[ad_1]
California lawmakers are proposing legislation aimed at reestablishing the state’s creek and wetland protection measures in response to a Supreme Court decision restricting federal clean water regulations.
Supporters say the law has increased urgency as the Trump administration began to reduce protections for many streams and wetlands, making it vulnerable to pollution and deterioration in water quality.
“We’re a sought-after surge in the world,” stated Sen. Ben Allen, who introduced the bill, said: “It’s about protecting our water supplies, a common sense measure that simply restores the protection that waterways have always enjoyed since 1948.”
Federal standards have limited pollution emissions to waterways since 1948. Such standards became a central part of the federal Cleanwater Act, adopted in 1972.
In the Sackett vs. EPA, the Supreme Court held in 2023 that clean water protection would not apply to many wetlands and ephemeral streams. The court held that the law’s protection against “US water” applies only to wetlands and streams connected directly to navigable waterways.
The decision was supported by developers and groups representing the agriculture industry. The agricultural industry says the EPA has surpassed its authority by restricting the development of the land by private property owners.
California officials and clean water advocates refute the rollback of protection puts critical water sources and ecosystems in the arid west.
“It should be perceived as not just a threat to water quality, but also a threat to the overall quality of life and, frankly, to our nation,” said Rep. Ash Kala, co-author of the bill. Kara said the court’s ruling “deprived federal protections from many of our most precious wetlands and streams.
This bill, SB 601, restores previous protections of California wetlands and streams by requiring permission to discharge pollution from businesses and construction projects. The measure calls for state standards that meet or exceed regulations previously implemented during the Biden administration.
“It was a system that worked well,” Allen said. “We have to step up.”
The law said it would effectively roll back the clock and “ensure a new framework in state law” before the court’s decision to maintain protection. Under the bill entitled The Right to Crean Water Act, the state’s Water Resources Management Board will be tasked with implementing and enforcing the rules.
Cor presides the rest of the snorkeling pool on the dry Kern River at Bakersfield.
(Gary Kazanzian / due to the era)
“It’s important to protect the waterways in the same way our state has had over the last 50 years,” said Shawn Boswell, executive of the California Coast Keeper Alliance, a group that supports the law.
He called the Supreme Court’s decision a false statement, saying it was biased towards wet East Coast climate waterways and did not fit into the reality of California, where many streams flow only when rain falls.
“Our Mediterranean climate doesn’t allow us to flow forever through our rivers and streams, and the streams that flow through them,” Boswell said. “What this bill does is maintain the protections that Californians enjoyed.”
The law is being debated in Sacramento, but the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has begun to amend the so-called waters of U.S. regulations to introduce regulations in line with the Supreme Court decision.
Announcing plans for a regulatory rollback last week, the EPA said that agencies acting alongside the Army Corps of Engineers will “moves quickly to ensure that the revised definition follows the law, reduce red tape, reduce overall permit costs, and reduce the costs of doing business.” The EPA said it would begin the review by seeking opinions from stakeholders.
“We want clean water for all Americans supported by clear and consistent rules,” EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said in the announcement. He said earlier versions of the rules “put an unfair burden on Americans and took away the costs of their business.”
The EPA has also announced plans to roll back more than 20 other regulations that environmentalists say will significantly harm the country’s progress in dealing with air and water pollution.
Bothwell said the new EPA rules, once adopted, may go beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling and make it “already cleaner.”
Without state law, the combination of court decisions and Trump administration’s regulations would leave many wetlands without seasonal streams and clean water behavioural protections, he said.
“We can no longer rely on the federal government to protect and provide clean, affordable water,” Boswell said.
State officials and environmental advocates say strong protection for those remaining is essential as about 90% of California’s wetlands have already been drained and destroyed.
Whether conservation measures are in place can affect the state’s aquatic ecosystem. There are around 4,000 freshwater species in California, and researchers at the California Institute of Public Policy Research said in a report last year that there is no protection for many species that are being threatened.
“Our water is connected. Freshwater ecosystems, groundwater aquifers, rivers, wetlands and other waterways are all interconnected,” says Ashley Overhouse, a water policy advisor to advocates for wildlife nonprofits.
She said that if pollution flows into wetlands or rivers, the effects on endangered species and water quality can be widespread and could harm ecosystems that are also suffering from climate change effects.
The bill “provides clarity and efficient protection for the nation at a time of regulatory and political uncertainty,” Overhaus said.
The ultimate goal is to ensure a future where clean and healthy water is guaranteed for all communities and all wildlife.
[ad_2]Source link
