Scientists and environmental groups say a rollback of the Clean Water Act could have devastating impacts on local water systems.
Officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the rule change helps to clarify the legal boundaries between state and federal waterway protections.
The new rule wasannounced by the EPA and Army on Thursday.
The change includes a rollback of protections enacted under the Obama Administration as well as some long standing Clean Water Act protections dating back decades.
Don Uzarksi is a Professor at Central Michigan University and Director of the Institute for Great Lakes Research. He said the change is unbelievable.
“We’re going to lose federal protection for a half million acres of wetlands in Michigan alone. We’re going to lose federal protection for 42-hundred of our 11-thousand lakes and ponds in the state.”
Uzarski said the change will also result in the loss of protections for 36-thousand miles of streams and rivers.
EPA officials called any attempt to quantify changes to the scope of federal protections “too inaccurate or speculative to be meaningful.”
Uzarksi said the numbers calculated for Michigan wetlands and waterways are “quite accurate.”
In the EPA press release, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D. James is quoted as saying the old rules amounted to “federal overreach” on privately owned land.
Uzarksi said water protections have to extend to private land because waterways are connected.
“If I’m polluting on my own land or I’m taking away the filtration capacity of a wetland or the ability of it to take out toxicants on my own land I’m essentially impacting the drinking water of everybody around me.”
Michigan Environmental groups raised similar concerns.
Nick Dodge is the Communications Director with the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. He called the changes misguided and out of touch.
“Given all the threats to our water right now from toxic PFAs contamination, to lead, to algae blooms, to record high lake levels from extreme weather and climate change. We are really seeing that people are wanting more protections for water, not less.”
Dodge pointed to a recent poll from the Michigan League of Conservation Voters which found roughly 95% of likely Democratic primary voters thought it was important for a candidate to have a clear plan for protecting drinking water from toxic pollution.
According to Dodge, the Clean Water Act was passed at a time when rivers were on fire from pollution.
“I don’t think we can abandon these critical resources because it’s difficult or hard to quantify. I think we really need to step up to the task because this is one of the most important things the government should be doing.”
Uzarski, with the Institute for Great Lakes Research, agreed that now is not the time for a rollback.
“You can’t necessarily trust the water, the drinking water that is coming out of your faucet. We have to do a better job,” he said. “This is in the face of that and in the face of all the science that led up to that. This is setting us back 50 years plus.”