I will do my best to stick to scientific matters rather than political opinions in this blog, but I have some specific beefs with the Trump administration based on the intersection between science and policy. I’m specifically opposed to a number of Trump’s proposed changes in his recently released budget proposal; to his appointees running the Department of the Interior and EPA, who are rolling back both environmental data collection and planning for climate change; and to Trump’s executive order regarding the Clean Water Rule. I will discuss some of the implications of cutting EPA’s funding by 30% and rolling back climate change rules on a different post – note that this directly affects my work as an environmental consultant, so take my opinion with a grain of salt – but I want to focus here on the Clean Water Rule and the controversy around it.
The “Clean Water Rule” was finalized under Obama’s EPA in 2015, and attempts to clarify one of the muddiest parts of the Clean Water Act, which turns 45 this year. The Clean Water Act empowered the government to regulate “navigable waters of the United States”, which is well and good, but most water in the U.S. is not navigable per se. Does this mean that if you don’t bother to dredge channels to keep them open for navigation by boat, that they don’t need to be kept clean? No, the Supreme Court has clarified, most recently in 2006, that “waters of the U.S.” include those water bodies with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters.
Although marginally clearer than the Clean Water Act language, this definition still presents challenges to those who work in the realm of science, rather than the realm of law, on a day-to-day basis. For example, a good water scientist/engineer is well aware of the hydrological connection between surface water and groundwater, wherein surface water can flow into or “recharge” groundwater, as well as the opposite behavior where groundwater flows into surface water. The influence of groundwater means that surface water bodies that appear otherwise unconnected may have a fully operational subsurface pathway between them, which may even govern their flow.
The other scientific wrinkle to the definition of “navigable waters” is that the pollutants in major rivers and lakes in the U.S. often originate from smaller creeks, channels, wetlands, and groundwater, which flow into the major bodies of water. Some of these, particularly in the American West, are ephemeral, so they’re only potentially navigable some parts of the year. So, if you’re limited to regulating navigable waters alone, you may not be able to control the inputs of pollutants to the water bodies.
The EPA under Obama attempted to clarify this rule, to set boundaries on what is and is not a body of water with “significant nexus” to navigable waters. Here’s where things get controversial. Let’s say you have a channel in your backyard that drains your septic system or your small organic chicken coop (I practically live in Berkeley). If that channel flows into an ephemeral creek, which flows into, say, San Francisco Bay, which is navigable, you could potentially be in violation of the Clean Water Act for discharging pollutants (in this case, nutrients with no place to go, which will lead to algal growth in the creek or the Bay). But, how could this happen to me?!! You, the septic system/chicken coop discharger, may seem like small potatoes, but these pollution issues are classic examples of the “tragedy of the commons”, and in fact, lots of smaller/moderate dischargers have a disproportionate effect on downstream water bodies, even those that are major drinking water supplies, as shown in the maps on this website. Hate to break it to you, but yes, your hypothetical septic/chicken coop discharges matter, when you measure the mass of pollutants you discharge to the larger body of water.
Lots of industries, including oil companies, developers, ranchers, and farmers, consider the Clean Water Rule to be a government overreach, because it would require new permits for filling in or modifying surface water bodies that had no reason to be federally regulated, in their opinion. The Trump executive order, issued February 28 of this year, requires Secretary Pruitt to review the Clean Water Rule, with the purpose of rescinding or revising it to refer to a different Supreme Court definition of waters of the U.S., this one a very narrow opinion offered by Justice Scalia. According to this amusing article, Scalia’s opinion came from looking up “waters” in the dictionary:
In his plurality opinion, Scalia pulled out the Webster’s New International Dictionary 2nd Edition and looked up the definition of “waters.” It “includes only those relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water,” he wrote, like “streams,” “oceans, rivers, [and] lakes,” not water that “flows intermittently or ephemerally.”
The rub is that Obama’s Clean Water Rule has already gone through the rule-making process, including public comment/review, and has been made into law. It has, of course, also been held up by court challenges since 2015, but it would be naïve of the Trump administration to assume that their preferred definition of “waters of the U.S.” would pass muster without similar immediate legal challenges. And, as the article above notes, Justice Scalia is no longer on the Supreme Court, whereas Justice Kennedy, whose “significant nexus” language forms the basis of current interpretation of the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction, is alive and likely to weigh in on any challenges that make it to the Supreme Court.
So, Mr. Pruitt – feel free to begin the arduous challenge of rescinding/rewriting the “Clean Water Rule”, but good luck finishing it quickly in a manner that will hold up in court.