Opinion: The proposed change to the definition of “waters of the United States” flouts sound science
Opinion: The proposed change to the definition of “waters of the United States” flouts sound science
复制标题
意见：对“美国水域”定义的拟议修改藐视合理的科学
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
A. Rodewald
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Mažeika P. Sullivan;M. Rains;A. Rodewald
美国环境保护署（EPA）和美国陆军工程兵团（以下简称“机构”）发布了一项拟议规则（1），该规则将从美国一半以上的湿地和五分之一的溪流中删除清洁水法（CWA）的保护。这一举措与报告显示美国沃茨仍受到风暴、干旱、污染物、藻类水华和其他压力因素的威胁形成鲜明对比。即使是美国环保署的国家水质清单检测到46%的溪流和河流英里和32%的湿地条件差（3）。简而言之，拟议中的规则没有反映最好的科学，如果颁布，将损害我们国家的水资源。
美国联邦政府正在考虑的一项拟议中的规则并没有反映出现有的最佳科学，如果颁布，将损害国家的水资源。图像来源：Shutterstock/Martha Marks
尽管CWA的任务是“恢复和保持国家沃茨的化学、物理和生物完整性”（4），但对管辖权的争议仍然存在。几十年来，受保护的“美国沃茨”（WOTUS）包括传统上可航行的沃茨（TNW），如大河、湖泊和领海，以及与TNW有意义连接或影响其完整性的沃茨。这种联系的运作已经成为水资源保护科学和政治的热点。
水体之间的连通性是奥巴马政府的《清洁水规则》（CWR）的基石，该规则反映了1,200多份科学出版物的科学综合[被称为“连通性报告”（5）]，49位专家的投入，以及美国环保署科学咨询委员会（SAB）25名成员组成的小组的严格审查（6）。从那时起，支持2015年CWR的科学证据，因此与新提案相矛盾，只是积累，特别是作为相关的间歇性（即，季节性流动）和短暂（即，定期流动，降水事件后）溪流，河岸和洪泛区，和非洪泛区湿地.
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][19][1电子邮件：sullivan.191{at}osu.edu.
[1]：#xref-corresp-1-1
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter, “the agencies”) have issued a proposed rule (1) that would remove Clean Water Act (CWA) protections from more than half of wetlands and one-fifth of streams in the United States (2). This move sharply contrasts with reports indicating that US waters remain threatened by storms, droughts, contaminants, algal blooms, and other stressors. Even the EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory detected poor conditions in 46% of stream and river miles and 32% of wetlands (3). In short, the proposed rule does not reflect the best-available science and, if enacted, will damage our nation’s water resources.
A proposed rule under consideration by the US federal government does not reflect the best-available science and, if enacted, will damage the nation’s water resources. Image credit: Shutterstock/Martha Marks.
Despite the CWA’s mandate “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (4), controversy persists over jurisdiction. For decades, the protected “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) included traditionally navigable waters (TNWs), such as large rivers, lakes, and territorial seas, as well as waters meaningfully connected to or affecting the integrity of TNWs. Operationalizing this connection has become a flashpoint for the science and politics of water protection.
Connectivity among waterbodies was the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s Clean Water Rule (CWR), which reflected a state-of-the-science synthesis of more than 1,200 scientific publications [known as the “Connectivity Report” (5)], input from 49 experts, and a rigorous review by a 25-member panel of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) (6). Since then, scientific evidence supporting the 2015 CWR, and hence contradicting the new proposal, has only accumulated, especially as related intermittent (i.e., flow seasonally) and ephemeral (i.e., flow periodically, after precipitation events) streams, riparian and floodplain zones, and non-floodplain wetlands …
[↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: sullivan.191{at}osu.edu.
[1]: #xref-corresp-1-1