Sullivan was a member of the EPA Scientific Advisory Board that confirmed the scientific underpinnings of the report and the rule. The science supported protection for isolated or intermittent systems that, if polluted or destroyed, would decrease water quality downstream. At the heart of that rule was a Connectivity Report produced by the Environmental Protection Agency, backed by a review of more than 1,200 scientific publications and input from 49 technical experts. In 2015, the Obama administration implemented the Clean Water Rule, which classified all tributaries and most wetlands as "waters of the United States" that fall under federal jurisdiction. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested a non-navigable water body should be protected if it has a "significant nexus" to a traditional navigable waterway - meaning it can affect the physical, biological and chemical integrity of downstream waters. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that non-navigable waters should be covered by federal law only if they have a "relatively permanent" flow and a continuous surface connection to traditionally protected waters. Supreme Court weighed in with opinions in a 2006 case. waters should be protected under the Clean Water Act, and the U.S. Legal battles have been waged for years over which non-navigable U.S. It could really be a watershed moment in that sense." "It's a travesty, not just for us now, but for future generations. And now we're removing protections and potentially undermining decades of taxpayer investment in improving water quality. "And it comes at a time when we're really starting to understand multiple stressors on water - not just urbanization or climate change or pollution, but how all these factors interact. "We're talking about major roll-backs in protections that limit activities that impair, pollute and destroy these systems," said Sullivan, also associate professor in Ohio State's School of Environment and Natural Resources, who co-authored the article with colleagues specializing in aquatic science, conservation science and environmental law. Some potential results: higher risk for floods, loss of biodiversity, and threats to drinking water and recreational fishing. The change means that now-unprotected waters may be subjected to a variety of harmful human activities such as dredging or filling in waters for development, or even unpermitted dumping of industrial waste into streams or wetlands. Among the millions of miles of ephemeral streams - those that flow after precipitation events - losing federal protection are, for example, more than 95 percent of Arizona's streams, including many tributaries that flow into the Grand Canyon. Left unprotected under the new rule are stand-alone wetlands across the country whose collective area is approximately the size of the state of West Virginia. "It's so important to say, right out of the gates, that the new rule does not protect water in the way that the Clean Water Act was intended to protect water," said lead author Ma?eika Sullivan, director of the Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at The Ohio State University. Also omitted from consideration is maintaining the integrity of the biological and chemical quality of the nation's waters, protections that are explicitly called for in the Clean Water Act. 14 issue of Science, the researchers assert that the Navigable Waters Protection Rule undermines the spirit - if not the letter - of the Clean Water Act by protecting only waters that have a permanent hydrologic surface connection to rivers, lakes and other large "navigable" bodies of water. It’s a movement that has accelerated over the last few years, changing official discrimination policies at educational institutions like Brown University, University of California, Davis, and the entire California State University system.In a Policy Forum article published in the Aug. to ban caste discrimination after work by Equality Labs and other civil rights partners. Last month, Seattle became the first city in the U.S. Thenmozhi Soundararajan, a Dalit activist and the founder of the caste equity organization Equality Labs, said she’s hopeful about the bill. Tayfun Coskun / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images file Aisha Wahab speaks at City Hall in San Francisco on Jan. “I know that this is the right thing.” Sen. “I’m happy to take the hits from opponents of this bill,” she said. But the bill is relevant across communities and religions, she said, and she’s ready to push it forward through any pushback. As Hindu nationalism becomes more prominent in India and the diaspora, some born into privileged castes argue that passing protections for Dalits is anti-Hindu.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |