Over 50 years ago, Congress passed the bipartisan Clean Water Act, which has helped clean up and protect the wetlands, streams, and watersheds that provide the water flowing from our taps. 

The regressive PERMIT Act 

Now, Congress is poised to vote on a bill that abandons a host of key Clean Water Act safeguards that protect our waters from pollution and destruction.

This disastrous bill, called the PERMIT Act, will let large-scale polluters off the hook for trashing our waters, leaving the American people to pick up the tab. If it becomes law, this bill will pollute our drinking water, compromise our health, put more communities at risk of floods, and ruin many of the places we swim or fish.

Here are just a few of the many ways the PERMIT Act will harm water and wildlife:

More Toxic Chemicals in Our Waters

This bill legalizes pollution without accountability—including for toxins that should never be getting into our water in the first place. It gives polluters free rein to spray or discharge harmful toxins into our rivers and streams without limitations or protections.

Pesticides discharged into surface waters can contaminate our drinking water supplies and kill or cause severe harm to fish and wildlife. A significant portion of our drinking water across the country contains pesticides and the EPA has already identified 2,000 waterbodies that are impaired by pesticide contamination.

The bill also makes it easier for industrial operations to dump toxic “forever chemicals” like PFAS into our waters by shielding dischargers from Clean Water Act liability. Instead of holding polluters accountable, it lets them off the hook.

Concerning levels of PFAS—which have been linked to cancer, reproductive issues, and other major health concerns—are already alarmingly prevalent in the environment, people, and wildlife. In some areas, the concentration of PFAS chemicals has gotten so high that Do Not Eat advisories have been applied to game and fish species, limiting hunting and fishing opportunities.

Takes Power from Locals

The bill weakens the longstanding authority of states and Tribes to protect local waters under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from potential impacts related to federally issued permits and licenses. This authority allows states and Tribes to protect the water quality of waters that communities and wildlife rely on for drinking water, recreation, cultural practices, and habitat.

It has been important in ensuring that habitat and fishing opportunities are safeguarded from the impacts of major dams, pipelines, and other potentially harmful projects.

Removes Protections for Wetlands and Streams

In addition to removing state and Tribal rights, this bill also takes aim at Clean Water Act pollution and destruction safeguards for wetlands and streams across the country. The bill would remove federal pollution safeguards from streams that don’t flow year-round, but that supply drinking water for one in three Americans.

It would also allow the Army Corps of Engineers to remove any category of wetlands and streams from Clean Water Act protection, compromising the quality of downstream drinking water supplies and wildlife habitat. The Clean Water Act’s ability to protect small streams and wetlands was already weakened by a 2023 Supreme Court decision.

The Bottom Line: More Pollution Allowed in Our Water Supply

All of this means we will have more rivers, streams, wetlands, and other waters that are unsafe for drinking, swimming, and fishing. Instead of requiring dischargers to prevent pollution before it enters our waters, Americans will have to pay more to clean and treat our water to make it safe for drinking, farming, washing, and cooking. Without healthy headwater streams and wetlands to absorb floodwaters, we will be more susceptible to flooding, drought, and other natural disasters.

More pollutants in our surface waters and fewer healthy wetlands and streams also means that fish and wildlife—and the outdoor economies that rely on them—will suffer as well. Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, similar to coral reefs and tropical rainforests. More than a third of all federally endangered or threatened species live only in wetlands and half use wetlands at some point in their lives.

Now is the time to stand up for clean water—tell your Representative to vote NO on the PERMIT Act.

Instead of weakening the Clean Water Act tools that protect our waters, Congress should be strengthening them.

Take a look at the movement of water from high above in the sky, and you’ll notice the resemblance to our own veins that run life through us. This natural design speaks volumes to the essential role of water in every aspect of our lives.

As humans, we are born from water, made of water, and dependent on water to survive. In every essence, we are water. Indigenous communities have recognized this truth since time immemorial, commonly stating “water is life” and the “first medicine”. 

Water is deeply ingrained in the identity of many Tribes. For example, the Fort Mojave Tribe who live along the Colorado River in Nevada, California, and Arizona, are originally named to honor their sacred connection to the river. Natalie Diaz, Mojave / Akimel O’odham poet, language activist and educator explains:

“Aha Makav is the true name of our people, given to us by our Creator who loosed the river from the earth and built it into our living bodies.

Translated into English, ‘Aha Makav means the river runs through the middle of our body, the same way it runs through the middle of our land.”

Natalie Diaz, The First Water Is The Body

The intrinsic value of water

As ‘Aha Makav, or River People, the health of the river translates to their own health as individuals, families, and a community. The two cannot be separated. This concept can be applied to every other organism that relies on the river. When the water is clean and flowing, fish and other wildlife are abundant and healthy, migratory species can travel freely, diverse plants can thrive, and people have a reliable food and water source to sustain themselves. A healthy river is a gift that keeps on giving.

The connection between water and identity is also evident in Indigenous cultural ceremonies. For instance, in sweat lodges, water plays an essential role. The structure of the lodge represents a mother’s womb, a sacred space where individuals are enveloped in warm steam and firmly grounded with Mother Earth.

This is a place for physical and spiritual purification—a profound release of toxins and the things that no longer serve an individual, and the invitation to reconnect with one’s ancestors and greater purpose. The presence of water within the sweat lodge highlights its role as a sustaining force, integral to the holistic well-being of Indigenous communities. Throughout the culture, water is affirmed as the source of all life.

The commodification of water

In the colonial perspective, water is often viewed as a resource to be exploited, along with other natural resources that enable large scale industrialization and urbanization. 

Reducing water to a capital resource solely for human consumption severely undervalues the source of all life on Earth. From this place, access to clean water can be misinterpreted as a privilege for only certain groups to enjoy, rather than a fundamental right. Although industrialization has enabled the large-scale growth of society, the activities to build this infrastructure are often at the expense of local communities and the environment. Colonization and the misappropriation of water have led to severe consequences:

Over-extraction and diversion of water for the purposes of large-scale agricultural, industrial, and urban development threaten to drain whole ecosystems, disrupt the natural flow, and negatively impact local communities. In these depleted areas, many Indigenous peoples are unable to access water for their own drinking, farming, fishing, and more. Many families are forced to haul finite amounts of water back to their homes, where they must carefully ration every drop.

Industrial activities like mining, manufacturing, and chemical production can poison local water sources, from lakes and rivers to groundwater aquifers, resulting in loss of Indigenous livelihoods. Communities who rely on these natural water bodies for their daily needs face health hazards, food insecurity, economic instability, and threats to cultural and spiritual practices. The absence of viable water may additionally threaten a community to relocate, displacing them from their ancestral lands.

Unjust water laws, formed by and for colonizers, often ignore and undermine Indigenous water rights. Western legal frameworks prioritize economic development over traditional water management practices of Indigenous peoples. This excludes Indigenous communities from decision-making regarding their own ancestral lands, leading to depletion and pollution of sacred waters without their consent or benefit.

Water accessibility and protection

An estimated 48 percent of households on Native American reservations do not have access to reliable water sources, clean drinking water, or adequate sanitation. This disparity is devastating to Indigenous communities. With many places facing unprecedented drought, it’s more important than ever for water to be allocated fairly.

Nonetheless, Indigenous peoples are fierce water protectors, helping to forge a reality where water is safe, clean, and accessible to all.

Take for example, the Water & Tribes Initiative (WTI), an Indigenous-led organization that empowers 30 federally recognized Tribes within the Colorado River Basin to manage their water resources and engage in water policy discussions. Established in 2017, WTI aims to enhance tribal capacity and promote sustainable water use through collaborative problem-solving.

Many non-native organizations, including the National Wildlife Federation, are proud partners in this work. WTI addresses water access issues by facilitating research, outreach, education, and community dialogues, ensuring that Tribes have a voice in the planning and decision-making processes that affect the vital Colorado River, which serves over 40 million people.

Learn more about the Tribal framework for protecting the Colorado River here. 

The Indigenous Women’s Leadership Network (IWLN) formed in 2021 and lives under WTI to create a space for Indigenous women working on water and natural resource issues. IWLN aims to mentor and inspire women leaders, exchange information, build and refine leadership skills, and facilitate a succession of Native women in positions of leadership. Mira Barney, Program Assistant at IWLN and Senior Strategy Coordinator at National Wildlife Federation, explains the importance of empowering Indigenous women to lead water protection initiatives in the Basin:

“Water is life, and water protection is at the core of the Indigenous Women’s Leadership Network. We’re paying homage to historical, Indigenous-led matriarchies by uplifting fellow women and helping them access resources to be leaders in their communities.

IWLN holds values that are core to my identity and reflected in so many other Native women too. They have helped me build confidence, serving as a reminder that we are strong women with the power to make a difference. I feel so honored to be part of this network, and to learn from matriarchs themselves—they are a true force to be reckoned with.”

Mira Barney

The Water & Tribes Initiative and Indigenous Women’s Leadership Network exemplify the invaluable role of Indigenous peoples in water protection. While they advocate for more just water decisions in the Colorado River Basin, similar initiatives are taking place all across the world. These collective efforts reinforce that…

water is identity,

water is power,

water is life.

The water does not belong to us, we belong to the water. Clean, accessible, and free-flowing water is essential to our entire existence. As good stewards of the environment, we have every reason to respect and protect this precious element. 

The National Wildlife Federation supports water protection initiatives by standing with Tribes and Indigenous communities in advocating for their right to clean, accessible, free flowing water. Building authentic, collaborative partnerships with Tribes and Indigenous communities to support their needs is a primary focus of this work. The National Wildlife Federation acknowledges the need to do more, and the need to do better.

Continue learning about Water Protection:

• Nearly half of Colorado River tribes have unresolved water rights claims. New agreements could change that (KGNU Community Radio) 
• Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities (Tribal Clean Water) 
• Dispossessed, Again: Climate Change Hits Native Americans Especially Hard (The New York Times)
• Navajo families’ miles-long journey for water highlights access disparities (ABC News)

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency challenges both the authority and the integrity of the Clean Water Act. Focused on the much-contested definition of “waters of the United States”, Pacific Legal Foundation (which is representing the Sacketts), has argued against the EPA—which represents science and people everywhere. By disputing which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act, the Sacketts hope to enhance their own economic interests at the expense of their neighboring communities and the environment. In doing so, they put countless communities across the country at risk.

Prior to the implementation and enactment of the Clean Water Act, bodies of water were full of pollutants, with many rivers oozing rather than flowing. Furthermore, the risks associated with regular contact with polluted water hit communities hard, as daily consumption or use of polluted water puts people at risk for a number of adverse health conditions, including asthma and other respiratory impacts, damaged nervous systems, gastrointestinal diseases, and cancers, to name a few.

These outcomes are particularly amplified in marginalized communities as people of color, low-income, and non-English speaking communities are consistently excluded from experiencing the protections afforded from environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act. As incremental progress has been made on ensuring equitable water quality outcomes through policy changes, the Sackett case puts these fragile positive changes in great jeopardy.

One example of a community facing unimaginable challenges related to a number of pollutants is located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. Home to the famed “Cancer Alley”, this community is visibly plagued by the harmful impacts of environmental pollution. St. James Parish is a predominantly Black community with a majority of households at or below the Federal Poverty Line that has historically been targeted by various big polluters such as oil and gas companies and plastic manufacturers for facility placement.

The repercussions of the industrial presence of numerous polluting facilities continue to contribute to negative health and environmental outcomes for the community. But St. James Parish is also home to a resilient community, led by an environmental justice organization called Rise St. James. Their environmental justice advocacy and action is some of the strongest in the nation, and their efforts continue to challenge big polluters to justify siting and pollution actions with comprehensive analysis or leave St. James Parish.

The Sackett case initially developed because a couple—the Sacketts—desired to dredge and fill wetlands on their property. More information on the history of the Sackett case can be found here. In this landmark case, wetlands, some of the most ecologically beneficial ecosystems in the world, are challenged as constituted waters of the United States. This challenge allowed the Sacketts (through Pacific Legal Foundation) to ultimately have their case heard before the United States Supreme Court. 

Should the Sacketts win, communities like St. James Parish will continue to suffer. For example, a plastics polluter has applied for a wetlands permit in St. James Parish. Currently, and as a result of community action and advocacy, the permit has been placed under review pending an environmental justice analysis. The premise of that permit is very similar to that of the Sacketts, and would negatively impact existing wetlands. It could be approved if Sackett wins. Not only will this destroy a huge portion of the biodiversity and ecology in the area, but it will also have continued detrimental impacts on the people living there.

Although more pollution is unimaginable given what people are already exposed to, a ruling in favor of the Sacketts will expose this and other communities to more environmental and social destruction. These are communities that are already inundated with an overabundance of polluters and pollution. Additional toxic industries will have the legal precedence to proceed with harmful environmental practices, which would totally disregard the harmful effects associated with largely unregulated pollution.

The Supreme Court Case is far from over. There is an urgent need for everyone to engage in advocacy around court proceedings and in favor of science-backed policy decisions that can help protect communities and provide the best outcome for our shared environmental future.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held opening arguments on Sackett v. EPA   on October 3, 2022. Much of the debate centered around which test was the best to use in determining what constitutes a protected water under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court Justices had a number of direct questions for the Pacific Legal Foundation, the law firm representing the Sacketts in this case. Many blogs, articles, and press releases have already covered the details of the oral arguments, and anyone interested could also listen in real time as arguments were streamed live online and saved on the SCOTUS website. But what was it like to listen to those arguments and to rally in-person in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency?

A personal matter 

October 3rd was a cold and rainy day with zero sun in the sky. I woke up early and I trekked to the Supreme Court to try and get inside for the hearing. I stopped for coffee at Le Bon on the way. As I approached the court and viewed the line of advocates, young professionals, and press hoping to enter the court, my plans to get inside went right out the window. I realized that my efforts would be better spent rallying, calling for change, and bringing attention to the importance of this case. I soon found my coworkers and peers and tried to stay warm ahead of the rally. As arguments got underway, CEOs, presidents, and representatives from environmental advocacy organizations across the country stood up to speak.

As I listened to their speeches and calls for action, I began to reflect on my own place in environmental advocacy. I considered the question ‘what steps in my life led me to this point – standing in front of the Supreme Court of the United States calling for water justice? I thought about the experiences that introduced me to the importance of water. Through both personal experiences and learning about the environment at school, I saw how many ways people were impacted by water and what a critical resource water is. The overuse of water and restricted access to it usually influences the welfare of a community. Everyone needs water to live, and yet people of color and communities of lower wealth disproportionately face issues like lack of access to water or inferior water quality.

A complex and nuanced topic

With the opening arguments going on, I couldn’t help but notice how distinctly different the conversations around the Sackett case and the actual impacts of water pollution seemed. Some people talked about environmental justice, but they seemed to be separate discussions from the point of the Sackett case! The SCOTUS was focused on these complex regulations – essentially how to define concepts of navigable waters and waters of the United States (WOTUS), when really, the resolution of the case will impact water, broadly speaking.

But for people who are experiencing water insecurity and who regularly come in contact with polluted water, the concern is ultimately not around what navigable waters are and whether or not their water supply is considered a protected water of the United States under the Clean Water Act. What REALLY matters is whether or not there is clean water coming out of the tap and whether people have a healthy environment for recreation and enjoyment.

Unfortunately, quite divisive

Polluters continue to damage the critical water resources that we all rely on for their own financial gain. Those entities have the resources to selfishly exploit gaps in the Clean Water Act, especially around issues of equity and justice, or act as a proxy for special polluting interests. 

Considerable time and money is dedicated to learning about the control of water resources by these actors in order to protect and grow their market interests, often with disregard for environmental protections. Sharon Astyk, an environmental author, wrote in ‘Depletion and Abundance’, ”the hand that stirs the pot rules the world,” suggesting that those who control critical resources such as food and water also control much of the economic and political direction of the world. The value that the control of water holds is well captured in this quote. Water resources impact so many aspects of life, and those with control are able to protect their interests first and foremost.

An ongoing struggle for balance

However, water pollution eventually catches up with everyone. Rescinding Clean Water Act protections by ruling in favor of the Sacketts would not only bring the country back to rivers on fire, and sludge flowing down the streets, but it would also significantly reduce the quality of life in the immediate and long term for countless people.

Continued abuse of the environment may financially benefit a few in the short term, but it negatively impacts everyone in the long run. By connecting the real impacts of water pollution and environmental justice implications to the complex legal terminology and arguments being made in this SCOTUS case, the impacts of water pollution can be more clearly understood and acted on. Advocating for clean water must also mean advocating for environmental justice.

Behind the tap at your kitchen sink lies a story that weaves together the municipal water supply with the vast mountain range, the snow that it captures, and the essential habitat needed for fish and wildlife to thrive throughout the watershed.

History: A Legacy of Protection & Restoration

The Wasatch Mountains have long been an island oasis in the middle of a sagebrush sea. Many different Indigenous Tribes such as the Ute, Goshute, Shoshone, and Paiute have long found respite from the arid climate along the mountain streams. The Tribes have used the waterways as a major source of food with fish, plants, and wildlife that congregated around the waterbodies. The Ute relationship with and love of the land has tied their culture closely to the earth and its abundance. The Shoshone traveled with the seasons. They call the earth “Mother Earth” because all things, including food and shelter, come from Mother Earth. These Tribal Nations live in and steward natural resources across Utah today.^[1]

In 1847, settlers arrived to the Salt Lake Valley. Soon trees were cut to help build the city below and shore up mines. Sheep and cattle grazed heavily, adding to the impact on water quality.  (Figure 2. Early Issues – Post Mining – Alta).  Spring “runoff” flu was soon prevalent as a result of the contaminated water.

The need to manage these watersheds to provide clean and reliable water was soon evident. To that end, the City and the state of Utah petitioned the federal government to create the Wasatch Forest Reserve. Set aside by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, the Salt Lake Forest Reserve’s main purpose was to provide drinking water to the communities in the valley below, with the additional benefits of biodiversity and providing habitat for native fish and wildlife. This launched a century-long partnership between the City and the U.S. Forest Service that turned the tide of environmental degradation and carefully stewarded these canyons back to ecological health. 

Partnerships were critical to this rehabilitation. The City and U.S. Forest Service were assisted by the Civilian Conservation Corp as well as other eager partners. In addition, the nascent ski resorts purportedly used the small trees harvested in this work to craft their ski runs. As the outdoor recreation industry grew, so did the trees.

Stressors to Watersheds and Drinking Water

Fast forward a hundred years and, with challenges of the past met, our watersheds are now being severely challenged by the increasing demand from population growth, the accompanying outdoor recreation, climate change, and increased fire risks.

Catastrophic wildfire is one of the greatest threats to the Wasatch Mountain watersheds and drinking water, as in other municipal water supplies across the West. A century of wildfire suppression has created significant fuel build-up. The trees planted to restore the canyons lack age diversity within the forest community. Wave after wave of invasive insects and vegetation perpetuate fire risk. As a result, wildfire frequency, intensity, and duration have increased throughout the West over the last 50 years. The impacts on the watershed are significant and include erosion, landslides, flooding, and loss of precious habitat. This threatens a crucial source of drinking water as well as the integrity of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the watershed.

Fortunately, through collaborative restoration efforts and strategic investments, we can address these threats and improve watershed health, water sustainability, and wildlife habitat. For example, in Oregon’s McKenzie River watershed, a diverse partnership has worked to build fire resilience and restore landscapes impacted by increasingly intense fires.

Watershed Stewardship Partnerships and Collaboration

Salt Lake City has benefited from a long legacy of partnerships to manage our watersheds, from the US Forest Service, non-profit organizations, and government agencies, to ski areas, canyon residents, and the public. The City is also a partner of Utah Shared Stewardship, which works collaboratively with other public, private, and nonprofit organizations to address wildfire risk and water quality and quantity issues utilizing landscape-scale projects throughout the state. One such Shared Stewardship project is the Parley’s and Lambs Canyon Fuels Reduction Project, which received the 2021 Regional Forester’s Award. Just this year in In May 2022, Utah Gov. Cox and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack signed a renewed Shared Stewardship agreement that reaffirms a mutual commitment to building the relationships and coalitions needed to effectively confront the wildfire crisis throughout the state of Utah.

Working in this framework of Shared Stewardship, the City is presently working with the State, Salt Lake County, and the U.S. Forest Service on planning for watershed-wide fuels treatments. At present, the environmental clearance work is underway with multiple years of fuel treatments being planned. Public outreach is ongoing as the phases of fuel treatments are rolled out.

Watershed Planning and Education

Long-term planning is crucial for the successful protection of our watersheds and the drinking water they provide, as are updates to management plans.

The City’s Watershed Management Plan (WMP) serves to protect source water and guides our watershed policies while documenting how our source waters are protected. Once the update is complete, there will be recommendations to address growing issues like climate change, population growth, exploding recreational use, protection of wetlands, and habitat and wildfire risk. In addition, the WMP update will include a robust fire resiliency plan and climate change analysis. This plan will also inform the fuels reduction efforts in Shared Stewardship with a water quality focus.  Importantly, the City hopes to support efforts to reduce the threat to homes, businesses, and life safety and also add a broader recognition of the need to protect the ecosystem services these canyons provide.

Often, the public is unaware of where their drinking water comes from and why it is so pure. This prompted us to relaunch our “Keep It Pure” Initiative to raise awareness about keeping watersheds clean. “We’ve learned a lot over the 150 years we have been managing and protecting our watersheds. Most importantly, we’ve learned that no one entity can do it alone. We rely on the help of our partners to keep our water pure, but no less important is our need for the public’s help,” said Laura Briefer, Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Director.

Compared to other areas in the country, where watershed areas for drinking water are closed to public use, we have a unique situation in the Wasatch Mountains. Much of our watershed lands are in publicly accessible national forests. Yet we have been able to provide affordable high-quality drinking water to our diverse community in the Salt Lake Valley and protect fish and wildlife habitats. This is in tandem with accommodating growing demands for recreation. 

Aligning these community values requires a balanced approach using a combination of strategies, factoring in climate change and wildfires.  We will continue balancing these community values and our legacy of long-term stewardship of these watersheds for future generations.

The innovative partnerships supporting watershed health and resilience in Utah’s Wasatch Front are part of a trend emerging throughout the West. The National Wildlife Federation coordinates the Healthy Headwaters Alliance, a coalition including Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities and other western water innovators, utility executives, federal land managers, scientists, community and water justice leaders, and conservation professionals, who share a commitment to equitable, science-based actions to build resilience back into western forested headwaters.

References

Cuch, Forrest S. History of Utah’s American Indians. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2003.

Duncan, Clifford. “The Northern Utes of Utah.” In History of Utah’s American Indians, 167-224. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2003.

Parry, Mae. “The Northwestern Shoshone.” In History of Utah’s American Indians, 25-72. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2003.

^[1] Cuch, History of Utah’s American Indian; Duncan, The Northern Utes of Utah, 67-224; Parry, “Northwestern Shoshone.”

The National Wildlife Federation recently visited two sites in northeastern Pennsylvania to highlight the important reclamation work taking place on the ground that will have positive impacts on millions of Pennsylvanians within the watershed as well as the communities downstream. The reclamation work at these two sites – Epsy Run Stream and the Askam Borehole Treatment System – is being led by the Earth Conservancy and the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR) among other local, state, and federal partners.

Epsy Run Stream

Epsy Run Stream is a severely impacted tributary of the Nanticoke Creek and is undergoing active restoration. The stream disappears underground and runs through 200 acres of legacy mine land, resurfacing with little to no flow, acid mine drainage contamination, and poor vegetation and biological health. Restoration, reforesting, and retrofitting of Epsy Run and other similar stream channels are underway to reconnect the greater watershed and avoid the underground contamination that pollutes the water. Bobby Hughes from EPCAMR highlighted that “this kind of work needs to happen up and down the watershed. There are many other sites in Pennsylvania that present this kind of opportunity to marry ecosystem restoration and habitat support with economic diversification and development.”

Askam Borehole Treatment System

Boreholes serve a vital purpose for the reclamation project in this region. With nowhere to go, the underground minewater often flooded local homes and businesses, creating millions of dollars in damage and public health concerns. Boreholes were drilled to fix the problem by relieving that pressure. The red borehole seen above pumps water from the underground mine into the stream channel and filters it down to the maelstrom oxidizer which treats the acid mine drainage. Powered by electricity, this is a treatment facility that requires ongoing operations and maintenance to clean the contaminated water in perpetuity. Jeffrey Lapp, Chief of the Watersheds Branch at the Environmental Protection Agency, was also in attendance and noted that the benefits of reclamation like this are far-reaching downstream and can have an impact on major watersheds like the Delaware, Chesapeake Bay, and Ohio River.

Economic Opportunities in Reclamation

James Kunz from the Pennsylvania Foundation for Fair Contracting (PAFFC) joined us to speak on the labor needs during reclamation and restoration projects, and how the recent infusion of federal reclamation dollars is an opportunity to build a long-term workforce through high-quality apprenticeships. Recent findings show that a four-year union apprenticeship program has an equal economic impact for a person as getting a bachelor’s from a state college. “We have a real opportunity here, not to be like the coal barons of the past, but to actually uplift people and build the workforce of the future,” James said. The Safelite building is part of this reclamation project to provide economic opportunities on a formally degraded site.

Investments in Degraded Land Reclamation

The National Wildlife Federation released a report on the climate, social, and economic benefits of reclaiming abandoned mine lands as well as orphaned oil and gas wells, Superfund sites, and brownfields. Recently, there has been significant federal investment in the reclamation of degraded lands. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) allocates $21 billion to reclamation efforts and the Inflation Reduction Act reinstates the Superfund tax on oil and petroleum companies, which will provide additional funding to the EPA for Superfund cleanup. “There’s a really great opportunity to make huge progress on this. We know the problem is vast with four million degraded lands across the United States and millions of acres in Pennsylvania alone,” added Jessica Arriens, program manager for climate and energy policy at NWF.

This historic funding brings us one step closer to cleaning up harmful polluted sites and creating opportunities on that land in the form of natural restoration and carbon sequestration, economic opportunities, and recreational projects that can positively impact people and wildlife.

What More We Can Do

Although these policies provide funding for reclamation efforts, they do not provide dedicated funding for acid mine drainage treatment which is vital to restoring the health of our waterways, our communities, and biodiversity. The STREAM Act would bridge this gap by authorizing states to dedicate up to 30 percent of their annual BIL abandoned mine lands grant to the treatment and abatement of acid mine drainage. As noted earlier, AMD is an issue that needs ongoing attention and the STREAM Act would make that possible. With strong bipartisan support, it has passed the House and is awaiting a hearing and passage in the Senate. Urge your Senators to take up the STREAM Act and help clean up waterways across coal country.

You can learn more about the climate, community, and economic benefits of reclaiming and restoring degraded lands from our recent report.

In 2004 an Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, purchased a plot of land, hoping to develop it for personal use. Instead of conducting comprehensive environmental and land use history assessments to obtain Clean Water Act permits, they began development.

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds, and are protected under the Clean Water Act, as a constituted water of the United States (WOTUS). The Clean Water Act is one of the United States’ foundry environmental laws, that governs the pollution of bodies of water across the Nation. Primarily, the Clean Water Act aims to maintain and protect fishable, swimmable waters in the Nation’s borders, and provide access to safe recreational and personal use activities for all residents. The Safe Drinking Water Act deals with water that comes out of the tap rather than the source waters themselves. More information on the Clean Water Act can be found here, in a document prepared by the National Wildlife Federation’s National Advocacy Center team in 2022.

Over the course of the Sacketts’ development projects, the EPA notified them of their failure to comply with the Clean Water Act, and that they needed to stop development or face fines and penalties. Rather than apply for and seek the appropriate permit or create alternatives to their development plans, the Sacketts partnered with Pacific Legal Group to fight the EPA.

Fifteen years later, the Sackett case is still unresolved. The Sacketts have brought their case to the Supreme Court once again in hopes of determining a comprehensive resolution. Sackett v. EPA is a 2022 Supreme Court case that focuses on what, under the Clean Water Act, constitutes waters of the United States. 

A groundbreaking case

Sackett v. EPA (2022) is set to be a groundbreaking case that could determine whether waters critical for drinking supply or flood retention continue to be federally protected against pollution and destruction.

The federal clean water act has historically protected virtually all important waters, as water flows downhill and upstream waters are important to the health of downstream waters. However, the Supreme Court has created some confusion over which waters are protected in a 2001 case called SWANCC v U.S. Army Corps and a 2006 case called Rapanos v. United States.

Rapanos was a split decision with the late Justice Scalia using a dictionary definition to find that waters of the United States needed to be relatively permanent and that only a limited number of wetlands were protected. Justice Kennedy concurred in the decision, but disagreed with the restrictive test of Justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy would more broadly protect Waters based on whether those waters had a significant nexus to larger downstream waters based on ecological and scientific factors. Since Rapanos, courts have ruled that Justice Kennedy’s test is the controlling one.

As we see the Sacketts go to court once again and prepare for the impending ruling, we are forced to consider what this could mean for the Clean Water Act and for the environment overall. The Sacketts are asking the Court to adopt an even more restrictive definition of waters of the United States than Justice Scalia’s. In the face of some of the worst impacts of climate change we have ever known and with access to clean, affordable water becoming more limited, the 2022 Sackett v. EPA case could damage the Clean Water Act irreparably. If the Sacketts win against the EPA, it could mean that communities around the United States are at an increased risk of being harmed by polluted waters.

Water, at its core, must be protected to sustain human life and those protections will look different based on the body of water. The Clean Water Act has generated immense improvements in water quality in the 50 years since its creation. If the Court accepts the Sackett’s definition of waters of the United States, it could remove historic protections for half of the wetlands in the contiguous United States and up to 70% of all streams. This could undo all of that progress, which is concerning because there is still quite a ways to go to achieve more comprehensive improvements and solutions to water pollution. 

The Court should affirm a clear and protective definition of waters of the United States as Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act. What is at risk is the conservation of crucial waters such as wetlands that puts thousands of environments at increased susceptibility for damage and countless communities at risk of impaired water access and quality. We cannot afford to lose crucial water resources that communities rely on, especially in the face of the worsening and unavoidable impacts of climate change.

Engaging with the Sackett case is important. The environmental legislation that is implicated in this case is some of the most impactful in the Nation, and drawing critical public attention to ensuring that fairness and equity persevere in the outcome is essential. 

As we monitor the progress of this case heading to court, and considering the issues cities and states are currently facing around water, the future of our water and its protection is something we all need to consider.

I’m talking of course, about clean water. And clean water is the goal in the Chesapeake Bay and its 64,000 square mile watershed spanning parts of six states and the District of Columbia. Home to more than 18 million people, protecting and restoring the Bay and its rivers and streams is paramount to the overall prosperity of the region.

But attaining clean water isn’t easy – or cheap. The Choose Clean Water Coalition, hosted by the National Wildlife Federation, harnesses the collective power of more than 270 local, state, regional, and national groups to advocate for clean rivers and streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay region.

Every year, the Coalition hosts its “Chesapeake Bay Day on Capitol Hill,” where we gather members from throughout the watershed to meet with their representatives in Congress and advocate for a wide array of clean water policies. These asks range from support for the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program, passing the Environmental Justice for All Act, to ensuring strong investments for conservation programs in the Farm Bill. But the thread that ties together most of our objectives is clear – money. 

The Coalition is pursuing increased investments as the Bay and its rivers and streams are facing new and growing threats from impacts from climate change, rapid deforestation, and an increasing population throughout the watershed. The COVID-19 pandemic also delayed restoration projects and diverted resources.

Amidst these challenges, we need to accelerate restoration efforts and invest in critical programs that move us closer to clean water in our local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. 

While the health of the Bay’s waterways is improving in the face of these challenges, progress is still very fragile.

We will not meet our water quality goals without the leadership, guidance, science, and funding support provided by various Federal agencies. With strong bipartisan support for clean water and the Chesapeake Bay, the Coalition has worked with members of Congress to successfully support strong investments in clean water programs. These programs improve communities and protect local waterways in every state in the region and the District of Columbia, while often also serving as a stimulus to local economies. 

With all that’s at stake, it’s no surprise that the Coalition’s Chesapeake Bay Day on Capitol Hill set new records this year, with 45 meetings with members of Congress and 162 organizations signing letters endorsing the Coalition’s appropriations asks.

Alongside the tireless environmental advocates in our member organizations, the Coalition will continue fighting for every dollar and policy that moves us closer to leaving a legacy of clean water to future generations.

On Sept. 8, 2020, extreme drought, multiple ignitions, and an unprecedented windstorm sparked wildfires across the Western Cascades. The fierce, easterly winds blew three massive wildfires downhill, towards towns built in the forests. The Riverside Fire, Beachie Creek Fire, and Holiday Farm Fire, each blazed down the mountainsides, following the contours of the Clackamas, North Santiam, and McKenzie rivers, respectively.

These rivers are vital sources of drinking water, providing nearly 750,000 Oregonians with some of the cleanest water in the nation. They are also spring-fed, cold-water climate refugia for native trout and other salmonid species.

With every heat wave, with longer and more frequent droughts, we in the Pacific Northwest realize our rains are no longer enough to dampen the flames. As we enter a new phase in the eternal elemental dance between fire and water, it seems fire now holds the upper hand.

Yet, on the McKenzie River, as our communities emerge from these disasters, a network of local nonprofits, government agencies, landowners, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), and the University of Oregon has developed strategies to reduce the long-term effects the climate-change fire regime will wreak upon our watersheds. The first step was to establish partnerships to facilitate collaboration during crises.

Building resilience, one community at a time 

“Back in 2000, Eugene was one of the first larger metropolitan areas to take its watershed as part of its water infrastructure and to recognize that,” EWEB’s Watershed Restoration Program Manager Karl Morgenstern said. “Now we have the trust and relationships to do projects like large-scale floodplain restoration. Other places are facing disasters and those relationships are not in place, and they’re having to build those in the midst of a disaster and that just adds complexity and delays action.”

The McKenzie River’s Pure Water Partners (PWP) program assessed fire-damaged properties just days after they burned. In a matter of weeks – after it was safe to enter the area – EWEB, the McKenzie River Watershed Council, McKenzie River Trust, and the Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District installed erosion control measures to prevent toxic ash and debris from burned homes from entering the river – the sole source of drinking water for 200,000 people in Eugene. EWEB installed additional water quality monitoring stations to detect contaminants.

In the year since the fire, the PWP works with over 250 landowners in the McKenzie River Valley to assess fire damage, control invasive species, reduce fuels to support FireWise properties, and install additional erosion control measures. They’ve replanted 89 riparian properties. EWEB provides loans and incentives for folks to rebuild their homes and septic systems farther back from the river.

In response to the wildfires, our communities are showing their strengths – but how will our watersheds hold up?

Nothing new about wildfires

Historically, western watersheds are well-accustomed to fire. 

“These systems are resilient. They’ve seen fire for eons, so this is nothing new,” said Willamette National Forest Lead Hydrologist Johan Hogervorst. “I think some of those immediate impacts, to people, to places, to our homes, are quite startling, but the watershed itself is going to heal very quickly. The plants are going to come back. It’s going to take a while for the forest to regenerate – we’re going to help that wherever we can – but fire is not a new thing here.”

The truth is our watersheds need healthy forests, and healthy forests need fire. Fire clears forest understories, allowing mature trees to grow larger. Certain conifers need fire to melt the waxy coverings off their serotinous cones to release their seeds. Fire creates diverse habitats for all kinds of wildlife: snags for woodpeckers and wood-boring insects, new grasslands for large mammals to hunt and forage, and sunny forest openings where butterflies and reptiles can bask.

In the short-term, wildfires can even benefit our threatened and endangered trout and other salmonids. Burned trees fall into the waterways, forming complex habitats where juvenile fish can hide and hunt. Logjams can also create pools of cool, deep water – great resting sites for spawning fish journeying upriver. Sunken trees can form riffles that stir up and oxygenate the water, promoting egg development.

“The thing with salmon is they have this diverse life structure. They’ve been growing this whole time to evolve to these different kinds of natural distractions that happen to their world,” said EWEB Water Resources Supervisor Susan Fricke.

Megafires: A new normal

Although salmon have evolved with fire, their populations are startlingly low. Combined with a century of development that has degraded our watersheds’ ecosystem functions, intense stochastic events like the Holiday Farm Fire could wipe out entire genetic populations of salmon.

“As European-Americans moved in, we started developing the [McKenzie] Valley. We started pushing the river to one side, removing the wood out, doing a lot of riparian logging,” said Kate Meyer, Fisheries Biologist for the McKenzie River Ranger District.

Intense wildfires — and the megafires we are increasingly experiencing today — can further degrade these weakened watersheds. Burned hillsides become more likely to collapse without trees to hold their soils in place. Landslides and mudflows can smother a river with sediment, choking fish, their eggs, and introducing high nutrient loads that encourage harmful algae and bacterial growth.

When riparian forests burn, they become less effective at shading streams and riverbanks. Water temperatures rise, also facilitating the growth of bacteria and toxic algae. Conditions improve for invasive fishes that predate upon native ones.

With reduced snowpacks and hotter summers, the loss of riparian forests is another major blow to the survivability of our native trout and salmon species. According to Save Our Wild Salmon (a close partner with the National Wildlife Federation), salmon and steelhead begin to suffer harmful effects when water temperatures exceed 68° Fahrenheit. Salmon eggs die in water temperatures above 56^oF.

The key elements: earth, water, and fire

The effects of climate change are only just beginning to accelerate the war between fire and water. To bolster the watershed’s defenses, we can pull in another element, earth. Research and experience on the ground show that restoring floodplains and adjacent wetlands can greatly improve water quality and improve the landscape’s ability to withstand and recover from fire and drought.

For example, the McKenzie River’s Pure Water Partners (PWP) are digging up incised river channels and flattening floodplains, recreating healthy networks of meandering waterways that will capture excess sediment from landslides, keep the landscape wetter and cooler, and encourage riparian forests and wetlands. This is a new kind of conservation hydrology called “Stage Zero” restoration projects, reestablishing natural ecosystem processes and resetting geomorphic trajectories to pre-development levels.

With changing precipitation patterns and the loss of snowpack, the goal is to create a system that has resilience to these disturbances that are occurring at a faster rate than we thought.

The first Stage Zero restoration project in 2015 focused on 780 acres and 4.5 miles of the South Fork of the McKenzie River, an important tributary for spawning salmon. Recent surveys before the project found only a few dozen redds, but just a couple weeks after implementing that project there were 241 Chinook redds, Meyers explained, “so we were just blown away by that!”

Proving their success, the team moved on to Deer Creek, one of the McKenzie’s largest tributaries. Before the project, salmon had not been observed spawning there since the 1990s. They returned as soon as construction was finished.

“What we’re seeing for these Stage Zero restoration projects, is if you build it, they will come,” Fricke said.

When the Holiday Farm Fire swept through the South Fork project area, Meyer and her team feared their work had been destroyed. On the contrary, restoring the floodplain made it more resilient to fire.

“When we were finally able to get on the ground and see the project, it really looked like an oasis,” Meyer said. “There’s a lot of live trees remaining. A lot of the understory vegetation was unimpacted…because there’s so much water and hydrologic connectivity, I think that really buffered the fire effects through that project area.”

Morgenstern explained further:

“The model is to look at the big tributaries — those that are big enough and have a low gradient valley that these projects would be effective…and even for those smaller creeks …The whole idea is to try to do this across as many of the creeks as we can where we can get access and make these projects happen. Because our prime directive at EWEB is to provide reliable safe drinking water to our community. That means protecting water quality at the source — miles upstream from town — and all the way to the tap at community homes and businesses.”

In the McKenzie Valley, nearly a year after the Holiday Farm Fire, innovative construction projects are rapidly transforming the river back to its old ways.

“The more floodplains the better,” EWEB’s Susan Fricke said. “As the water is able to spread out over the floodplain, you increase infiltration capacity and its buffering capacity to be able to deal with these big natural disasters. We are increasing that resiliency when you let the whole ecosystem function as it’s supposed to.”

. . .

Adam Spencer is a Communications Specialist for the Eugene Water & Electric Board who focuses on the utility’s stewardship of the McKenzie River, where he grew up.

The innovative partnership that’s helping the watershed in the McKenzie Valley is part of a trend emerging throughout the West. The National Wildlife Federation coordinates the Healthy Headwaters Alliance, a coalition including Eugene Water and Electric Board and other western water innovators, utility executives, federal land managers, scientists, community and water justice leaders, and conservation professionals, who share a commitment to equitable, science-based actions to build resilience back into western forested headwaters.

The military’s past and ongoing releases of PFASs into the environment are contributing to one of the most significant environmental crises of our time. PFASs are a family of chemicals that are extraordinarily toxic and persistent in the environment. They have been linked to cancer, kidney disease, and birth and developmental disorders.

Moreover, these “forever chemicals” are prevalent in the environment because they take decades to break down, and many tend to bioaccumulate in organisms. Making matters worse, they are incredibly numerous – estimates place the number of individual compounds between 4,000 and 7,000 – and ubiquitous in both commercial and industrial settings due to their durability and resistance to water, oils, and heat.

In the Great Lakes region, elevated levels of PFASs have been found in insect-eating birds such as tree swallows and fish-eating birds such as great blue herons, as well as bald eagles, fish, and deer—leading to fish consumption advisories and, in Michigan, a Do Not Eat advisory for deer in at least one county.

National Wildlife Federation

PFAS provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act

Each year, Congress drafts a bill that authorizes the federal government’s national defense programs and priorities for the fiscal year. Much of what Congress has done about PFAS was done via the fiscal year (“FY”) 2020 iteration of that bill – the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”).

This week, both chambers of Congress voted to pass the FY 2021 NDAA, which builds on the FY 2020 NDAA by adding a number of PFAS-related provisions. If the bill becomes law, the FY 2021 NDAA will:

• Appropriate a total of $1.4 billion for remediation and cleanup at military sites, with some of that funding going to activities related to PFAS cleanup.
• Appropriate $15 million to support an ongoing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention health assessment on PFAS in drinking water sources.
• Allow the National Guard to use defense environmental restoration program funds for PFAS cleanup.
• Require the Department of Defense (“DoD”) to notify Congress of all releases of firefighting foam containing PFOS or PFOA.
• Require the DoD to notify any agricultural operations located within one mile down gradient of a military installation or National Guard facility where perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”), or perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (“PFBS”) have been found in groundwater and hydrologically linked to a water source, and where it is suspected or known that the DoD caused the contamination.
• Prohibit DoD from procuring nonstick cookware or utensils, upholstered furniture, carpets, and rugs that contain PFOS or PFOA, effective beginning in April 2023.
• Establish a PFAS interagency working group composed of representatives from at least nineteen agencies and require that group to develop, publish, and periodically revise a strategic plan for federal support for PFAS research and development.  
• Authorize DoD to carry out a competitive prize program to recognize achievements in the development of a PFAS-free firefighting agent.
• Require DoD to award grants and carry out other activities to promote and advance the research and development of PFAS-free firefighting agents.
• Require DoD to submit a report to Congress regarding its priorities and actions it has taken concerning finding a PFAS-free alternative to AFFF, and any alternatives the Secretary has denied.
• Require the National Institute of Standards and Technology to study the contents and composition of new and used personal protective equipment used by firefighters, and to submit a report to Congress describing the study’s findings and providing recommendations for action.

The FY 2021 NDAA will help in the fight against PFAS, though Congress and the incoming Biden administration need to do more.

The FY 2021 NDAA makes significant contributions to addressing PFAS pollution from DoD sites. The bill will add more money to the cleanup budget, incentivize necessary research and technology changes, alter procurement practices, generate data and analysis on pollution and health impacts, and reform institutional governance through the creation of an interagency working group.

In some ways, the FY 2021 NDAA could have gone further but did not. For example, unlike the House bill, the final bill does not require the DoD to publicly disclose the results of PFAS testing conducted at military sites. Nor does it require the DoD to prohibit the incineration of AFFF or other materials containing PFASs until more is known about the safety and effectiveness of such techniques.

Perhaps most critically, the final bill does not include an amendment to the FY 2020 NDAA provision addressing PFAS cleanup through cooperative agreements. Section 332 of the FY 2020 NDAA authorized governors to amend state-DoD cooperative agreements to ensure that cleanup performed by the state and funded by the DOD would achieve the state’s own PFAS cleanup standards if those standards were more stringent than the federal government’s.

While section 332 from the FY 2020 NDAA was helpful, questions remain about when those cleanup standards apply and how the provision alters the cleanup process prescribed by the federal Superfund cleanup law. Representative Slotkin (MI-08) offered an amendment that would have provided more clarity, which is badly needed at the moment.

Currently, the DoD is contesting whether it must clean up PFAS pollution to state standards at multiple sites, including the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Michigan and the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire. Because the federal government has not yet issued enforceable cleanup standards for any PFASs, an amendment to section 332 from the FY 2020 NDAA would have greatly assisted efforts to clean up contaminated DoD sites in states that have adopted or are in the process of adopting their own PFAS cleanup standards.

While more can and should be done to require the DoD to move beyond studying the problem and toward cleanup up PFASs at its sites, the FY 2021 NDAA makes positive contributions and reveals that there is still a bipartisan commitment to the issue.

The onus is now on the incoming Biden administration to step up. Starting in 2021, the USEPA should move quickly to address PFASs by establishing maximum contaminant levels in drinking water, developing effluent limitation guidelines and ambient water quality criteria through the Clean Water Act, and designating PFASs as hazardous substances under the Superfund cleanup law. Those actions by the EPA would go a long way toward holding polluters, including the DoD, responsible.