Kentucky wetlands, streams, and drinking water at risk under proposed changes to Clean Water Act – WKU Public Radio

Report on Revised U.S. Waterway Protections and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A revision to the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) definition under the Clean Water Act, prompted by the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision, significantly curtails federal protections for waterways. This report analyzes the implications of this policy change, particularly as adopted by the state of Kentucky, through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The new definition, which limits protections to continuously flowing or standing bodies of water, poses a direct threat to progress on several key SDGs, including those related to clean water, biodiversity, and sustainable communities.

Impact on SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The revised WOTUS definition presents a substantial challenge to achieving SDG 6, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

• Exclusion of Critical Water Sources: The new rule effectively eliminates protections for ephemeral streams, which flow only after precipitation, and a majority of wetlands.
• Threat to Drinking Water Quality: Scientific studies indicate that ephemeral streams contribute more than 50% of the water flow to most river systems that supply drinking water. Allowing unregulated discharge into these streams directly threatens the safety of downstream water sources.
• Increased Pollution Risk: Under the revised definition, discharging harmful substances into previously protected wetlands and temporary streams is no longer legally considered pollution, undermining efforts to improve water quality and reduce contamination.

Jeopardizing SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

The deregulation of wetlands and streams directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 15 (protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems) and SDG 14 (conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources).

1. Wetland Habitat Destruction: In Kentucky, approximately 80% of historic wetlands have already been lost. The new definition places an estimated 85% of the state’s remaining 320,000 acres of wetlands at risk by removing their protected status. This loss of habitat threatens biodiversity and vital ecosystem functions, including carbon sequestration, which is also relevant to SDG 13 (Climate Action).
2. Degradation of Aquatic Ecosystems: Wetlands and ephemeral streams are integral to the health of larger water bodies. They filter pollutants, trap sediment, and regulate water flow. Their degradation will lead to increased pollution in rivers and lakes, harming fish populations and undermining the sustainability of freshwater ecosystems.
3. Reversal of Restoration Efforts: The policy change negates decades of progress and millions of dollars invested by public and non-profit organizations in restoring and protecting these critical habitats.

Socio-Economic Consequences and Contradictions with SDG 11 & SDG 12

The rationale of providing “regulatory relief” creates significant socio-economic costs, undermining SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

• Increased Community Vulnerability: Wetlands serve as natural flood mitigation systems. Their removal has been historically linked to severe flooding events. Reducing wetland protections increases the risk of flooding in communities, compromising the goal of creating safe and resilient settlements.
• Externalizing Costs: The policy shifts the financial burden of pollution from industrial and agricultural producers to the public. This framework privatizes the benefits of deregulation while socializing the costs of environmental damage and increased water treatment, which falls upon taxpayers and ratepayers. This is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable and responsible production patterns.
• Social Impacts: The degradation of water quality limits recreational opportunities such as fishing and swimming and can create public health hazards, disproportionately affecting communities and shifting social responsibility away from polluters.

Policy Justification and Scientific Rebuttal

The justification for the revised WOTUS definition is contested by scientific evidence and environmental analysis.

Stated Rationale for Deregulation

1. To provide “regulatory relief” and promote economic growth for agricultural and industrial sectors.
2. To empower states by adhering to a narrower interpretation of federal authority.
3. To align with a broader “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative focused on deregulation.

Environmental and Scientific Counterarguments

• The new rule disregards established scientific principles of hydrology, which demonstrate the interconnectedness of temporary streams, wetlands, and larger navigable waters.
• Experts argue that creating an artificial legal distinction between these water bodies is not supported by evidence of how water systems function.
• The long-term costs associated with environmental harm, public health risks, and mitigation efforts are projected to significantly outweigh the short-term economic benefits for specific industries.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 14: Life Below Water
• SDG 15: Life on Land

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
  
  Explanation: The article directly addresses this target by discussing how the new WOTUS definition would make it “no longer pollution” to discharge harmful substances into disconnected wetlands, ephemeral streams, and roadside ditches. This directly undermines efforts to reduce water pollution.
• Target 6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate.
  
  Explanation: The article highlights a conflict in water resource management between federal (EPA’s new rule) and state (Kentucky’s previous, stricter “Waters of the Commonwealth” standard) levels. The change forces Kentucky to adopt a less protective federal standard, impacting integrated management.
• Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.
  
  Explanation: The central theme of the article is the removal of federal protections for water-related ecosystems, specifically “wetlands, streams, and ditches.” It explicitly states that the new definition places Kentucky’s wetlands at a “significantly increased risk of pollution” and undoes “decades of progress in habitat restoration.”

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.
  
  Explanation: The article mentions that wetlands “act as natural sponges, and their removal from the landscape has been linked to severe flooding events recorded across the state.” By removing protections for wetlands, the risk of water-related disasters like floods increases, directly impacting community safety and resilience.

SDG 13: Climate Action

• Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
  
  Explanation: The article notes that wetlands help mitigate the effects of climate change by “sequestering carbon from the atmosphere” and reducing the impact of “severe flooding events,” which are linked to the “more extreme rainfall in recent years.” Weakening wetland protection reduces natural resilience to climate-related hazards.

SDG 14: Life Below Water

• Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
  
  Explanation: The article explains that temporary waterways like ephemeral streams “provide more than 50% of the water that flows through most river systems.” Pollution discharged into these streams, as allowed by the new rule, will inevitably flow into larger rivers and eventually coastal and marine environments, contributing to marine pollution from land-based sources. The goal of having “fishable waters” is also directly threatened.

SDG 15: Life on Land

• Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.
  
  Explanation: This target is directly addressed as the article focuses on the loss of protection for inland freshwater ecosystems, namely wetlands and ephemeral streams. It states that “roughly 80 percent of Kentucky’s wetlands have been drained and removed,” and the new rule would further threaten the remaining areas.
• Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.
  
  Explanation: The article discusses the ecological benefits of wetlands, including “habitat biodiversity.” Removing protections for these ecosystems leads directly to the degradation of natural habitats, which is a key concern of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 6 and SDG 15

• Indicator: Extent of water-related ecosystems (Indicator 6.6.1).
  
  Explanation: The article provides precise data that can be used as an indicator. It states that Kentucky has “roughly 320,000 acres of wetlands,” and under the new rule, only “roughly 44,000 acres, or 15%, of those wetlands would meet the criteria for protection.” This quantifies the direct loss of protected ecosystem area.
• Indicator: Proportion of water bodies with good ambient water quality (Implied from Indicator 6.3.2).
  
  Explanation: The article implies a decline in this indicator by stating the new rule will make it “more difficult for Kentuckians to find drinkable, swimmable, or fishable waters.” It also references that “thousands of miles of Kentucky’s rivers, lakes, and streams reportedly impaired,” which serves as a baseline for measuring further degradation.

Indicators for SDG 11

• Indicator: Economic losses from disasters (Implied from Indicator 11.5.1).
  
  Explanation: The article implies an increase in economic losses by linking the removal of wetlands (which act as “natural sponges”) to “severe flooding events.” The financial and social costs of these events would be a measure of the impact. It also mentions that taxpayers would have to pay more “to mitigate the environmental harms.”

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: wkyufm.org