heinzen. “This rule flies in the face of science and
commonsense. Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean
more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our
rivers.”
The “critical functions” of wetlands, she added, “will only
become more important as worsening climate change makes extreme weather more
frequent. EPA must reverse course.”
Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for
American Rivers, added that the change to WOTUS will “likely make
things worse for flood-prone communities and industries dependent on clean,
reliable water.”
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores
the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply,” said
Huta. “The EPA is taking a big swipe at the Clean Water Act, our greatest tool
for ensuring clean water nationwide.”
The proposal was applauded by the National Association of
Manufacturers, whose president, Jay Timmins, said companies’ “ability to invest
and build across the country” has been “undermined” by the Obama and Biden
administration’s broader interpretation of WOTUS.
But Southerland said Zeldin’s proposal “ignores decades of
science showing that wetlands and intermittent streams are essential to
maintaining the health of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies.”
“This is one of the most significant setbacks to clean water
protections in half a century,” she said. “It’s a direct assault on the clean
water Americans rely on.”
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands,
wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said the group was evaluating the legality of the
proposal and would “not hesitate to go to court to protect the cherished
rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands that all Americans need and depend on.”
“The proposal avoids specifying the exact scale of the
deregulation it proposes, but it clearly would result in a serious reduction in
legal protections for waters across the United States,” said Caputo. “Many
waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act for over 50 years would
lose those protections under this proposal.”
