By Jon Devine, Senior Attorney, Water Program, NRDC

Originally published here

President Trump announced his proposed budget on Thursday. If it were to be adopted by Congress, it would threaten public health and our natural resources enormously. Although this budget is so radical that it has no chance of enactment, it still bears close examination for a couple reasons. First, it provides a window into the values that the Trump administration holds (or, based on this document, lacks). Second, we need to be on guard for attempts to cast the president’s budget as the starting point for discussing the ultimate funding levels, such that Congress seems reasonable by providing more funding than the president would for environmental programs, but cutting them below already-insufficient current levels.

This post examines President Trump’s budget with respect to water programs. I’m sorry to report that it is an unmitigated disaster. It’s no exaggeration to say the administration has declared war on clean water, when one looks at this budget combined with the administration’s rollback of water rules protecting communities from coal mining and its initiation of a scheme to weaken safeguards for a variety of critical water bodies, including streams that feed the drinking water supplies of one in three Americans.

Water Infrastructure Funding: Not What Administration Wants You to Think

Let’s start with the least bad news, as the Trump administration has touted the budget’s alleged “robust funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure.” It is true that the levels that this proposal suggests for EPA’s clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure funds are roughly the same as in recent years.But focusing only on that budget item would be a big mistake, for several reasons.

First, the recent level of investment is woefully inadequate to address the nation’s infrastructure needs; the American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave America’s wastewater and drinking water infrastructure D and D+ grades, respectively. Second, the budget proposes to cut nearly half a billion dollars from a Department of Agriculture program that supports improvements to water and wastewater services for small rural communities, meaning the federal commitment to water systems actually would be cut. Third, if one looks at keeping these popular programs steady in context of EPA’s entire proposed budget, it means even deeper cuts to agency functions like enforcement, scientific research, and policy development, as my colleague John Walke recently noted.

Agency Staffing: Killing Effective Protections by Dumping Personnel

From that inauspicious start, the president’s budget goes far downhill. Perhaps most strikingly, the overall agency budget cut would, the administration estimates, “result in approximately 3,200 fewer positions at the agency.”

These “positions” are people – public servants with expertise in pollution control and cleanup technologies, environmental monitoring, law enforcement, public health impacts of exposure to contaminants, and more. Tossing them off the agency payroll would mean delays in updating health standards for swimming and fishing in surface waters and for drinking water; it would mean fewer major pollution sources being inspected and more illegal dischargers escaping enforcement; and it would mean less information about the condition of the nation’s waters.

Short-Changing State Water Programs

Not satisfied with cutting the heart out of the federal government’s ability to implement public safeguards, the Trump budget also proposes to make a 45 percent cut to the “categorical grants” which enable state-run water protection programs to operate effectively.

Ordinarily, state and federal pollution control officials’ work acts in a complementary way. States issue most discharge permits for industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants and develop standards water bodies should meet. These and other state actions are subject to EPA oversight and, often, approval. With these cuts, however, both the states and EPA would be starved for basic operating resources.

The categorical state grants in the EPA budget, and subject to major cuts, include:

Public water system supervision – these funds support state drinking water programs, which give technical assistance to utilities, collect and share sampling information with the public, and enforce against violating systems, among other actions.
“Non-point” pollution management – EPA provides grants to states to implement control programs for “non-point” sources of water pollution, like agricultural runoff, which are often poorly controlled but which also can be significant contributors to water bodies’ degradation. According to EPA, “[i]n 2014 there were an additional 11.3 million pounds of nitrogen, 2.7 million pounds of phosphorus, and 1.7 million tons of sediment reduced from nonpoint sources.” Across the country, states have used these funds for projects to restore or improve waters impaired by non-point pollution, resulting in numerous “success stories.”
Wetlands program development – states use these funds for wetland condition assessments, to set water quality standards for wetlands, for voluntary restoration efforts, and to run programs by which states review discharges into wetlands to ensure state standards will not be violated. These grants also support “the Five-Star Restoration Program with other partners. Under this program, approximately 45 to 50 grants will be awarded to provide technical support and opportunities for information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects while bringing together students, conservation corps, other youth groups, citizen groups, corporations, landowners, and government agencies to provide environmental education and training through projects that restore wetlands, streams, and coasts.”
Surface water quality management programs – states use these funds to operate their day-to-day pollution control programs. This enables states to issue permits to discharge, in accordance with industry-specific pollution limits and water body-based quality standards. States also use this support to develop cleanup targets for polluted waters and evaluate the condition of waterways in their states.

This approach – gutting state implementation capacity while also killing EPA’s operations – gives the lie to new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s common refrain that the agency under his leadership will protect water resources while also empowering states. In fact, the Trump administration clearly intends to do neither. This budget, again in combination with the early policy moves the administration has made, reveals that the plan is really just to make drastic reductions in environmental implementation and enforcement.

Geographic Programs: Abandoning National Commitment to Great Waters

To make matters worse, the Trump administration’s budget zeroes out restoration programs for some of the nation’s most iconic water bodies. The federal government serves as a critical partner in efforts to restore several important watersheds, but this budget would have the country shirk these responsibilities, and leave these water bodies’ health to the various states. This approach endangers multi-year, multi-state cleanup initiatives, running the risk that years of investments from numerous stakeholders could be wasted.

Great Lakes: The budget’s irresponsibility starts with the Great Lakes. Though the federal government invested $300 million in the Great Lakes in fiscal year 2016, the Trump administration proposes to spend nothing on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. To give a sense of what that means on the ground in the watershed, just have a look at what EPA said just last year, when the Obama administration asked Congress to provide a quarter of a billion dollars for the initiative. Here’s a partial list of what EPA, together with various partners and leveraging funds from different sources, helped accomplish:

“Over 3.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment has been remediated through GLRI-associated projects.”
“GLRI partners implemented invasive species control activities on over 100,000 acres.”
“GLRI has been central to the Administration’s coordinated efforts to keep self-sustaining populations of silver, bighead, and black carp out of the Great Lakes.”
“Over 1 million acres of agricultural land in the Great Lakes watershed were put into conservation contracts to reduce erosion and loadings of nutrients and/or pesticides.”
“More than 3,800 river-miles have been cleared for fish passage.”
“More than 150,000 acres of wetland, coastal, upland, and island habitat have been protected, restored, or enhanced.”
“For the first time, 100 percent of U.S. Great Lakes coastal wetlands have been assessed.”
“Projects were implemented that lead to 15 populations of native aquatic non-threatened and non-endangered species becoming self-sustaining in the wild.”

Disinvesting from these kinds of programs is not exactly the treatment the nation’s crown jewel water bodies deserve.

Chesapeake Bay: For decades, the approach of leaving the Chesapeake Bay’s fate to the individual states failed people throughout the watershed, including the approximately 13 million people who get drinking water supplied by tributaries to the Bay and the commercial seafood industry that relies on a healthy Bay.

The Bay’s health has slowly improved, however, as states have begun to implement the Chesapeake Bay cleanup blueprint EPA and watershed states established in 2010. The blueprint, as EPA explains, “is designed to ensure all nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution control efforts needed to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025, with controls, practices, and actions in place by 2017 that would achieve 60 percent of the necessary pollution reductions.”

Despite the progress brought on by the state-federal collaboration, the Bay fares no better than the Great Lakes under President Trump’s budget. It too gets nothing, meaning there would be no federal funds next year to help ensure the implementation of the blueprint. Federal funding through EPA provides support for individual projects aimed at reducing the pollutants that threaten the Bay and its tributaries, such as municipal improvements to manage polluted urban runoff. EPA also tracks state progress in implementing their cleanup plans, and exercises an important oversight and backstop function if states don’t keep up.

Other Geographic Programs: In addition to singling out the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, the proposed budget says that the administration intends to eliminate funding for “other geographic programs.” It’s unclear whether that includes all such programs, but if so, it would affect federal investments for restoration efforts in San Francisco Bay, Long Island Sound, the Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound, South Florida, Lake Champlain, and a handful of other important resources.

Hurting Under-served Areas

The administration’s budget inexplicably would eliminate two small programs targeted to aid disadvantaged communities.

First, the budget targets a program providing water infrastructure assistance for Alaska Rural and Native Villages. That program, EPA has explained, helps provide “critical basic drinking water and sanitation infrastructure in vulnerable rural and native Alaska communities,” ones which “lack such services disproportionately when compared to the rest of the country.” The program has helped lower waterborne disease and health care costs “through the reduction of exposure to raw sewage and drinking water contaminants.”

Second, the budget would slash a program under which federal funds support improvements in drinking water and sanitation in communities near the U.S.-Mexico border. According to EPA, “[s]ince 2003, the program has provided approximately 65,600 homes with first time access to safe drinking water and more than 626,000 homes with first time access to wastewater collection/treatment.”

In addition, the program assists with targeted improvements – such as upgrades to wastewater plants discharging to north-flowing rivers – south of the border when doing so will address water quality needs in the United States. The administration did not explain why it thinks these projects don’t warrant federal support, and it’s hard to imagine how it could, given the program’s achievements:

The EPA investments in these wastewater projects are protecting public health from waterborne diseases and have been a key factor in significant water quality improvements in U.S. waterbodies, such as the Rio Grande (Texas and New Mexico), Santa Cruz River (Arizona), New River (California), and Tijuana River and Pacific Ocean (California). In both the New River and the middle Rio Grande, for example, fecal coliform levels have dropped by over 80 percent (as a result of jointly-funded wastewater treatment plants built in Mexicali and Ojinaga, Mexico, respectively). California beaches in the border region that were once closed throughout the year due to wastewater pollution from Mexico now remain open throughout the summer, resulting in decreased health risks to beachgoers and an economic benefit for local governments. The Santa Cruz River now supports a healthy fish population where a few years ago only bloodworms thrived.

Dear Administrator Pruitt:

On behalf of our millions of supporters, we write to provide our perspective on your avowed intention to eliminate the important federal safeguards included in the 2015 Clean Water Rule — a process initiated when President Trump signed Executive Order 13,778 on February 28. We seek your commitment to carry out any such rulemaking in a way that is at least as deliberate, inclusive, and protective of vital waterways as the Clean Water Rule process was and that is based in sound science.

In contrast to the extensive and inclusive process that led to the Clean Water Rule, the administration reportedly plans a hasty rulemaking without meaningful public participation. We are dismayed by reports that the agency intends to provide very little time for stakeholder engagement before proposing to undermine the Clean Water Rule’s protections and for official public comment on the proposal. And we especially fear the damage that a final rule would inflict on the nation’s waterways if, as Executive Order 13,778 forecasts, it relies on a legal test that a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court rejected and that would weaken the federal rules so that they protect fewer resources than they have in several decades.

Read the rest of the letter.

Wherein Environmental, Conservation, and Community Groups comment on President Trumps FY 2018 Budget Proposal

Clean Water Action

Irresponsible and Destructive

Washington, DC – Today the White House released President Trump’s full budget proposal for FY 2018. The full budget proposal is similar to the outline released in March. This proposal reduces the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 31.4%, which will severely hamper the agency’s ability to protect clean water and public health or enforce landmark laws like the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. Members of Congress declared the budget outline in March “dead on arrival” and condemned the draconian cuts to programs that help states and cities clean up vital estuaries like Chesapeake Bay, waters like the Great Lakes, and more.

Clean Water Action President Bob Wendelgass released the following statement in response.

“After near universal condemnation of the reckless ‘skinny’ budget outline in March, the President doubled down on a terrible and mean budget that eviscerates the safety net and guts the programs we rely on to protect clean water and public health. Despite all his talk about improving infrastructure, the budget undermines drinking water programs by slashing programs that protect source water and gutting funding for pollution control and enforcement activities. The only people who benefit from this proposal are the wealthy, whose taxes will be lowered on the backs of the poor and sick, and corporate polluters who will be able to act with impunity, putting profits before public health and clean water.”

“The only responsible thing for Congress to do is reject this budget. But that doesn’t get them off the hook. Congress can’t allow us to return to the hard sequester spending caps that have strangled programs that safeguard public health and protect clean water at EPA and other agencies. Congress must lead the way, put their constituents before their campaign donors, and pass a budget with the funding necessary to help us put drinking water first.”

“Sadly, if the first 6 months of this Congress is any indication, instead of rejecting this budget outright, Republican leadership is most likely going to try to pass a slightly less draconian version of President Trump’s proposal. We can’t allow that. We need members of Congress to join us and demand a budget that puts people before profits and provides the funding needed to enhance the safety net, protect clean water, and safeguard public health.”

###

Since our founding during the campaign to pass the landmark Clean Water Act in 1972, Clean Water Action has worked to win strong health and environmental protections by bringing issue expertise, solution-oriented thinking and people power to the table. We will protect clean water in the face of attacks from a polluter friendly Administration and Congress.

___________________________________

American Rivers

Trump Administration’s Budget Cuts Put Clean Water, Rivers at Risk

Washington, DC — Threats to the nation’s clean drinking water supplies are in the spotlight this week, as President Trump is proposing massive budget cuts to clean water and river restoration efforts.

President Trump’s budget proposal includes deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, proposing to cut the agency by almost one third by slashing funding for vital environmental initiatives including EPA’s enforcement and compliance program for bedrock environmental laws.

The budget eliminates funding for regional restoration efforts, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Chesapeake Bay Program, each of which provide resources to states and communities trying to restore and protect the rivers that flow into these iconic waterways.

The budget also slashes funds for all National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants and programs supporting coastal and marine management, research and education. These programs support river restoration, scientific research, and fisheries recovery which are essential to communities that care about their rivers.

The Trump Budget also virtually eliminates the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) which allows the Interior Department and the Forest Service to expand access to public lands. Incredibly, the Trump Budget eliminates the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program at the Federal Emergency Management Agency which helps communities prepare for disasters such as hurricanes, tornados and floods.

Bob Irvin, President of American Rivers, made the following statement:

“In terms that President Trump will understand, his budget is a loser. The President’s budget proposal is an attack on our clean drinking water supplies and the rivers that are vital to the health, economy and quality of life of communities nationwide. Unfortunately, it is the
American people, and the rivers and clean water we treasure, that will pay the price if this budget is adopted by Congress.”

“We need to take care of the rivers that take care of us. Congress has a responsibility to toss this reckless proposal and craft a budget that ensures communities get the clean water safeguards they need. Americans must call their Members of Congress and insist they reject the Trump Budget.”

“As the nation’s voice for rivers, American Rivers will continue to fight to safeguard the rivers and streams that connect us all, and to protect clean drinking water for American families and future generations.”

###

May 25, 2017

Contacts:

Michael Kelly, Clean Water Action: 202-393-5449, mkelly@cleanwater.org

Amy Kober, American Rivers:  503-708-1145, akober@americanrivers.org

Rob Friedlander, Earthjustice:  202-797-5249, rfriedlander@earthjustice.org

John Rumpler, Environment America:  617 747-4306, jrumpler@environmentamerica.org

Milly Hawk Daniel, PolicyLink: 212-502-6492, mdaniel@policylink.org

Trey Pollard, Sierra Club: 202- 495-3058, trey.pollard@sierraclub.org

Washington, DC – Just before the second anniversary of the Obama administration’s most significant water pollution control initiative – the adoption of the Clean Water Rule – the Trump administration’s assault on public safeguards put America’s water resources more at risk than they have been in well over a generation, according to environmental, conservation, equity-focused, and community organizations. The groups marked the anniversary of the Clean Water Rule and contrasted that achievement with the Trump Administration’s planned rollback of vital protections for water and health and its proposed budget cuts to important clean water programs. They noted that the Trump administration is wildly out of step with the public, pointing out that recent polls show that concern about drinking water is as high as it has ever been and the Americans want environmental protection to be prioritized.

“When it comes to the environment, everything President Trump has done in his first four months in office has been focused on one thing – putting polluters’ interests before public health and clean water. Repealing the Clean Water Rule and the cuts in the budget are part of this assault, said Bob Wendelgass, President and CEO of Clean Water Action. “We don’t get clean water by gutting protections for streams and wetlands. We can’t support small businesses by putting the infrastructure they rely on at risk of destruction. We won’t protect public health by ignoring science.”

The Clean Water Rule, finalized two years ago, strengthens protections for the drinking water sources for more than 117 million Americans. EPA took years to develop the Rule. The Rule received more than one million public comments, the vast majority of which were supportive. EPA held more than 400 meetings with stakeholders across the country and published a synthesis of more than 1200 peer-reviewed scientific publications which showed that the small streams and wetlands the Rule safeguards are vital to larger downstream waters.

“Without the Clean Water Rule’s critical protections, innumerable small streams and wetlands that are essential for drinking water supplies, flood protection, and fish and wildlife habitat will be vulnerable to unregulated pollution, dredging and filling,” said Bob Irvin, President of American Rivers.

Despite the broad public support and overwhelming science supporting the Clean Water Rule, industry groups and several states sued to stop the Rule. Before becoming EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt led one of the lawsuits as Oklahoma Attorney General. The Clean Water Rule is on hold while that litigation plays out, leaving the drinking water supplies for 1 in 3 Americans at risk of pollution or destruction.

The Trump administration intends to make things significantly worse by repealing the Clean Water Rule and then issuing a far less protective rule, one that would cut the heart out of the Clean Water Act. While the Clean Water Rule took roughly four years to develop, propose, and finalize, Administrator Pruitt wants to propose and finalize the new rule in less than a year. This will mean less time for meaningful consideration and public engagement.

“Even as millions of Americans look forward to swimming and fishing this summer, President Trump has just proposed to wipe out funding for vital clean water programs across the country,” said Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America. “Congress should reject this extreme proposal and pass a budget that reflects the overwhelming bipartisan support for protecting our rivers, lakes, bays, and beaches.”

“No one should believe Trump’s rhetoric on clean water. Among the first things he did in office were decimate laws protecting vulnerable streams and the drinking water for 1 in every 3 Americans. Now, he’s proposing a budget that slashes funds for enforcing clean water rules by nearly a third, putting the profits of polluters before the health of our families and the availability of clean, reliable water that’s necessary for business, recreation, and health,” said Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Beyond the Clean Water Rule, President Trump and Administrator Pruitt are putting our water at risk in other ways. The Trump administration’s budget for 2018 proposes drastic cuts to EPA, reducing its budget by almost a third and cutting more than 3,000 staff positions.  These cuts will impact every program within the Agency. Some programs, like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Program and other regional programs, will be cut entirely.

“Low-income communities and communities of color facing extreme water insecurity—from deteriorating water systems, chemical and toxic exposures, exorbitant water costs, and climate change-induced flooding or droughts—rely on full funding of these EPA programs to restore their communities and families to health through clean water,” aid Kalima Rose, Vice President for Strategic Initiatives for PolicyLink.

“President Trump’s EPA budget shows where his true priorities lie – with polluting industries rather than the health of American families. Since he was on the campaign trail, President Trump has asserted his desire for ’crystal clear water for all’ yet his actions since taking the oath of office show the opposite. We need a budget and safeguards that reflect the growing concerns about water quality across the nation, not a wholesale assault on bedrock environmental protections,” said Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice.

EPA efforts to protect public health and drinking water should be based on sound research and science. Ensuring that EPA has the funding to protect drinking water is vital. Cuts to EPA’s budget will harm this vital research and impact EPA’s ability to make sound decisions to protect health and water.

###

Today President Trump’s EPA announced a draft proposal to repeal the Clean Water Rule. The Clean Water Rule, finalized in 2015, protects the streams and wetlands that feed the drinking water sources for 1 in 3 Americans. Responses to this irresponsible and dangerous proposal, from environmental, conservation, equity-focused, public health, and community groups, follow.

Clean Water Action – Trump Administration Action Will Put Water at Risk to Benefit Polluters

This was originally posted here.

The Bloom Begins

It was a hot, sunny day and Steve Carpenter couldn’t believe the view from his second-floor office on the shoreline of Lake Mendota. As far out as he could see from his perch in the Hasler Laboratory for Limnology – west to the UW-Madison Rowing team’s boat house and east all the way to the Edgewater Hotel and James Madison Park – the calm, still water looked just like teal-blue paint.

Boaters head up the Yahara River during a blue-green algae bloom. Photo: Tyler Tunney

It was a massive bloom of toxic blue-green algae and “it is the worst one I’ve seen in a long time,” says Carpenter, director of the UW-Madison’s Center for Limnology. “It’s been many, many years since I’ve seen one this bad.”

In fact, the bloom that hit Madison last Friday, June 16^th, was one of the largest blooms to mar Mendota’s shoreline since the summers of 1993 and 1994, he says.

Like this summer, those summers were also marked by “classic” conditions for an algae bloom. Lake Mendota sits in a landscape dominated by agriculture. And some elements of this agriculture, especially the manure produced by dairy operations and synthetic fertilizers used to help corn and soybeans grow, is loaded with phosphorus. This wouldn’t be a huge problem if things would just stay where they’re put.

But this spring and early summer has been marked by not only higher-than-average rainfall (we’re about 35% above normal precipitation levels) but also by intense storm events of 2 inches or more of rain.

All of this rain, especially the “gullywashers,” carry tons of phosphorus-laden soil into nearby creeks and streams, where it eventually ends up in our lakes and is just as good at growing algae as it is soybeans.

Then the weather got warm. 

“So we had perfect conditions for blue greens because they like it warmer than other algae and they grow fast in warm water,” Carpenter says. As soon as it got hot, “we had this incredible spin up of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in the lake surface water and then the wind stopped, and these kinds of algae are buoyant and they just floated to the top in this awful scum.”

Fish Kills and Human-Health Hazards

Walleye, panfish and crayfish were just some of the organisms killed in the bloom. Photo: Tyler Tunney

Driven by currents and winds, that scum eventually made its way to Tenney Park, where the Yahara River carries water from Lake Mendota across Madison and into Lake Monona.  By Saturday, the locks at Tenney Park, which allow boaters to move between the two lakes, were sending a frothy cascade of water downstream, adding a white foam to the disturbingly blue-green tint and causing problems far beyond aesthetics.

Fish at the surface, gulping air and trying to escape the bloom. Photo: Tyler Tunney

Tyler Tunney, a post-doctoral researcher at the Center for Limnology, stood on a bridge spanning the narrow waterway and looked down in disbelief.

“There were dead fish on the surface of the river and others visibly struggling, swimming in erratic circles and literally jumping out of the water,” he recalls. “And it was species like bluegill and other panfish you don’t normally see behaving that way.”

When Tyler went down to investigate he found bodies of fish – from walleye and bluegill to pike and carp – beginning to pile up along the riverbank while crayfish crawled out of the water and died.

He also saw anglers out in their boats nonchalantly casting lines into the water.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in addition to wildlife impacts, blue-green algae blooms can cause a host of human and pet health problems when they are ingested through swallowing water or come in contact with the skin or, in some cases, are inhaled by boaters or water skiers as they speed through a bloom.

Different species of algae can produce different types of toxins with different types of risks  – some cause inconveniences like skin rashes or diarrhea, others can lead to liver damage, seizures or paralysis.

Even though Public Health Madison & Dane County has posted signs in advance of Friday’s bloom and despite the news reports of the bloom hitting the airwaves Friday evening, by Saturday morning people were out enjoying their local waterways.

“When the swim advisory signs first popped up along beaches and the UW Memorial Union, people avoided the water,” Tunney says. “Then, by Friday, in the middle of the bloom, people were at out on their paddleboards and, on Saturday, I was watching people fish as fish were literally flailing at the surface of the water.”

The aftermath, dozens of species and thousands of fish killed. Photo: Jake Vander Zanden

To be clear, most algae-induced fish kills occur because of a lack of oxygen, not poisonous toxins. When the huge amounts of algae die and begin to decompose, the microbes doing the decomposing use up a lot of oxygen and produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Eventually fish can’t pull enough oxygen out of the water and try to head to safer waters.

“You would think turbulence of the locks would help [aerate the water],” says Carpenter.

It’s unusual for moving water to get so oxygen depleted that it can’t support fish but, he says, we saw it with our own eyes. “Not only were the fish dying. Crayfish were dying. Other aquatic invertebrates were dying. Basically the Yahara became a dead zone.”

Sign of the Times?

Blue-green stew. CFL professor, Emily Stanley, scooped this sample of the bloom from our pier on Friday. Photo: Emily Stanley

Unfortunately, no one here at the Center for Limnology was taking dissolved oxygen readings in the Yahara River last weekend, so we can’t say exactly how the algae bloom killed the fish. It could also have been toxin or even bacteria-related.

Peter Lisi, another Center for Limnology post-doctoral researcher has been monitoring temperate in the Yahara River and, by Monday, was plotting out his data back in Hasler Lab. Over the weekend, his probes recorded temperatures in the river up near 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest they’ve been this year.  While those temperatures alone weren’t causing a fish kill, they certainly aided the warm-water loving algae as it made its way downstream.

“Lake outlets, like the Yahara River, are a reflection of what is happening ‘upstream’ in a lake,” Lisi says. “What happened in Mendota is we had a big bloom and it blew out the outlet and conditions got too harsh for fish.“

Whatever the mechanism behind the fish kills, it’s safe to say that blue-green algae blooms aren’t good for the health of our lakes – or those of us that love them. And there are many parts of this puzzle that are already known.

The primary driver behind algae blooms in our lakes is agricultural runoff. If we’re ever going to fix our phosphorus problem, we’re going to have to start using less of it and help farmers keep more of it on their fields.

“Despite all of the work we’ve done, we’ve still got a tremendous amount of manure on the land and phosphorus in the soil and when we get these unusually high precipitation events, that material can just wash into the lake,” says Carpenter.

Courtesy GLISA

Unfortunately, these “unusually high precipitation events” are getting a lot more common, driven by our warming climate.

And days like last Friday, which hit a recorded high of 86 degrees Fahrenheit, nearly ten degrees over the historical average, will also become more common.

This isn’t “theoretical” or based on “unproven models” as members of Wisconsin’s legislature still routinely claim to the press. Warmer average temperatures have been documented and observed. And more frequent and intense rain events are a reality. We’re already living with climate change.

And, here in Madison, we’re also now living with invasive species like the zebra mussel, which is known to promote blue-green algae growth.

Take together, all of these changes indicate that, if we can’t get our phosphorus under control, Madison is due for a lot more algae blooms in its future. And a lot more fish kills.

“This is likely not a one off,” says Carpenter. “Particularly if it gets hot again. That was probably just the summer’s first heat wave.”

From aquatic insects to crayfish to fish to this young duckling, the bloom spared very little that was in its path. Photo: Jake Vander Zanden

Originally published here

Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that district courts across the country — not the circuit courts–should be the first to hear the merits of cases regarding the 2015 Clean Water Rule. In 2015, the Sixth Circuit stayed the Clean Water Rule nationwide. Pending the outcome of litigation in the district courts, yesterday’s decision potentially opens the door to implementation of the 2015 Clean Water Rule.

TU strongly supported the Clean Water Rule in 2015 as it clarified that federal Clean Water Act protections apply to smaller tributary streams that may flow intermittently. Such streams comprise over 60 percent of all stream miles in America and provide crucial spawning and rearing habitat for salmon, steelhead and trout and drinking water for one-third of Americans.

In 2017, the EPA moved to “repeal” the Clean Water Rule, and signaled that it would “replace” the Rule with an interpretation that might eliminate clean water protections for intermittent and seasonal streams.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a reminder that this issue is far from resolved, and that sportsmen and women must stay actively engaged to ensure that our waterways are protected. Whether this issue is ultimately resolved in courts, in Congress, or by the Administration, it is important for the federal government to get it right. Clean water is the most basic requirement of trout and salmon, and the people who fish for them. Gravity works cheap, and it never takes a day off. To be effective, the Clean Water Act must be able to require permits for polluting activities in headwaters and wetlands that flow downstream through communities to our major lakes, rivers and bays. The Clean Water Rule is based on well-established science, legal precedent and reasonable exemptions for agricultural producers as land stewards, and we expect the courts will eventually uphold its substance.

Trout Unlimited will continue to defend clean water wherever it is threatened. The Administration can try to change direction on this Rule but they cannot change the fact that clean water is a basic right and expectation of every American. The Clean Water Rule does a good job of protecting our country’s waters while respecting private property rights. Hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women around the country support water quality protections for our trout streams and water sources, and regulatory certainty for water users and landowners—and we expect the Administration, the courts, and Congress, to do the same.

— Chris Wood

“This action is unwise, harms the public, and violates the law. We will challenge the administration in court and look forward to defending clean water for families and communities.”

• Bob Irvin, American Rivers

“This outrageous delay threatens the livelihoods of families, businesses, and communities that rely on streams, wetlands, and the drinking water sources the Clean Water Rule is meant to protect.”

• Bob Wendelgass, Clean Water Action

“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is racing the clock to deny protections for our public health and safety. It’s grossly irresponsible, and illegal—and we’ll challenge it in court.”

• Jon Devine, NRDC

“The Trump Administration is playing politics with our drinking water. By attempting to delay the Clean Water Rule, the agency is one step closer to repealing the rule altogether.”

• Janette Brimmer, Earthjustice

Scott Pruitt’s delay of the Clean Water Rule is another galling attack on the clean water our families and communities depend on.

• Madeleine Foote, LCV

“Today’s action is an unlawful attack on the drinking water of more than 100 million Americans. Once again, the administration has defied administrative law by ramming a fatally-flawed rule through in a matter of weeks with no meaningful opportunity for public comment and no rational basis for the delay.”

• Colin O’Mara, National Wildlife Federation

Sara Schwartz

By: Sara Schwartz, Science Network Mentor Program Participant, The Union of Concerned Scientists

When news of the Flint water crisis broke headlines, 21 million people across the country relied on water systems that violated health standards. Unsurprisingly, low-income communities, minority populations, and rural towns disproportionately deal with barriers to safe water. Drinking water challenges are complicated: failing infrastructure, polluted water sources, and inadequate utility management are all part of the problem. A lack of investment in water infrastructure over the last several decades has exacerbated the problem, allowing water systems to become outdated and degraded. Access to safe water is essential for our survival and our economy. Without serious investment in our water infrastructure we will continue to put communities at risk — especially vulnerable communities. As a country we must continue to support existing funding sources for water infrastructure, develop new and innovative funding mechanisms, and more effectively prioritize the water needs of underserved communities.

To be clear, the U.S. as a whole has very good water quality. The 21 million Americans without safe drinking water make up 6% of the country’s population. But this low percentage means nothing to those who can’t turn on their tap to quench their thirst, take a shower, or cook their food. In a country where we can order anything online and have it delivered to our door in a day, delivering safe water to our tap should not be an issue.

There are a host of federal programs already in place to reduce the number of communities without safe water. The EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), the USDA’s Rural Development Water Program, and HUD’s Community Block Grants, provide essential funding to fill gaps in state and local resources. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund alone has helped invest $35.4 billion in water infrastructure projects since 1996. These projects not only replace dilapidated pipes and pumps, they also provide trainings for utility operators, support partnerships that consolidate resources, and hire experts to identify the cause of contamination. These trainings and partnerships are crucial in rural municipalities where water utility operators are commonly residents who volunteer their time. In short, management and maintenance made possible by federal funding increases the longevity of existing water infrastructure.

But how do we know if the communities that need the most help are getting it? In the case of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, states are required to prioritize systems with the highest health risk and the greatest financial need. An EPA database helps states identify which drinking water systems have the highest number of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations, but it does not track whether these communities are considered low-income or disadvantaged because these designations are defined differently by each state.

For communities that can’t afford to take on the debt of a low-interest loan like the ones provided through the DWSRF, grants offer a debt-free alternative. The USDA’s Rural Development Water Program offers about ten types of grants for rural and small communities and tribes. The 2018 Congressional Budget also included a new EPA grant solely for addressing the water needs of disadvantaged communities. In order for these funds to be effective, they need to support long-term solutions rather than short-term “band-aids.” A water focus group within EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee, is helping the agency take a more holistic approach to address the water needs of disadvantaged communities.

Regardless of these efforts, 21 million people are without safe water. From 1982-2015, the number of drinking water violations actually increased. It is unclear what proportion of this increase is due to stricter safety regulations, more polluted waterways, degrading infrastructure, poor management, or a combination of these factors. What we do know is that most of the health violations link back to the pathogen, coliform, and that the communities with the most violations are typically low-income and/or communities of color. A study from the American Water Works Association concluded, “In communities with higher populations of black and Hispanic individuals, SDWA health violations are more common. Importantly this effect is not homogeneous across all utilities: it is in the poorest of communities that race and ethnicity seem to matter most in determining drinking water quality.”

On top of increasing violations, investment in water infrastructure has decreased. An analysis from the Value of Water Campaign shows combined federal investment in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure has declined from 63% of total capital spending to 9% since 1977. State and local governments have also decreased their capital spending on water infrastructure in recent years. The EPA estimates we need to invest 472.6 billion in our drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years in order to maintain and improve our systems. Currently, local, state, and federal capital spending on water infrastructure only meets about one-third of the national need.

A lack of safe drinking water can lead to serious health risks and economic impacts on communities. Exposure to contaminated water can result in gastrointestinal symptoms, neurological disorders, and cancer. Safe water is essential for our health — and if we’re not healthy we can’t work.  Businesses and industries rely on water to support worker productivity and as a raw resource for goods and services. According to the Economic Policy Institute, $188.4 billion spent on water infrastructure investments over five years can yield $265 billion in economic activity  and create 1.9 million jobs.

We need robust investments in our water infrastructure. Despite threats to various water programs during the 2018 budget cycle, appropriations for water infrastructure tended to increase. One success story is the USDA’s Rural Water and Waste Disposal Grants. The President’s Budget planned to eliminate these grants entirely, but instead they received a $500 million increase in the Omnibus Spending Bill. Federal investment in water infrastructure must continue. Communities without safe water can’t afford for political support to waver from election cycle to election cycle.

At the same time, we must understand that more money doesn’t always mean less problems. Water infrastructure projects must be conducted with long-term goals in mind. Federal funds for infrastructure do more than build new systems and replace pipes, both of which are also needed. They support management and maintenance to achieve long-term goals.

The reality is that Flint was not an isolated incident. Communities all over the country struggle to have safe water. There are people working hard to address these issues, but more work is needed. Everyone has a role to play by supporting politicians who prioritize the needs of our failing water systems and the communities that rely on them. Safe water can no longer be a luxury.

Alabama Rivers Alliance * Alliance for the Great Lakes * Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments * American Rivers * BlueGreen Alliance* Cahaba River Society * Center for a Sustainable Coast * Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future * Clean Water Action * Conservation Colorado * Conservation Voters New Mexico * Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania * Earthjustice * Endangered Habitats League* Endangered Species Coalition * Environmental League of Massachusetts * Healing Our Waters- Great Lakes Coalition * League of Conservation Voters* Maryland League of Conservation Voters * Massachusetts River Alliance * Montana Audubon* Montana Conservation Voters * Natural Resources Defense Council * Nevada Conservation League * New Jersey League of Conservation Voters * New York League of Conservation Voters * North Carolina League of Conservation Voters* Ohio Environmental Council * Oregon Environmental Council * Pennsylvania Council of Churches * PolicyLink * Save the River/Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper * Sierra Club * Southern Environmental Law Center * Virginia League of Conservation Voters * Washington Conservation Voters * Washington Environmental Council

May 14, 2018 (download this letter here)

Dear Representative:

Our organizations, along with our millions of members and supporters, urge you to oppose all anti- environmental riders proposed for inclusion in the FY 2019 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, including Section 108 which would repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule.

Section 108 is a radical rider that would eliminate the vital safeguards of the Clean Water Rule for the waters that feed the drinking water of 117 million people and protect streams, headwaters, wetlands and other water bodies that serve as habitat for wildlife, reduce flooding risk, and naturally filter pollution. The dangerous provision would subvert the entire rulemaking process by disregarding public input, including the over 1.5 million comments submitted in support of the Rule and opposing attempts to roll it back.
Additionally, it would ignore the strong scientific foundation for the Rule and would return Clean Water Act jurisdiction to an inconsistent and uncertain regulatory scheme, which stakeholders across the board have said is unworkable. This rider is nothing but an attempt by some in Congress to use the inappropriate venue of the appropriations process to help the administration with their reckless, unpopular, and failing effort to decimate clean water protections.

It’s really this simple: a vote for this rider is a vote against clean water, a vote to expose even more communities to unsafe drinking water, a vote to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act, and a vote to allow polluters to destroy our precious waterways. Enough is enough: it’s time for Congress to stand up to protect clean water.

The Clean Water Rule clarified guaranteed pollution safeguards to a variety of our nation’s waterways, including the small streams that feed the drinking water of one in three people. The Rule was developed in response to requests from stakeholders ranging from states to regulated dischargers to environmental groups to vulnerable communities facing health threats from water pollution. It was developed after years of scientific research and with an open and transparent rulemaking process, including development of a report that analyzed the findings of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications showing the critical functions of headwater, seasonal, and rain-dependent streams and wetlands to drinking water, pollution filtration, groundwater recharging, flood protection, and wildlife habitat.

The rulemaking process ensures that the agencies follow the law and that their actions can be fairly assessed by the courts. This extreme rider would disregard all of that process in favor of the inconsistent and uncertain regulatory scheme that existed before the Rule’s adoption. The EPA and the Army Corps already have the tools they need to reevaluate the Rule, but this dangerous rider would completely erase the 2015 Rule from the books, absolving the administration of a need to justify its repeal process against the backdrop of the strong scientific record and public comments that supported the Rule.
Rather than starting from ground zero as this rider would direct, the agencies should follow the rulemaking process – objectively review the scientific record and the public input on the rulemaking actions, assess what specific parts of the Clean Water Rule they think could be improved, propose targeted amendments that don’t sacrifice important water bodies and that follow the scientific evidence, and seek and incorporate meaningful public input on that proposal.

We all depend upon clean water – for drinking, for the economy, for our health, and for outdoor recreation, including fishing, swimming, paddling and bird watching. But too many of our communities, particularly low-income communities and communities of color, are already disproportionately impacted by contaminated water. It is clear, now more than ever, that we need strong federal safeguards for our water, yet polluters and their allies continue their push to undermine one of our most valuable tools, the Clean Water Rule.

The appropriations process should not be used to roll back fundamental health and environmental safeguards and undermine the rulemaking process. We ask you to stand up for clean water by opposing this radical and dangerous provision to eliminate the Clean Water Rule, and further urge you to oppose all anti-environmental riders in the FY 2019 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Thank you for your consideration,
Alabama Rivers Alliance
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Rivers
BlueGreen Alliance
Cahaba River Society
California League of Conservation Voters
Center for a Sustainable Coast
Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future
Clean Water Action
Conservation Colorado
Conservation Voters New Mexico
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
Earthjustice
Endangered Habitats League
Endangered Species Coalition
Environmental League of Massachusetts
Healing Our Waters- Great Lakes Coalition
League of Conservation Voters
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
Massachusetts River Alliance
Montana Audubon
Montana Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nevada Conservation League
New Jersey League of Conservation Voters
New York League of Conservation Voters
North Carolina League of Conservation Voters
Ohio Environmental Council
Oregon Environmental Council
Pennsylvania Council of Churches PolicyLink
Save the River/Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper
Sierra Club
Southern Environmental Law Center
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington Environmental Council

By Rosemary Enobakhare, Clean Water for All Coalition Director

It seems that we are getting more and more divided by the day. It is getting harder and harder to open Twitter or read the paper.

But when you look deeper, past the latest tweets or the headline of the day, you start to find a lot of agreement. Take drinking water, for example. Poll after poll, year after year, shows that, Americans from across the political spectrum are concerned about our water. These polls show that we expect our elected officials and government agencies to protect drinking water and our other vital water resources. This cuts across the political divide. It doesn’t matter who you voted for — clean water matters.

Except, maybe, to some members of Congress.

Ever since the Obama Administration finalized protections for streams, wetlands, and the drinking water sources for more than 1 in 3 people, too many members of Congress have tried to repeal or weaken these vital protections. They have put the needs of corporate polluters before the priorities of their constituents. They have tried to sneak amendments onto must-pass bills to fund the government. They have tried to use an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act to gut these safeguards. They have tried to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget so it can’t do its work to protect our water. We have beat them back each time.

We need to do it again.

Why? Because, despite Scott Pruitt’s scheme to roll back the Clean Water Rule, Congress is back with not one, not two, but four ‘dirty water’ riders to repeal these protections attached to different bills. The Environmental Protection Agency can repeal the Clean Water Rule if it wants to — it just has to justify its action with a strong scientific foundation and ground it in the law. The agency then has to accept public comment on the repeal. But EPA knows that people overwhelmingly support the Clean Water Rule and will oppose any repeal. Therefore, following the legal process would leave the repeal vulnerable to a court challenge. Some members of Congress are trying to do Pruitt’s dirty work for him, instead.

There is a lot at stake. Too many communities throughout the country already have trouble accessing safe drinking water. The last thing we need to do is potentially expose even more people to unsafe water by giving polluters a free pass for activities that potentially put streams, wetlands, and drinking water in jeopardy. But that is exactly what repealing the Clean Water Rule could do. We can’t afford that. Wetlands are essential parts of our water infrastructure, filtering groundwater and protecting communities from flooding. We’re losing them at an alarming rate. This extreme legislation will result in a free pass for activities that damage or destroy wetlands across the country, pollute drinking water and increasing flooding risks.

The bottom line is this: you’re either for clean water or you’re not. You stand with people across the country to safeguard drinking water sources or you want to protect the profits of special interests and corporate polluters. We’re going to learn a lot about who Congress thinks they work for with these votes.

By Rob Moore

Originally published here

Over the next few decades, the United States is facing a $1 trillion shortfall in water infrastructure funding. To close this gap, more federal funding is needed. States could be doing much more to leverage federal funding they already have received through their Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs).

Go Back to the Well, a report released by NRDC, finds that states are missing the opportunity to generate new funding through their existing SRF programs, through the use of more innovative financing practices. As a result, states are failing to provide all the funding that’s possible to ensure safe, reliable, and resilient water infrastructure.

EPA estimates that $745 billion is needed just to meet and maintain existing public health and environmental standards (the $745 billion includes estimates for clean water and drinking water). Another $448 to $944 billion will be required to adapt water systems to deal with flooding, sea level rise, droughts, and other impacts of climate change. NRDC has identified four actions federal and state governments can take to help close the nation’s trillion dollar funding gap for water infrastructure.

• Congress should triple appropriations for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF) from the current level of $2 billion to $6 billion annually.
• States should make loan guarantees available to more easily and cheaply finance drinking water, wastewater and stormwater projects.
• States should leverage additional funding for their SRF programs by issuing bonds.
• Congress should allow states that increase the funding of their SRFs to provide additional subsidized assistance in order to meet the needs of low-income communities and catalyze investments in projects that are currently underrepresented in SRF portfolios.

States Are Not Generating Adequate Funding for Water Infrastructure

Congress established the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide states sustainable, long-term financial assistance to support communities’ water infrastructure needs. These funds have provided $151.2 billion in financial assistance since their inception, but their full potential remains untapped by most states.

Go Back to the Well recommends ways that states could more effectively leverage water infrastructure funding through their SRFs using loan guarantees and the sale of bonds.

States have utterly failed to use their ability to issue loan guarantees backed by their SRFs. A loan guarantee serves the same purpose as someone cosigning a loan for an individual—providing a promise to repay the loan if the recipient defaults. SRFs can essentially cosign a community’s loan or bond sale, guaranteeing the debt and eliminating the risk of default for private bondholders. By issuing loan guarantees, SRFs allow communities to secure private financing at a significantly lower cost. The use of loan guarantees has been recognized by the EPA as a best practice.  But to date, only one SRF-backed loan guarantee has been issued in the history of both SRF programs – a single loan guarantee for $24.3 million in New York State (a miniscule 0.15 percent of the $15.5 billion in CWSRF assistance that New York has provided).

States also have the ability to sell bonds and grow the amount of financial assistance they make available to communities, but twenty-two states have done no bonding and most states are doing relatively little. Only a handful of states are making a habit of this strategy for growing their SRFs financial capacity.

For the CWSRF, we found that twenty-eight states have leveraged $43 billion through bond sales since 1987. But 75 percent of all bond revenues come from just nine states: New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Missouri. Through 2015, most other states were sporadically pursuing relatively small amounts of additional financing through bond sales.

The same is true for the DWSRF. Twenty-two states have leveraged $8 billion through bond sales since 1998, with 75 percent of all bond revenues coming from a small number of states: New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Michigan, New Jersey, Indiana, Kansas, and Iowa.  Twenty-eight states have done no bonding and among those that are, most are sporadically pursuing relatively small amounts of funding.

Essentially, the majority of states are managing their SRF programs the way your or I might manage your checking account. Each year, they add up how much EPA gives them plus a small state match, and that’s the amount of assistance they provide communities to fix their drinking water and sewer systems. That approach is not going to cut it and leaves much-needed funding on the sidelines.

Communities desperately need funding in order to maintain and improve their water infrastructure, especially when the impacts of climate change are factored into the equation. Drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems will need to be re-engineered and, in some cases, relocated to cope with the impacts of floods, droughts, and sea level rise.

Because wastewater and drinking water systems are often built near rivers and coastlines, they are vulnerable to floods and sea level rise. Hurricane Sandy inflicted more than $5 billion in damages on wastewater infrastructure when it struck New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in 2012. Hundreds of millions more were spent to make the damaged systems more resilient, and better able to cope with similar storms in the future. Pensacola, Florida spent $300 million to replace and relocate an outdated wastewater treatment plant. The old plant was built on the coastline, where it was vulnerable to storm damage. They put the new plant farther inland where floods and sea level rise are less of a concern.

But there are many more vulnerable systems.  A recent study from the University of California-Berkeley found that 162 sewage plants serving 10.4 million Americans could be inundated by three feet of sea level rise.  With six feet of sea level rise, that climbs to 394 plans serving 31.6 million people. The costs of protecting or relocating all these plants will be enormous.

Go Back to the Well shows the current state of play for state water infrastructure financing through their SRF programs, and also makes recommendations for federal policy changes that could incentivize states to make use of tools like leveraged bonding and loan guarantees to grow their SRF programs’ financial capacity.

Using more creative financial tools, like issuing bonds and using their SRFs to issue loan guarantees, states could greatly expand infrastructure funding. Those increased funds could determine which states and communities are prepared to weather the coming storms.

TCalls on Congress to pass the Bill during the Lame Duck Session 

(Dec. 11, 2018) WASHINGTON D.C. —Trout Unlimited applauded the strong conservation elements of the new Farm Bill unveiled by the House and Senate Conference Committee leaders today.   

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow, House Agriculture Committee Chair Mike Conaway and Ranking Member Collin Peterson, led the way in developing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill which was approved by the Conference Committee today.  

The Farm Bill’s authorization expired on Sept. 30, and conferees had been working hard since then to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The new bill is needed to guide farmers’ planting decisions in the spring, ranchers’ grazing plans, as well as to energize on-the-ground conservation projects conducted by farmers, ranchers, and conservationists nationwide. 

“Following months of hard work, we are delighted to see the conferees finish their work,” said Steve Moyer, vice president for Government Affairs. “We urge swift passage in the House and Senate in the final days of the lame duck session, so that President Trump can sign the bill before the holidays,” said Moyer. 

“For over 50 years, Trout Unlimited has been working with agricultural producers on the twin goals of improving agricultural operations while restoring streams, water quality, and improving fisheries on ranches and farms,” said Laura Ziemer, senior counsel and water policy advisor.  “The new Farm Bills of the past decade have enabled TU to vastly increase the size and scope of our projects, yielding substantial gains for trout and salmon habitat and watershed health across the Nation.” 

“Just in the last four years alone, TU has matched more than $16.5 million in Farm Bill dollars with state and private dollars to carry out projects to make western ranch lands more drought resilient, reduce sediment in streams on midwestern farms, and improve riparian and stream habitat on rural, eastern farms,” said Ziemer. “To get even more of these projects accomplished, and to tackle massive, pressing problems such as drought in the Colorado River basin, we need the tools of the new Farm Bill right now. This Farm Bill has more tools for addressing western drought than any previous Farm Bill.”   

The new bill provides the following benefits: 

• Improves the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), which will allow partners and producers to expand the reach and effectiveness of landscape scale conservation projects, by cutting red tape and increasing flexibility to attract new partners and encourage innovation in restoration and conservation of trout habitat.  

• Makes the workhorse Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP) more effective at remedying western drought by enabling western irrigation districts and canal companies to be eligible for EQIP investments in irrigation infrastructure to conserve water, improve reliability of delivery of irrigation water, and improve watershed health. 

• Provides mandatory funding for the Small Watersheds program, PL-566, at $50 million/year for ten years, and makes it another flexible tool in the Farm Bill toolbox for watershed improvement and western drought remediation. 

“Trout Unlimited has partnered with producers from New Hampshire and West Virginia in the east, Iowa and Wisconsin in the Midwest, Idaho, Colorado and Utah in the Rockies, and to the Klamath and Yakima Basins in Oregon and Washington, to improve agricultural operations and stream health, putting millions of Farm Bill dollars to the ground efficiently and with broad benefits,” said Laura Ziemer, senior water policy adviser for Trout Unlimited. “Provisions in the bill will encourage more partnerships with agricultural producers that benefit ranch and farm operations, promote healthy watersheds, and make water supplies more secure for irrigation and streams nationwide.”   

Other provisions of the conference committee-approved bill are targeted at increasing the pace and scale of restoration on our national forests and protecting America’s public lands. Under the 2014 Farm Bill’s insect and disease treatment program, more than 70 million acres of national forests already have been made eligible for expedited environmental reviews and categorical exclusions. Also, Congress recently approved extensive and widely-supported fire funding and forest management reforms in the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill.  

“Our forestry tool box is pretty well stocked, but with an eye toward providing flexibility and new funding to address forest management, the conference committee-approved bill helps by adding some new, purpose-driven, narrowly-targeted options for land managers,” said Corey Fisher, public land policy director for Trout Unlimited. “We need more stakeholder involvement and partnership building to gain broad support for critical forest management decisions, and the conference bill does a good job of enhancing collaborative management of our public lands.” 

The forestry title builds on America’s public land heritage in several ways: 

• Reauthorization and increased funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.  

• Bi-partisan measures that will help to restore sage grouse and mule deer habitat.  
• Provisions that will foster collaborative projects to protect and restore priority watersheds on national forests. 
• Ensuring that streamlined environmental reviews to combat insect and disease include sideboards that are science-based and provide for meaningful public involvement.    
• Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System in Tennesee.    

“Now it is time to get the bill passed and signed into law,” said Moyer. “We thank and commend the savvy leadership of the conferees, and we now urge leadership of both chambers to shepherd the bill through Congress and on to the President’s desk.” 

#     #     # 

Trout Unlimited is the nation’s oldest and largest coldwater fisheries conservation organization dedicated to conserving, protecting and restoring North America’s trout and salmon and their watersheds. Follow TU on Facebook and Twitter, Instagram and our blog for all the latest information on trout and salmon conservation.