National River Month ends this week, and conservation groups said it’s a reminder that more action is needed to protect Idaho’s rivers.
The state has more than 172,000 kilometers of rivers that provide drinking water, hydroelectric power, tourism and recreational opportunities such as rafting and fishing.
Stephen Pfieffer, environmental officer for Idaho Rivers United, said only a small portion of the state’s river miles are under the strictest federal protections.
“Only 1% of the rivers here in Idaho are protected as wild and scenic river areas,” Pfieffer emphasized. “There are many opportunities to give more stretches of rivers that people enjoy recreational use or depend on the protection they deserve.”
Idaho is home to two of the eight rivers originally protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968: the Middle Fork of the Clearwater River and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. Today, approximately 890 miles of river are protected in Idaho.
The Snake River also flows through Idaho. The Biden administration is studying four dams on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington and their impacts on fish populations migrating to and from Idaho. Last week, the administration announced the creation of a Columbia Basin Task Force to further study the impacts of these dams. Pfieffer said salmon and steelhead populations are declining because of the dams.
“It all boils down to the fact that our wild salmon and steelhead don’t have much time,” Pfieffer stressed. “But if we take these actions now, we can get them to a point where their populations can stabilize and even recover if the dams are removed.”
Proponents of the dams said they would provide hydroelectric power to the region and also enable other uses of the river, such as shipping and irrigation.
Pfieffer added that National Rivers Month is not just about the threats to rivers, but also about enjoying what they offer.
“Idaho has so many amazing stretches of river, and there may be an amazing stretch right outside your door just waiting to be explored,” Pfeffer noted.
Get more stories like this by email
A New York City bill is creating a vicious cycle for lead pipe removal. The so-called “Rotten Apple Bill” requires city property owners to remove lead pipes from their homes and threatens fines if they don’t comply.
Up to 41% of water pipes contain or may contain lead.
Valerie Baron, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, welcomed the bill’s intent but argued that there are better ways to address lead pipes. She said problems could arise if property owners organize pipe replacement work.
“You could, for example, rip up the road six, seven or eight times,” Baron said. “It’s also confusing. It makes it difficult to implement the right health precautions and it’s not cost-effective.”
Baron argued that an effective program requires a commitment to removing lead pipes, with the city doing the work at no cost to homeowners. The state has received funding from the bipartisan infrastructure bill to replace pipes. But she noted that if New York City shifts the responsibility to homeowners, they risk becoming ineligible for the big pot of money. State money has been set aside for this purpose, but it doesn’t match federal funds.
Other concerns include the health hazards associated with removing lead pipes. Disrupting a lead pipe can cause small particles of lead to be dislodged and further contaminate the environment. Baron noted that creating a centralized program will ensure that a home’s pipes are properly flushed and water filtered for six months. She stressed that the law’s penalties could target the wrong people.
“If you don’t get the pipe removed, you’ll be fined $1,000,” Baron said. “We’re concerned that some landlords will view this penalty as a cost of doing business, or that other families who couldn’t afford to have the pipe replaced won’t be able to afford the $1,000 either.”
The move comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a new lead and copper regulation that would give municipalities nationwide 10 years to replace all existing lead pipes. There are some exceptions. The EPA’s new regulation could take effect in 2027.
Get more stories like this by email
A Michigan nonprofit organization working to keep oil out of the Great Lakes is celebrating a major victory.
A federal appeals court has ruled that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s 2019 lawsuit against Canadian oil company Enbridge should be returned to state court.
Nessel’s lawsuit seeks to shut down part of the Line 5 oil pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac due to fears of a possible oil spill.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Enbridge had transferred the case from state court to federal court more than two years after the deadline for changing jurisdiction had expired.
Sean McBrearty, campaign coordinator for the group Oil and Water Don’t Mix and Michigan director of Clean Water Action, said the appeals court ruling was justified because Nessel sued Enbridge based on the state public trust doctrine and the state Environmental Policy Act.
“The doctrine essentially states that the waters and floodplains of the state are the property of the people,” McBrearty said, “and that it is the duty of the state government to take care of them in perpetuity.”
Enbridge issued a statement in response saying, in part, that it was disappointed with the appeals court’s decision and believed that “the case should remain in federal court given the clear and substantial questions of federal law raised by the Attorney General’s complaint.”
Line 5 transports petroleum products from northwest Wisconsin through Michigan to Ontario, passing through the Straits of Mackinac.
McBrearty stressed that his organization’s concerns about the pipeline and the potential for a catastrophic oil spill are based on science.
“We have a 71-year-old pipeline that was designed to last 50 years,” McBrearty said. “It runs every day through what scientists say is the most dangerous place in the Great Lakes for an oil spill.”
Enbridge claims that Line 5’s safety is regulated solely by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The case is remanded to Michigan’s 30th District Court in Ingham County.
Disclosure: Oil and Water Don’t Mix donates to our fund for climate change/air quality, environment, environmental justice and water reporting. If you would like to support news in the public interest, click here.
Get more stories like this by email
Recent reports are calling on Virginia and the U.S. to invest in water infrastructure. The U.S. Water Alliance’s Bridging the Gap report examines two scenarios: continuing investments under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and returning funding to previous levels.
Virginia received a grade of C+ in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ most recent infrastructure report card.
Christy Harowski, Value of Water campaign director at the U.S. Water Alliance, said returning to previous spending levels is not a viable option.
“We will have a $2.6 trillion investment gap in the water sector in 2043, which is a huge number. But if we continue to invest at IIJA levels over the same period, that gap would narrow by $125 billion,” Harowski said.
This is based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s needs survey, which shows that the investment gap in national water infrastructure is $91 billion and will only continue to grow if the bill level is not maintained. She noted that these continued investments at IIJA rates have long-term impacts, such as preserving 200,000 jobs and saving households nearly $7,000 over 20 years.
A challenge with investing in water infrastructure for most is that it becomes out of sight and out of mind. Since much of the water infrastructure is funded by local and state funds, being proactive at the federal level means extending the IIJA beyond its 2026 expiration. Harowski said that disinvestment in the past has compromised existing infrastructure.
“The majority of America’s water infrastructure is about 100 years old,” she said. “In some places it’s even older. It’s well beyond its useful life and as a result, more and more water mains are breaking, more and more pipes are leaking and the need to repair and replace much of that infrastructure far exceeds the investment in it.”
Investments in water infrastructure remain a key issue for voters. The Value of Water Index poll shows there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining IIJA investments. Most voters surveyed would pay modest rate increases to support local utility projects that improve water supplies and community health.
Get more stories like this by email
