Conservation in Context: The Historic National Outcry for An EPA
In the spirit of celebrating the National Wildlife Federation (NWF)’s 90th anniversary, it is important to reflect on both the progress and the challenges that the environmental and conservation movements have faced over the last century. When NWF was founded in 1936 at the first North American Wildlife Conference in Washington D.C., the goal was to “unite the voices of conservationists” and work to advance conservation policies at the national level, setting the stage for federal protections for wildlife and the environment, particularly with respect to unregulated hunting and over-exploitation of natural resources.
When the second World War began, a few years after NWF’s founding, much of society’s focus shifted to human survival and preventing avoidable disease and death. DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), a chemical insecticide that was initially thought to be relatively safe, was introduced and widely used to combat insect-borne diseases like malaria and typhus that were killing soldiers and civilians, and later used for agricultural pest control.
With the 1962 release of Rachel Carson’s influential Silent Spring, the public became aware that DDT had devastating effects on bird populations. As described in Carson’s book, a “silent spring” is a season without birdsong, as DDT decimated egg shells of several bird species, leading to plummeting populations. Concerned about the loss of beloved species like bald eagles and peregrine falcons, the American people united in organizations like NWF to demand national-level bans on toxins like DDT.
When giving his State of the Union address in January of 1970, President Nixon stated that “restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond political party and beyond factions… it has become a common cause of all the people of this country.” So, thanks to the widespread advocacy and support from organizations and the general public across the country, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in December of 1970–34 years after NWF was founded.
It wasn’t until DDT was banned in 1972 by the EPA that bird populations were able to begin recovering. For humans, DDT is now associated with increased risk of certain cancers and is harmful to the reproductive and nervous systems. Just think about it: how many lives–and species–could have been lost if the EPA hadn’t banned DDT?
Current Crossroads: The Clean Air Act and Particulate Matter
The same year that the EPA was established, the Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed, expanding the role the federal government had in regulating pollution in the United States. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants known as criteria air pollutants. Particulate matter (PM), one of the six criteria air pollutants, is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air, produced largely by industrial activities and motor vehicles.
Particulate matter is categorized into two size classes: PM2.5 (less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) and PM10 (2.5 – 10 micrometers in diameter). While PM10 is a primary pollutant, which comes directly from a polluting source (like a dusty road or a factory), PM2.5 can be both primary and secondary (resulting from chemical reactions of gases in the atmosphere). The extremely small size of these particles allows them to travel deep into our bodies, including our lungs, bloodstream, and more, and cause significant harm to the health of people and wildlife.
In January of 2026, the EPA announced that it will weaken air pollution standards for new power plants and no longer factor the economic cost of human health into decisions about pollution regulations. This is dangerous for our health and the health of wildlife, because it means greater exposure to pollutants like PM, which sickens wildlife as well as people. And with increasing energy demand in the United States driving up electricity generation, it is all the more important that regulations protecting the air we breathe are strengthened, not weakened.
Newer and emerging toxins: PFAS
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of thousands of synthetic chemicals that have been widely used in consumer products since the 1950s. They are man-made, long-lasting chemicals that are found nearly everywhere, from the water we drink and the food we eat to our lands, homes and workplaces. Scientists have found that PFAS are in the blood of nearly 97% of Americans that have been tested, and in wildlife across the globe, from alligators in North Carolina to polar bears in the Arctic.
Similar to DDT, and even more recent pesticides like neonicotinoids, PFAS “bioaccumulates,” or increases in concentration in the tissues of organisms as it moves up the food web, which not only harms wildlife, but also the people who hunt and fish them. Also, once they have entered the environment, they are nearly impossible to eradicate. PFAS differs from DDT in its use cases–while DDT was originally used to protect humans from insect-borne diseases, PFAS are largely utilized for convenience in commercial products, such as textiles, cleaning products, personal care products, and other household items.
The impacts of PFAS are only recently beginning to come to light, with studies linking exposure to certain levels of PFAS to increased risk of cancer, developmental impacts in children, reduced immune system function, and more. Similar impacts have been reported in wildlife species. Even still, scientists do not yet have a full picture of the long-term impacts of PFAS on human health and wildlife.
Despite this, the administration is loosening PFAS regulations, and the Office of Research and Development at EPA is being entirely dismantled, hampering the nation’s ability to further investigate and regulate the impacts of emerging pollutants like PFAS. Looking back on our very recent history–during which we narrowly avoided catastrophe by effectively researching and then banning DDT–we know we must now act swiftly to ensure we don’t repeat the past, or worse.
The EPA as an Agency that Protects all Americans
It is our duty as Americans to stand up for the rights and protections that allow us to live healthy lives–for ourselves, wildlife, and future generations. The EPA’s ability to conduct independent research and inform and enforce environmental policy is what brought us out of a dangerously polluted past. In the face of continued industrial and non-point source pollution, the future health of people, wildlife and the environment depends on the future of the EPA.
For decades, Americans have benefited from the EPA’s ability to implement environmental protections such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The recent repeal of the Endangerment Finding, and elimination of the Office of Research and Development are some examples of actions that reduce the credibility of the EPA. If the EPA isn’t enforcing these policies, who is?
Air, water, and chemical toxins are a continuous threat, and we need the enforcement of protections now more than ever. Just as President Nixon asserted in 1970, public and environmental health should be a non-partisan issue. Our representatives in Congress have the power to ensure that the EPA carries out its mission: to protect human health and the environment.
These policies affect all of us, just as they did during the founding of NWF and the EPA. You can continue to be informed, advocate for these critical protections, and use your vote to protect human and wildlife health.
Check out this action alert from our friends at the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund.
What are Superfund and Brownfield Sites?
Let’s begin with some definitions of what Superfund and Brownfield sites are: a brownfield is property where pollution is known or suspected from past uses—old gas stations, dry cleaners, machine shops, rail yards, small factories. A Superfund site is the more serious category: toxic contamination at a site that is significant enough to trigger a long, federally overseen cleanup. Both can threaten a community’s health if they’re not handled carefully.
As an example of a Superfund site and the chemicals they might contain: In Woburn, Massachusetts, the Wells G&H Superfund site contains two contaminated former municipal drinking-water wells with industrial solvents—including toxics such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE)—along with other pollutants in soils and river sediments. These chemicals are linked to cancer and can also harm the liver, kidneys, immune system, and development at certain exposure levels. The EPA’s cleanup there has included pumping and treating contaminated groundwater, excavating and capping polluted soils and sediments, and long-term monitoring to make sure the remedy keeps working and vapors don’t move into buildings.
Decades of research show Superfund and Brownfield sites are disproportionately located near Black, Brown, low-income, and otherwise overburdened neighborhoods. This pattern was documented as far back as a 1983 Government Accountability Office study of southeastern hazardous-waste landfills, reinforced by the United Church of Christ’s landmark report Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States showing race as the strongest predictor of hazardous-waste facility location, and echoed now across several peer-reviewed studies. EPA’s own tallies today show tens of millions of people—disproportionately people of color and households with low incomes—living within three miles of Superfund sites.
Even after a cleanup, many sites keep engineered caps, underground barriers, or land-use restrictions to prevent exposure. In other words, the contamination is managed and contained, not entirely erased.
Cleanups of these sites aren’t quick either. Smaller brownfield projects might move in months, but the full cycle—investigation, planning, cleanup, and monitoring—often takes years. Superfund sites can take much longer, on the timeline of decades, especially when pollution is complex, the site is large, or the responsible parties fight over who pays.
These properties are not blank slates; some might be reused, but the reuse must respect the cleanup. EPA and state regulators evaluate when a cleaned-up property is “ready for reuse” and spell out limits on how it can be used—for example, where digging is allowed, whether buildings can have basements, or whether residential development is off the table.
What happens to these sites after cleanup varies. Some Brownfield sites become light manufacturing, affordable housing, or parks and trails. Superfund can be reused too—wildlife habitat, sports fields, and commercial buildings have all been built on capped areas. The through-line is simple: the design must protect the remedy and keep people safe.
Building AI Data Centers at Superfund and Brownfield sites
Now, let’s add AI data centers to this already complex picture. These are large, round-the-clock buildings packed with servers. They need lots of reliable electricity, often new transmission upgrades, and sometimes significant water for cooling unless they use air-based or other water-saving systems. They also keep fleets of backup generators—usually diesel—for outages and maintenance.
For the underserved communities already facing environmental burdens near these hazardous sites, that can mean new air and noise impacts, more truck traffic, and real questions about whether local water and wastewater systems can handle the load. Even cleaned-up sites are delicate. Poorly planned digging for buildings, pipes, or drains could damage the protective layer potentially letting harmful chemical vapors out.
The administration’s argument is that steering data centers to these sites is a win-win: reuse disturbed land and speed approvals. I agree with part of the premise. Reusing previously developed land is better than paving over a forest or wetland. But speed cannot come at the expense of the health of communities or our environment, nor should it come at the expense of a community’s voice.
The law that dictates cleanup of contaminated lands, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), already sets a floor for participation. At Superfund sites—whether privately or federally owned—the cleanup decision must include public involvement.
Respecting locals’ right to make decisions about their own communities
Communities have the right to see the proposed cleanup plan, attend public meetings about remediation plans, submit comments, and read the agency’s written responses before a final decision is made. Separately, when a federal agency decides what to build on federal land—or when a private project needs a federal approval—environmental review requires public notice and comment. Those processes don’t grant a neighborhood an outright veto, but they do require the government to listen, disclose, and show how public input shaped the outcome. If agencies try to skip or shrink those steps, that’s not “streamlining”—that’s cutting communities out.
Because this is about environmental justice, the bar should be higher than the legal minimum. Many Brownfield and Superfund properties sit in Black, Brown, low-income, and Tribal communities that absorbed the costs of yesterday’s industries and are now being asked to host tomorrow’s. If AI companies want to be part of a community’s future, they should meet communities head-on with proposed projects that reduce cumulative pollutant risk in the community, protect the site remedy, and deliver concrete local benefits.
None of this works without meaningful community participation. Communities should get plain-language explanations of power, water, air, and noise impacts—not just technical binders. Independent technical help should be funded so neighbors can ask sharp questions and get straight answers. Meetings should be scheduled at accessible times with translation where needed. And if the project’s impacts or design changes, the public process shouldn’t be one-and-done; it should keep pace so people can respond to new facts.
There’s also a needed reality check about who decides what. In an op-ed written by EPA’s Administrator, Lee Zeldin, in The Hill, he wrote “On non-federal property, the community decides what to do with the property, and data centers represent a beneficial long-term prospect.” In practice, local governments make land-use decisions through zoning and permits, informed by community input.
When federal approvals are involved, there’s an added layer of public process. On federally owned land, the federal government is the landowner and decision-maker, and it must follow public-involvement rules during cleanup and environmental review.
In every case, people have a right to be heard, to see the data, and to hold agencies and developers to their promises.
So, is putting AI data centers on Brownfield and Superfund properties where pollution remains contained, not removed, a good idea? That should be up to the communities who will have to live with these data centers, and who have dealt with Superfund and Brownfield sites for years or decades. If the EPA chooses not to listen to communities, then the agency’s work will likely be done poorly and will just concentrate new burdens in the same places that paid the price before. The administration should slow down enough to make sure we get this right. We’ll be watching the EPA’s process closely.
And lastly, we want communities to know: you have a voice in decision-making activities. Use it.
Why the GHGRP matters
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program began in 2009, after Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mandate reporting of certain greenhouse gas emissions. GHGRP covers emissions from 47 different source categories, including oil and gas producers and processors, coal mines, different types of chemical manufacturers, and solid waste landfills.
The program collects data on a broad scope of emissions: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, perfluorocarbons, and more. The EPA estimates 85 to 90 percent of annual man-made GHG emissions have been reported under the program, from about 8,000 facilities across the U.S.
GHGRP data helps the U.S.—in both the public and private sectors—make smart, science-based decisions about where and how to reduce greenhouse gases. It is a key component of U.S. commitments to international climate agreements. The EPA has relied on the GHGRP to develop emissions standards for oil and natural gas facilities, and uses it to track progress reducing hydrofluorocarbons (highly potent GHGs).
States and localities rely on GHGRP data to inform their own emissions inventory programs and mitigation policies. Companies use GHGRP to report and verify emissions for global trade, intergovernmental relations, accessing certain tax credits, and voluntary emissions reduction goals.
A GHGRP repeal will harm people and wildlife
The EPA is currently proposing to essentially eliminate the GHGRP, claiming that the program has no material impact on improving human health and the environment. We know this is false—rising rates of GHGs are causing widespread, rapid, devastating changes to our oceans, lands, and in our atmosphere. Which, in turn, is causing widespread and profound impacts to human health—from climate-fueled unnatural disasters and deadly heat, to greater prevalence of infectious diseases, to mental health impacts.
Wildlife are at risk too: these same impacts threaten the ability of animals to reproduce, migrate, and survive. Climate change is now considered the leading threat to U.S. species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Ignoring emissions doesn’t make them disappear, and not tracking pollution doesn’t make people and wildlife healthier. Submit a comment today urging the EPA to not eliminate the GHGRP.
This work focuses on toxins in our air and water, chemical safety, cleaning up contaminated sites, detecting new pollutants like PFAS and microplastics, and human, ecosystem, and community health assessments.
These science topics are the basis of making good decisions that ensure a safe and healthy environment for everyone. And yet, on July 25 the EPA announced that it will eliminate the ORD. The EPA had already dismissed the scientists serving on ORD’s external advisory bodies, the Board of Scientific Counselors and the Science Advisory Board.
In March, members of Congress received documents showing the EPA was considering closing ORD. In response, we released a statement warning that such a closure would greatly undermine environmental protection.
But the EPA has moved forward with its plan to shutter the nation’s centers of excellence of environmental health research, which include four national centers and ten regional laboratories, as well as funding programs for independent research.
Because we don’t know how long the ORD’s website will be publicly available, we will list their FY 2023-2026 priorities here: Air, Climate, and Energy; Chemical Safety for Sustainability; Health and Environmental Risk Assessment; Homeland Security; Safe and Sustainable Water Resources; and Sustainable and Healthy Communities.
Why are these programs so critically important?
A foundational pillar of environmental protection
The ORD has been part of the EPA since its founding in 1970. ORD scientists were central to the success of America’s most impactful environmental laws: The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
By grounding the implementation of these laws in an independent science arm of the EPA, the public could be assured that America’s air and water supplies were rigorously tested, measured with widely accepted methods, and continually evaluated according to the latest and best science. To maintain public trust, ORD’s policies and priorities were determined by outside scientific panels, as well as regional offices and the local communities they serve.
Since this time, we’ve learned a lot about how the system can fail without strong science that is independent of politics and corporate interests, and that is informed by communities. When residents of Flint, Michigan, complained about water quality and health problems after the city switched their water supply in 2014, independent scientists reported high levels of lead in both blood samples and in the water. Scientists, including students, at Virginia Tech demonstrated how water from the Flint river corroded aging pipes and fittings.
However, due to dwindling resources for environmental protection, they struggled to fund their research. In 2016, a federal emergency was declared. Since this failure in protecting community health, the ORD has built much more community engagement, community science, and environmental justice research priorities into its work. This is the very work that is now under attack and being actively dismantled.
The case of Flint, Michigan, shows that to protect public health, we need more, not less, investment in sound environmental science that is free of political interference and available for everyone.
The Environmental Protection Agency and wildlife conservation
ORD research also supports wildlife conservation in other ways. More than a third of species listed under the Endangered Species Act are imperiled by pollution. For these species and many others, habitat protections alone will not eliminate the threat of extinction.
ORD’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program develops tools to ensure the health of aquatic and wetland habitat. Their chemical and pesticide impact assessments provide critical information about exposure risk to support the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
The ORD studies the ecological impacts of pollution and climate change, in addition to providing tools for habitat restoration, land reuse, and nature-based infrastructure projects. Its ecosystem research group provides the public with an ecosystem services portal so that residents can make good decisions about maximizing the benefits and limiting harms in their own backyards.
This is only a small sample of the extensive research contributions of the EPA ORD in the areas of ecosystem, habitat, and wildlife health.
If it’s not broken, don’t fix it
So why has the ORD been discontinued? The EPA claims it will achieve $748.8 million in savings by reducing its workforce from 16,155 to 12,448 employees. They have already shuttered their Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, a move that the National Wildlife Federation strongly opposed because it puts communities directly at risk.
With the dismantling of ORD, the EPA is going even further to prevent the public from learning about the risks to their own health and wellbeing. Instead, the EPA proposes to create a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions that will be embedded in the regulatory agency, without acting independently and in line with the best available science. What this almost inevitably means, is that from now on EPA science can be dictated by politics rather than the scientific method, putting scientific integrity at serious risk.
In essence, this is a move to eliminate key safeguards that have been protecting air, water, habitat, and public health from the ever-changing will of politicians and their appointees.
The community of Flint, Michigan, is still coping with the fallout of the failures to safeguard their water supply. What about your community? Where will you get reliable information about air and water quality without an independent ORD? Do you think that decisions about public and environmental health should be grounded in science or special interests?
There is still time to act. Before the expertise and public data of ORD scientists is totally lost, contact Congress and urge them to fully fund, staff, and restore the ORD and its independent science advisory boards with our Action Alert.
As such, the number unhealthy air days has increased and Vermont’s queen city, Burlington, has dropped off the list of cities with some of the cleanest air. For a growing number of warm summer days, outside activity has become dangerous for sensitive groups and, on bad days, for everyone. It has also increased visible haze, veiling the scenic backdrops Vermonters love.
Air pollution is not the only recent climate change related risk threatening lives and health. The region now sees 50% more precipitation than it did in 1995. With steep hills and narrow valleys, this means flooding. Hurricane Irene devastated countless towns in 2011. A 2023 flood placed the state’s capital under water and 2024 flooding almost submerged the capital again and washed away buildings and homes in a nearby village. Based on disaster declarations, Washington County—home to Montpelier—is now tied for the second-most disaster-prone county in the nation.
My little city of Montpelier, Vermont is not unique. Unprecedented floods, fires, and heat waves have devastated communities from Asheville to central Texas to Los Angeles. All of which makes it a puzzling time for the entity entrusted to protect the environment and public health—the Environmental Protection Agency—to decide that the emissions that cause climate change are no longer something it needs to concern itself with.
The Endangerment Finding
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) that the term “air pollutant” in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) encompasses greenhouse gases that cause warming such as carbon dioxide and methane. In the case, the Court rejected an argument by the EPA that the CAA did not authorize it to regulate gases that cause climate change.
Instead, in a 5-4 decision, the Court concluded that it was “unambiguous” that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant.'” Since the Court concluded that the EPA had authority to regulate GHG emissions, the EPA was obligated under the Act to determine whether GHGs “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.”
In 2009, after an exhaustive review of the overwhelming science, the EPA concluded that six GHGs endanger public health and public welfare. It also concluded that the GHG emission from new motor vehicles “cause or contribute” to climate change. When this finding was challenged, a federal appeals court found that the EPA’s conclusions were “supported by substantial evidence.”
Since 2009, the endangerment finding has been the linchpin of federal efforts to reduce harmful GHG emissions across multiple sectors, primarily the transportation and power sectors where most of the U.S. GHG emissions occur. Both the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration rejected petitions to overturn the finding. Moreover, industry—even the fossil fuel industry—has generally come to accept the finding.
The EPA Wants to Rescind the Finding
Despite the overwhelming science, legal directive from the Supreme Court, and acceptance by industry, the second Trump Administration is aggressively moving to rescind this scientifically supported finding, mocking it as “the holy grail of the climate change religion.” It is also proposing to repeal all GHG emission standards for vehicles established since the finding issued in 2009.
Its rationales are both expected and surprising. Primarily, the EPA argues that the Clean Air Act does not grant it the authority to regulate pollutants unless they contribute to local or regional exposures. It is also contending that it cannot regulate pollution where the link between the pollution emitted and the harms caused appears attenuated—in essence arguing that because the link between emissions from traffic and the harms of climate change are not direct because other factors and emissions lead to climate change as well, EPA has no duty to regulate these emissions.
As the proposal puts it, “emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines in the United States do not have a sufficiently close connection to the adverse impacts identified in the Endangerment Finding to fit within the legal meaning of ‘cause’ or ‘contribute.’” This argument, some legal experts have alleged, is effectively a recycling of the failed argument that the EPA lost in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Given that many legal scholars feel that the EPA is on thin legal ground, it has concocted a stew of other rationales, likely hoping at least one will find a receptive ear with the courts.
These arguments include: climate change science is uncertain (which a recently-released Department of Energy report tries to bolster); there was not direction from Congress to regulate GHG emissions; technology does not exist that would meaningfully address the impacts of GHG emissions; eliminating emissions from motor vehicles would be futile in meaningfully addressing climate change; and that more expensive new vehicles would result in keeping older, higher emitting cars on the road because people would be deterred from buying new cars due to higher prices.
What Can We Do?
Assuming the rescission is finalized, it will almost certainly face stiff and swift challenges in court. As indicated above, this move by the EPA is on tenuous legal and scientific grounds and the agency must convince judges that its 180 turn after 16 plus years of increasingly strong science and notable harms is not arbitrary.
If the EPA is successful in fending off challenges—and it bears noting that of the nine justices who decided Massachusetts v. EPA, the only three still on the Court were in the dissent—the overturning of the endangerment finding would undo GHG vehicle emissions standards and many, if not most, other the EPA actions to curb harmful GHG emissions.
It will also cause some immediate uncertainty—which may be more difficult for industry to navigate than a predictable set of federal regulations. In the 2011 case AEP v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court relied on the EPA’s authority to regulate GHS to find states were precluded from holding emitters liable under state common law for environmental harms from climate change.
Overturning that authority could expose emitters to potentially steep liability under state common law. It may also open the door for states like California to directly regulate tailpipe and other emissions, which could create a patchwork of regulations for industry to keep pace with.
We cannot afford the confusion or the delay. Each fraction of a degree of warming poses risks to people, communities, and wildlife. It is paramount that Congress not leave this important issue to the courts and vacillate the EPA regimes. It is past time for clear direction from Congress to ensure a just, clean, and prosperous transition to a clean energy future that accounts for carbon pollution and protects us from its growing harms.
Your voice is important in our fight to protect human health, the health of wildlife, and our environment. The EPA is required to accept comments on their proposal from the public. Take action now and tell the EPA they cannot rescind the Endangerment Finding.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA has left basic federal pollution protections for many waterways across the country and the communities that depend on them in a state of uncertainty. For frontline and fence-line communities already overburdened by environmental injustices, the effects are even more severe. But as history has repeatedly shown, these same communities possess the strength and determination to demand a different future.
A Blow to Water Protections
In 2023, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sackett v. EPA, limiting the scope of the Clean Water Act. The central question of the case was what constitutes waters of the United States (WOTUS) and what waterways fall within the federal purview of safeguards against pollution and destruction. Michael and Chantell Sackett to fill in and develop wetlands on their property without a federal permit.
In a 5-4 split on the reasoning, a conservative majority of the Court sided with the Sacketts, narrowly defining WOTUS and upending decades of bi-partisan broad implementation of the law. Under the Court’s ruling, the only wetlands with Clean Water Act protection would have to have a “continuous surface connection” to navigable waters (i.e., oceans, rivers, lakes, etc.).
Isolated wetlands, intermittent streams, and other important waterways are now more exposed to development and pollution with minimal oversight and restrictions. Additionally, the ruling stated that the Act only protects other waters that are “relatively permanent,” meaning the potentially millions of miles of streams that do not flow year round could also lose protections.
The Sackett decision has far-reaching effects. Wetlands are more than just swampy areas. They provide essential ecosystems for filtering contaminants, mitigating flooding, and supporting biodiversity. For communities now coping with the cumulative impacts of industrial pollution, Sackett represents yet another obstacle in obtaining the clean water protections that most of us take for granted.
Removing safeguards for many wetlands and streams will severely exacerbate the vulnerabilities of environmental justice communities living in floodplains or near industrial facilities. What SCOTUS did by weakening protections of the Clean Water Act will reverberate across generations, further exacerbating disparities.
In March 2025, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers announced their intention to again redefine the streams and wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act. EPA remarked that the previous administration used a looser interpretation of WOTUS, and signaled their likelihood to even further narrow the number of wetlands and streams that are protected under current federal regulations.
This would mean that developers and polluters alike would have even fewer checks against increasing industrial runoff, tainting drinking water, and habitat loss in communities without strict federal oversight. This all comes at a time when the administration has shifted federal priorities and funding away from clean water and reducing public health impacts from pollution, to deregulation at an alarming rate.
Forward: Resilience and Advocacy
With federal rollbacks of water protections across the country, we have to work to construct state and local protections to close the regulatory gap. We can do this by assertive state and local-level organizing to help create strong legislation favoring wetlands and accompanying surface water. Grassroots mobilization at the local level is also central to the environmental justice movement.
Impacted communities need to continue organizing and mobilizing, hold polluters accountable, and demand the equal application of laws under existing law. Additionally, there must be a focused strategy on national legislative actions urging Congress to restore broad federal protections for waters.
It is extremely tough to have these discussions in such a polarizing political climate. But through sustained advocacy to build momentum around issues like climate change and environmental justice, there is an opportunity to demand and realize needed reforms. Collaborators in this fight can also fill a void by funding litigation, conducting necessary academic research, and amplifying the voices of the communities most impacted by water pollution and at extreme risk of flooding.
Advocates can particularly learn from environmental justice communities because of their traditional community science knowledge and grassroots approach to fighting pollution, which are critical to reversing weakened federal protections and implementing effective solutions to water pollution and flood management.
Conclusion
Fela’s words remind us that water is sacred and vital to sustainability. Water protection is not solely an environmental issue—it is a matter of justice, dignity, and survival. This moment demands that we think big, act boldly, and stand in solidarity with those most affected by environmental degradation.
Water has no enemy, but progress can. We must ensure that our laws and policies reflect the value of water and all communities that depend on it. Only by working together can we turn the legacy of this decision into an opportunity for transformative change.
Join us in advancing environmental justice. Sign up for the Environmental Justice, Health, and Community Resilience and Revitalization Program’s quarterly newsletter and follow us on Instagram.
Acid rain, which was largely caused by sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitric oxide/nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions from burning coal and fuel, was dramatically reduced by the implementation of the Clean Air Act. And following protection by the Endangered Species Act, today there are over 300,000 bald eagles in the lower 48 states, with more than 70,000 nesting pairs.
We’ve made a lot of progress on other ecological and human health issues, including air pollution, water quality, and habitat protections, but the recent rollbacks to environmental regulations proposed by the EPA threaten to reverse those gains.
Air quality has come a long way
In the past few decades, the U.S. has seen significant improvements in air quality due to the controls on emissions put into place by the Clean Air Act and enforced by the EPA. SO2 and NOx are harmful chemicals released by sources such as vehicles and power plants. The concentration of these chemicals in our air has been declining since air quality regulations led to new technologies, such as scrubbers and catalytic converters. As a result, emissions have plummeted by up to 95% since 1980.
Although many cities still do not meet air quality standards for concentrations of NOx and ozone, air quality is significantly better than the days when a thick, impenetrable smog blanketed most major cities, leading to hundreds of deaths during pollution events.
Environmental protections needed now more than ever
Notably, some pollutants, especially particulates (PM2.5) from wildfires, have recently started increasing again as extreme weather events brought hotter and more intense fires to multiple areas around the country. So now is the time to finish the job and bring air pollutant concentrations back to safe levels for everyone. It is not the time to roll back controls on vehicle and industrial emissions, slash funding for wildfire management, and close federal research labs.
Reversing habitat protections, such as the proposal to redefine “the waters of the United States” (WOTUS) in ways that will exclude most wetlands, will also have devastating consequences for our most basic environmental protections, such as access to clean water.
Wetlands are some of the most productive and diverse ecosystems on earth, removing pollutants from water, mitigating flooding, and providing habit for a variety of species. Almost half of threatened and endangered species use wetlands as habitat for at least a part of their life cycle. In addition, wetlands reduce sedimentation from our waterways, remove organic and inorganic pollutants, and reduce the impacts of both droughts and floods. This is why the Clean Water Act protected wetlands and all WOTUS by prohibiting dredging or filling without a permit.
Since the 1780s, the U.S. has lost about half of its historical wetlands. However, the rate of loss has slowed markedly since the Clean Water Act and the Swampbuster disincentive provision of the Farm Bill were passed in the 1970s and 1980s. We haven’t yet achieved the goal of no net loss of wetlands set out by President George H.W. Bush, but the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett vs. EPA will set us back significantly further.
This ruling limited the definition of WOTUS to “geographic[al] features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.”
This new definition, which excludes most wetlands hydrologically connected to but not “adjacent” to surface waters, makes little scientific sense. It ignores basic hydrology and ecology as argued by an amicus brief filed by 12 scientific societies representing more than 125,000 biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, and fisheries scientists.
They explained that many wetlands are directly navigable, as required by the Clean Water Act, or they contribute significantly to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of navigable waters, per the purpose of the Act. Nevertheless, the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers have issued a pre-publication notice of changes to the definition of WOTUS that would dramatically reduce wetland protections and allow many of America’s remaining wetlands to be destroyed.
Fighting for environmental protections
NWF is directly addressing these proposed changes throughout our many conservation, climate, and justice programs, not only with a goal of preventing rollbacks of current environmental protections, but with the much larger ambition of fulfilling all of our mission to ensure that wildlife and people thrive. This means working not just to halt but to reverse environmental harm, injustice, biodiversity loss, and climate change.
We can learn from both the successes and the losses of the past by relying on sound science—including participatory science and Indigenous knowledges—and leveraging the power and voices of a national network of affiliates, members, and supporters.
You can help by standing up for science, protecting public lands, supporting wetland protections, and learning more about why we work to support and elevate communities on the frontlines of habitat loss, climate change, and the worst sources of pollution.
NWF believes that our nation’s wildlife, fish, plants, healthy waters, clean air, and public lands are a right, not a privilege, of all people who call America home. Therefore, we also believe that government has a foundational duty to conserve and steward these public trust resources for all, including future generations, using the best available science and providing robust financial resources.
In our 89-year history, this approach has helped foster huge wins for people and wildlife, informed by sound science and the ability of democratic decision-making to make major advances in conservation a reality. We know this is possible because of what we’ve achieved so far, and because we have the knowledge and potential to achieve so much more.
Halting the operations of OEJECR is not merely a move to affect some form of bureaucratic reshuffling—it directly threatens the health and safety of millions of people across the country. In addition to closing the EJ office, the expectation is that 65% or more EPA employees working on environmental programs will be cut. That would decrease staff from around 15,000 to about 5,000. To put that into perspective, when EPA was founded in 1970, it had about 4,000 employees—and environmental justice was not addressed through a recognized office until 22 years later.
Living in the Shadow of Pollution
Pollution from toxic emissions and hazardous chemicals does not recognize political boundaries. A toxic chemical spill in one town can poison drinking water for an entire region. Air pollution from industrial plants does not stop at the city limits or at the fenceline between a facility and a community. The people most victimized by these environmental hazards are those who live on the frontlines—next to chemical plants, landfills, power plants, and other facilities that emit dangerous pollutants into the air and water.
More than 20 million people live within one mile of a toxic waste site, while one in six live within three miles of a toxic waste site. That is more than 60 million people in the United States. These communities are always in the shadow of any focus on clean air, safe drinking water, and other forms of environmental protection.
Under the federal Superfund program, the EPA has identified and committed to clean up the most contaminated sites across the country, from abandoned mines to former factory sites. As a result of systemic racism and sanctioned discriminatory laws and practices, low-income communities and communities of color have been victimized by the arbitrary siting of polluting industries in their neighborhoods.
In many instances, subsidized and affordable housing has been placed on or close to Superfund sites. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) either owns, operates, or subsidizes 18,158 properties that are located within one mile of Superfund sites. The majority of HUD households are also residents of color. On a related note, Black Americans are 75% more likely to live near polluting facilities when compared to the average White American.
Living near contaminated sites also negatively impacts health, especially that of children. In fact, children born near Superfund sites are more likely to repeat a grade, have lower test scores, and be suspended from school. Because Superfund sites include abandoned mines, radioactive landfills, closed military laboratories, and factories, they are more likely to release harmful metals into the environment, which can adversely affect the health of children and adults.
This latest move to dismantle the EPA’s lone environmental justice office signals the low priority given to these frontline and fenceline communities, at a time when climate change solutions are urgently needed. It means fewer investigations into environmental discrimination, fewer resources for communities battered by pollution and other cumulative impacts, and fewer federal watchdogs to protect communities from the rollbacks in pollution standards, all of which only benefit corporations.
The Cost of Deregulation on Rural and Urban Communities
OEJECR’s importance in advancing environmental justice since its inception cannot be overstated. Without the oversight and enforcement that OEJECR has provided for decades, industries will operate with greater impunity, increasing emissions of toxic pollutants into the air and water. This would mean more unregulated industrial agriculture pollution in rural communities especially, more frequent contamination of drinking water sources, and an increased risk of environmental disasters—essentially without any accountability for those responsible.
The loss of regulatory oversight also means fewer safeguards for rural families and farmers, threatening the sustainability of rural water supplies. For communities already overburdened by decades of environmental harm, this rollback in protections will further exacerbate existing health and economic disparities in rural areas.
In urban areas, air quality would deteriorate because pollution sources, like industrial plants and vehicle emissions, would operate with less strict regulation. Similar to rural regions, asthma and various other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, and cancer would increase in frequency. In both rural and urban regions, these conditions historically have devastated Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-wealth communities through decades of cumulative impacts from environmental injustice.
Ultimately, eliminating this office erases hard-won environmental protections that have taken years, if not decades, to establish. It is a step backward in efforts to ensure clean air, safe water, and a healthy environment for all communities. It grants polluters a license to dump their poisons with impunity, leaving the most vulnerable communities bereft of necessary safeguards to protect them from life-threatening harm and ensure their right to thrive.
Environmental Justice is for Posterity, Not Politics
The EPA’s decision should be viewed exactly for what it is and not allowed to stand unchallenged. Every person who cares about the health of their family and community needs to make their voices heard, demanding accountability from the new EPA Administrator and seeking intervention from Congress. Environmental justice organizations, community leaders, and advocates will continue to press ahead in pursuit of protections for the most vulnerable people to ensure that federal agencies prioritize public health and do not leave their citizens in limbo—the stakes are too high to ignore.
The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live on should not be contaminated solely because of our neighborhoods, socioeconomic conditions, or skin color. The EPA Administrator and this Administration’s choice to close OEJECR would mean that communities would have even less protection from toxins and pollutants and the opportunity to hold polluters accountable.
Without a dedicated office to address historic and ongoing environmental racism and injustice, there is no clear mechanism under this administration to ensure that federal resources reach and protect the communities that need them the most.
Read the National Wildlife Federation’s official statement: Shuttering EPA Office of Environmental Justice ‘Would be Immense Setback’. Join Us in Advancing Environmental Justice. Sign up for the Environmental Justice, Health, and Community Resilience and Revitalization Program’s quarterly newsletter and follow us on Instagram.
]]>Communities and advocates are rightfully feeling anxious about what Zeldin’s leadership means for environmental justice, climate, and broader protections for at least the next four years. Based on his congressional record and stated positions on environmental matters, we can forecast the approach he is likely to take regarding these crucial issues.
Views on Environmental Justice, Climate Change, and Regulation
Environmental justice is about doing what is right and just for all, in particular those that have been historically marginalized in this country, by providing equitable protection from environmental hazards and access to clean and clean water. Lee Zeldin’s record leaves much to be desired and demonstrates minimal dealings on EJ matters, suggesting these issues would therefore not be a priority when he leads the agency. Representing a coastal district on Long Island, Zeldin was responsive to some environmental concerns that directly impacted his constituents.
His approach to national environmental and climate issues was much more conservative. As a congressman, Zeldin did not champion any policies that aimed to reduce environmental health disparities or protect vulnerable communities from the effects of climate change. But unlike many of his fellow party members (and his boss), Zeldin acknowledges climate change—however, he criticizes regulatory approaches to address it. Notably, Lee Zeldin supported the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, calling it a burden on American industries.
His general stance was that environmental regulations should not hinder economic growth or harm industries such as energy, fishing, and tourism, which he argued are vital to the livelihoods of many Americans. His tenure at the EPA will mirror the previous Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda, which aimed to reduce the impact of environmental regulations on businesses. Lee Zeldin, who scored low on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) environmental scorecard, often opposed federal policies intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions or protect public lands. He also frequently voted against the Clean Air Act, although Suffolk County (NY-1) ironically has some of the worst air quality in New York.
There is nothing particularly remarkable about his record on environmental justice and climate. He is a member of a party that has been exceptionally bad on these issues historically. He did support however, preserving the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), voted no on slashing EPA’s water funding, and taking action on PFAS contamination.
Where This Leaves Environmental and Climate Justice Advocates
Environmental and climate justice advocates face an uphill battle for the immediate future and what happens after that is really up in the air. During Trump’s first term, the EPA rolled back numerous regulations, arguing they hindered economic progress, something the President maintained when he announced his EPA appointment. As EPA Administrator, Zeldin will likely align with this approach, favoring market solutions and minimal regulatory intervention—with little emphasis on broader environmental and climate justice initiatives.
This will lead to fewer federal efforts to address pollution in disadvantaged communities or to enforce strict air and water quality standards if they are seen as obstacles to economic activity. For frontline and fence-line communities, and for advocates who have pushed for stronger environmental justice and climate action, Zeldin’s appointment to the EPA could not have come at a worse time.
The emphasis on economic impact and regulatory restraint may result in fewer protections for the most overburdened communities, especially on issues such as extreme weather, heat waves, and industrial pollution. For these groups, Zeldin’s appointment represents a continuation of the same challenges seen during the first Trump administration.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
I do not care for any positive spin or calls for resilience in this moment—because that was necessary even before the election results on November 5th. The fact of the matter is, it is as bad as it looks. Zeldin’s EPA nomination highlights the need for continued advocacy and public support to ensure that those from disproportionately impacted communities are heard and protected amid the significant environmental challenges that lie ahead.
As climate change impacts grow more severe and as public awareness of environmental justice issues develops, the EPA’s role in these areas is more crucial than ever. Although policies that address the disproportionate impact of pollution on low-income and minority communities will likely not be a major focus under Lee Zeldin’s leadership, advocates and communities focused on achieving environmental justice may have an avenue for solutions at the state and local level.
For advocacy organizations, it is incumbent to take up the mantle of pushing for policies that address these disparities in the absence of strong federal action—and to support frontline and fence-line communities, especially over the next two to four years. NWF will continue to be devoted to partnering with environmental justice advocates and supporting policies that prioritize the needs of communities.
So meditate, hit the gym, spend time outdoors, cry—do whatever you need to do to cope—and then we have to get back to work. Because history is not static, it is constantly evolving. The story of environmental justice does not end here.
A Win Against Toxic Forever Chemicals
Last month we celebrated a momentous victory in the long fight to protect people and wildlife from these toxic chemicals when the Environmental Protection Agency designated two ‘forever chemicals,’ PFOA and PFOS, as hazardous substances, underscoring the agency’s commitment to address the threat they pose to public health and the environment.
The designation grants the agency broader authority to respond to contamination incidents and hold responsible parties accountable for cleanup efforts, while also addressing environmental justice concerns. Thousands of our wildlife advocates spoke out on this issue for many years, and finally their voices were heard and action was taken!
“This designation will ensure that more PFAS-contaminated sites get cleaned up and that those responsible for the pollution can be held accountable for the cost. It is imperative that we clean up existing PFAS contamination and stop PFAS at its source before it threatens public health and wildlife by entering our drinking water and environment in the first place.”
Jim Murphy, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy
Decades of PFAS Contamination
Contamination of our waters by these toxic, long-lasting, “forever chemicals” is widespread. They have been found in hundreds of species of fish and wildlife around the world. Studies have shown the chemicals reduce the reproductive and hatching success in birds and can be passed from mothers to their eggs.
PFAS chemicals have been used since the 1940s and are found in products such as the nonstick in our pots and pans, stain repellent in our furniture, waterproof compounds in our clothes, plastic wrap in fast food, and so much more. The toxic chemicals are also discharged into our surface water, air, and soil from tens of thousands of manufacturing facilities, airports, and wastewater treatment plants. They are also prevalent in firefighting foam and have been found in biosolids that are applied to agricultural fields.