A River Runs Through
Last Year, SCOTUS Weakened The Clean Water Act; Now New Research Shows That About 55% of Water Flowing Out of Rivers Is Vulnerable To Pollution
“Beyond what we wish / and what we fear may happen / we have another life, / as clear and free as a mountain stream.” ~Rumi
Don’t we all wish for simpler times? When the water was safe to drink and swim in.
I can’t help but think as we go into the holiday weekend celebrating our country’s independence about how much I wish we could all enjoy the natural environment free from toxic pollution.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that rivers that flow in response to weather events, or what are called ephemeral streams, do not fall under the protection of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
New research suggests that this decision now leaves many U.S. waterways vulnerable to pollution. Researchers found that these short-lived bodies of water, which transport pollutants, sediments, and nutrients from land surfaces to rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and ultimately the oceans, can influence a substantial amount of water output of the nation’s rivers.
In the 2023 case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a majority of the Supreme Court defined the bodies of water that fall under CWA protection as, “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” In essence, they narrowed the definition of what waterways are protected.
Scientists found that on average, ephemeral streams contribute 55 percent of the water that comes out of the mouth of regional river systems across the United States.
Ephemeral streams are not flowing most of the time, but once a big storm rolls in, that extra water can push whatever has been accumulating in those rivers downstream, showing just how far pollution can travel.
Without proper federal protections, these waterways are now “regulated” by state and local governments, which have less resources.
“The irony is that the federal Clean Water Act was adopted precisely because state and local governments were thought to be doing a poor job of protecting the nation’s waterways,” said one of the study authors, Craig Brinkerhoff. “States don’t necessarily have incentives to adopt costly water protections when the benefits will be felt by ecosystems out of state.”
In the nation’s largest rivers, such as the Mississippi and Columbia, more than 50 percent of the water originates from ephemeral streams at average annual discharge, they found.
In some waterways, such as the Rio Grande, more than 90 percent of water comes from ephemeral streams. While the size of the river basin influences results, ephemeral streams on average account for 59 percent of drainage networks by length. These streams, the researchers say, pick up nitrogen, pesticides, and other pollutants that are likely relayed to the rivers at similar magnitudes as their water input.
“When the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the federal Clean Water Act, it did so by referring to abstract dictionary definitions rather than science,” Doug Kysar, another study author, said. “This research underscores the impact of that approach since, by our estimate, over half of annual discharge from U.S. drainage networks will no longer be protected by the Act.”
This study also has significance in light of the recent Chevron decision. Judges are not scientists.
When it comes to water, you have to look at the entire watershed, not just pieces of it. Everything is connected.
Resources:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240627172008.htm
Weekend Watch
A River Runs Through It
Speaking of simpler times… This 1992 American film directed by Robert Redford and based on the memoir of Norman Maclean, follows two sons of a Presbyterian minister, one studious and the other rebellious, as they grow up, share a love of fly fishing for trout in the Blackfoot River, and come of age in the Rocky Mountain region. Early in the movie, one of the brothers Norman attends a Fourth of July dance.
It's clearly too much to ask that our judiciary be science aware, but it should not be unreasonable to demand that they not be science adverse. One of the consequences of having religious fundamentalists as judges is that they consistently rule contrary to scientifically sound positions. Could it be part of their power trip?
Where is the discussion on data centers? This writing and analysis is second grade IMHO.