U.S. House bill weakens the Clean Water Act

For a brief, shining moment, the Environmental Protection Agency stepped in to protect Iowa’s polluted waterways. It did so against the wishes of state officials who resented the federal effort to address nitrate pollution in drinking water.

State regulators had already deployed their strongest platitudes to address the problem. Hit the bricks, federales.

So, after Iowa regulators delisted seven river segments from our lengthy tally of impaired waters in 2024, the EPA stepped in to put them back on the list due to high nitrate concentrations. The segments included the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers which supply drinking water to Des Moines, the Cedar River north of Cedar Rapids and the Iowa River near Iowa City.

The nerve of these federal bureaucrats, telling Iowa its water is dirty and unsafe. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Director Kayla Lyon complained the EPA was holding Iowa to “a very high standard.” I mean, it’s only drinking water.

But in July, the EPA, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Enterprise, told Iowa they can remove the segments from the impaired waters list. This, even after high nitrate levels forced Des Moines to order water usage limits to help its nitrate removal system clean up contaminated water before it reached the taps of 600,000 people.

So, the EPA is no longer here to help. Thankfully, we’ve still got Congress.

But Republicans who control the U.S. House are trying to make changes that would weaken the Clean Water Act. The bill is called the PERMIT Act, Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today. Stop them before they acronym again.

The legislation cleared a House committee and could be debated on the House floor as early as next week.

That would be perfect timing. Just after Iowans are advised over the holiday weekend to avoid swimming at several state park beaches by the DNR.

“This is all weakening amendments to the federal Clean Water Act, and it really isn't what people want. People actually want clean safe water. The President said that that's what he wanted, clean safe water,” said Nancy Stoner a senior attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

“They don't want more toxins in their water. They don't want more pesticides, they don't want more sewage, they don't want more, you know, heavy metals. They don't want any of that, and they didn't vote for that. And yet, that's what Congress is considering, Stoner said.

The legislation would slash protections for ephemeral streams and wetlands, which can help filter and hold back runoff during periods of heavy precipitation. Climate change is spawning more of those. But there would be no penalty for burying them so the land can be developed or farmed.

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers would have the unrestricted power to remove any body of water from federal protection. They don’t have to tell the public why they’ve been removed. What could go wrong?

Under the bill, according to a summary from the group Beyond Pesticides, the EPA would have to consider the cost of pollution cleanup, so “safe water” might just be too expensive to mitigate. It would also curtail the EPA’s ability to update pollution standards based on the newest technology.

States and Tribes would lose the authority to review the local effects of federal projects, including dams and pipelines.

General pollution permit rules would exempt pesticides, agricultural runoff and fire suppression chemicals from accountability. There also would be no penalty or liability for failing to report pollution discharges. That includes contamination by PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” The public, apparently, doesn’t need to know.

Also, the Endangered Species Act will no longer be considered in the permitting process.

So, it’s quite a bill. And it’s got a list of supporters longer than an impaired stream, according to a list prepared by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

It includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, United Egg Producers and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.

Don’t forget the American Cement Association, National Asphalt Pavement Association and the Associated General Contractors of America. The road builders are backing the bill, as is the American Mosquito Control Association.

The Fertilizer Institute supports the bill along with something called Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.

You’ll be surprised to hear supporters argue the bill “cuts red tape, streamlines reviews, and provides greater regulatory certainty” under Clean Water Act permitting processes. Oh, and the ‘reforms” are common sense. They always are.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center sees the bill differently.

“The PERMIT Act poses genuine threats to human health by creating a system that makes it easier for polluters to discharge forever chemicals, pesticides, and toxic pollutants into the waters Americans use for drinking, fishing, and recreation,” the group contends.

Fourteen Iowa groups sent a letter to members of Iowa’s House delegation urging them to vote against the bill, including the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Food & Water Watch, Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Faith and Climate Network, the Iowa Groundwater Association and the Iowa Wildlife Federation.

It’s likely my congresswoman, Ashley Hinson, will back the bill, along with the entire Republican delegation. It was Hinson who warned the EPA would inspect farm puddles if the agency expanded the list of Waters of the U.S. under federal protection. The puddle police were a figment of her imagination.

They’ll also try convincing Iowans how this power grab strengthens the Clean Water Act. Who are you going to believe, a member of Congress or radical socialist water drinkers?

Don’t believe them. We should urge Hinson and others to oppose the bill. But more importantly, we need to make sure our delegation understands we know what they’re doing. And we will be holding them accountable.

So, we’ll get no help from the EPA, and our state government bowed to the polluters years ago. But Iowans are starting to get the picture, and they’re not pleased. They also suspect nitrate pollution has something to do with Iowa’s high and growing cancer rate.

We have some of the dirtiest surface water in the nation. There’s plenty of bipartisan blame to go around. Common sense is now far less sensible and hardly common under a president who cares as much about the environment as he cares about truth. Iowa Republicans have pledged undying allegiance to our dear leader.

We live on the banks of an endless river impaired by greed, pollution and lies. It truly is our golden age.

(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com