Blue Marble 2000. Credit: NASA, Image created by Reto Stockli with the help of Alan Nelson, under the leadership of Fritz Hasler. CC 2.0.
Earth Day, observed on April 22, is a global movement focused on protecting our planet. This year, as the collective acknowledgment of environmental degradation’s profound impact, we are also presented with an opportunity to champion a cause that could significantly alter the course of our environmental future—the Global Plastics Treaty.
Origins & Significance of Earth Day
Earth Day first emerged in 1970, initiated by Senator Gaylord Nelson after witnessing the catastrophic effects of an oil spill in Santa Barbara. The first Earth Day mobilized 20 million Americans and led to the creation of significant environmental policies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Today, Earth Day engages millions of people worldwide in activities aimed at preserving our planet, underscoring the power of collective action in tackling global challenges.
Why Earth Day Matters
Earth Day is crucial for several reasons:
Environmental Education: It raises awareness about pressing environmental issues and promotes sustainable practices.
Global Solidarity: Earth Day unites people across the globe, emphasizing that environmental stewardship is a shared responsibility.
Action and Advocacy: The day inspires individuals and organizations to engage in activities that protect the environment, from local clean-ups to global initiatives.
Earth Day 2024: End Plastic Pollution
The theme for Earth Day 2024 is the urgent need to combat plastic pollution. Plastics, particularly single-use plastics, are a severe threat to the environment, filling our oceans, killing wildlife, and disrupting ecosystems. The focus is on reducing plastic production by 60% by 2040 and eliminating single-use plastics by 2030.
The Urgent Call for the Global Plastics Treaty
In conjunction with Earth Day’s efforts, there is a significant push for the Global Plastics Treaty, a comprehensive international agreement aimed at tackling plastic pollution globally. With over 14,905 signatures, this petition calls on the United Nations and government organizations to adopt stringent measures against plastic pollution, including:
Reducing fossil fuel-based plastic production by 60% by 2040.
Holding producers accountable for environmental and health-related damages.
Banning plastic waste exports and incineration.
Promoting innovation in alternatives to plastic.
If we do not change our current habits, we will see a rise in hormonal diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular damage linked to the production and consumption of plastics. However, this bleak future is not inevitable; we have the ability to redirect our path and avoid this looming crisis.
How You Can Help
This Earth Day, let your actions speak louder than words:
Sign the Global Plastics Treaty Petition: Join the global movement to push for a binding international agreement that addresses plastic pollution head-on.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Make personal changes to minimize your plastic usage.
Participate in Community Actions: Engage in local Earth Day events that focus on cleaning up and reducing plastics and help spread the word.
Final Thoughts
Celebrating Earth Day means committing to protect our planet continuously. By supporting initiatives like the Global Plastics Treaty, we can take significant steps towards a sustainable future free from plastic pollution. This Earth Day, let’s not just celebrate our planet; let’s take concrete steps to save it. Together, we can make a difference, but only if we act now. Join the movement, sign the treaty, and be part of the solution. We have the power to change our environmental destiny and ensure a healthier planet for future generations.
Our goal is not just an environment of clean air and water and scenic beauty. The objective is an environment of decency, quality and mutual respect for all other human beings and all living creatures.
Colorado River as it meanders south towards the Grand Canyon, taken near to Horse Shoe Bend AZ. Source: herdiephoto, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Insights from a New Comprehensive Water Accounting Study
The Colorado River, a lifeline for over 40 million people and over two million hectares of cropland, barely trickles into the Gulf of California’s shores. The river has reached a critical juncture due to decades of overuse and climate challenges.
A new study published in Nature provides a comprehensive water budget, shedding light on the intricate dynamics of water consumption and offering a roadmap toward sustainable management. The river’s dwindling flows underscore a pressing need for strategic interventions to ensure its survival and continued support for millions of people and vast agricultural lands.
The Heart of the Matter
The multi-year study conducted between 2000 and 2019, provides a granular analysis of water usage patterns, pinpointing agriculture as the dominant consumer. The findings indicate that irrigated agriculture accounts for a staggering 74% of direct human water use, with cattle feed crops such as alfalfa and grass as significant water guzzlers, accounting for 46% of direct water consumption.
Water consumed by each sector in the Colorado River Basin and sub-basins (including exports), based on 2000–2019 averages from the study New water accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea (Fig. 4).
The Colorado River’s Dilemma
The Colorado River’s plight tells a tale of natural variability alongside a stark reflection of human choices and their impacts on natural resources. The study’s revelations about the scale of agricultural water use, especially for cattle feed, invite a critical reassessment of water allocation priorities and the sustainability of current agricultural practices.
Navigating the Waters Ahead
Addressing the Colorado River’s challenges requires a multifaceted approach, combining policy reforms, technological innovations, and shifts in agricultural practices. The study advocates for a balanced water budget and the adoption of water-efficient technologies and crops.
With cattle feed crops utilizing a considerable portion of the river’s water, the study suggests reevaluating crop choices and water use efficiency. Implementing more sustainable practices, including alternative cropping patterns and enhanced irrigation techniques, could substantially reduce water stress. Moreover, it underscores the importance of collaborative water management strategies involving all stakeholders to ensure equitable and sustainable use.
Final Thoughts
The Colorado River’s diminishing flows serve as a wake-up call to address the unsustainable patterns of water consumption that threaten this critical water source. The comprehensive study lays the groundwork for informed decision-making, urging immediate action to safeguard the river’s future. Through collective efforts and sustainable practices, there is hope for restoring the balance and ensuring the Colorado River continues to sustain the Southwest for future generations.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Sackett v. EPA that federal protection of wetlands encompasses only those wetlands that directly adjoin rivers, lakes and other bodies of water. This is an extremely narrow interpretation of the Clean Water Act that could expose many wetlands across the U.S. to filling and development.
Under this keystone environmental law, federal agencies take the lead in regulating water pollution, while state and local governments regulate land use. Wetlands are areas where land is wet for all or part of the year, so they straddle this division of authority.
Swamps, bogs, marshes and other wetlands provide valuable ecological services, such as filtering pollutants and soaking up floodwaters. Landowners must obtain permits to discharge dredged or fill material, such as dirt, sand or rock, in a protected wetland.
This can be time-consuming and expensive, which is why the Supreme Court’s ruling on May 25, 2023, will be of keen interest to developers, farmers and ranchers, along with conservationists and the agencies that administer the Clean Water Act – namely, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
For the last 45 years – and under eight different presidential administrations – the EPA and the Corps have required discharge permits in wetlands “adjacent” to water bodies, even if a dune, levee or other barrier separated the two. The Sackett decision upends that approach, leaving tens of millions of acres of wetlands at risk.
The Sackett case
Idaho residents Chantell and Mike Sackett own a parcel of land located 300 feet from Priest Lake, one of the state’s largest lakes. The parcel once was part of a large wetland complex. Today, even after the Sacketts cleared the lot, it still has some wetland characteristics, such as saturation and ponding in areas where soil was removed. Indeed, it is still hydrologically connected to the lake and neighboring wetlands by water that flows at a shallow depth underground.
In preparation to build a house, the Sacketts had fill material placed on the site without obtaining a Clean Water Act permit. The EPA issued an order in 2007 stating that the land contained wetlands subject to the law and requiring the Sacketts to restore the site. The Sacketts sued, arguing that their property was not a wetland.
In 2012, the Supreme Court held that the Sacketts had the right to challenge EPA’s order and sent the case back to the lower courts. After losing below on the merits, they returned to the Supreme Court with a suit asserting that their property was not federally protected. This claim in turn raised a broader question: What is the scope of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act?
The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the “waters of the United States” include not only navigable rivers and lakes, but also wetlands and waterways that are connected to navigable bodies of water. But many wetlands are not wet year-round, or are not connected at the surface to larger water systems. Still, they can have important ecological connections to larger water bodies.
In 2006, when the court last took up this issue, no majority was able to agree on how to define “waters of the United States.” Writing for a plurality of four justices in U.S. v. Rapanos, Justice Antonin Scalia defined the term narrowly to include only relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes. Waters of the U.S., he contended, should not include “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”
Acknowledging that wetlands present a tricky line-drawing problem, Scalia proposed that the Clean Water Act should reach “only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy took a very different approach. “Waters of the U.S.,” he wrote, should be interpreted in light of the Clean Water Act’s objective of “restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
Accordingly, Kennedy argued, the Clean Water Act should cover wetlands that have a “significant nexus” with navigable waters – “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’”
Neither Scalia’s nor Kennedy’s opinion attracted a majority, so lower courts were left to sort out which approach to follow. Most applied Kennedy’s significant nexus standard, while a few held that the Clean Water Act applies if either Kennedy’s standard or Scalia’s is satisfied.
The Biden administration responded with its own rule defining waters of the United States in terms of the presence of either a significant nexus or continuous surface connection. However, this rule was promptly embroiled in litigation and will require reconsideration in light of Sackett v. EPA.
The Sackett decision and its ramifications
The Sackett decision adopts Scalia’s approach from the 2006 Rapanos case. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared that “waters of the United States” includes only relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, oceans, rivers, lakes – and wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with and are indistinguishably part of such water bodies.
None of the nine justices adopted Kennedy’s 2006 “significant nexus” standard. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices disagreed with the majority’s “continuous surface connection” test. That test, Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence, is inconsistent with the text of the Clean Water Act, which extends coverage to “adjacent” wetlands – including those that are near or close to larger water bodies.
“Natural barriers such as berms and dunes do not block all water flow and are in fact evidence of a regular connection between a water and a wetland,” Kavanaugh explained. “By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”
Kavanaugh's reasoning in Sackett is compelling. Court's supposed textualists/literalists have rewritten "adjacent" to mean "adjoining" and thus created even more regulatory headaches. Wetlands along the Mississippi have been cut off by levees. Are we leaving them unprotected? pic.twitter.com/00fJcSvL1Z
The majority’s ruling leaves little room for the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers to issue new regulations that could protect wetlands more broadly.
The court’s requirement of a continuous surface connection means that federal protection may no longer apply to many areas that critically affect the water quality of U.S. rivers, lakes and oceans – including seasonal streams and wetlands that are near or intermittently connected to larger water bodies. It might also mean that construction of a road, levee or other barrier separating a wetland from other nearby waters could remove an area from federal protection.
Congress could amend the Clean Water Act to expressly provide that “waters of the United States” includes wetlands that the court has now stripped of federal protection. However, past efforts to legislate a definition have fizzled, and today’s closely divided Congress is unlikely to fare any better.
Whether states will fill the breach is questionable. Many states have not adopted regulatory protections for waters that are outside the scope of “waters of the United States.” In many instances, new legislation – and perhaps entirely new regulatory programs – will be needed.
Finally, a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas hints at potential future targets for the court’s conservative supermajority. Joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas suggested that the Clean Water Act, as well as other federal environmental statutes, lies beyond Congress’ authority to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, and could be vulnerable to constitutional challenges. In my view, Sackett v. EPA might be just one step toward the teardown of federal environmental law.
This is an update of an article originally published on Sept. 26, 2022.
