<h4><em>Under review</em></h4>
<p>Water pollution in the United States is <a href="http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/topics/water.html" target="_blank">regulated</a> through a number of statutes and regulations and overseen by a combination of federal agencies and states. The <a href="#clean-water-act">Federal Water Pollution Control Act</a> (now commonly known as the Clean Water Act), first passed in 1948, was substantially amended in 1972, 1977, and 1987. It puts forward a system to regulate direct and indirect discharges of pollutants in the “waters of the United States” and <a href="#" title="CWA§20101(a), 33 U.S.C. 20 §201251(a).">intends to</a> “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The <a href="#safe-drinking-water-act">Safe Drinking Water Act</a> regulates public water systems and sets national drinking water regulations. <a href="#water-use">Water use</a> —the supply of water, its ownership and allocation among various users—is largely governed by the states.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Listen to and download materials from the ELI Summer School Seminar on <a href="http://www.eli.org/events/eli-summer-school-series-2014-clean-water">Cl… Water</a> for a general overview of how water regulations work. For a discussion on current topics in the Clean Water Act, listen to the <a href="http://www.law.gwu.edu/News/newsstories/Pages/TheCleanWaterActat40.aspx…; target="_blank">Clean Water Act at 40</a> seminar co-sponsored with George Washington Law School.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>For a thorough overview of the Clean Water Act, see Ann Powers, <a href="http://www.eli.org/eli-press-books/introduction-to-environmental-law%3A… to Environmental Law: Cases & Materials on Water Pollution Control</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a name="clean-water-act"></a>Clean Water Act</h3>
<p>The <a href="http://elr.info/legislative/federal-laws/federal-water-pollution-contro… Water Act</a> was substantially amended in 1972 to create the regulatory system that is known today. It regulates the discharge of pollutants through two permitting systems, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (<a href="#npdes-program">NPDES</a>) program and the <a href="#wetlands">Section 404</a> wetlands program, through effluent limitations applicable to types of direct discharges to water, and by setting standards for water quality known as <a href="#water-quality-standards">water quality standards</a> and total maximum daily loads.</p>
<p>Over the years, there has been a question over the scope of federal <a href="http://www.eli.org/freshwater-ocean/clean-water-act-jurisdiction">juris…; under the Clean Water Act. In <em><a href="http://elr.info/litigation/%5Bfield_article_volume-raw%5D/20161/solid-w… Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Corps of Engineers</a> </em>and <em><a href="http://elr.info/litigation/36/20116/rapanos-v-united-states">Rapanos v. United States</a></em>, the Supreme Court found that not all wetlands and waters in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, resulting in <a href="http://www.eli.org/freshwater-ocean/clean-water-act-jurisdiction">signi… uncertainly</a> as to just how far federal power extends over water pollution.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For a discussion of the uncertainty around the scope of federal water jurisdiction, download the ELI Research Report <a href="http://www.eli.org/research-report/clean-water-act-jurisdictional-handb… Water Act Jurisdictional Handbook, 2d ed.</a> ELI members may listen to and download materials from the ELI Seminar <a href="http://www.eli.org/events/assessing-jurisdiction-under-new-clean-water-… Jurisdiction under the New Clean Water Act Guidance</a>. See also the ELR article, Jon Devine, <a href="http://elr.info/news-analysis/41/11118/intended-scope-clean-water-act-j… Intended Scope of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<h5><a name="water-quality-standards"></a>Water Quality Standards</h5>
<p>The Clean Water Act requires that <a href="http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/" target="_blank">water quality standards</a> be established by EPA or states, territories or tribes authorized by EPA to implement the program. To determine what the water quality standards should be, the waterbody must be given a “<a href="http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/uses.cfm" target="_blank">designated use</a>.” This depends on how the public uses the waterbody, such as drinking water, water-based recreation, or fishing. <a href="http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/crit.cfm" target="_blank">Water quality criteria</a>, which can be <a href="#" title="Numeric criteria require that the water be free of a certain level of pollutants.">numeric</a> or <a href="#" title="Narrative criteria require the water to be “free from” certain pollutants.">narrative</a><a href="#_msocom_9"></a>, are then assigned to protect that designated use.</p>
<p>Authorized states, territories and tribes monitor waterbodies to determine whether they meet the water quality standards. If the WQS are met, then <a href="http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/adeg.cfm" target="_blank">antidegradation</a> policies are employed so that the water quality is kept at an acceptable level. If the WQS are not met, the most common tool to use is to establish <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/index.cfm" target="_blank">total maximum daily loads</a> (TMDL), which are the pollutant load the water can withstand and be in compliance with the water quality standards.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For a thorough discussion of the TMDL program, see Oliver Houck, <a href="http://www.eli.org/eli-press-books/clean-water-act-tmdl-program%253A-la… Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy, and Implementation</a> and <a href="http://elr.info/news-analysis/41/10208/clean-water-act-returns-again-pa… Clean Water Act Returns (Again): Part I, TMDLs and the Chesapeake Bay</a>. See materials from the ELI-lead State TMDL conferences <a href="http://www.eli.org/freshwater-ocean/state-tmdl-program-resource-center"…;
</blockquote>
<h5><a name="npdes-program"></a>NPDES Program</h5>
<p>Section 402 of CWA creates the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=45" target="_blank">authorizes</a> permits for point sources that are going to discharge into surface waters. A “<a href="#" title="33 U.S.C. §502(13).">point source</a>” is “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” The permit puts a limit on the amount that a point source may discharge. Most states and some territories and tribes have been <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestribes/astatus.cfm" target="_blank">authorized</a> by EPA to issue NPDES permits; EPA remains the permitting authority in non-authorized states.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For a discussion of the requirement to get an NPDES permit for application of pesticides, ELI members may listen to the ELI Seminar <a href="http://www.eli.org/events/clean-water-act-endangered-species-act-and-fe… Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Collide, But With What Result?</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The NPDES program is structured to either provide <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/permitissuance/genpermits.cfm" target="_blank">permits</a> by developing a unique permit for each discharger (individual permits) or by developing a single permit that covers a large number of similar dischargers (general permits). The individual permit sets specific limits on the amount of pollutants that can be discharged from the facility. The limits can be either <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/generalissues/watertechnology.cfm" target="_blank">technology-based or water quality-based</a>.</p>
<p>The effluent limits on pollutants are performance standards, meaning that the discharging facility can use a combination of processes to meet the permit limits. EPA also sets <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/techbasedpermitting/effguide.cfm" target="_blank">effluent limitation standards</a> that apply to types of industrial discharge sources that are then applied in individual permits.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For an ELR article on effluent limitation standards, see Melissa Thorme, “<a href="http://elr.info/news-analysis/31/10322/antibacksliding-understanding-on… Understanding One of the Most Misunderstood Provision in the Clean Water Act</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The NPDES program also covers discharges of <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=6" target="_blank">stormwater</a> from construction or industrial activity and from municipal separate storm sewers. Stormwater is rain or snowmelt that flows over the ground or impervious surfaces, like roads and parking lots, that may collect contaminants and debris harmful to water quality if discharged. Most stormwater <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swbasicinfo.cfm" target="_blank">permits</a> require best management plans and occasional testing.</p>
<p>EPA also allows <a href="http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/wqbasedpermitting/wspermitting.cfm" target="_blank">watershed-based permitting</a>, in which NPDES permits are issued in order to achieve <a href="#" title="“A watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place.” See water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/whatis.cfm.">watershed-wide</a> water quality standards. Such programs may incorporate <a href="http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/trading.cfm" target="_blank">water quality trading</a>, where various sources trade the ability to pollute because some may be able to reduce discharges more cost-effectively.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Find resources and further information at <a href="http://www.eli.org/freshwater-ocean/background-information-water-qualit… Information on Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Facilities are in violation of the CWA if they discharge without a permit or discharge more than allowed by their permit. Facilities are also in violation if they do not comply with extensive <a href="#" title="EPA has an online presentation discussing NPDES monitoring and reporting requirements. See cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/outreach/training/monitoringandreporting.cfm.">monitoring and reporting</a> requirements. States, territories, and tribes that are delegated authority to oversee the NPDES program are responsible for <a href="http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/cwa/npdes.html" target="_blank">enforcing</a> the NPDES permits. EPA will take action if necessary, but must first give notice to the authorized agency if it believes enforcement is necessary and must give the agency time to act. Enforcement actions include injunctions, fines, imprisonment if criminal violation, and supplemental environmental projects. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/reports/annual-projec…; target="_blank">Citizens</a> can bring a <a href="http://www.eli.org/keywords/governance#citizen-suits">suit</a><a href="#_msocom_13"> </a>against a violator if an agency is not pursuing a violation, but they must give 60-day notice to EPA and the authorized agency so that they have time to act against the violator instead.</p>
<h5>Nonpoint Source Program</h5>
<p>Because the NDPES program largely regulates only direct discharges from point sources, section 319, added in 1987, focuses on <a href="http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/whatis.html" target="_blank">nonpoint sources</a>, which are anything that is not a point source. Common nonpoint sources are runoff from precipitation over and through the ground and from atmospheric deposition. <a href="#" title="CWA §319.">Section 319</a> implements a <a href="http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/cwact.html" target="_blank">federal grant program</a> that gives money to <a href="http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/where.html" target="_blank">states, territories and tribes</a> for the development and implementation of nonpoint source management programs. Each entity receiving funding must create and update a nonpoint source management plan and must identify waters that are impaired or threatened by nonpoint sources, develop goals for cleaning those waters and identify the best management practices that will be used to clean up the waters.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For a discussion of ways to address nonpoint source pollution, download the ELI Research Report <a href="http://www.eli.org/research-report/enforceable-state-mechanisms-control… State Mechanisms for the Control of Nonpoint Source Water Pollution</a> and investigate the various ELI research materials on nonpoint source issues <a href="http://www.eli.org/freshwater-ocean/non-point-source-pollution-research…;. See also John Carter, <a href="http://elr.info/news-analysis/33/10876/control-nonpoint-pollution-throu… of Nonpoint Pollution Through Citizen Enforcement of Unpermitted Stormwater Discharges: A Proposal for Bottom-Up Litigation</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<h5><a name="wetlands"></a>Wetlands</h5>
<p>The <a href="#" title="CWA§ 404, 33 U.S.C. §201344.">Section 404</a> program <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/dredgdis/index.cfm" target="_blank">regulates</a> the placement of dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” which includes <a href="#" title="Federal regulations define wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil.” 40 C.F.R. 232.2(r).">wetlands</a>. The 404 permit program is administered jointly by EPA and <a href="http://www.usace.army.mil/" target="_blank">U.S. Army Corps of Engineers</a>. The Corps handles the issuance of the <a href="http://www.usace.army.mil/cecw/pages/reg_permit.aspx">permits</a> and determines whether the area in question is a wetland subject to federal jurisdiction. The Corps also has primary responsibility for ensuring compliance. EPA issues <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/wetlands/index.cfm" target="_blank">guidelines and policies</a>, and can veto a Corps-issued permit. EPA is responsible for deciding whether states, territories, or tribes should be <a href="http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/fact23.cfm" target="_blank">authorized</a> to <a href="http://www.eli.org/keywords/governance#role-of-states-and-tribes">imple… href="#_msocom_17"> </a>the 404 program.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>ELI has an extensive <a href="http://www.eli.org/freshwater-ocean/wetlands">wetlands program</a> with many reports and resources to draw upon. The <a href="http://www.wetlandsnewsletter.org">National Wetlands Newsletter</a> provides in-depth policy and science coverage of wetlands issues as well. For a general overview of wetlands issues, see Margaret Strand, <a href="http://www.eli.org/eli-press-books/wetlands-deskbook-4th-edition">Wetla… Deskbook, 3<sup>rd</sup> ed</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a name="safe-drinking-water-act"></a>Safe Drinking Water Act</h3>
<p>The <a href="http://elr.info/legislative/federal-laws/safe-drinking-water-act">Safe Drinking Water Act</a> seeks to maintain the quality of public drinking water supplies largely by <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/index.cfm" target="_blank">regulating</a> <a href="#" title="A public water system is “a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals.” 42 U.S.C. 300f(4)(A). See water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/pwsdef2.cfm.">public water systems</a>. EPA publishes <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/basicinf…; target="_blank">health-based levels</a> of contaminants that can appear in drinking water. The <a href="#" title="SDWA §1412(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. §20300g-1(b)(1)(A).">maximum contaminant level goal</a><a href="#_msocom_20"> </a>(MCLG) is the level at which there are no known or anticipated adverse health effects on the health of persons and that allows an adequate margin of safety. The <a href="http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm" target="_blank">national primary drinking water regulations</a> specify the <a href="#" title="SDWA §201412(b)(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. §20300g-1(b)(4)(A).">maximum contaminant level</a> (MCL) that is as close as feasible to the MCLG. The MCL does not specify a particular treatment technique, but EPA may, in lieu of setting an MCL, require the use of a treatment technique. Like most other environmental programs, EPA may give authority to states, territories and tribes to adopt and enforce these drinking water standards.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For an overview of the Safe Drinking Water Act and its 1986 revisions, see Kenneth Gray, <a href="http://elr.info/news-analysis/16/10338/safe-drinking-water-act-amendmen… Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986: Now a Tougher Act to Follow</a> and Steven Koorse, <a href="http://elr.info/news-analysis/18/10422/new-safe-drinking-water-act-liab… Safe Drinking Water Act Liability for Corporate America</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Public water systems must <a href="#" title="SDWA §201414(c)(4), 42 U.S.C. §%20300g-3(c)(4).">notify</a> their customers if they do not comply with any applicable MCLs, if they fail to monitor, if they have a variance exemption, or if they fail to comply with any exemption. The public water system must <a href="#" title="SDWA §201414(c)(4), 42 U.S.C. §20300g-3(c)(4).">give</a> each customer an annual report that includes the quality of the water and includes information on any violations or contaminants in the water.</p>
<p>The Safe Drinking Water Act also regulates the <a href="http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/index.cfm" target="_blank">underground injection</a> of substances for storage and disposal, including the subsurface <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ccs/index.html" target="_blank">injection of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide</a> for storage, enhancing oil production, or other purposes. The underground injection control program <a href="http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/regulations.cfm" target="_blank">regulations</a> mainly seek to prevent the contamination of underground drinking water supplies.</p>
<h3><a name="water-use"></a>Water Use</h3>
<blockquote>
<p>Listen to and download materials from the ELI seminar <a href="http://www.eli.org/events/uncertainty-and-risk-securing-adequate-water-… and Risk in Securing Adequate Water Supplies: Challenges and Opportunities</a>. See Hunton & Williams’ <a href="http://www.waterpolicyinstitute.com/" target="_blank">Water Policy Institute</a> page for a helpful list of links and many discussions of current issues.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The legal framework for the provision of water, its ownership, its allocation to various users, and its use are different from water pollution law. In general, water ownership and use are governed by <a href="#" title="A good explanation of water law and settling disputes between states is provided here masglp.olemiss.edu/acf.htm. Washington State’s Department of Ecology has a good page describing that state’s water use laws and regulations.">state law</a>, which largely grew from judge-made <a href="http://www.eli.org/keywords/governance#evolution-environmental-law-poli… law</a>. Issues around water quantity between states are largely managed by <a href="#" title="Such compacts need congressional approval. For a list of such compacts, see http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/compact.html.">inter-state compacts</a> and river management boards set up across states. The federal government mostly serves a referee role for allocation between and disputes among states.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For a discussion of how the prior appropriation doctrine can function with modern water demands, download the ELI Research Report, <a href="http://www.eli.org/research-report/western-water-21st-century-policies-… Water in the 21st Century Policies and Programs that Stretch Supplies in a Prior Appropriation World</a>. See also Robert Abrams, <a href="http://elr.info/news-analysis/42/10433/water-climate-change-and-law-int…, Climate Change, and the Law: Integrated Eastern States Water Management Founded on a New Cooperative Federalism</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Surface water ownership law follows various <a href="#" title="For definitions of various terms used in water use law, see http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wtr/water_rights_def.htm.">models</… href="#_msocom_27"></a>, predominantly the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riparian_doctrine" target="_blank">riparian doctrine</a> in the eastern United States and the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_appropriation_doctrine" target="_blank">prior appropriation doctrine</a> in the western United States. Riparian rights generally allow a landowner whose land abuts a waterbody to use that water. This system often is used in areas where water is plentiful. The prior appropriation doctrine, in contrast, allows the first user of the water who puts it to beneficial use to have ownership of that water right, a system adopted in drier areas. Many states’ laws combine elements of both doctrines in practice. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_groundwater_law" target="_blank">Ground water law</a> also generally follows these doctrines and is implemented on a statewide basis.</p>
As a supplement to our report, Existing U.S. Federal Authorities to Address Plastic Pollution: A Synopsis for Decision Makers, this report offers a concise review of the instruments through which the United States can negotiate and conclude international agreements. The report then describes how existing U.S.
The report, Existing U.S. Federal Authorities to Address Plastic Pollution: A Synopsis for Decision Makers, provides policymakers with a comprehensive analysis of how existing federal law may be utilized to address the plastic pollution crisis.
The report provides a comprehensive overview of the existing legal authorities the U.S. federal government can leverage to achieve the national goal of eliminating plastic release into the environment by 2040 while safeguarding human health and the environment. Building on the legal framework established by a Congressionally-mandated report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, the report categorizes federal authorities—spanning executive orders, legislation, regulations, and associated programs—into specific "intervention areas" across the plastic life cycle.
The federal government administers many programs to help states, local communities, tribes, and territories as they undertake infrastructure projects of all types, including resilience measures and natural infrastructure aimed at mitigating risks from natural hazards and disasters. The increasing impacts of climate change make investment in these project types more important than ever to help prepare and protect communities across the country. While this work is paramount, it comes with a high price tag.
Natural and nature-based infrastructure (NNBI) projects have been shown to be helpful in addressing environmental problems across various landscapes and to provide co-benefits not offered by traditional infrastructure solutions. However, as they are increasingly considered for implementation, project proponents face the necessity of securing regulatory approval from the appropriate federal or state authorities.
Cost-shared water resource development projects led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers require an agreement in writing between the Corps and the project’s nonfederal sponsor. Such an agreement, known as a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA), is crucial to the successful construction and operation of proposed water resource development projects across the country. The PPA serves as a framework for the nature of the partnership throughout the course of the project’s life.
The storms that saturated California in January made apparent in the state’s lower half once again how impractical it is to have major human activities in the desert. Subject to either drought or deluge, most of the Southwest is not a setting for a sustainable large metropolis or for intensive industrial agriculture, yet it supports a huge population and serves as America’s vegetable garden.
According to Michael Kimmelman in the New York Times Magazine, Los Angeles, the country’s second-largest city, no longer gets much of its drinking water from its namesake river, which is channelized for most of its brief 51 miles in length. The project is the Army Corps of Engineers’ biggest undertaking west of the Mississippi. The concrete lining installed by the Corps is designed to safely discharge stormwater to the Pacific, to avoid flooding the city when winter rains are severe, as they were in 2023.
A once-in-a-century rain event, however, would top its artificial embankments, flooding out as many residents as were inundated by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. The lowlands where the river used to overflow are now inhabited by the poor of Los Angeles, including tens of thousands of Latino people and the Chinatown community. The concrete straightjacket transports water past their neighborhoods while fencing out residents who want to use the river for fishing and recreation. Instead there are industrial zones and of course freeways, a dystopian scene used as the stage for the giant radioactive ant creatures in the Hollywood science fiction classic Them.
According to the magazine, with some limited exceptions there seems no practical alternative at this point to the channelization without a huge effect on the population in the floodplain, despite the wish of some environmentalists who want to restore the river to its natural course. Conceding the inevitable, architect Frank Gehry designed a series of parks and pavilions on concrete cantilevers over the concrete channel, allowing the river to function as a storm drain while providing amenities like fields and civic centers. The concept, which has become a part of the city’s new master plan for the stream, has seen pushback from riverfront communities who fear gentrification.
Today, Los Angeles’ drinking needs are met by aqueducts from wetter climates and a large share of the water from the Colorado River, which additionally supports several other large desert cities that are growing faster than water resources can keep up. On top of meeting the drinking needs of 40 million people, the Colorado also irrigates California’s Imperial Valley farmland.
Its watershed in drought for 22 years, with consumption growing, the Colorado is struggling to keep up with growing demand. At the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams, two of the Bureau of Reclamation’s crown jewels, the levels of impounded water have fallen hundreds of feet, endangering not only needed flow levels for downstream users but also the electrical hydropower generation that supports their desert communities.
Writes Christopher Flavelle in the New York Times, “The crisis over the Colorado River is the latest example of how climate change is overwhelming the foundations of American life, . . . including the legal underpinnings that have made those systems work.” Seven states share the river’s water, but rights are also held by tribes and Mexico, and all these rights are then apportioned to cities and to agricultural districts based in large part on the seniority of use.
Flavelle’s conclusion is that the century-old system of allocation “is facing off against a competing philosophy that says, as the climate changes, water cuts should be apportioned based on what’s practical.” In sum, “The outcome of that dispute will shape the future of the southwestern United States.”
The seven states are the key parties in the conflict. They are operating under a compact made in 1922. When it was signed, according to ProPublica, annual river flows were 18 million acre-feet. That proved a desert mirage—levels began to decline well before the effects of global warming. But the change in the climate means “in recent years, it has trickled at times with as little as 8.5. All the while the Lower Basin deliveries have remained roughly the same,” as required under the compact. The Lower Basin supplies water to the Southwest’s population centers and the majority of its irrigated acreage.
The states have met their growth in demand during a steep decline in flow by some conservation measures, but not enough—instead, they are overdrawing the water banked behind the two huge concrete dams. But the bill for inaction has come due.
The states were ordered by the Bureau of Reclamation to make voluntary cuts in annual allotments by January 31. Failing that, the bureau would apportion shares, an unprecedented act justified by unprecedented times. At press time, the deadline had passed with no resolution in sight. California, the largest user, and owner of the most senior rights, refused to join the other six states in voluntary reductions. Meanwhile, the bureau has $4 billion in drought mitigation funding from the Inflation Reduction Act passed last year. Clearly some of that can be used to implement conservation measures.
The Los Angeles River and the Colorado River are today artificial watercourses operating in a natural world that doesn’t respect planners and policymakers who attempt to control nature without understanding the often unwelcome results to the environment and the society it supports.
—Stephen R. Dujack
What would we get done without coffee? Obviously, there are an enlightened few who are able to get through a work shift or household tasks without a cup of joe. But in the United States, even if you do manage to stave off caffeine’s lure, the people and culture around you may just lasso you right back in. “What happens if you go a day without coffee?” I once asked a friend who chugs four to five espressos a day. “I don’t,” he responded, shuddering with horror at the notion. And it makes perfect sense. Nowadays, there’s so many opportunities to snag some brew that not doing so feels counterculture.
Case in point: I’m writing this while sipping my daily morning cup of coffee, which I made with my coffee-maker. If I didn’t have a coffee-maker, I could just go to one of three different coffee shops down the road. Inexplicably, all three are Starbucks, and one of them is inside a grocery store, just in case you didn’t notice the first two Starbucks. In Washington state (where I live) and other parts of the West, you can even find small coffee stands inside parking lots. And finally, there’s my favorite cultural mainstay: “Let’s grab coffee sometime!”
But like all types of consumption, our coffee drinking habits add up to hefty environmental impacts. In 2017, NRDC research on food waste habits of households in Denver, Nashville, and New York City found that coffee, including liquid coffee and grounds, was the number one category of food discarded in all three cities. To reach those households, coffee beans first need to be grown, transported, roasted, ground, packed, and shipped once again—all processes that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers at University College London report that, “Weight for weight, coffee produced by the least sustainable means generates as much carbon dioxide as cheese and has a carbon footprint only half that of one of the worst offenders—beef.”
At the same time, climate change will likely hinder coffee production around the world. In a 2014 study published in Climatic Change appropriately titled “A bitter cup,” researchers found that under one potential emissions scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change— called RCP 6.0—the area of land suitable for growing the most common species of coffee will reduce by 50 percent by 2050. Studies have also shown that rising temperatures could increase pests and fungal infection for coffee.
Already, coffee growers and governments are adapting. In 2014, the complete genome sequence for arabica, the species that makes up 70 percent of global coffee production, was released into the public domain in an effort to hasten breeding of new climate-resistant plant varieties. The organization World Coffee Research hosts a global coffee breeding network to accelerate these adaptation efforts.
With luck and hard work, new plant varieties will hopefully outpace a heating planet. But as with all climate impacts, adaptation means little without first addressing the roots of the problem.
—Akielly Hu
Notice & Comment is the editors’ column and represents the signatory’s views.
A week into his second term, Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed an executive order [January 10] reaffirming and building on a commitment to clean water he had signed exactly four years earlier.
Like in 2019, the order addresses issues that have plagued the state, such as red tide and blue-green algae blooms, as well as the yearslong effort to restore the Everglades. It orders the Department of Environmental Protection and regional water management districts to make those issues a priority and pledges $3.5 billion for water projects over the next four years.
“I said four years ago and then I reiterated that last Tuesday, we need to leave Florida to God better than we found it,” DeSantis said at a news conference.
The governor said making a commitment to the environment not only is the right thing to do, but also helps drive the state’s tourism.
Tourists “want to go to the beaches, they want to go fishing, they want to go boating,” DeSantis said. “That’s just the lifeblood of our state’s DNA.” —Greenwire
The Consumer Product Safety Commission revealed [in January] that it’s weighing restrictions on gas stoves, while California is on track to become the first state to ban the sale of new gas furnaces and appliances. . . . . The momentum against natural gas in the home is clear. —Washington Post
Western Water Woes Visible in a Tale of Two Rivers.
