8 rural-related stories win Sigma Delta Chi awards, including reports on ICE, inequalities, firefighters, environment, etc.

Illustration from ProPublica story about Hurricane Helene and Yancey County, North Carolina

Eight rural-related stories were among winners of Sigma Delta Chi Awards for 2025, announced Thursday night by the Society of Professional Journalists (formerly Sigma Delta Chi) and the SPJ Foundation.

Investigate TV+, a unit of Gray Television, and KFF Health News won the award for broadcast coverage of inequalities in society with a package of three stories called "Dead Zone," explaining that millions of Americans "live sicker, shorter lives in hundreds of rural counties where doctor shortages are the worst and poor internet connections mean little or no access to telehealth services."

The award for public-service radio reporting in small markets went to North Country Public Radio of upstate New York for its report on the ICE raid on a dairy farm, which led to the release of a motherf and three children who were in a detention center awating deportation. "This issue is one that's forcing dairy farmers to sell their herds," the judges wrote. Here's the summary of the coverage and reaction.

Jennifer Berry Hawes, Cassandra Garibay and Mollie Simon of ProPublica won for "Helene's Unheard Warnings" in the category of non-deadline reporting in a publication with a print circulation of more than 40,000 or an online-only piublication. Their package of stories spotlighted the lack of evacuation orders, the hurricane's devastation and survival stories in Yancey County, North Carolina.

Hannah Dreier of The New York Times won the Public Service in Journalism award for her stories on the suffering of firefighters sent into fires by the U.S. Forest Service without warnings of toxic smoke and gases, and with a ban on wearing masks.

Dave Biscobing of KNXV in Phoenix won the large-market TV feature reporting award for his investigation of the sheriff in Prescott, Ariz., pop. 46,000, and "one man’s fight to prove self-defense against a top small-town fire official," as the report describes it.

The award for TV feature in small markets went to Kevin Kelly of KLRT in Little Rock for his story about a family in Vilonia, Ark., who saw their home and classic-car collection devastated by a tornado that killed nine people and injured dozens more in the town of 4,500. They restored the four cars a second time.  

Elise Plunk of the Louisiana Illuminator, Eva Tesfaye of WWNO in New Orleans and Chas Sisk of the Mississippi River Basin Ag and Water Desk won an award for a story on how an accidental delta taught scientists how to rebuilt wetlands. They won in the category for science or environment reporting in a publication with a print circulation up to 40,000 or an affiliated website.

The broadcast award in that category also went to a Louisiana story, "The True Cost of Fertilizer,"
by Garrett Hazelwood and Eric Schmid of "Sea Change" at WRKF in Baton Rouge and WWNO, with support from the Mississippi River Basin Ag and Water Desk, based at the University of Missouri.

The awards program also included announcement of the top Mark of Excellence Award for College Journalism, which went to a rural story: "Broadband’s broken promise: How federal failures and funding fights keep Native and Black farmers offline," done by Melissa Dai of Northwestern University during her summer internship with Investgate Midwest. The story had won the MOE award for investigative reporting, then was judged to be the top piece of college journalism in 2025.

30,000 trees and 2,000 volunteers can restore New Orleans' wetlands

Volunteers from the CRCL plant trees as part of
 their Native Plants Program. (CRCL Photo)

Organizers are working to plant 30,000 trees in New Orleans to restore the wetlands around the city that have remained destroyed since Hurricane Katrina, reports Melina Walling for The Associated Press. 

Native trees like bald cypress and water tupelo will keep the land from slipping further below sea level, cultivate a better habitat for wildlife and provide New Orleans with a protective barrier from storms, Walling explains.

After the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers made the Mississippi River—Gulf Outlet Canal (MRGO) to use as a shipping channel during the government’s new levee initiative, Walling reports. This canal furthered the damage during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 by letting saltwater into the freshwater ecosystems around New Orleans, killing many of the trees which held the land in place.

Environmental organizations have formed the Central Wetlands Reforestation Collective to start restoring the land after the MRGO was shut down, and the salt levels were able to normalize. “We’re one part of a larger movement to resist this sort of ‘doomerism’ mindset, and to show that recovery is possible,” Christina Lehew, executive director of one of these organizations, told Walling.

The organizers were able to receive federal and state funding for two large grants to work on the tree planting. 

Many of the organizers experienced the hurricane firsthand, so this initiative has helped them to heal and find hope in future generations.

Earth's methane levels began to spike in 2020; a new study may have uncovered the 'culprit.'

Wetlands and cow stomachs have similar
environments. (Adobe Stock photo)

In 2020, Earth's methane levels started to climb the charts at an inexplicable rate, putting the planet on a crash course with greenhouse gases that could eventually heat oceans and land to life-threatening temperatures, reports Shannon Osaka of The Washington Post. Researchers have been baffled by the cause -- until now. Scientists say a study released last month reveals why methane levels are spiking.

"The culprits, scientists believe, are microbes — the tiny organisms that live in cows’ stomachs, agricultural fields and wetlands," Osaka writes. "That could mean a dangerous feedback loop — in which these emissions cause warming that releases even more greenhouse gases — is already underway."

Sylvia Michel, lead author of the paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told Osaka, "The changes that we saw in the last couple of years — and even since 2007 — are microbial." Oska adds. "The new paper points to microbes as the biggest source of the methane spike."

In clarifying the source of rising methane levels, the study ruled out fossil fuels and geological causes. Stanford University professor Rob Jackson, who is part of the Global Methane Budget, explained how cow stomachs and swampy places are alike. He told Osaka, "Methane forms biologically in warm, wet, low-oxygen environments. The wetlands of a rice paddy and the gut of the cow are all similar.”

Microbe methane output may be a chemical reaction to a warming planet. Osaka reports, "Michel says it’s too early to say whether this is the beginning of a vicious cycle. 'Are these coming from human-caused changes in freshwater systems, or are they a kind of scary climate feedback?' she said. 'I want to be careful about what we can and cannot say with this data.'"

In landmark 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court says Environmental Protection Agency can't protect wetlands not tied to streams

Signs posted by the Idaho couple whose building project EPA
blocked, prompting them to file suit. (Associated Press photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court ended one of the longest battles over the Clean Water Act Thursday, ruling 5-4 that the Environmental Protection Agency's power to protect wetlands does not extend as far as the high court said it did in another narrow decision 17 years ago. The decision has "broad ramifications for the environment, agriculture, energy and mining," The Associated Press reports.

At issue was the act's phrase "waters of the United States," or WOTUS, which the court said in 2006 could be regulated if they had a "significant nexus" to nearby waterways. Thursday, in an opinion written by highly conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court said WOTUS "extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right so that they are 'indistinguishable' from those waters." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined the opinion.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, saying the Army Corps of Engineers “has always included in the definition of ‘adjacent wetlands’ not only wetlands adjoining covered waters but also those wetlands that are separated from covered waters by a manmade dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the like. . . . We should not create ambiguity where none exists. And we may not rewrite ‘adjacent’ to mean the same thing as ‘adjoining,’ as the Court does today.”

Richard J. Lazarus, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, went back even farther in an op-ed for The Washington Post, citing a unanimous 1985 decision of the court that allowed EPA to protect wetlands. The latest decision "could lead to the removal of millions of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands from the law's direct protection," Lazarus writes. Connor Griffin of the Louisville Courier Journal explains, "Generally, wetlands are areas of land covered with water or saturated for some or all of the year. Marshes are an example of this habitat. Boasting biodiversity on par with rainforests and coral reefs, wetlands provide critical habitat for animals like waterfowl, and are a hotbed for plant life."

The case was filed by an Idaho couple who got a local permit 15 years ago build about 300 feet from Priest Lake and filled in part of a wetland with sand and gravel, Reuters reports. The EPA blocked them, they sued, and the high court ruled 9-0 Thursday that EPA overstepped. As the case moved through the courts, Republican and Democratic administrations redefined WOTUS in various ways, some going beyond the wetlands question and generating more court action. "In 2015 the Obama administration widened the scope of the law to cover even ephemeral streams and ponds," Robert Barnes reports for the Post. "The Trump-era EPA repealed the rule and in 2019 created a new, weaker one. The Biden administration has tried to strike a balance by undoing the Trump-era rule and redefining EPA oversight as covering 'traditional navigable waters,' including interstate waterways and upstream water sources that influence the health and quality of those waterways."

Flora/fauna quickies: How snails travel so far, pet-inspired art, what to do when baby bird falls from a nest, and more

Sybil Gorby with an heirloom tomato she grew
in her garden. (Courtesy family photo)

Big-vegetable photos aren't just for rural weeklies. The Washington Post spotlights Sybil Gorby, 92, who has been planting tomato seeds from the same lineage since 1965. "Sometimes, the seeds turn into giant heirloom tomatoes, including one from last year's harvest," reports Sydney Page. Gorby's daughter, Sandy Marody, "shared a photo of her mother holding the large fruit in a Facebook group called 'Appalachian Americans.'. . . . People were quite impressed with the photo of Gorby proudly cupping the supersized tomato in her hands."

The "alpha wolf" myth has a long history as a paragon of power and dominance. But new research shows the myth is false. Researcher David Mech describes the wolf as "one of the wildest and shyest of all the animals in the northern wilderness," reports Rivka Galchen of The New Yorker.

Thom van Dooren wonders this about snails: "How do organisms that are so sedentary end up being so incredibly widely dispersed?" Find out how these notoriously slow animals get around.

Robin fledgling (Photo by Jeanette Tasey, Audubon)

A baby bird is out of its nest. Now what? Do you attempt to help? Walk away feeling bad but not wanting to make things worse for the little guy? This timely article gives some advice. 

As a child, Jessica Gauley, a kayak tour operator, once romped about Honey Island Swamp in Louisiana. Now she's working to reclaim a wetland, reports Anya Slepyan of The Daily Yonder. "Poisonous pollutants from industrial plants had turned nearly 10 acres of the healthy, primeval swamp into a toxic wasteland. . . . She calls the area the 'kill zone' because of the contaminants' toll on the local wildlife. . . . Gauley began cleaning up the kill zone, one kayak-load of trash at a time. . . . . a tour group she lead offered to help her. . . .The zone still has a long way to go, but Gauley has already started workshopping a new name for the area: the resurrection swamp."

Calling all pet artwork! Beth Novey of National Public Radio zipped out a missive asking for submissions, "We were curious to see what other pet-inspired artworks were out there, so we asked you to share some of yours, and dear readers, you did not disappoint. Below is just a small sampling of the hundreds of masterpieces we received." They've got a cat snow sculpture, "The Goatie Boys" Christmas drawing, Meow Lisa, and artwork with real horse hair.

Billy the Goat was a popular sight on Lake Cumberland
in Southern Kentucky. (Photo courtesy of Matthew Blum)

A huge Kentucky lake has lost one of its longtime fauna friends. "Billy the Goat, a wild creature who had made his home along the busy shores of Lake Cumberland, is being mourned and remembered by the legions of lake users who had taken a shine to him, after recently being found dead, apparently by gunshot," reports Christopher Harris of the Somerset Commonwealth Journal. "And like Billy's exploits in life, the news of his death has become something of a local viral sensation."

There's just no explaining some couples. "A rescue dog and goat are best friends. A shelter put them up for adoption as a pair," Cathy Free of The Washington Post reports. Jennifer Federico, director of animal services at the Wake County Animal Center, told Free, "It's a weird duo, but it works for them. Who are we to judge? They obviously love each other."

EPA effectively says no to Alaska's huge Pebble Mine, but the 'epic resource battle' is expected to continue in court

Sockeye salmon spawn. (Photo by Loren Holmes, Anchorage Daily News)

To mine or not to mine? That has been a 20-year question. Now the Environmental Protection Agency has once again "blocked development of the Pebble Mine project in a corner of the Bristol Bay watershed, a vast and pristine swath of southwest Alaska that sustains the greatest sockeye salmon runs on the planet," reports Hal Bernton of The Seattle Times. "A key portion of land surrounding the Pebble deposit [is now] off-limits for use as a disposal site. . . The decision follows years of legal jousting and regulatory twists and turns . . . in what emerged as an epic Alaska resource battle." And it is likely to continue in court.

Seattle Times maps by Mark Nowlin; top one shows disposal restrictions

"This is fantastic news,” Harry Moore, a lifelong Bristol Bay fisher, told Bernton. “Science prevailed. People prevailed and more importantly salmon prevailed.” Bernton notes, "Moore, largely raised in Seattle and residing in Alaska, joined in protests against the mine in a grassroots organizing effort."

Bernton writes, "The Pebble Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of Canada-based Northern Dynasty Ltd., calls the Bristol Bay deposit 'one of the greatest stores of mineral wealth ever discovered,' including gold, copper, silver and molybdenum. . . officials argued the mine could tap into mineral deposits needed for the transition to cleaner forms of energy, boosting the Alaska economy without harming salmon." CEO John Shively said, “This preemptive action against Pebble is not supported legally, technically or environmentally. As such, the next step will likely be to take legal action to fight against this injustice.”

But the Trump administration also rejected the plan, and “It’s hard for me to imagine a court [overturning] that kind of double shot,” said Bob Perciasepe, a former acting EPA administrator in the Obama administration and head of its air and water divisions in the Clinton administration. He told The Washington Post, “The amount of money that the company would have to continue to be able to put forward to keep the thing active seems difficult.”

The EPA based its decision "on a December recommendation from Seattle-based regional administrator Casey Sixkiller," Bernton reports. "The Seattle EPA regional office, in a document detailing the recommendation, stated that the mine discharges would result in losses and changes to 8.5 miles of streams used by salmon and another 91 miles of waterways that support the salmon streams as well as 2,108 acres of wetlands and other waters."

Lawyers: High court likely to reject its and EPA's definitions of 'waters of the U.S.,' but which wetlands will be regulated?

Chantell and Michael Sackett erected these signs early in their
dispute with EPA. (Photo by Keith Kinniard, The Associated Press)

The U.S. Supreme Court not only seems likely to throw out the latest effort to define the meaning of "waters of the United States," the key jurisdictional phrase in the Clean Water Act, it will probably abandon its current jurisprudence on the WOTUS issue when it comes to wetlands.

So said lawyers on both sides Monday after the court heard oral arguments in Sackett v. EPA, in which an Idaho couple is fighting the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to make them protect or replace a wetland on property where they have wanted to build a home for 15 years.

"The court’s fractured 2006 ruling" written by then-Justice Anthony Kennedy allowed EPA to regulate wetlands with “significant nexus” to the nation's navigable waters, on the logic that "any pollution or development causing pollution in a tributary of a navigable river or lake would affect the biology and chemistry of the larger water body," reports Bobby Magill of Bloomberg.

“I just don’t see five votes for the significant nexus test,” Jeff Porter, chair of the environmental law practice at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, told Magill. “The real question is what will replace it.” Wetland protection has implications for developers and farmers.

The high court "searched for a way to clarify which wetlands near federally protected waters fall under federal jurisdiction," Magill reports, "Justice Sonya Sotomayor asked if another test could be used that is more precise than the significant-nexus test. Her questioning offered a clue that the 'significant nexus test is likely gone,” said David Smith, a partner at Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.' The court appears to be pivoting toward using adjacency as one of the ways to define WOTUS, he said."

Low-lying rural areas near coasts will bear the brunt of sea-level rise, analysis of Chesapeake Bay maps indicates

Median elevation of Chesapeake Bay watersheds
(Limnology and Oceanography graphic)

"A new analysis using highly detailed elevation maps of the Chesapeake Bay suggests that North America's extensive areas of low-lying rural land will allow coastal marshes to persist or even expand as salty water creeps upward into what are now forests and farmland," Science Daily reports.

According to the study, recently published in Limnology and Oceanography Letters, more than 600 square miles of low-lying land in the Chesapeake region—more than 75% of it rural—will become marshland by 2100. "The challenge for North American landowners and governments will be to equitably manage the conversion of what is now mostly privately owned, income-producing rural uplands into coastal wetland habitats whose value lies mainly in providing publicly valued ecosystem services such as flood protection and the nurture of fish and bird populations." David Malmquist reports for the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Rising sea levels will affect more than the Chesapeake. Here's an interactive tool showing which parts of North America could be submerged at different sea levels (presumably, low-lying lands near such areas could also become marshy).

High court reconsiders 'significant nexus' ruling on wetlands

Here's the latest development in a longstanding debate over how much power the government has to regulate water on private land: The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Michael and Chantell Sackett can build a house on their northern Idaho property that has a disputed connection to wetlands. In considering the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used the proper test to determine whether wetlands are 'waters of the United States'," and thus subject to federal regulation, Chuck Abbott reports for the Food & Environment Reporting Network.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Sacketts, "said the case would give the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit a 2006 ruling that said that if a wetland has a 'significant nexus' with navigable waters, it is covered by the Clean Water Act. There have been repeated arguments over how to identify that connection," Abbott reports. Pacific Legal attorney Damien Schiff said the Sacketts' property lacks a surface water connection to any body of water and shouldn't be subject to federal regulation.

This isn't the Sacketts' first trip to the Supreme Court over the 0.5-acre plot near Priest Lake. When they bought the property in 2004, they were told it had wetlands so they would need federal permits before building on it. "The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2012 that the Sacketts had the right as landowners to challenge the EPA’s wetlands determinations. The Pacific Legal Foundation represented them in that case, too," Abbott reports.

Army Corps of Engineers announces it won't use relaxed Trump-era waters definition when making permit decisions

"The Biden administration last week quietly and abruptly announced that developers can no longer rely on decisions made under a high-profile Trump-era Clean Water Act rule about which waters are federally protected to obtain new permits," Hannah Northey reports for Energy & Environment News. "Legal experts say the move could have far-reaching effects throughout the building, mining and agricultural sectors."

At issue is how regulations define the Clean Water Act's definition of "waters of the United States," those regulated by the act. The Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama had expanded that term to include intermittent and seasonal waterways. Farmers and developers were unhappy with the move, saying it was government overreach and unnecessarily burdensome. The Trump administration scaled back the WOTUS definition but a federal judge tossed it on the grounds that it could harm the environment. "Notably, some argue the rule is still in effect until EPA completes the regulatory process of replacing the Trump rule with pre-2015 regulations updated to reflect consideration of Supreme Court decisions," Northey reports.

Conflicting rulings in federal district courts have sown confusion, so on Jan. 5 the Army Corps of Engineers posted on its website a new rule meant to clarify the matter. "Going forward, the Army Corps in its announcement explains that it will make new permit decisions based on the pre-2015 regulatory regime — not the Trump rule — and that the agency will talk to applicants about any pending or future permit action that relies on an approved jurisdictional determination made under the Trump rule," Northey reports. "Specifically, the Army Corps said they would talk to applicants about whether they want to receive a new determination based on pre-2015 regulations or proceed with a preliminary determination or none at all, according to the post."

The new policy could affect people who were told they had no WOTUS jurisdictional areas on their land. It could also affect developers. "Ellen Gilinsky, a former wetlands consultant and associate deputy assistant administrator for water at EPA under the Obama administration, said the Army Corps’ decision could affect anyone who had an approved jurisdictional determination under the Trump rule but figured they had five years to apply for a permit using that decision," Northey reports. "Developers that fit into that bucket, she said, are going to be surprised when they go in for a permit and are told their development plans are going to have to change."

Developers, mining companies, and farmers have objected to the Jan. 5 policy update; several legal experts told Northey the change will likely lead to multiple lawsuits. Meanwhile, EPA and the Army Corps are seeking farmers' input on a new rewrite of the definition.

USDA finalizes and expands 'swampbuster' rules on farm wetlands conservation, dismaying Farm Bureau

On Friday the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service published its final rule on determining whether land is considered highly erodible or a wetland. In order to qualify for most USDA programs, farmers must be in compliance with these so-called "swampbuster" rules, first introducted in the 1985 Farm Bill, Ag Daily reports.

The final rule confirms most of the changes made in a 2018 Farm Bill interim rule and includes some additional updates, such as promising to make a reasonable effort to include the affected person in on-site investigations, Ag Daily reports.

Not everyone was happy with the updated rule, including the nation's largest general agriculture organization. American Farm Bureau Federation president Zippy Duvall said in a press release that farmers are strong advocates of conservation, and they deserve clear rules and safeguards to ensure they're treated fairly when the NRCS determines conservation compliance. However, farmers "remain powerless" under the new rule, Duvall said.

During AFBF's annual convention in January, delegates agreed that repealing the swampbuster rules was a top lobbying goal for 2020. They wanted the USDA to better specify wetland designations and streamline the appeals process for producers found in violation of the rules.

Study explores risk of rising sea levels to rural coastal areas

A "ghost forest," trees killed by saltwater intrusion (Photo from Virginia Institute of Marine Science)

A new study highlights the probable impact of rising sea levels on rural coastal areas. "The paper—based on research funded by the National Science Foundation—is the first effort to synthesize the growing number of studies of land conversion driven by sea-level rise. One of the clearest signs of this conversion are 'ghost forests'—stands of dead trees with new marshlands lapping at their bleached trunks," David Malmquist reports for Phys.org.

Ghost forests are one of the most noticeable signs of climate change, according to lead author Matt Kirwan, an associate professor at The College of William & Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Moreover, he writes, "Recent research shows that submergence of rural land—marked by ghost forests and abandoned farm fields—is widespread, ecologically and economically important, and globally relevant to the survival of coastal wetlands."

All over the world, forests are turning into ghost forests more quickly than they once did. In the mid-Atlantic, it's happening more than twice as fast as even 150 years ago. More than 150 square miles of forest have turned into marshland since the mid-1800s, the study notes.

"Kirwan and his co-author, Keryn Gedan of George Washington University, note that the scientific community's emerging recognition of this issue has generated widespread interest in better understanding the many factors that influence the extent and pace of upland-to-wetland conversion," Malmquist reports. "These include the rate of sea-level rise, slope of the upland, tidal range, amount of sediment available for vertical marsh growth, salt tolerance of different tree and grass species, and—critically—the presence of levees and other human barriers both large and small."

Flood-defense strategies could help protect forests from rising sea levels, the authors write. They recommend that researchers study the effectiveness of local and privately owned barriers and the probability and consequences of their failure, to help landowners, government officials and environmental groups decide how best to protect the land or whether it wouldn't be feasible to save it. They also recommend studying whether stopgap solutions, like planting salt-tolerant crops and harvesting susceptible timber, will help private landowners preserve some of the value of their land.

Finally, the researchers recommend lawmakers study how policy incentives could influence future transitions from upland to wetland. "They suggest that offerings such as U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program, in which farmers are paid to remove environmentally sensitive land from production, could be re-purposed as instruments for adapting to sea-level rise. They also recommend that policymakers use regional predictions of wetland gain or loss to set incentives for prioritizing wetland migration or upland protection," Malmquist reports.

Some states seek federal money to fight invasive species

Cheatgrass, drying and posing fire hazard (Elko Daily photo)

Invasive species cause more than $120 billion in economic damage to U.S. states every year; since the Interior Department's Invasive Species Advisory Committee "concluded that federal agencies lack the authority to effectively combat that impact," so states are seeking partnerships with the federal government, Dave Nyczepir reports for Route Fifty.

Before the U.S. Senate Environment Committee Wednesday, a Wyoming official talked about the difficulty of suppressing cheatgrass, "a weed that consumes large amounts of water, degrades soil, displaces vegetation, and fuels catastrophic wildfires" and had reduced the state’s 50-year fire cycle to three years, Nyczepir reports, adding that the problem goes beyond Wyoming; "In the last 20 years, 74 percent of Department of Interior acres that experienced wildfires were on rangelands, and 80 percent of those 12 million rangeland acres had been invaded by cheatgrass, according to the Bureau of Land Management."

A North Dakota official said his state doesn't need federal aid, but from the other side of the country, a Delaware official said otherwise. “States currently don’t have sufficient resources to tackle all of the threats outlined within their wildlife action plans, so we are unable to address threats facing fish and wildlife populations from invasive species,” said Joe Rogerson, program manager for wildlife species conservation and research at the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife.

Rogerson said federal help was helpful in eliminating the nutria, "a semi-aquatic rodent with large orange teeth native to South America," from the Chesapeake Bay area in the early 2000s, "A prolific breeder and voracious eater of grasses, nutria threatened to destroy 35 thousand acres of wetlands in 50 years."

Nutria (Photo via RouteFifty)

Report: New definition of 'waters of the U.S.' would strictly limit the Clean Water Act to always-flowing streams

Most wetlands wouldn't qualify under the new definition.
(Photo by Petr Kratochvil, PublicDomainPictures.net)

This week the Trump administration is expected to "propose to severely restrict the number of wetlands and waterways covered by the Clean Water Act," Ariel Wittenberg reports for Energy and Environment News. "The proposed new definition of 'waters of the United States,' or WOTUS, will erase federal protections from streams that flow only following rainfall, as well as wetlands not physically connected to larger waterways, according to a copy of EPA talking points obtained by E&E News."

According to those talking points, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers will make the announcement on Tuesday. It's unknown how much of our nation's wetlands and waterways will lose federal protection, but Wittenberg notes that the talking points give some indications. The talking points say that "ephemeral streams and related features" that only exist after rain will be entirely excluded from WOTUS. The proposal aims to protect only wetlands that are "physically and meaningfully connected" to other waters protected under WOTUS.

"It's not clear how the administration would define 'physically and meaningfully connected,' Wittenberg reports. "But the agencies have set out to write a regulation based on a 2006 opinion written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the Clean Water Act should extend only to waters and wetlands with a 'continuous surface connection' to nearby rivers and streams where it is 'difficult to determine where the 'water' ends and the 'wetland' begins.'"

April 13 deadline for journalists to apply for expenses-paid expedition to learn about Upper Mississippi River issues

The Institute for Journalism and Natural Resources is accepting applications for the Upper Mississippi River Institute, a expenses-paid week in June for 15 to 20 journalists to learn about the issues that originate in and affect a watershed that drains nearly 40 percent of the contiguous United States.

Selected journalists will meet with local citizens, elected officials, business owners, resource managers and scientists to explore topics such as:

• The 2018 Farm Bill and how activities and incentives it promotes on land will shape the river from its headwaters to the Gulf of Mexico.
• The connections between domestic oil and gas, Midwest agriculture and the loss of Minnesota forests and wetlands.
• A new vision for the Mississippi River and a push to connect more communities in the Twin Cities to it.
• "Soil health," the latest science in soil conservation, and community efforts to reduce runoff on Minnesota farms.
• Federal and state efforts to restore habitat, rebuild islands and reintroduce endangered freshwater mussels below Lock and Dam 7 on the Mississippi.
• Mining for sand in Minnesota and Wisconsin and different approaches to local control of zoning and resource extraction.
• Industrial-scale agriculture, nitrate pollution and mounting difficulties for utilities trying to provide safe drinking water to rural communities.
• Efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species and exotic pathogens.
• The Mississippi's long history of human development and attempts to control floods and keep the river on an "acceptable" course.
• The river’s big economic impact as a main artery of commercial shipping.

Applications will be accepted through April 13. Click here to learn more or apply.

EPA staff say Pruitt practices extreme secrecy, cite paper for repeal of WOTUS rule as an example

When the Environmental Protection Agency followed through on President Trump’s promise to repeal the rule defining “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act, deputies to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told career employees to justify the changes without making any records, report Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton of The New York Times.

The move on “WOTUS” was part of a pattern, they report: “Pruitt is taking extraordinary measures to conceal his actions, according to interviews with more than 20 current and former agency employees. . . . Pruitt’s penchant for secrecy is reflected not just in his inaccessibility and concern for security. He has terminated a decades-long practice of publicly posting his appointments calendar and that of all the top agency aides, and he has evaded oversight questions."

The WOTUS rule, enacted by the Obama administration, included wetlands and small tributaries. “It was fiercely opposed by farmers, rural landowners and real estate developers,” the reporters note. “The original estimate concluded that the water protections would indeed come at an economic cost to those groups — between $236 million and $465 million annually. But it also concluded, in an 87-page analysis, that the economic benefits of preventing water pollution would be greater: between $555 million and $572 million.”

EPA employees told the Times that Pruitt’s lieutenants told them to produce a new analysis excluding the benefits of protecting wetlands, and “They did what they were told,” said Elizabeth Southerland, who retired last month as a senior official in EPA’s water office.

“Southerland and other experts in federal rule-making said such a sudden shift was highly unusual — particularly since studies that estimate the economic impact of regulations can take months or even years to produce, and are often accompanied by reams of paperwork documenting the process,” the Times reports. “The mere fact they are telling people not to write things down shows they are trying to keep things hidden,” Jeffrey Lubbers, a professor of administrative law at American University, told the newspaper.

EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman “categorically denied the accounts employees interviewed for this article gave of the secrecy surrounding Mr. Pruitt,” the Times reports, quoting her: “None of this is true. It’s all rumors. . . . It’s very disappointing, yet not surprising, to learn that you would solicit leaks, and collude with union officials in an effort to distract from the work we are doing to implement the president’s agenda.”

Meanwhile, another EPA spokesperson, Jahan Wilcox, threatened to call "security" on reporters who wanted to see Pruitt while he was on the University of North Dakota campus for a private meeting with farmers, reports Andrew Hoeffner of the Grand Forks Herald.

Outgoing EPA head says one of her biggest regrets was failing to connect to rural America

Outgoing Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy says one of her biggest regrets was a failure to connect to rural America, Valerie Volcovici reports for Reuters. McCarthy told Reuters, "We tried to change the outreach and messaging in rural America in a number of ways, but . . . has it changed the rhetoric that people hear? It hasn't. We couldn't get it, but I wish we had." 

The EPA chief sometimes rubbed rural folks the wrong way and inadvertently offended people. That was evident during her failed attempts to explain EPA's expanded definition of "waters of the U.S." under the Clean Water Act to farmers, in which she called their concerns about the rules "silly" and "ludicrous," words she said were taken out of context.

"McCarthy said her struggle to convince rural Americans that a clean energy economy can also provide jobs was a major disappointment in a four-year tenure that she felt was mostly positive," Volcovici writes. "She said crafting the country's first carbon regulations for power plants and taking strong enforcement actions against companies like Volkswagen—accused of cheating on emissions tests—were high points that proved the agency's serious approach."

She said she "tried to build more visibility and stronger partnerships in rural communities to emphasize the value of the EPA's role, particularly in protecting local air and water," Volcovici writes. "But she said political baggage around the term 'climate change' had hampered those efforts. She told Reuters, "Just because climate continues to be bandied about as a partisan issue instead of just a science issue, it's made EPA's job more difficult." McCarthy also said coal-mining communities "unfairly blamed the EPA for a downturn in the industry that began decades before the regulatory shift against carbon, and which has accelerated because of competition from natural gas."

Army Corps issues letter giving guidance on determining 'waters of the U.S.' jurisdiction

One of the most controversial points of the Environmental Protection Agency's rules to define "waters of the United States" in federal law has been how far the rules will extend the agency's jurisdiction. On Wednesday the Army Corps of Engineers "unveiled guidance to help regulators in the field decide whether wetlands and streams on property being developed fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government," Tiffany Stecker reports for Greenwire.

"The regulatory guidance letter offers Army Corps districts guidance on when to issue different types of jurisdictional determinations, which establish whether the corps has jurisdiction over wetlands and streams on a tract of land based on whether they are connected to waters downstream," Stecker writes. "The determinations serve as a basis for whether a landowner or developer must obtain permits under the Clean Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act."

"The letter was issued in an effort to provide clarity on when it is appropriate for a district regulator to complete a 'preliminary' determination, an 'approved' determination or no determination at all," Stecker writes. "The unanimous decision in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc. in May found that approved jurisdictional determinations [AJDs] were 'final agency actions' and thus subject to court challenges. ... Preliminary jurisdictional determinations are only advisory, while approved determinations are legally binding."

The letter says that if the Corps is able to access a tract of land and "is otherwise able to complete an AJD," it will issue one when formally requested.

Trump says he would eliminate rule that expansively defining 'waters of the United States'

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Saturday in Fredericksburg, Va. that he would "eliminate the 'destructive and invasive' waters of the United States rule," Ben Kamisar reports for The Hill. The GOP candidate argued that the regulations are "so extreme it gives federal agencies control over creeks and small streams—even puddles—on private property." (Getty Images: Donald Trump in Fredericksburg, Va.)

Trump also accused Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of being against jobs that fuel rural economies, Kamisar writes. Trump said, "Hillary Clinton supports every last job-killing Obama regulation and wants to go even further. She wants to put the farmers out of business, just like she wants to put the miners and steel workers out of business." (Read more)

Republicans move to force Obama to veto resolution blocking Waters of the U.S. rules

Congressional Republicans want to force President Obama to veto a measure to eliminate the administration's Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rules, Philip Brasher reports for Agri-Pulse. Despite lacking a two-thirds vote to approve the resolution in either chamber in previous votes, "the House on Wednesday gave final congressional approval to a disapproval resolution that would eliminate the rules."

House Speaker Paul Ryan wrote in the Omaha World-Herald that "the veto would force Obama 'to be up front with the American people about his administration's power grabs and will set the stage for correcting these abuses in 2017,'" Brasher writes. "House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway, (R-Texas) argued during the floor debate that 'farmers and ranchers deserve a government that will review and consider their thoughts, not a government that refuses to engage stakeholders and hands down orders from on high.'”

Some Democrats call the move a waste of time, Brasher writes. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) told him, “We don't pass legislation. Instead we pass sound bites, and that's what we're doing here. This chamber has become an echo chamber, if you will, for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and its priorities."

"Republicans are running out of legislative options to stop the rule," Brasher writes. "Republicans wanted to add language to the fiscal 2016 omnibus spending bill that would have blocked enforcement of the rule should the court stays be lifted, but the White House refused to allow the provision. The resolution was drafted under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to reject major new regulations." (Read more)