The EPA Is Planning to Jeopardize the Water Quality for 117 Million Americans

“I don’t hear any mention of science.”

The Cuyahoga River fire in 1952, near downtown Cleveland sparked national alarm about water quality. AP Photo, File

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Trump administration unveiled a proposal on Tuesday weakening federal water protections for millions of acres of streams, wetlands, and waterways that will likely affect the drinking water for more than one-third of Americans. While the Trump administration specifically targeted the 2015 Obama-era rule known as the Clean Water Rule, or Waters of the United States, the proposal goes further in rolling back environmental oversight than has occurred with any president since Ronald Reagan. 

Inside the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday, the focus of a celebratory 90-minute event was not on water quality. Some two-dozen speakers from the Trump administration, including Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, were joined by some members of Congress, to criticize the Obama-era rule as federal overreach. Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) declared he was “nervous” when he finally entered the EPA for the first time in his four decades in Congress, claiming the EPA is usually a “four-letter word,” but now the agency can be renamed, the “Environmental Farm Protection Agency,” because of the new rule’s deference to agricultural interests. He was only one of the agency’s fiercest critics who spoke to the audience, many of whom were members of the American Farm Bureau Federation, a powerful agricultural lobbying arm.

The EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers proposal, now open to 60 days of public comment, dramatically restricts which bodies of water fall under the 1972 Clean Water Act regulations. The 2015 Obama rule expanded the definition to include 2 million more acres of streams and 20 million more acres of wetlands, triggering years of backlash and lawsuits led by agriculture, real estate developers, and other industries. The proposal announced today will limit Clean Water Act regulations to major waterways, their tributaries, and adjacent wetland, but will exempt other wetlands and streams that flow seasonally during heavy rainfall. These would be subject to wide-ranging state and local oversight, if any. Today’s proposal also replaces a Bush-era rule that subjected some of these streams to regulations if they are significantly connected to navigable waters—a rule that has been in place for half the country.

Conservative critics have waged a proxy fight against the Clean Water Rule by framing it as government overreach undermining the rights of farmers and local government. A common talking point was to claim the EPA wanted to regulate “puddles” after it rained on farmland. But in some areas, the so-called puddles—now exempt from the Clean Water Act—involved over half the water flowing into major rivers, explains Blan Holman, managing attorney in Southern Environmental Law Center.

“When you shrink that definition, you’ve now reduced the universe of waters that are protected,” Holman tells Mother Jones. “If you’re concerned about drinking water sources, you need to be concerned about what’s flowing into those reservoirs and those rivers.”

Obviously, acting EPA head Wheeler is not bragging that the rule will compromise water quality. “Our proposal would ensure that our water protections—among the best in the world—will remain strong while giving states and tribes the certainty to manage their waterways in ways that best protect their natural resources and economies,” he said in his speech. When the rule is finalized there will be lawsuits challenging him on his claims that it will leave the water protections in the US as strong as ever.

The announcement also marks a recent shift in the Trump administration’s deregulatory push, as it is beginning to cement its legacy.  Scott Pruitt was only able to kickstart dozens of rollbacks during his tumultuous tenure, since regulations can take as long to undo as they take to promulgate. Given Wheeler’s likely Senate confirmation as the head of the EPA, the former coal lobbyist can see that mission through to the end, by replacing Obama-era rules with much weaker versions. Recently, the EPA has moved forward with undoing climate regulations for cars, and new and existing coal-fired plants. Meanwhilethe Interior Department has weakened the Endangered Species Act and is accelerating drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

There are mounting lawsuits from Trump’s opponents challenging these decisions, and a handful of wins so far when courts have found agencies violated administrative procedures in their rush to deregulate. The agency’s required public comment period often plays another role in the rule’s fate—the first 2015 Obama proposal considered more than 1 million public comments. 

“I’ve been watching this circus for a while now and I don’t hear any mention of science,” Holman says. “They’re drawing lines based on political desire.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate