

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The question is whether the nation values its water enough to resist the administration's wholesale attack on environmental protections.
This spring and summer, I was awed by the majesty of waterways cleaned up in the Northeast by the strong environmental laws we’ve had in place over the last half century.
At home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I walked along the banks of the Charles River as it winds its way through greater Boston. In the mid 20th century, it was so fouled by industrial pollution that boaters who fell into the water were advised to get tetanus shots. Today, thousands of river herring speed upstream in the spring to spawn. One morning, I came upon six great blue herons grabbing herring out of the water as gulls swooped down for the leftovers. The Charles is now its own wildlife refuge.
I also ventured south to the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware, where I witnessed migrating bald eagles descending from the sky to pluck fish out of the water and great blue herons gobbling up white perch bigger than their heads. Once a swampy muck, it was transformed into what it is today thanks to a segregated African American Civilian Conservation Corps team 85 years ago. Its marshes are so important for migratory birds that the Obama administration poured more resources into it in the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act.
Heading north, my wife and I canoed on the Penobscot River and the Androscoggin River in Maine. Both rivers once had the oxygen literally sucked out of them by poisons from paper mills, tanneries, chemical companies, sewage facilities, and farm runoff. It was so polluted that Suzanne Clune, an 11-year-old girl who lived along the Androscoggin, wrote Maine Sen. Ed Muskie to complain about the stench from floating dead fish. Her letter was one of the inspirations for Muskie to introduce a bill in 1971 that would become the Clean Water Act.
The current occupants of the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court are clearly bent on tearing the Clean Water Act to shreds.
Five decades later, the river teems with wildlife. My wife and I saw eagles, herons, kingfishers, and osprey snapping up fish; moose and deer munching in marshes; harrier hawks patrolling the marshes for mice and voles; and beavers slapping their tails.
As enthralling as our encounter was with Maine wildlife, we paddled on not knowing if their habitat—or the habitat in Massachusetts and Delaware—will continue to be protected. The current occupants of the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court are clearly bent on tearing the Clean Water Act to shreds. This month, in the administration’s latest move to hand the fate of our waterways and wetlands back to polluters, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially proposed to remove most wetlands from federal protection.

In 2023, the Supreme Court, which President Donald Trump packed in his first term to create a conservative supermajority, set the stage for the EPA’s announcement by ruling that countless wetlands and ephemeral Western streams were not worthy of protection. Earlier this year, the high court also ruled that the EPA cannot punish polluters when their raw sewage discharges jeopardize water quality.
Confident that the Supreme Court will defend it against environmental group challenges, the second Trump administration is proposing a 2026 fiscal year budget that would slash at least $5 billion from a slew of EPA, Interior Department, and US Department of Agriculture programs that protect water quality, foster water conservation, and fund water pollution science.
The EPA’s budget itself is slated for a 55% cut. Among the biggest targets are the agency’s State Revolving Fund program that supports water infrastructure projects; water management projects in the West; Superfund cleanups; the US Geological Survey’s water, energy, mineral, and ecosystem research; and the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s conservation and science programs.
As a paddler and river rambler, I have certainly profited from the gift of a half century of clean water protections, marveling at heron spearing herring and eagles careening in the sky.
Those proposed cutbacks come on top of those already made this year, including the cancellation of nearly 800 EPA environmental justice grants and a $2.5 billion cut from the $3 billion Biden administration program addressing injustices in marginalized communities. Many of the canceled grants involve projects protecting water, including removing lead, PFAS, and other toxic chemicals from drinking water; preventing floods; cleaning watersheds to protect wildlife; and upgrading wastewater and sewer systems.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is also relaxing rules or extending deadlines on wastewater and coal ash from coal plants and handing coal ash dump oversight back to the states. He has proposed to repeal mercury and air toxics emissions limits and compliance procedures. He withdrew stricter standards for wastewater discharges from the meat and poultry industry that can cause oxygen-depleting algal blooms lethal to fish and contaminate drinking water.
To justify such sweeping cutbacks, which threaten the health of people, wildlife, and entire ecosystems, the Trump administration claims it is saving taxpayers billions of dollars in “waste” when in fact it is rewarding the polluting industries that have bankrolled Republican campaigns for decades.
The smokescreen of “waste” also obscures the goal of conservatives, as laid out loud and clear in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint, to ignore environmental injustice in communities of color that have endured centuries of displacement, disinvestment, discrimination, and disproportionate pollution. The Biden administration EPA identified a $625-billion backlog in drinking water infrastructure needs, a critical issue for African American communities exposed to lead via multiple sources, including tainted drinking water.

Cleaning up US waterways not only benefits public health, it also benefits the economy. The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, a nonprofit research collaborative, estimates that the $2.5 billion in canceled grants would have resulted in $6.4 billion worth of economic activity and created 65,000 jobs. The Supreme Court’s ruling that puts wetlands at risk, meanwhile, will undermine the critical role they play as nurseries for the nation’s commercial and recreational fisheries that were worth at least $321 billion in 2022 and accounted for 2.3 million jobs.
Clean water also is vitally important for the outdoor recreation industry. In 2022 alone, Americans spent nearly $400 billion on fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching. Then there are the health threats to consider. A 2024 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that waterborne pathogens annually cause more than 7 million illnesses, 118,000 hospitalizations, and 6,630 deaths at a cost of $3.33 billion.
The Trump administration’s attack on environmental safeguards comes amid a string of good news stories directly tied to the Clean Water Act. Examples include:

This is not the time to turn back the clock. Although the Chicago River is now clean enough to swim in again, 68% of Chicago children below the age of 6 drink lead-contaminated water. And, according to the EPA’s own data, at least half of the US population drinks water contaminated by PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals” that have been linked to cancer and other diseases.
The EPA’s National Rivers and Streams Assessment, updated last year, found that the percentage of rivers and streams with healthy and diverse fish communities increased from 25% to 35%—not even close to half. According to the assessment, nearly half of rivers and streams are still in fair or poor condition for fish.
More work also needs to be done on the rivers I visited earlier this year. Mercury remediation efforts have just begun on the Penobscot, for example. During heavy rains, the Charles is still at the mercy of antiquated pipes that discharge raw sewage into it.
Acclaimed author Maya Angelou explained perfectly why we need to clean up our rivers. “When we cast our bread upon the waters,” she wrote, “we can presume that someone downstream whose face we will never know will benefit from our action, as we who are downstream from another will profit from that grantor’s gift.”
As a paddler and river rambler, I have certainly profited from the gift of a half century of clean water protections, marveling at heron spearing herring and eagles careening in the sky. We are so close into turning once-toxic waters into wildlife refuges and are so much more aware—especially after the Flint water crisis—of the value of pristine drinking water.
The question is whether the nation values its water enough to resist this wholesale attack on environmental protections. It is crystal clear what levels of pollution the Trump administration is willing to cast upon the waters. We should not have to wait for another young girl to write a letter about dead fish floating in a river to get a senator’s attention.
This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.
"This ruling undermines decades of progress in environmental protection and leaves communities vulnerable to unchecked pollution," said one critic.
The right-wing U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned federal rules regulating the discharge of water pollution, weakening the Clean Water Act in an unusual case in which one of the country's greenest cities found itself at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency.
The high court ruled 5-4 in San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency that EPA limitations banning discharges that cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards are an overreach of the agency's statutory authority. The California city joined polluter lobbyists including the National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in challenging the EPA's so-called "end-result" requirements.
The ruling severely limits the power of the EPA and states to safeguard water quality under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and undermines the landmark law's stated mission to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters."
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court weakened the Clean Water Act's limitations on raw sewage discharge into our water. This will hurt the health of Americans, especially working class people from all backgrounds. Americans deserve clean water.
— Nina Turner ( @ninaturner.bsky.social) March 4, 2025 at 8:57 AM
Writing for the majority—which also included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—far-right Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the EPA "resorting to such requirements is not necessary to protect water quality," and that "if the EPA does its work, our holding should have no adverse effect on water quality."
Alito apparently did not take into account what the Sierra Club has called the Trump administration's " unprecedented" attacks on the EPA, one of numerous federal agencies targeted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency for terminations and cutbacks.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—in dissent.
Tuesday's ruling follows Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 2023 decision in which the high court severely curtailed protections for "waters of the United States" by holding that the CWA only covers wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters."
Responding to Tuesday's ruling, Sanjay Narayan, chief appellate counsel of Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program, said in a statement that "SCOTUS' decision ignores the basic reality of how water bodies and water pollution work, and could stymie the ability of the EPA to implement the Clean Water Act, a bedrock environmental law that has kept water safe for the last 50 years."
"Because the EPA is not allowed to include health-based standards when regulating water pollution, it'll need to know everything about what might be discharged before a clean water permit can be issued—making the permitting process delayed and incredibly expensive," Narayan added. "The result is likely to be a new system where the public is regularly subjected to unsafe water quality."
Waterkeeper Alliance CEO Marc Yaggi said that "bit by bit, the power of the Clean Water Act is being undermined, weakening protections for our waters, and limiting EPA's ability to safeguard public health and the environment."
"The Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent that could compromise the safety of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources," Yaggi added. "This ruling undermines decades of progress in environmental protection and leaves communities vulnerable to unchecked pollution."
Campaign for New York Health executive director Melanie D'Arrigo said on social media, "The five Supreme Court justices who voted to weaken the Clean Water Act should be forced to drink a nice tall glass of raw sewage discharge."
Under the Clean Water Act, the agency should protect our water from harmful factory farm pollution, but the agency’s regulations have been failing for decades to achieve the act’s most basic requirements.
By design, factory farms generate stunning amounts of waste from the thousands or even millions of animals they confine. And while the industry swears it treats that waste “responsibly,” neighboring communities know otherwise.
Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should protect our water from harmful factory farm pollution. But the agency’s regulations have been failing for decades to achieve the act’s most basic requirements, a fact that EPA admits.
According to the agency’s own data, roughly 10,000 of the nation’s largest factory farms, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), are illegally discharging dangerous pollution to waterways without the required federal permit. As a result, we’re facing a pollution crisis of epic proportions, threatening our drinking water, health, and environment.
When allowed to handle their waste cheaply, with little regard for the toll on people and the environment, their profit margins soar.
So in 2017, we led dozens of allies to petition EPA to strengthen its regulations to ensure all polluting CAFOs have Clean Water Act permits that effectively protect waterways as the law requires. When it denied our petition and refused to act, we sued.
A host of industry groups representing factory farm interests intervened in the case to defend EPA’s refusal to act. This comes as no surprise, as the industry has long peddled misleading arguments and downright lies to preserve the status quo. That’s because factory farms reap huge benefits from the lack of regulation. When allowed to handle their waste cheaply, with little regard for the toll on people and the environment, their profit margins soar.
This September, I countered those arguments in person before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, explaining why EPA must strengthen its CAFO regulations to safeguard our water and our health.
Here’s the truth behind three false claims industry is pushing:
In their brief, industry groups claim that “modern feeding operations are designed and engineered to produce healthy animals and minimize environmental impacts from manure.” This is patently false. The industry employs—and EPA’s lax regulations allow— the cheapest waste management practices possible, with little concern for public health or the environment.
For instance, factory farms store millions of gallons of waste in open cesspools that are designed to leak, threatening drinking water. And because hauling waste away is expensive, they dump as much as they can onto nearby fields, where it runs off into waterways.
We, the scientific community, and EPA all know that lax regulations have fueled the current factory farm pollution crisis.
This is a main reason why CAFOs’ waste is such a big threat to our water. They claim they’re using this waste to fertilize crops, but in reality, they apply far more than the land or plants can absorb. It’s also common practice to dump waste on land that has no hope of absorbing any of it, including fields frozen solid in the dead of winter.
There is a trove of scientific literature documenting all of this, and even EPA concedes that its faulty regulations are to blame. Yet, EPA claims it lacks enough information to improve its regulations. This reasoning is frankly ridiculous, especially since the agency admitted it had not even reviewed the thousands of pages of scientific and government data we gave to it when we submitted our petition, including research it conducted itself.
In their brief, industry groups aim to sow doubt on this topic, but we, the scientific community, and EPA all know that lax regulations have fueled the current factory farm pollution crisis.
The industry also defended an EPA rule that has created a loophole enabling thousands of CAFOs to circumvent the law. Under the Clean Water Act, polluting facilities must get a permit that requires them to limit and monitor their pollution discharges.
However, since 2003 EPA has chosen to interpret the statute in a way that exempts a huge portion of factory farm pollution from regulation. This “agricultural stormwater” exemption has also allowed the vast majority of factory farms to evade permitting requirements altogether, even for pollution that doesn’t fall under the exemption.
So we’re not surprised that the industry is determined to preserve this loophole. In its brief, it falsely claims that federal law requires EPA to apply this exemption to CAFOs. But in fact, the congressional and regulatory records make clear that legislators never intended for the exemption to apply to CAFOs or their waste disposal practices, and EPA understood that.
Contrary to industry claims, EPA applied this exemption to factory farms by its own discretion; the law did not compel them to. Now, in the face of substantial evidence that thousands of operations are exploiting this free pass, EPA can and must narrow the exemption and place stringent regulations on polluting factory farms, as Congress intended.
Finally, industry groups argue that the current regulatory regime is working. They even point to Iowa and North Carolina as shining success stories for manure management. What they fail to mention is that these states have some of the worst factory farm-polluted waters in the country, because state regulators allow these operations to pollute with impunity. In fact, these states have laws that prohibit their environmental agencies from passing factory farm water pollution regulations more stringent than EPA’s.
EPA itself admits its primary pollution control strategy, “nutrient management plans,” are inadequate. For decades, the agency has assumed these plans minimize pollution runoff from fields applied with manure. That’s what the industry would like us to believe, too. But the truth is—as EPA recently acknowledged—nutrient management plans don’t do enough to protect against pollution because that’s not even their main focus.
The reality is that the status quo is not protecting rural communities from harmful factory farm pollution.
Instead, they prioritize “maximizing crop growth” where manure is applied. To fulfill its obligations under the Clean Water Act, EPA must stop pretending that nutrient management plans are a silver bullet for factory farm pollution.
The reality is that the status quo is not protecting rural communities from harmful factory farm pollution. Weak state regulations matter even less when the national permit program—the bedrock of factory farm pollution regulation—isn’t effective. EPA can and must overhaul its factory farm regulations.
EPA’s foot-dragging is welcome news to the factory farm industry. Under the agency’s current regulations, factory farms can continue cutting costs through irresponsible manure handling. They can dump the costs of their waste onto their neighbors, leaving rural communities with undrinkable water, health problems, and devastated quality of life.
This needs to change. EPA must stop toeing the industry line and finally stop this pollution.
Arguing before the court in September, EPA agreed the factory farm pollution problem was severe, but it swore up and down it was taking it seriously, pointing to an ongoing study Food & Water Watch forced the agency to launch through other litigation and an advisory committee it convened after denying our petition.
However, these are simply delay tactics. The study focuses narrowly on pollution standards that only apply to permitted factory farms, even though the heart of the problem is that thousands of factory farms don’t have permits to begin with. To add insult to injury, the study group is controlled by industry representatives. It’s simply not believable that the study process will lead to stronger environmental protections.
EPA’s weak arguments underscore what we’ve known for years: to address this pollution crisis, the agency must step up and strengthen its regulations. Not only do suffering communities need EPA to do its job, but the law demands it.