

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.
According to the UN, the world has moved beyond water crisis into systemic, chronic scarcity threatening public health, economies, and ecosystems while making global cooperation increasingly existential.
According to a major new report from the United Nations University, global water systems are no longer in crisis, but have entered a state of chronic failure, with shortages that extend far beyond temporary shocks or short-term recovery.
Released on January 20 by the UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), Global Water Bankruptcy: Living Beyond Our Hydrological Means in the Post-Crisis Era concludes that the planet has entered the era of global water bankruptcy. This indicates that long-term water use now exceeds renewable inflows, leaving much of Earth’s natural systems damaged beyond realistic repair. In other words, societies have already exhausted or polluted the natural buffers—rivers, aquifers, wetlands, and glaciers—that once sustained them. Droughts, shortages, and pollution events are increasingly becoming persistent features of daily life. In this post-crisis condition, the authors argue, it is best not to describe the situation as a crisis at all, but as water bankruptcy.
At the press conference set to release the report, Kaveh Madani, lead author and director of the UNU-INWEH, emphasized that this is not a semantic shift, but a clear warning that the dominant way governments, markets, and international institutions think about water is no longer fit for reality.
“For decades, scientists, the media, and policymakers have warned about a global water crisis… what we document in this report is a different reality emerging in many places: a persistent failure state in which water systems can no longer realistically return to their historical baselines,” Madani said.
Applied to water, bankruptcy management requires confronting overuse, acknowledging irreversible losses, and aligning development goals with hydrological limits.
The report does not claim that the entire planet is bankrupt. Water bankruptcy is assessed basin by basin and aquifer by aquifer. However, as regions across the globe simultaneously overdraw water and erode the natural systems that sustain it, the world faces a fundamentally altered risk landscape, with cascading threats to food security, agricultural markets, rural livelihoods, and climate feedbacks.
What distinguishes water bankruptcy from familiar narratives of scarcity is the scale of irreversibility. According to the report, societies have not only overdrawn annual renewable water flows, but have also liquidated long-term savings stored in groundwater, wetlands, glaciers, soils, and river ecosystems.
Over the past five decades, the world has lost approximately 410 million hectares of natural wetlands—almost the land area of the European Union—resulting in the disappearance of vital ecosystem services such as flood control, water purification, and habitat provision, valued at more than US$5 trillion. Groundwater depletion is even more consequential. According to the analysis, around 70% of the world’s major aquifers show long-term declining trends. Excessive pumping has already caused land subsidence across nearly 5% of the global land area, including dense urban zones that are home to close to 2 billion people. In some regions, land is sinking by up to 25 centimeters per year, permanently reducing storage capacity and increasing flood risk. These damages are not easily undone. Compacted aquifers, subsided deltas, dried-up lakes, and extinct species represent long-term, irretrievable losses.
As Kaveh Madani emphasizes, “This is not another warning about a future we might still avoid everywhere… It is a diagnosis of a world where, in many basins, the old normal is already gone.”
The current human cost and future risks of water bankruptcy are also staggering. According to the report, nearly three-quarters of the world’s population lives in countries classified as water insecure or critically water insecure. About 2.2 billion people still lack safely managed drinking water, 3.5 billion lack safely managed sanitation, and roughly 4 billion experience severe water scarcity for at least one month each year. The risks are compounded given more than half of global food output is located in regions where total water storage (including surface water, soil moisture, snow, ice, and groundwater) is already declining or unstable.
The report’s crux is that the global water agenda remains stuck in a crisis-response mindset that is no longer fit for purpose. Such alarming figures are partly the result of governments, utilities, and basin authorities continuing to treat chronic overshoot as a temporary emergency. Short-term emergency measures, supply expansion, and incremental efficiency gains dominate policy discussions, even as underlying water balances continue to deteriorate. Ultimately, this only deepens ecological damage and entrenches unsustainable water-use practices.
Madani was clear at the press conference: “Expecting a wicked problem of this scale to have a simple solution is as naïve as the reductionist solutions that helped get us into the current state,” he said.
Instead, the United Nations University calls for a shift to what it terms bankruptcy management, a concept borrowed deliberately from finance. Applied to water, bankruptcy management requires confronting overuse, acknowledging irreversible losses, and aligning development goals with hydrological limits. It also demands protecting remaining aquifers, wetlands, soils, rivers, lakes, and glaciers, rather than treating these life-sustaining systems as expendable capital to prop up unsustainable growth.
The report itself also highlights the social and political dimensions of water bankruptcy, stressing that it is not solely an environmental issue. The costs of hydrological overshoot fall hardest on those least responsible and least able to adapt: smallholder farmers, Indigenous communities, and the urban poor. The authors caution that demand reduction is not politically feasible if treated as a purely technical exercise, noting that abruptly cutting water access for farmers could trigger unemployment, social unrest, and broader instability. Effective management, they argue, must be paired with political and economic transitions that protect livelihoods, provide compensation and risk support, enable shifts in crops and practices, and help economies decouple jobs and growth from ever-rising water use.
Despite their sober diagnosis, the authors do not end in resignation, arguing that water could—and existentially must—still serve as a unifying axis in an increasingly fragmented world. Given water intersects climate, biodiversity, food systems, public health, land use, and political stability, it remains one of the few domains where coordination is both necessary and unavoidable.
“Investing in water is an investment in delivering on all of those [aforementioned] agendas,” said Madani, at the report’s launch. “And in rebuilding cooperation in a fragmented world.”
Similarly, authors stress the importance of upcoming political milestones: the UN Water Conferences in 2026 and 2028, the conclusion of the Water Action Decade, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals deadline. They argue these moments offer a rare window to reset the global water agenda to move beyond incremental efficiency gains and emergency responses toward explicit recognition that many river basins and aquifers have already crossed thresholds where historical conditions cannot be restored.
Yet translating this clarity into action faces stark political and institutional realities. The UN system, tasked with leading such a reset, remains mired in member states cutting funding, worsening geopolitical polarization and international conflict, and key bodies—including the Security Council—grossly failing to uphold the UN Charter’s basic human rights mandates. In practice, declarations and frameworks proliferate, deadlines are extended, but meaningful, coordinated action remains slow, uneven, or hollow. Water may be uniquely cross cutting, yet it is not immune to these structural constraints or the apparent erosion of accountability. Crucially, it also requires that primarily Western, early-industrial economies reckon with histories of inequitable use and extraction that have both driven water shortages and contributed to the persistent inequities of scarcity today.
As with other pressing global crises, the consequences of water bankruptcy may unfold faster than governments and institutions can respond, but the authors argue that naming the problem clearly could galvanize civil society and decision-makers into meaningful action before it’s too late.
“Our message is not despair,” Madani concluded. “It’s clarity. The earlier we face the real balance sheet, the more options we still have.”
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."
"Congress and local elected officials must now step in and do more to protect clean water through durable legislation and state-based action," said one advocate.
Under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling condemned by clean water advocates earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday announced a revised rule that could clear the way for up to 63% of the country's wetlands to lose protections that have been in place nearly half a century under the Clean Water Act.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan said he had been "disappointed" by the 5-4 decision handed down in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency in May, but he was obligated under the ruling to issue a final rule changing the agency's definition of "waters on the United States."
As Common Dreams reported, the high court ruled in May that the Clean Water Act protects waters and wetlands that have a "continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own rights," such as major rivers and coastlines.
Prior to the ruling, the Clean Water Act protected wetlands as long as they had a "significant nexus" to regulated waters, but the EPA rule removes that test from consideration when determining if a waterway should be protected. The rule will leave streams and tributaries—and the communities adjacent to them—without protections from pollution that can be caused by housing and business development, mining, pipeline construction, and a number of industries.
The ruling and resulting EPA rule reflected "the Supreme Court's disturbing pattern of striking down environmental regulations to serve industry interests," said environmental law group Earthjustice on Tuesday.
An EPA official told The Washington Post that an estimated 1.2 million to 4.9 million miles of ephemeral streams across the U.S. would immediately lose protections now that the final rule has been issued.
Julian Gonzalez, a water policy lobbyist with Earthjustice, told the Post that changing the rule is "not necessarily what they want to do" at the EPA, while Patrice Simms, the group's vice president of litigation for healthy communities, called the court's ruling a "politically motivated decision" that "ignores science and flies in the face of what almost everyone knows: that we all need clean water."
"The Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority's disastrous ruling in Sackett v. EPA reduced EPA's ability to protect our wetlands and waters from destruction and contamination," said Simms. "The new rule from EPA adjusts its existing regulations to comport with Sackett and reflects our dangerous new reality—one where mining companies, Big Ag fossil fuel developers, and other polluting industries can bulldoze and fill wetlands indiscriminately, harming our public health and ecosystems."
With state regulatory agencies and legislatures now empowered to determine how wetlands are protected, Earthjustice said waterways in states including Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Colorado are the most vulnerable to industrial pollution. States including Vermont, New York, and Minnesota currently have some of the strongest protections in place.
Marc Yaggi, CEO of Waterkeeper Alliance, said that with the climate and pollution crises becoming increasingly destructive, "there could not be a worse time to weaken the Clean Water Act."
"Intensifying droughts are wreaking havoc on agriculture, pollution and toxins are increasingly threatening water sources nationwide, and millions of people are contending with dangerously contaminated drinking water," said Yaggi. "Congress and local elected officials must now step in and do more to protect clean water through durable legislation and state-based action."
"We have seen states like Florida work with the Trump administration, cutting corners to unlawfully take this permitting authority from federal agencies, with disastrous consequences," noted one lawyer.
An environmental law group on Wednesday sounded the alarm over a proposed Biden administration rule intended to "streamline and clarify the requirements and steps necessary for states and tribes to administer programs protecting waterways from discharges of dredged or fill material without a permit."
Earthjustice warned in a statement that the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal—for which the administration will now accept and consider public comment—could "allow more pollution and reckless development" in U.S. waterways and wetlands.
The rule pertains to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting. While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers it for most of the country, three states—Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey—have been granted the authority to run their own programs with federal oversight.
"EPA must ensure protections for waters and affected communities remain in place through this process, rather than just respond to states' and industry predilection."
However, as E&E News reported in May, "at least two Republican-led states, Alaska and Nebraska, and one led by a Democrat, Minnesota, are on a quest to oversee a dredge-and-fill permitting program that influences construction projects with implications for federally protected waters."
E&E News noted that the EPA confirmed it was "having discussions with the trio of states about the possibility of shifting primacy over the permitting program" as the agency continued to work on the proposal that was unveiled Wednesday.
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Radhika Fox said Wednesday that the pending rule "will support co-regulator efforts to administer their own programs to manage discharges of dredged or fill material into our nation's waters."
Meanwhile, Julian Gonzalez, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice's Healthy Communities program, argued that "EPA must ensure protections for waters and affected communities remain in place through this process, rather than just respond to states' and industry predilection without considering the pitfalls and reduced water protections that may follow."
"Most recently we have seen states like Florida work with the Trump administration, cutting corners to unlawfully take this permitting authority from federal agencies, with disastrous consequences," he said. "It is up to EPA to ensure that it will not happen again. Florida will not be the last state that tries to erode federal oversight of our waters and wetlands by taking over 404 permitting while avoiding accountability."
During former President Donald Trump's final months in office, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis—now one of Trump's competitors for the GOP's 2024 presidential nomination—successfully sought to assume control of 404 permitting for the state, which outraged green groups including Earthjustice.
As Bloomberg reported in April:
The takeover was a big bet that states can both streamline development and better control water pollution than the federal government can. It has provided an early window into how DeSantis might view environmental regulation as president if he decides to run.
But two-and-a-half years into the state takeover, it isn't yet the deregulatory panacea state officials and the EPA had hoped for.
Gonzalez asserted Wednesday that "EPA must retain robust oversight of the 404 permitting process, set strong minimum standards that all states must meet before they can assume a 404 program, and ensure this rule does not result in lesser federal protections under the CWA and other protective laws triggered by federal permits, like the Endangered Species Act."
"EPA must ensure that the final version of this rule reflects the concerns of affected communities, which have been fighting attacks on the Clean Water Act, and who have not been consulted on this issue at all," he added. "A weak framework for 404 assumptions will further embolden the industry's deregulatory agenda to destroy wetlands and pollute our waters in the name of profit. We look forward to giving EPA additional feedback on this important rule."
The EPA proposal comes after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority in May issued a ruling in Sackett v. EPA that Earthjustice called "a catastrophic loss for water protections across the country and a win for big polluters, putting our communities, public health, and local ecosystems in danger."
The high court was criticized for taking the case as the EPA was working on a new "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule that was finalized in December—and which Republicans in Congress, with the help of a few Democrats, recently tried to kill, provoking a veto from Biden.
Despite the veto, congressional opponents of Biden's WOTUS rule have not given up. The GOP-controlled U.S. House Appropriations Committee Appropriations on Wednesday approved a sweeping bill for fiscal year 2024 that would repeal the policy.
It appears the Court's right-wing majority wants to open the floodgates to polluters even as we continue to learn more about just how connected wetlands are to bigger bodies of water and also to our entire way of life.
The US Supreme Court’s recent undermining of wetlands protections in Sackett v. EPA could not have come at a worse time for our streams, rivers, and lakes. Now, only a week after the high court removed tens of millions of acres of wetlands from federal protection, a major study in the journal Nature found that human activities on Earth are breaching ecological limits for a host of vital systems.
One key system is water.
According to the study by more than 40 researchers for the Earth Commission, less than half the world’s population now benefits from easy access to free flowing rivers that sustain biodiversity and nourish healthy fisheries, which in turn support local economies. That is because too many rivers are altered by dams and development. Only 23 percent of the world’s large rivers (more than 620 miles in length) flow uninterrupted into the ocean.
Under the Earth’s surface, groundwater levels in nearly half the world’s basins are in decline from overuse. Invisible from above, groundwater is a critical source of drinking water, providing the base flow for rivers and, as the study said, “directly sustain[ing] wetlands and terrestrial vegetation.”
Compounding that are unsustainable levels of nitrogen and phosphorous runoff into rivers, lakes, and coastline estuaries from fertilizers. The runoff can trigger a tragic process known as “eutrophication,” leading to major fish kills and aquatic dead zones.
While much of the concern about climate change is understandably centered on staying beneath a threshold of temperatures that will unleash catastrophic climate impacts, the study is a reminder that there is much more to the preservation of the planet. A lead author, Joyeeta Gupta, told the media that if Earth was undergoing a medical exam, “Our doctor would say the Earth is really quite sick right now, in many areas.”
Earth Commission co-chair Johan Rockström added in a press release, “Unless a timely transformation occurs, it is most likely that irreversible tipping points and widespread impacts on human well-being will be unavoidable.”
None of that appeared to be on the mind of the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA. The case involved an Idaho couple who wanted to develop over a wetland on their property near a lake; all nine justices on the high court concurred that the EPA went too far in regulating the particular wetland on the couple’s property.
But a razor-thin 5-4 majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, seized on the case to gut a key portion of the 1972 Clean Water Act itself, ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can enforce environmental laws under the Clean Water Act only if a wetland is “indistinguishable” from larger bodies of water, with a “continuous surface connection” that has “no clear demarcation.”
The ruling by Alito and fellow Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett willfully ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence showing the connections between wetlands and downstream waters, and the fact that wetlands play an outsized role in biodiversity, despite covering only 5.5 percent of land in the contiguous 48 states.
The ruling ignored findings by the EPA that our own waters mirror the state of those around the world: they are quite sick right now. According to the EPA’s 2017 National Water Quality Inventory Report issued to Congress, nearly a third of wetlands and nearly half of the nation’s river and streams are in “poor biological condition.” More than 30 years ago, the US Fish and Wildlife Service reported to Congress that the nation has lost more than half of the wetlands that existed in colonial times in the contiguous 48 states.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was sadly predictable given that Alito wrote long ago that, as far as he was concerned, the EPA can step in to protect water only “when a pollutant is discharged directly from a point source to navigable waters.”
Also ridiculously predictable was who applauded the ruling most loudly and lined up to drive over the bridge to troubled waters: fossil fuel, mining, road building and agricultural polluters and commercial and residential developers who desire minimal regulation when plowing over the landscape. In its friend of the court brief in the Idaho case, the American Petroleum Association, the American Gas Association, and the Association for Oil Pipelines complained that the Clean Water Act led to a permitting system so “onerous” that the failure to obtain a permit after years of waiting “can be ruinous.”
Actually, polluters want to leave science-based permitting in ruins. The EPA under both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations determined that wetlands are critically connected to the quality of drinking water and to the quality of larger bodies of water, even when one cannot see the connections on the surface. In a 2015 report based on 1,200 peer-reviewed publications, the EPA cited “ample evidence” that many wetlands that lacked surface water connections still “provide physical, chemical, and biological functions that could affect the integrity of downstream waters.”
The functions, such as filtering pollutants, absorbing storm surges, slowing floods, preventing erosion and being protective nurseries for fish, add up to being almost priceless. Wetlands saved the 12 states ravaged by Hurricane Sandy from an additional $625 million in damage, according to a study by researchers from the University of California Santa Cruz and the Nature Conservancy. More than half of the nation’s $5.6 billion commercial seafood bounty in 2018 came from fish (such as salmon) and shellfish (such as crabs and shrimp) which spend part of their lifecycle in wetlands, according to NOAA.
Most people understand this. Two-thirds of respondents told the Pew Research Center in 2020 that the federal government is doing too little to protect the water quality of lakes, rivers and streams.
In making its ruling in Sackett v EPA, the Supreme Court was oblivious to the fact that the world has lost a third of its wetlands since 1970. Wetlands are disappearing faster than forests, according to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The high court has set the stage for the United States to lose tens of millions of acres more. Environmental groups say the ruling in Sackett v EPA is so sweeping, that the result may be even worse than when the Trump administration tried to gut the Clean Water Act in 2019.
At that time, nearly four dozen current and former federal scientists filed a complaint with the EPA’s inspector general, warning that 40 million acres of wetlands, equivalent to the size of Wisconsin, would be removed from protection—a massive chunk of the nation’s 110 million acres of wetlands in the contiguous 48 states.
It appears that this slim Supreme Court majority wants to open the floodgates to polluters even as we continue to learn more about just how connected wetlands are to bigger bodies of water and also to our entire way of life. A Canadian study two decades ago found that degraded water from human land use could be detected in wetlands up to two and a half miles away. That study concluded: “Effective wetland conservation will not be achieved merely through the creation of narrow buffer zones between wetlands and more intensive land-uses. Rather, sustaining high wetland water quality will require maintaining a heterogeneous regional landscape containing relatively large areas of natural forest and wetlands.”
In this latest case, the high court didn’t even bother with narrow buffer zones. Paired with last year’s ruling curtailing the EPA’s powers to curb the carbon emissions fueling global warming, Alito and his majority are further disconnecting our nation from the science that could help us heal the planet.
The evidence could not be clearer that the Earth really is quite sick. Rather than aiding its recovery, this US Supreme Court seems intent on scurrying around the hospital, ward by ward, bed by bed, unplugging every life-support system and vital-signs monitor it can.
Environmental crusader Dr. Wayne Kublalsingh, who has refused food and water for more than two months, said he's "prepared to die" for his country, while reports indicate that the renowned Trinidadian university professor and activist is approaching his final days.
Since September 17, Kublalsingh, 55, has been on a hunger strike protesting the construction of a portion of a four-lane highway which will cut through a critical wetlands habitat on land that he says the government of Trinidad and Tobago has forcibly seized from island residents.
"I'm doing this absolutely for Trinidad and Tobago," Kublalsingh recently told VICE News, describing his hunger strike as a "form of peaceful social war" against the country's government.
His protest, he added, is "against the economic crimes committed against the people, against white collar criminality and the government's failure to account for and justify its actions."
The hunger strike is Kublalsingh's second against the proposed Debe to Mon Desir segment of the Solomon Hochoy Highway extension. In 2012, he ended his 21-day strike after the country's prime minister agreed to establishing an independent committee to reevaluate the project. Kublalsingh renewed his protest after construction continued.
Kublalsingh, who heads the Highway Re-route Movement, said he will disband his current strike if the government suspends work on the controversial portion of the highway, and agrees to mediation in consideration of the Movement's alternative route proposal.
The government has argued that the connector is vital to the island's economic development while environmentalists claim that the 9-mile stretch of road will likely be used to expand tar sands development in the area.
"All the things that need to be in place for tar sands mining [in Trinidad] are in place," Canadian activist Macdonald Stainsby told VICE News. Citing Stainsby, VICE listed other recent developments which point to this, including: "a new power station in the area, a recently upgraded bitumen-oil refinery, a new desalination plant, and business meetings between the Trinidad and Tobago government and Canadian mining companies."
"Of course, I'm prepared to die for this cause," Kublalsingh told Reuters on Friday. Though recently hospitalized in critical condition, Kublalsingh said he is still mentally alert and "spiritually connected."
Earlier this year, Kublalsignh gave a TED Talk on the monetization of natural resources and the "modern investment state" that has driven the development and destruction of key ecosystems locally and globally.
"What's happening in Trinidad and Tobago is of course a microcosm of what's happening internationally, globally," he said. Describing what he called "viral capital coming from your left side" and "viral global warming coming from your right side," Kublalsignh said that this can only lead to "the fragmentation of organic life as we know it on the planet."
"So, what do we do about it?" he asks. Quoting playwright Harold Pinter, Kublalsingh said that when faced with an atrocity, people behave in different ways: some people are just oblivious and go on living normally, some are aware of what's going on but feel they cannot stop it, some people get up and join the atrocity, and some people get up and fight the atrocity.
You can watch his entire presentation below.
An island not for sale: Dr. Wayne Kublalsingh at TEDxPortofSpainWayne Kublalsingh explores the thinning and withering away of organic life. He speaks of the social equations which involves the ...