

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.
"Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers," said one advocate.
Environmental justice campaigners on Monday said the Trump administration's latest rollback of wetland protections was "a gift to developers and polluters at the expense of communities" and demanded permanent protections for waterways.
“Clean water protections shouldn’t change with each administration,” said Betsy Southerland, former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water. “Every family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or who’s in office.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed changes to the rule known as "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS), which has been the subject of debate and legal challenges in recent decades. Under the Trump administration, as in President Donald Trump's first term, the EPA will focus on regulating permanent bodies of water like oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams.
The administration would more closely follow a 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, which the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found this year would remove federal protections from 60-95% of wetlands across the nation.
The Zeldin rule would eliminate protections for most wetlands without visible surface water, going even further than Sackett v. EPA in codifying a narrower definition of wetlands that should be protected, said the Environmental Protection Network (EPN). The rule comes after pressure from industry groups that have bristled over past requirements to protect all waterways.
Wetlands provide critical wildlife habitats, replenish groundwater, control flooding, and protect clean water by filtering pollution.
The Biden administration required the Clean Water Act to protect “traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters," but was constrained by the Sackett ruling in 2023.
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply."
Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food and Water Watch, said the new rule "weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast."
“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters—Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction," said Heinzen. “This rule flies in the face of science and commonsense. Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers."
The "critical functions" of wetlands, she added, "will only become more important as worsening climate change makes extreme weather more frequent. EPA must reverse course."
Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for American Rivers, added that the change to WOTUS will "likely make things worse for flood-prone communities and industries dependent on clean, reliable water."
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply,” said Huta. "The EPA is taking a big swipe at the Clean Water Act, our greatest tool for ensuring clean water nationwide.”
The proposal was applauded by the National Association of Manufacturers, whose president, Jay Timmins, said companies' "ability to invest and build across the country" has been "undermined" by the Obama and Biden administration's broader interpretation of WOTUS.
But Southerland said Zeldin's proposal "ignores decades of science showing that wetlands and intermittent streams are essential to maintaining the health of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies."
“This is one of the most significant setbacks to clean water protections in half a century,” she said. "It’s a direct assault on the clean water Americans rely on.”
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said the group was evaluating the legality of the proposal and would "not hesitate to go to court to protect the cherished rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands that all Americans need and depend on.”
"The proposal avoids specifying the exact scale of the deregulation it proposes, but it clearly would result in a serious reduction in legal protections for waters across the United States," said Caputo. "Many waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act for over 50 years would lose those protections under this proposal."
"Requiring agencies to follow the law is a win for wildlife, protecting habitat and the public alike," said one advocate.
A federal court ruling will restore "essential guardrails provided by the Endangered Species Act," said one wildlife advocacy group on Thursday, as the court found that under former Republican President Donald Trump, federal agencies broke the law when they allowed Florida's right-wing government to take over wetlands permitting.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) "made an end run around the Endangered Species Act," said the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) when they greenlighted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' proposal to allow the state to fast-track construction permits for projects on wetlands.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, states can take over wetlands permitting if they can prove that they will not violate wildlife protections.
Shortly after the EPA transferred the authority to Florida in 2020, CBD was joined by groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, and Miami Waterkeeper in suing the agency.
This past December, environmental legal group Earthjustice requested a preliminary injunction on behalf of CBD and the Sierra Club to stop Florida from issuing state permits for development projects near the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, where an estimated 120-230 endangered panthers "remain in their last territory on Earth," according to CBD.
The FWS found that the projects were likely to kill between seven and 26 panthers each year as they were pushed out of their habitat and became vulnerable to car collisions on nearby roads, while another three panthers would be otherwise harmed by the habitat loss each year.
“We're talking about the destruction of some of the last remaining habitat for one of the most endangered animals in the world," said Earthjustice attorney Bonnie Malloy on Thursday. "Restoring the Endangered Species Act protections will ensure that these projects get the analysis and review Congress intended to protect threatened and endangered species."
The court ruled on the groups' underlying claim that the EPA's transfer of the authority would violate federal endangered species protections, rather than just issuing a preliminary injunction.
Elise Bennett, Florida and Caribbean director at CBD, called the ruling "a reprieve for critically endangered species like the Florida panther," but warned that "we'll never prevent the extinction of our most vulnerable wildlife unless we stop bulldozing the wild places where they live."
"The Endangered Species Act can save these magnificent creatures, but only if our agencies follow the law. We'll continue to fight sprawling developments that rip apart the precious wetlands and interconnected natural spaces that Florida's most imperiled wildlife need to survive," said Bennett.
Florida Phoenix columnist Craig Pittman called the ruling "huge news for Florida's wetlands, because DeSantis' [Department of Environmental Protection] never said no to a developer."
Elizabeth Fleming, senior Florida representative at Defenders of Wildlife, said that "wetlands are the lifeblood of Florida, providing essential habitat to the world's only population of the critically endangered Florida panther and many other rare and endemic species, all found within one of the most biologically diverse states in the country."
"Requiring agencies to follow the law is a win for wildlife," she said, "protecting habitat and the public alike, as protecting our wetlands also protects drinking water and ecosystems across the state."