Study Finds Small Streams, Recently Stripped of Protections, Are a Big Deal
Sofia Mota Cichy
News Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/climate/small-streams-pollution-supreme-court.html
Journal Article: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg9430
In the United States, the Clean Water Act grants federal agencies the authority to regulate the “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” While there is general agreement that the WOTUS includes large navigable waters, conflicting interpretations for whether wetlands and smaller tributaries are included in the definition have been left to regional regulators in the absence of a Supreme Court majority opinion. Definitions like “inseparably bound up with navigable waters” and “waters hold a significant nexus with navigable waters” were often used. However, in the 2023 case Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a majority of the Supreme Court defined WOTUS as “only those relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” This very narrow definition has removed ephemeral streams – stream channels which are disconnected from groundwater year-round and only flow due to precipitation – from U.S. federal jurisdiction. These streams influence downstream water quality through the transport of pollutants, nutrients, and sediments from the land to rivers and other bodies of water. Ephemeral stream contribution to downstream water networks on a large scale was investigated in a peer reviewed article recently published in Science.
Researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst modeled ephemeral stream water contributions to the contiguous U.S. network of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Using publicly available data on bankfull depths – the distance from the channel bed to top of the stream bank – from about 20 million rivers, lakes, reservoirs, canals, and ditches across the U.S., researchers identified which of these bodies of water were ephemeral. If the water table was deeper than the bank full depth of a stream channel all 12 months of the year and the channel was not immediately downstream of flowing rivers then the stream was defined as ephemeral. Results were validated with data from 7207 in situ site assessments of stream ephemerality from the EPA, USGS, and manual field assessment of New England streams. Published streamflow models were used to quantify the fraction of every river’s mean annual discharge that was contributed by upstream ephemeral streams.
This study found that, on average, 55% of annual discharge from regional river systems across the continental U.S comes from upstream ephemeral streams, and that they make up on average 59% of all drainage network extent. The percent of ephemeral contribution varies greatly across basins (1-97%), with most ephemeral influence in basins West of the Mississippi River, because water tables are deep below the surface. The Great Lakes region, Upper Midwest, and Florida have the smallest ephemeral influence due to shallow water tables. Furthermore, higher order streams – a large waterway that has formed from the convergence of many smaller tributaries – have less ephemeral contribution, but the decrease in ephemeral contribution with stream order is less dramatic in the West. The authors also modeled how often ephemeral streams flow (101 days per year on average, 46 days per year in the West on average, 127 days per year in the East on average, and 4 days per year in the Southwest on average), with most flow happening in late spring or early summer. The results suggest that ephemeral streams likely have a big influence on downstream water quality and are a likely pathway for pollution. Furthermore, the ephemeral stream contribution is likely an underestimate because human groundwater pumping was not accounted for, which lowers the water table in the area therefore making ephemeral streams more prevalent.
The New York Times covered this research paper in a news article by Brad Plumer. Plumer starts by introducing the research published in Science and then goes on to talk about the debate over which bodies of water should be included in the Clean Water Act and the implications of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling. In terms of the research methods, Plumer mentions that the authors “identified millions of ephemeral streams across the country and used detailed modeling to estimate how much water flows through them.” Results are accurately described, like the number of days ephemeral streams flow in a year in the West and that ephemeral streams contribute on average 55% of the flow in river basins across the contiguous United States. However, the statistic about 79% of downstream river flow in the West coming from ephemeral streams was not exactly correct. The statistic from the research paper was that “median first-order discharge is, on average across basins, 79% ephemerally sourced”. This is across the East and West, is limited to first order waterways, and is part of the larger discussion about how smaller order streams have increased ephemeral contribution. The actual figure would be 89% median discharge for first order streams in the West. The article ends by discussing how it is difficult for states to coordinate on water regulations and that since the Supreme Court ruling the EPA’s ability to revise regulations based on hydrological studies has been limited.
I think the NYT article does a very nice job of summarizing the main points and implications of the research article for a general audience. The methods and results are succinctly described, but I wish Plumer had discussed the regional differences in ephemeral contribution to drainage network discharge and extent in addition to how many days of the year ephemeral streams flow. I would give this article an 8/10 for clearly describing the research and its implications in a broader context, with deductions for the incorrect/incomplete statistic about ephemerally sourced river flow in the West and the limited focus on the results of the paper.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is so much worse than it seems. Not the article or the paper -- the implications of it. This year SCOTUS struck down "Chevron," a ruling that essentially allowed Federal agencies, including the EPA and FDA, to use their expert opinions to set standards and policies. Now, after 40 years of this standard, two cases (decided at the same time) have led to a new standard: courts will decide how ambiguous laws are interpreted. If a regulation isn't specifically written out in a law, then the courts get to decide if it's a "reasonable" rule or not.
ReplyDeleteNow add in the information from the Science paper.
I really wish the NYT had mentioned the broader legal context of the paper. "Sackett" is bad enough as it is. "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" and "Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce" make the findings of the Science paper even worse -- the compounding effects could be a very serious problem.
Hi Randi, thank you for the comment. I definitely agree that it is a huge issue how Supreme Court rulings, like striking down Chevron, severely limit the power of the EPA to enact environmental regulations. Technical/scientific questions about regulations should be clarified or decided by experts and I think this paper is a great example of this. The research shows that ephemeral streams do have a significant impact on water quality and these findings should inform the types of regulations that are put in place instead of decisions being made by courts that lack the expertise. It seems like the NYT article was published the day before the Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless decisions, which is why these cases were not mentioned in the article, so I think that the legal context given was reflective of the time.
DeleteGood job on your analysis, and I agree with your assessment of the New York Times article. Overall, Plumer captured the key takeaways from the research effectively, linking them well to the broader implications that would resonate with most readers. However, I agree that a brief mention of the study's methodology could have strengthened the article—especially since he included Harvey's quote highlighting the study's rigor and surprising findings. Even a light touch on the methods could have enhanced the article’s credibility and emphasized the significance of the findings. Additionally, the misrepresentation of the statistic regarding downstream river flow from western streams could have been avoided as the sentence directly preceding the statistic he cited says that the results vary predictably form east to west. All that being said, I do agree with your rating of 8/10 as I the article did give a great overview that I think would make readers aware of a topic that may seem trivial.
ReplyDeleteHi Fernanda, thank you for your comment. Yes, it does seem like the incorrect statistic was a pretty careless mistake. I agree that including more information on the methods in the NYT article could give more credibility to the results they mention, but I think that the methods information included in the news article was enough. Too much focus on the methods of the Science paper could lose readers and detract from the results and implications of the paper.
DeleteYour analysis of the NYT article is very good. You did a great job emphasizing how the article makes the research accessible to a broad audience, but you also pointed out the importance of precise statistics in conveying scientific findings accurately. I agree that regional variations in ephemeral stream contributions are crucial, especially considering how different areas of the country might be affected by changes to Clean Water Act protections.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I thought about while reading your post was how these regional differences could influence specific water policies. Since ephemeral streams in the West contribute so heavily to river basins, the impact of removing them from federal jurisdiction could mean higher risks of pollution and sediment reaching larger waterways. Maybe adding a sentence or two about this could further highlight why accurate, nuanced coverage is so important in environmental reporting.
Overall, I think your score of 8/10 is fair. This article did well on the big picture but missed some important details that are key for understanding the full scope of the research.
Thank you for your comment! I agree that discussing how the narrowed definition of the WOTUS could affect regions differently based on this study’s findings would add more nuance to the news article. It also shows how important it is that scientific findings are taken into account when making regulations.
DeleteI agree with your score of 8/10 for this article. I think its explanation of ephemeral streams was very easily digestible, and its usage of statistics from the article (e.g. ephemeral streams contributing 55% of flow in water basins) was strong. The incorrect statistic used in the article shows the need for scientists in climate writing and the editing process: Plumer, the author, primarily focuses in climate change and energy technology in his articles, but his bio contains no scientific background outside of reporting. I don't think its necessarily bad for non-scientists to write about scientific topics, but I do think anyone reporting on scientific papers needs to be incredibly careful with the statistics they're reporting, and to consult with experts if need be.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was very interesting that the study contained discussion of the litigation surrounding the Clean Water Act as it pertains to ephemeral streams. I'm very used to science being apolitical, so for the paper to discuss the court case seemed very strange to me. It ties really well into the point of the New York Times article, and I wish Plumer had included more quotes directly from the paper on the subject, as well as discussed the section "Implications for downstream water quality" in more detail.
Hi Lauren, thank you for your comment. I was also surprised by the research paper explicitly including its political motivation for the research. Like you said, that's usually not seen in scientific papers, but I think it enhanced the paper. Because all of the other facts in the NYT article were correctly reported, I think that the incorrect statistic was a careless mistake. However, I do agree with you that it would be ideal for reporters to have some scientific background or a lot of experience reporting on science for these types of articles so that misinformation is avoided.
DeleteI agree with your score of this article! I think that the most important job of science news articles such as the NYTimes one you selected is to connect science to people's real lives in order to make more people care about scientific topics. This article did a really good job of connecting the journal article to real-world problems, such as the Clean Water Act and the recent Supreme Court rulings. However, accuracy is definitely crucial in communicating science, so the incorrect statistic is not ideal. I think one thing the author of the news article could have also done is compare the ephemeral streams in the west and east sides of the Mississippi, along with the differing water rights laws that exist in each region that could influence how we treat these small streams. Overall though, I think the author did a good job of communicating the science in an easily accessible way that tied in real-world issues to make the reader more inclined to pay attention.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment! I definitely agree that connecting science to people’s lives is one of the most important jobs of science news articles and science communication in general. I also really like your idea of incorporating some select regional water regulations in the West vs the East along with the paper’s result about where the most ephemeral streams are found. This would tie in the real world implications of this research even further.
DeleteGood job with your analysis! I think your score of 8/10 was a fair assessment. Considering some other articles we have seen here, I think the trivial mistake with the statistic does not take that much away from the overall article. One thing that I noticed is that this article seemed to only include 1 photo (at the beginning) of a (what I assume to be) ephemeral stream, while most of the articles we looked at previously seemed to include more figures/images to complement the writing. Do you think that the addition of a figure from the paper or something related to the results of the paper would improve this article? Or do you think it would be too distracting?
ReplyDeleteHi Sam, thank you for your comment. While I really like the figures from the Science paper, I think that including them or any additional photos would be a bit distracting since the article is so short. Though if the NYT article was longer, I could see some more pictures or maybe Figure 4 in the paper being helpful to include.
DeleteI agree with your rating of the news article. The news covers the key takeaways of the paper. And as Hailey mentioned, there is a good connection between the Clean Water Act and the academic paper. I really enjoy the article. The statistics error in the news is somehow misleading. But I think it is common for non-scientists to made that mistake. Overall, enjoy this article.
ReplyDelete