Trump and Conservatives Lead Attack on Clean Water
President Donald Trump, Republicans, and conservatives at the Supreme Court are escalating a decades-long assault on clean water protections. Through deregulations and cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency, Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and bills in Congress, conservatives are systematically eroding rules that have successfully granted Americans clean water.
These changes fit into a wider attack on environmental protections by the Trump administration that serve to benefit major polluters and industry. Reduced protections for clean water will affect all Americans, but particularly in low-income communities, communities of color, and rural communities.
'It's a callous disregard for how these actions impact people and their access to safe water,' Mary Grant, Public Water for All Campaign Director at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, tells Rolling Stone.
In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said he will look to significantly reduce a significant portion of the waterways, such as wetlands, rivers, and streams, that are protected under the Clean Water Act, a 1972 law that regulates the discharge of pollutants in water. A memo from the EPA emphasized that it would be minimizing the water covered by the Clean Water Act and enforcing their interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court ruling, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The Sackett decision found that millions of acres of wetlands — more than half — are not protected by the law, meaning that a permit is no longer needed to dump pollutants or destroy wetlands by filling them.
'This is to simply follow the rule of law,' Zeldin said. 'We're not looking for this to be a pingpong anymore. What we're looking for is to simply follow the guidance of Sackett.'
'There's a pretty basic attack against the Clean Water Act by industry and the Trump administration, and it's been going on for years,' Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at the nonprofit Earthjustice, tells Rolling Stone. 'It was a feature of the first Trump administration, and they made really clear already that they're going to try and attack clean water protections in an aggressive way.'
The definition of waters covered by the Clean Water Act has grown and shrunk for years. In 2015, President Barack Obama issued a regulation that clarified two previous Supreme Court rulings, establishing that the EPA has authority over smaller bodies of water like streams and wetlands. Then, in 2019, Trump repealed the measure. In 2022, President Joe Biden's EPA reversed Trump's move, going back to the rules that preceded Obama. In 2023, the Supreme Court issued the Sackett ruling that led Biden to weaken protections for wetlands. And in March, the Supreme Court ruled on a case about San Francisco dumping sewage into the Pacific Ocean that further weakened the Clean Water Act.
'That the Trump EPA is saying it wants to go back to the drawing board again' by revisiting the law's scope 'indicates to me that they're only going to interpret the already restrictive decision even more restrictively and try to exclude more waters from federal jurisdiction,' Emily Miller, staff attorney at advocacy group Food and Water Watch, tells Rolling Stone.
The Clean Water Act is 'the most successful environmental law in America,' Caputo says. 'So we're in a situation where efforts to weaken clean water protections are not only terrible public policy, because all Americans need and deserve clean water, it's also a situation where we would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by weakening protections for clean water.'
Sackett involved an Idaho couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, who were building a home on a vacant lot that included wetlands protected by the EPA. Despite not having the necessary permit, the couple, who ran an excavation company, dumped gravel into the wetlands so they could build on it. The EPA toldthe Sacketts to undo the damage and stop construction. In response, the Sacketts sued. The Supreme Court decided that waters that did not have a 'continuous surface connection' to major lakes and rivers were not subject to the Clean Water Act, leaving many wetlands, which may have underground connections to major lakes and rivers, unprotected.
Wetlands are important because they create clean water by filtering pollutants and they can absorb flood water. Many endangered and threatened species rely on wetlands for their habitats. The EPA estimated that more than 60 percent of wetlands lost protections under Sackett.
The Sacketts were represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which Earthjustice calls 'a pro-industry group that seeks to dismantle key environmental protections.'
The Clean Water Act 'drives industry crazy,' Caputo says. 'It's agribusiness, it's property developers, it's the oil and gas guys. A whole suite of industry is really hostile to protections for wetlands.'
The law requires that someone obtain a permit before discharging a pollutant from a pipe, tunnel, or other 'discrete conveyance' into water.
'That's become the cost of doing business and industry doesn't like the cost,' Caputo adds.
Zeldin argued in a statement last month that the Biden administration's previous definition of waters covered under the Clean Water Act 'placed unfair burdens on the American people' and added costs for businesses. He claimed the Trump EPA will 'protect America's water resources consistent with the law of the land while empowering American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families.'
Conservative lawmakers have similarly framed the Trump administration's water deregulation as benefiting everyday people. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) said in response to the EPA's changes that Biden and Barack Obama's policies had caused issues for farmers and ranchers.
'It's not every mud puddle that they should regulate,' he said. 'If you can float a rubber duck in it for a half-hour after the rain, that does not mean this is something they can regulate.'
Zippy Duvall, president of the lobbying group the American Farm Bureau Federation, also praised the Trump EPA's move. 'I'm a farmer and I need a rule that's on one page, that is sitting on the dash of my truck right next to my devotional book, and if I have a question about a ravine on my farm, I can pick that one page up, read it, and interpret it myself,' Duvall said.
But the EPA's water moves serve to benefit industry above all, experts say.
'There is little ambiguity in EPA's announcement,' Mark Sabath, senior attorney at the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center, said in a statement. 'We hear no concern for the health of people who depend on clean drinking water, or the safety of communities that rely on wetlands to slow flooding. Further weakening federal clean water protections may be what large polluters and wealthy developers want, but it is not what everyday people want — either in the South or throughout the nation.'
Caputo says there are still some ways to fight back.
'If you're somebody like me who wants to protect those wetlands, there are really two ways to do it,' he says. 'One is to have Congress pass a law that reinstates the protections for those 50 million acres. The other is to have individual states do that at the state level. So in the wake of the Sackett decision, we are pursuing both courses of action.'
The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority further attacked the Clean Water Act in March when it decided a case about San Francisco dumping sewage into the Pacific Ocean. As a result, the EPA's ability to stipulate certain basic requirements as part of permits was limited.
'It's a decision that I think showcases the Supreme Court's open hostility towards clean water protections, and what it does is it makes it harder for EPA and state regulators to protect water quality if the Clean Water Act requires, because it takes away an important tool that regulators have routinely used in the past to achieve water quality protection,' says Miller, of Food and Water Watch.
The case looked at the level of authority that the EPA and state regulators have to make polluters follow the rules. Before the ruling, the EPA would put restrictions in permits called end-result requirements — or provisions that generally 'prohibit pollution discharges that violate water quality standards,' according to Miller.
These provisions were meant to serve as a backstop to make sure that their rules are followed. The Supreme Court ruled that these end-result requirements are beyond the EPA's authority. As such, the EPA and state regulators must now issue more specific conditions for each permit, which takes time and money.
'In practice, I see this decision as making it a lot more difficult and time consuming and expensive for regulators to issue protective water pollution permits, and it may unfortunately lead to weaker water pollution permitting overall,' Miller says.
As was the case in Sackett, industry backed the polluter, San Francisco.
'It is unusual that one of the most liberal cities in the country would bring a lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court that essentially weakens a really important environmental law,' Miller says. 'And you might not be surprised to know that they were supported in their challenge by a number of industry lobby groups that represented fossil fuels and mining and industrial agriculture interests, because this decision and this type of weakening of EPA power benefits those polluters immensely.'
The Supreme Court's decisions favor 'industrial polluter interests and works to the disadvantage of the American public that relies on water for drinking, for recreation, for all sorts of things that are now at risk,' Miller adds.
Meanwhile, the EPA's broader deregulation agenda threatens clean water protections as well. More than 30 actions that the EPA announced affect water pollution, air pollution, and climate emissions from fossil fuel plants. Trump also issued an executive order that said for every rule an agency issues, it must repeal 10 rules.
One such handout to the fossil fuel industry: The EPA is looking to change rules concerning wastewater created as a byproduct of oil and gas extraction. The agency will consider expanding circumstances where this wastewater can be used and discharged.
'EPA is playing a central role delivering on President Trump's energy agenda,' Zeldin said in a statement. 'EPA will revise wastewater regulations from the 1970s that do not reflect modern capability to treat and reuse water for good. As a result, we will lower production costs for oil and gas extraction to boost American energy while increasing water supplies and protecting water quality.'
Trump's Office of Management and Budget separately withdrew a proposed EPA rule to set limits on the discharge of PFAS forever chemicals in wastewater. The administration did so based on Trump's executive order on Day One freezing all regulations in progress pending review.
Trump and Elon Musk, the billionaire leading Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, also want to make major cuts to the EPA's budget and workforce. These cuts would threaten Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which provide major funding for local water infrastructure.
'I think a lot of industries view the EPA as just being in the way of what they want to do,' Caputo says. 'And so there's a bit of a right-wing fantasy playing out right now, which is to get rid of this agency whose sole job it is to deliver clean water and clean air to people, and to get them out of industry's way.'
But, he adds, 'the laws are still on the books.'
And in Congress, House Speaker Mike Johnson's recent stopgap spending law includes cuts to a program that helps communities have access to clean water. Its cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture include the Rural Water and Waste Disposal assistance program, which provides funding to rural communities for 'clean and reliable drinking water systems, sanitary sewage disposal, sanitary solid waste disposal, and storm water drainage,' according to the USDA.
At the USDA, a leaked memo published by More Perfect Union showed that the Agricultural Research Service has banned many words and phrases from agreements and contracts — including 'environmental justice,' 'climate,' and 'safe drinking water.'
'The Trump administration has tried to turn the term 'environmental justice' into a bad word that shall not be spoken, but the people that will be overwhelmingly and disproportionately burdened by these types of decisions are frontline communities,' Miller says.
The EPA moved to close its Environmental Justice Offices in March. These offices worked on pollution in poor communities and communities of color.
'Industry and industrial polluters tend to concentrate in particular areas, usually low income communities of color or rural, isolated areas that don't really have the political power to fight them off. And so you know, decisions that let industrial polluters run wild will be felt in those communities. And simply removing the words environmental justice from the website, and you know, getting rid of the Environmental Justice Office and the EPA is not going to change that reality. It's just going to hide it,' Miller adds.
Republican lawmakers also want to repeal the Lead Out of Water rule, which Biden issued last October and 'was a massive victory in protecting public health against this neurotoxin, which is especially dangerous for children,' according to Food and Water Watch. The rule required that lead pipes in drinking systems be replaced within 10 years. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) introduced the repeal legislation in January.
This kind of change will have lasting consequences.
'We are very worried that if Congress repeals lead and copper rule improvements… we'll never be able to mandate removal of all these toxic lead service lines ever again,' Grant says.
If this wide variety of actions in the White House, in Congress, at the EPA, at the Supreme Court, and elsewhere seems overwhelming, that's on purpose, Grant adds.
She says Trump and Republicans are deliberately 'flooding the zone, doing a lot all at once to kind of hamstring opposition,' explaining: 'It's hard to keep track of, it overwhelms media attention, it's hard to know where to focus. This massive influx of all these executive orders so fast, all these actions so fast, is intentional, and it's designed to prevent people from falling into question every illegal action that's taken, every harmful action that's taken.'
'This agenda to deregulate, this agenda to gut the federal government, to dismantle the federal government, eliminate core functions of our government, remove these protections,' Grant says, 'it's just an ideology, and they're acting on it without without care for how it impacts people, for how it impacts our access to safe water… Everyone needs access to safe water, and it's harming communities across the country.'
More from Rolling Stone
Anti-Trump Protesters Assemble in Every State and Cities Worldwide
How Trump's CDC Purge Will Affect Reproductive Health: 'Women Will Die'
This Scientist Wants Us to Combat the Climate Crisis by Thinking Like a Woman
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
L.A. immigration protests latest: California sues Trump admin. over National Guard deployment, president says he would support arresting Newsom
California is suing the Trump administration over its National Guard deployment in Los Angeles without the consent of the state's governor amid immigration protests that escalated over the weekend, leading to dozens of arrests. The Los Angeles Police Department has since declared all of downtown L.A. an unlawful assembly area. The lawsuit was filed Monday by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and accuses President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of "unlawfully" federalizing the state's National Guard, and infringing on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's authority as commander-in-chief of the state's military reserve force. "Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach," Bonta said. "It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.' Bonta also alleged in a televised statement Monday that protests escalated after National Guard troops arrived on Sunday. 'We'll never know what might have been had the president left our state and local authorities to continue the important work they were already doing and were more than capable of doing,' Bonta said. Before the lawsuit was announced, Trump on Monday said he would support his border czar arresting Newsom over possible obstructions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions in the state amid protests. At least 44 people were arrested by federal ICE agents during a raid at several locations around Los Angeles on Friday, including Ambiance Apparel in the garment district and a Home Depot in the Westlake District. These areas are known to have significant migrant populations and labor-focused industries. Protests then erupted in Los Angeles in response to Trump's immigration crackdown that has seen federal agents arrest a student on his way to volleyball practice and erroneously deport a man to El Salvador. Sunday marked the third straight day of protests over the wave of immigration raids. Crowds gathered in downtown Los Angeles and Boyle Heights. Protesters marched from Boyle Heights to the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal building in downtown L.A. This led to the LAPD declaring the area an unlawful assembly. Protesters moved from outside the federal building and walked onto the 101 Freeway around 3:30 p.m. local time. Police fired tear gas and other projectiles into the crowd and cleared the area by 5 p.m. Meanwhile, another protest started on Sunday outside of Los Angeles City Hall Protesters outside the city's prison in the Alameda neighborhood of L.A. were arrested, according to the LAPD. Around 300 National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles County on Sunday after Trump deployed them to protect federal property and personnel, without the consent of Newsom, a Democrat with whom he often spars. As governor, Newsom would normally retain control and command over the California National Guard. The White House said the deployment was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in the state, and initially stated that 2,000 troops were being deployed. About 500 Marines are also prepared to deploy to the area, the Northern Command said. It's the first time in nearly 60 years that a president has called in the National Guard without a state's request or consent. The last time was when President Lyndon Johnson sent the Guard to protect a 1965 civil rights march in Alabama. Newsom said California is suing the Trump administration over the federal mobilization of the National Guard. Newsom told MSNBC that Trump's federal mobilization of the National Guard was 'an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' The governor also alleged that Trump is the one to blame for the escalation in California, saying, 'He's exacerbated the conditions. He's lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire.' Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, told NBC News that anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement would be arrested. When asked if that would include Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, he replied, 'I'll say it about anybody. … You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' Newsom responded to Homan's NBC interview on Sunday by saying: 'He knows where to find me.' Homan later clarified those remarks in an interview with Fox News. 'The reporter asked me, well, could Governor Newsom or Mayor Bass be arrested? I said, 'Well no one's above the law — if they cross the line and commit a crime, absolutely they can.'' He added: 'There was no discussion about arresting Newsom.' Meanwhile, Trump said he would support the arrest of Newsom. "I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity but I think it would be a great thing," Trump said Monday. In response, Newsom said: "This is a day I hoped I would never see in America." "I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism," he wrote on X. The peaceful protests escalated into vandalism, autonomous cars set ablaze, fireworks and other objects thrown at law enforcement, police firing rubber bullets (including at an Australian journalist), and dozens of arrests by the LAPD. 'In recent days, many protests across the city have been peaceful and we thank the community for expressing their views and their frustration in a responsible manner,' LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said in a Sunday news conference. 'However, when peaceful demonstrations devolve into acts of vandalism or violence, especially violence directed at innocent people, law enforcement officers and others, we must respond firmly.' McDonnell said that a total of 39 people had been arrested — 29 on Saturday and 10 on Sunday. He also said the LAPD was not given advance notice that federal operations would occur in the area. On Sunday, several Waymo driverless vehicles were vandalized and set on fire in downtown Los Angeles. A Waymo spokesperson told USA Today Monday morning that its autonomous vehicles have been removed from the area and the company has temporarily suspended its ride-hailing service 'out of an abundance of caution.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told CNN on Monday that the situation has since calmed in the city. 'If you dial back time and go to Friday, if immigration raids had not happened here, we would not have had the disorder that went on last night,' Bass said. 'We do not know where and when the next raids will be. That is the concern because people in this city have a rapid response network.' 'If they see ICE, they go out and they protest, and so it's just a recipe for pandemonium that is completely unnecessary,' she added.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IAEA chief relays Iran warning against Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities
CAIRO (Reuters) -International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said Iranians warned him that an Israel strike on the country's nuclear facilities could cause Iran to be more determined about developing a nuclear weapon, according to an interview broadcast and published on Monday. 'A strike could potentially have an amalgamating effect, solidifying Iran's determination – I will say it plainly – to pursue a nuclear weapon or withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,' Grossi said in the interview, published on the Jerusalem Post website and broadcast on i24 TV on Monday. Grossi, however, doubted that Israel would strike Tehran's nuclear facilities, the Jerusalem Post reported. The Iranian nuclear program "runs wide and deep," Grossi told the Jerusalem Post. "Disrupting them would require overwhelming and devastating force." Tehran and Washington have recently engaged in Oman-mediated nuclear talks. Iran is set to hand a counter-proposal for a nuclear deal to the United States via Oman, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday, in response to a U.S. offer that Tehran deems "unacceptable". Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump said he had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to take actions that could disrupt nuclear talks with Iran. "I told him this would be inappropriate to do right now because we're very close to a solution now," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "That could change at any moment." Trump and Netanyahu are expected to speak over the phone on Monday.


The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back. In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located. The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership. 'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote. They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote. The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted. 'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.' NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward. Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X. 'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote. Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.' 'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.'