Officials ask EPA to remove Trump-era water rule

Buckman Direct Diversion Board argues that law removed federal protections from vital resources

Officials at the Buckman Direct Diversion issued a recent letter to the federal Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army in support of repealing a Trump-era water rule and returning protections for water in so-called ephemeral streams — those that only flow only periodically.

Buckman Direct Diversion Board Chairwoman Anna Hansen, in a letter submitted late last week, which also was signed by Facilities Manager Rick Carpenter, argues the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule altered the definition of U.S. waterways, removing federal protections for some vital water sources such as ephemeral streams and wetlands that feed and support the Rio Grande.

The Buckman Direct Diversion, jointly operated by the city of Santa Fe and Santa Fe County, diverts and treats surface water from the Rio Grande and delivers it to city and county water customers.

“What we need [are] rules that recognize how unique the arid Southwest is, like Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah,” said Hansen, a Santa Fe County commissioner. “We don’t have perennial streams here. We only have ephemeral.”

Hansen cites the proximity of ephemeral streams to Los Alamos National Laboratory, a potential source of contaminants that could flow into the Rio Grande.

Under the decades-old federal Clean Water Act, the definition of U.S. waters included a list of sources, including wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams. The definition was further expanded under the 2015 Clean Water Rule signed by President Barack Obama, but the rule was hit with a barrage of lawsuits. In 2019, it essentially was repealed by an amendment, reverting regulations to pre-2015 standards.

That later was replaced by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which only protected waterways that flow year-round or seasonally and connect to another body of water.

A federal judge in Arizona struck down the navigable waters rule in late August, though the decision is likely to be appealed.

Rachel Conn, project director for Taos-based Amigos Bravos, a water advocacy group, said at the time the decision was “great news for clean water in New Mexico.”

Other representatives of environmental organizations and state government leaders, including Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, also lauded the ruling, one they called vital for the state.

But Randell Major, president of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, said it was disappointing, especially for farmers and ranchers.

Hansen said the Buckman Direct Diversion, as well as the

city and county, opposed the 2020 rule when it took effect.

“They are so unacceptable,” she said. “The whole Santa Fe River lost 90 percent of its protections. We called it the ‘dirty water rule.’ ”

According to the EPA, 81 parties have filed 15 complaints challenging the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule in 11 U.S. District Courts.

Hansen said of the ruling in Arizona, “We will live with that until they come up with new rules.”

Prior to the Arizona judge’s ruling, the EPA and the Army already had the Navigable Water Protection Rule in its crosshairs.

On Jan. 20, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 13990, which sought to improve public health and address climate change. The order also directed federal agencies to review rules made during the previous administration that would conflict with that goal, prompting the EPA and Army to examine the navigable water rule.