{"id":36016,"date":"2024-08-02T00:01:28","date_gmt":"2024-08-02T04:01:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=36016"},"modified":"2024-08-02T01:21:50","modified_gmt":"2024-08-02T05:21:50","slug":"research-shows-streams-transporting-pollutants-no-longer-regulated-by-epa-after-supreme-court-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/08\/research-shows-streams-transporting-pollutants-no-longer-regulated-by-epa-after-supreme-court-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Research Shows Streams Transporting Pollutants No Longer Regulated by EPA after Supreme Court Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, August 2, 2024) In a recent study<\/a> published in Science,<\/em><\/a> a team from the University of Massachusetts and Yale University provides quantitative insight into the significant effects of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the nation\u2019s water quality. This research highlights the essential role of ephemeral streams\u2014water sources that flow temporarily after rainfall\u2014in transporting pollutants, including pesticides, sediments, and nutrients from land to larger water bodies.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This comprehensive study underscores the devastating risk to U.S. water quality, stemming from the May 2023 U.S. Supreme Court<\/a> decision, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/em><\/a> (EPA), which dramatically limits the agency\u2019s ability to protect ephemeral streams as well as critical\u00a0wetland ecosystems under the Clean Water Act<\/em><\/a> (CWA).\u00a0 As a May 2024 report<\/a> by Clean Water for All Coalition notes, \u201cThe [Sackett<\/em>] decision has endangered the drinking water sources of at least 117 million Americans by stripping protections from over half of the nation\u2019s wetlands, as well as up to nearly 5 million miles of rain-dependent and seasonal streams that feed into rivers, lakes, and estuaries.\u201d<\/p>\n

At a time when an\u00a0immediate response to the climate crisis and chemical pollution is more urgent than ever, the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s judicial decisions are seen by environmentalists and public health advocates as undermining necessary actions for a sustainable future. The Sackett<\/em> decision reverses 40 years of environmental protection and water quality improvement under CWA, leaving ephemeral streams and many wetlands at risk for widespread and unrestricted contamination.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Methodology and Results<\/em><\/p>\n

Researchers compare long-term monthly water table depths with predicted bankfull depths across discrete water bodies, routing water through river systems using a published river-lake-reservoir routing framework to ensure that the newly mapped ephemeral channels were not immediately downstream of perennial rivers. The ephemeral stream map was validated using 7.207 in situ<\/em> site assessments, and the model quantified the fraction of each river’s mean annual discharge\u2014contributed by upstream ephemeral catchments\u2014by tracking water as it moved downstream.<\/p>\n

After modeling ephemeral stream contributions to the U.S. network\u2014more than 20 million rivers, lakes, reservoirs, canals, and ditches\u2014the results indicate \u201c… that ephemeral streams are likely a substantial pathway through which pollution may influence downstream water quality, a finding that can inform evaluation of the consequences of limiting U.S. federal jurisdiction over ephemeral streams under the CWA.\u201d The findings indicate that these ephemeral streams account for more than 50% of the water in major rivers like the Mississippi and Columbia, and over 90% in the Rio Grande.<\/p>\n

Ephemeral streams, often overlooked waterways and drainage networks, account for 55% of the annual discharge from HUC4 (large river basins) drainage networks on average, with a higher influence in the western basins compared to the Eastern U.S. Ephemeral streams are particularly dominant in the desert and endorheic (completely isolated) basins of the Southwest and Great Basin, accounting for 59% of the total drainage network. Also, smaller streams have a higher percentage of ephemeral water, with first-order streams (smallest streams in a drainage network, also known as headwater streams or tributaries) averaging 79% from ephemeral sources. Overall, 68% of networks contain water that is at least 50% ephemeral.<\/p>\n

Yale law professor Douglas Kysar, JD, coauthor of the Science<\/em> piece, commented in a news article<\/a> posted to the Yale School of the Environment website, saying, \u201cWhen the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the federal Clean Water Act, it did so by referring to abstract dictionary definitions rather than science. 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.\u201d The Yale article states, \u201cBy highlighting the importance of ephemeral stream flow to the downstream water quality, the results provide a basis for Congress to amend the CWA to expressly include ephemeral streams as an exercise of its power over interstate commerce.” Kysar said that the study findings also point to the need of enhanced regulation by state and local governments.<\/p>\n

This is important because the adverse impacts on water quality will impact the waterways as a system. As coauthor Peter Raymond, PhD, Yale professor of biogeochemistry, notes, \u201cThe chemistry of water is dependent on how you manage the entire watershed, not just pieces of it. These streams are a critical source of water and pollutants and have to be regulated.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cA State-by-State Fight\u201d Responses Since Sackett Decision<\/em><\/p>\n

Since the Supreme Court’s Sackett<\/em> decision, nine states have proposed or adopted new or stronger protective measures for wetlands and ephemeral waters to fill the federal regulatory void, while seven states have attempted or passed rollbacks of wetland and water protections.<\/p>\n

Colorado adopted HB24-1379<\/a>, restoring previous federal protections through a new state permitting program. Illinois proposed but failed to pass legislation to establish a wetlands permitting program. Enhanced protections or programs have been established by:<\/p>\n