Where's the Science? Recent Changes to Clean Water Act Threaten Wetlands and Thousands of Miles of Our Nation's Rivers and Streams
Where's the Science? Recent Changes to Clean Water Act Threaten Wetlands and Thousands of Miles of Our Nation's Rivers and Streams
复制标题
科学在哪里？
DOI：
10.1089/ees.2020.0058
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Rains, Mark
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mihelcic, James R.;Rains, Mark
美国政府在1972年通过《清洁水法》(CWA)时的愿景是恢复和维护国家水域的化学、物理和生物完整性，以支持渔业和娱乐活动。美国环境保护局和美国陆军工程兵团最近在2020年对CWA进行了重大且有争议的修改，该法规被称为可航行水域保护规则。本文回顾了CWA的两党历史，以及如何定义“美国水域”以提供法律管辖权的历史轨迹。然后讨论了支持2015年CWA变化的科学，以及支持最近变化的科学的缺乏。2015年的《清洁水规则》旨在以科学为基础，澄清《美国水域》对CWA法规的意义。这一规则基于对1200篇同行评议文章的综合和审查，这些文章是一份长达408页的科学连接报告的基础。对于最近发布的规定，美国环境保护局(EPA)的科学咨询委员会写道，EPA没有将最好的可用科学纳入规则制定过程，也没有提供“可比的同行评议证据”来支持对CWA的拟议变化。此外，环境保护局无视科学，甚至声称“科学不能决定联邦水域和州立水域之间的界限。”美国环保署的使命是保护人类和环境健康，该兵团的愿景是“为我们国家最严峻的挑战提供工程解决方案”。最终，环保局和兵团忽视了他们的责任、使命和愿景，在他们保护我们国家今世后代的水的任务中忽视了成熟的科学。
The vision of the U.S. government when they passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 was to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters to support fishing and recreation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers have recently made major and controversial changes to the CWA in a 2020 regulation referred to as the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. This article reviews the bipartisan history of the CWA and the historic trajectory of how “waters of the United States” are defined to provide legal jurisdiction. It then discusses the science that supported changes to the CWA made in 2015 and lack of science that supported recent changes. The 2015 Clean Water Rule was intended to be a science-based clarification of what “waters of the United States” mean to CWA regulation. That rule was based on synthesis and review of >1,200 peer-reviewed articles that served as the basis for a 408-page scientificConnectivity Report. For the recently released regulation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Science Advisory Board wrote that EPA did not incorporate the best-available science into the rule making process and provided no “comparable body of peer-reviewed evidence” to support the proposed changes to the CWA. Furthermore, the EPA ignored science by even stating that “science cannot dictate where to draw the line between Federal and State waters.” EPA's mission is to protect human and environmental health, the Corps has a vision of “engineering solutions for our Nation's toughest challenges.” Ultimately, the EPA and the Corps have ignored their responsibilities, mission, and vision by ignoring well-established science in their mandates to protect our nation's water for current and future generations.
登录
查看更多内容
地理上孤立的湿地水文连通性的确凿证据
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
J. Thorslund;M. Cohen;J. Jawitz;G. Destouni;I. Creed;M. Rains;P. Badiou;J. Jarsjö
通讯作者：
J. Jarsjö
DOI：
10.1111/1752-1688.12421
发表时间：
2016-06-01
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Lane, Charles R.;D'Amico, Ellen
通讯作者：
D'Amico, Ellen
意见：对“美国水域”定义的拟议修改藐视合理的科学
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
S. Mažeika P. Sullivan;M. Rains;A. Rodewald
通讯作者：
A. Rodewald
不可通航的溪流和邻近湿地：最高法院拉帕诺斯裁决后解决科学需求
影响因子：
10.3
作者：
S. Leibowitz;P. J. Wigington;M. Rains;D. Downing
通讯作者：
D. Downing