<![CDATA[LWV Upper Mississippi River Region - Blog]]>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:19:34 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[Google Data Center moves ahead despite law suit]]>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 11:26:32 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/google-data-center-moves-ahead-despite-law-suitPine Island is a small farming town on US52 between St. Paul and Rochester, Minnesota.  Google has announced that they will be building a large-scale data center on 88 acres in a 482 parcel there.  It is likely that more are planned to follow.  The nature of the project was not revealed during the environmental reveiw phase, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy has sued, alleging that the reveiw was flawed because the full impact of the project was not assessed.   In this blog post, we provide a short bibiography of resources to learn more about this project which promised a number of environmental upgrades to address issues of concern with data centers.
This article from Minnesota Public Radio provides a good overview of this project.   For a background on data centers in general, why they use so much energy and water, and what living near a data center means, check out this video from Business Insider.
Picture
Opponents of hyperscale data centers display banners during a rally at the Minnesota State Capitol February 2026. Nicole Ki | MPR News
Beyonce'? No, BYONCE  
The Pine Island Google Data Center project - Project Skyway - was revealed as a new, green data center.  They will use air-cooling to reduce operating temperatures, greatly reducing water use.  Their energy would come from new, green sources that Google would build - wind, solar and backup batteries for when these sources aren't operating.  This is the BYONCE principal - Bring Your Own Clean Energy.   To learn more about BYONCE - check out this excellent article from Mike Jacobs, Senior Energy Analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.  
What about the water?
In detailed reporing in the Minnesota Women's Press, Drs. Carly Griffiths and Carrie Jennings look at water use by data centers, potential contmainination and the impacts on other water users n the area.  These concerns are not ameliorated when the data center (or other large water user) is connected to a municipal water supply - this just shifts the impact to a larger community, the city water rate payers.  The Minnesota Legislature is looking at this issue in 2026 - click here to read about a bill now active to begin to address these concerns.  
Legal Actions
The Minnesota Center for Environmenal Advocacy (MCEA) has  brought lawsuits against data center developments in Minnesota, including the Pine Island Skyway project.  This page on the MCEA website provides a good overview of their work here and an opportunity to sign up for updates.  


​
Other data center coverage on the LWV UMRR website:
Data Center Gold Rush: Diving into Water Demands - this December 2025 program by LWV UMRR features Sara Mooradian and Peg Furshong of CURE talking about data center developments in Minnesota, with a focus on water concerns.  
Data Center Conference Brings Together Developers, Local Officials and Environmental Groups   This post recaps a November 2025 conference that looks at economic benefits of data centers as well as environmental concerns.  
Minnesota Data Center Law becomes law June 14, 2025 The Minnosta Legisltuare passed their first data center law in 2025 - read about it in this post.  While this bill povided a start on regulation, it leaves gaps in that it does not require disclosure of a project as a data center during the environmental review phase among other things. 


]]><![CDATA[Speak up now to preserve environmental protection and citizen right to comment]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:39:55 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/speak-up-now-to-preserve-environmental-protection-and-citizen-right-to-commentThe 1972 Clean Water Act is a central piece of federal legislation that forms the cornerstone of water quality regulation in the US today, and it's being chipped away.  First, the Sackett decision removed many wetlands and small streams from protection, and then subsequent changes to the definition of Water of the US (WOTUS) provided detail and codified the decsion in law.  Now there are two bills before Congress ( the PERMIT Act and SPEED Act bills) that seek to limit the government's ability to regulate sources of water pollution.  

As of April 1, 2026, the U.S. House has passed both the PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898) and the SPEED Act (H.R. 4776), aimed at accelerating federal reviews under NEPA and the Clean Water Act. These bills focus on shortening lawsuit timelines, limiting environmental review scope, and enhancing electronic permitting.  These bills are now in the US Senate.
Both bills could generate sweeping changes to long-standing federal environmental protections, particularly under the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. These laws have served for decades as foundational safeguards protecting water quality, ecosystems, public health, and democratic participation in environmental decision-making. 

LWV UMRR sought permission from LWV US to write letters to House and Senate members opposing these bills.  The letters have been sent; text follows.  ​
Picture
Rum River: Photo - City of Andover MN
You can also send letters to your US Senators, letting them know about your concerns.  LWV UMRR's "Take Action" page includes information on how to reach your Senators.  
​
Text of the letters sent to US Senators in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa and Missouri:

The purpose of this letter is to share concerns from the League of Women Voters Upper Mississippi River Region (UMRR) and League of Women Voters of Minnesota, on two proposed laws: the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act (PERMIT Act) and the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED Act).  UMRR represents more than sixty local Leagues throughout the five states of the Upper Mississippi Basin – Minnesota (MN), Wisconsin (WI), Iowa (IA), Illinois (IL), and Missouri (MO).  We work through education and advocacy to ensure sound policies that protect water quality and quantity in the Mississippi River Basin. 
 
Both the PERMIT Act and the SPEED Act are currently being considered in the Senate and could generate sweeping changes to long-standing federal environmental protections, particularly under the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. These laws have served for decades as foundational safeguards protecting water quality, ecosystems, public health, and democratic participation in environmental decision-making. 
​
Our concerns are as follows:

PERMIT Act
The PERMIT Act was developed to streamline infrastructure and energy projects by accelerating environmental reviews under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and reducing red tape for construction, agriculture, and energy projects by shortening review timelines.  This includes:
  • extending CWA Section 402 discharge and Section 404 dredge and fill permit terms from 5 to 10 years,
  • accelerating federal permit review, and limiting legal challenges to within 60 days of permit approval
  • weakens Section 401 water quality certification which limits state’s ability to block projects,
  • decreases liability for industrial dischargers releasing contaminants such as PFAS and forever chemicals to surface waters,
  • restricts the EPA from vetoing projects that could harm fisheries and wildlife,
  • redefines navigable waters as contained in the Waters of the US Rule,
  • limits consultation under the Endangered Species Act,
  • and decreases time for filing claims on permits and increasing difficulty to sue over unauthorized pollution discharges.

The PERMIT Act’s proposed narrowing of protected waters and extension of permit durations would significantly weaken federal oversight of discharges and dredge-and-fill activities. This poses heightened risks to Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater systems, which are central to the state’s economy, outdoor heritage, and drinking water supply. Reduced EPA authority and shortened timelines for legal challenges would limit accountability and public recourse, potentially allowing harmful projects to proceed without adequate review. Of particular concern is the reduced liability for contaminants such as PFAS, which are persistent chemicals linked to serious health and environmental harms.

SPEED Act:
The SPEED Act proposes actions to streamline review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects and permitting of federal infrastructure and energy projects.  The changes include:
  • limiting NEPA review to direct impacts only, nothing in regard to up stream or down stream impacts,
  • requiring agency decisions on completeness of an application to 60 days,
  • limiting litigation to 150 days after a permit or project decision and filing only by those who are directly impacted,
  • avoidance of NEPA review if projects have already undergone state, tribal or other federal review,
  • and decrease in court ability to substitute their judgment for that of federal agencies.



The SPEED Act’s restructuring of environmental review under NEPA would curtail comprehensive analysis of cumulative and climate-related impacts, restrict public and Tribal participation, and narrow judicial oversight. By limiting review to direct impacts and imposing strict procedural timelines, the Act risks overlooking long-term environmental degradation, disproportionate community impacts, and evolving scientific evidence. Reduced opportunities for public engagement undermine transparency and democratic governance in decisions that may permanently alter landscapes and communities.

Together, the PERMIT and the SPEED Acts could accelerate fossil fuel infrastructure development while weakening environmental safeguards designed to prevent pollution, protect water resources, and ensure informed public participation. For the Upper Mississippi River Region—home to extensive freshwater systems, Tribal treaty-protected resources, and climate-vulnerable ecosystems—the implications are particularly serious.
Given the scale of the proposed regulatory changes and their potential to affect water quality, public health, climate stability, and community oversight nationwide, these issues warrant careful scrutiny and deliberate consideration by the Senate.  We urge you to oppose the passage of PERMIT and SPEED Acts to prevent the potentially disastrous outcomes to the environment and climate change. 
]]><![CDATA[Wisconsin takes steps to protect communities from PFAS]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 03:11:57 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/wisconsin-takes-steps-to-protect-communities-from-pfasPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, have been dubbed emerging contaminants of concern in the Mississippi River Basin and beyond. These synthetic chemicals have been widely used in everyday products such as nonstick pans and waterproof fabrics since the 1950s. They’ve also been a key ingredient in industrial applications such as firefighting foam. Today, Wisconsin is passing legislation to address them.
​
PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to the bond between their carbon and fluorine atoms. While this strength may help repel water, grease, and oil from our goods, it also makes it difficult to remove PFAS from our bodies. This poses a high health risk as studies show links between contamination and cancer, fertility issues, development delays, and more. 

In Wisconsin, bills addressing PFAS have been under debate for years. The state is one of several in the Upper Mississippi River Region facing a widespread presence of the chemicals. In 2019 Starkweather Creek, a Madison waterbody near the Dane County Regional Airport and Truax Field Air National Guard Base, had the highest levels of PFOA (43 ppt) and PFOS (270 ppt) out of all Department of Natural Resources (DNR)  tested waters. In 2023, a survey found that 71% of shallow private wells across Wisconsin contained PFAS.
​​
In 2026, the state is taking action. Governor Tony Evers approved a rule change in early March aligning Wisconsin’s PFAS drinking water standards with federal limits. The previous contamination threshold of 70 parts per trillion will be lowered to 4.0 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, and 10 ppt for other outlined PFAS groups.

Additionally, in late March legislators across the aisle united to pass a two-bill package directing $125 million towards PFAS contamination efforts. Authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Gillett, and Rep. Jeff Mursau, R-Crivitz and negotiated with the DNR and several environmental interest groups, the legislation is an example of how diverse stakeholders can come to a compromise for clean water.​

Assembly Bill 130 shields “innocent landowners” and select others from the cost of cleaning up PFAS contamination on their property if they either did not
Picture
Wisconsin State Capitol dome: photo Dela Anderson
 cause it or were in compliance with a prior permit and are willing to allow the DNR to perform remediation at their expense. 

​Assembly Bill 131 creates several new PFAS grant programs, including funds for municipal water supply testing, well reconstruction, treatment technology, emergency bottled drinking water, and more. Notably, the bill also seeks to finance long-term studies, including one to “analyze the migration of PFAS into the Wisconsin and Mississippi Rivers and their tributaries”. 

The bipartisan legislation is set to be signed by Governor Evers in the coming weeks. He celebrated the state’s success in a recent press release, saying “I’ve always believed that every Wisconsinite should have access to clean drinking water that’s free of harmful pollutants, which is why I’ve spent seven years working to clean up our water and get contaminants out of our water supplies for good, including PFAS, which has been a top priority for my administration from the get-go. Today is the culmination of years of work by my administration and marks a historic win for the people of Wisconsin and the health and safety of our kids, families, and communities. It’s a great day for Wisconsin.”
]]><![CDATA[Another Threat to Clean Water - the PERMIT Act will tie the hands of state and tribal regulators and restrict public input]]>Sun, 01 Mar 2026 02:44:55 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/another-threat-to-clean-water-the-permit-act-will-tie-the-hands-of-state-and-tribal-regulators-and-restrict-public-inputComments on the PERMIT Act
While winter weather might have frozen the flowing waters of the Mississippi River, it didn’t stop the movement of legislation that once again centers on the Clean Water Act (CWA). On December 11, 2025 the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3898, or the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act. Chief author,  Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), asserts that if passed by the Senate, the PERMIT bill would “deliver much-needed reform to the Clean Water Act that will overhaul permitting processes and reduce burdens on permit seekers,” allowing the U.S. to “build faster, smarter, and safer”.   But will the bill roll back red tape, or crucial regulations that safeguard our water? Learn more below. ​
What’s at risk in the Upper Mississippi River Region?
The PERMIT Act could impact waters across the United States, and the Upper Mississippi River Region is no exception. Our 1,300 miles of water connect states, ecosystems, and livelihoods, and they deserve to be protected. 

As the Mississippi River faces increasingly frequent and severe floods that move pollutants and cause damages to drinking water supplies and native habitats, strong regulation and sustainable infrastructure is more important than ever. 
​
What’s in the PERMIT Act?
This 26-section bill is a bundle of legislation aimed to modify federal water pollution control practices. It does this by…
 
I.  Redefining water quality parameters
        1.  Amending water quality criteria from solely considering science-backed pollution standards to include cost considerations (Sec. 2 of the act)
      2.  Minimizing liability for allowing known pollutants, including emerging contaminants such as PFAS, to be discharged without disclosure (Sec. 8)
Picture
Photo - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
        3.  Reducing permits requirements regarding stormwater runoff, potentially containing animal waste, nutrients, and pesticides, from agricultural lands into waterways (Sec.10. and Sec. 11.)
        4. Limiting treatment technology options to those already widely used “at scale” in the United States (Sec 4.) 

II.  Redistributing state and tribal power
      1.  Allowing the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to strike a waterbody from the list of navigable waters based on the court decision in Sackett (Sec 20).  The Clean Water Act did not address groundwater; this bill would clarify that groundwater is not included in the CWA protections.  
          2.  Narrowing state's abilities to impose protections based on "any water quality requirement in such state" to only limited federal standards (Sec 5)
           3.  Narrowing environmental review timelines and scope (Sec 5)
                       - Shortening timeline to complete environmental reviews before forfeiture
                   - Limiting state consideration of proposed pipelines, dams and other large-scale development projects to only include "direct discharges" from specific permits vs cumulative watershed impacts
                       - Shifting enforcement requirements from states to federal permitting agencies (Sec. 5)
Click here to read the full bill text

How can I take action?
From Minneapolis to Cairo, we all value clean water. If you feel the PERMIT Act leaves that up to chance, please contact your senators and urge them to oppose it.  You can use text from the letter below to get you started.   This bill has passed in the House; it can only be stopped in the Senate.  Now is the time to Take Action!  

Click here to find contact info for your US Senators
Sample Letter Opposing the PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898)

Subject: URGENT: Oppose the "PERMIT Act" (H.R. 3898) - Protect Our Water 

Dear Senator [Senator's Name],

 I am a constituent in the (state and zipcode) I am writing you today to express my strong opposition to the PERMIT Act (HB 3898), now coming before the Senate. The PERMIT Acts threatens the water quality of the Upper Mississippi River Region, and we urge you to vote against H.B. 3898.
 
The intent of the Clean Water Act is to govern water pollution.  Its main purpose is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”.  This involves setting water quality standards and regulating the discharge of pollutants into the U.S. waters.

While the PERMIT Act aims to streamline regulations, its potential impact on the future of freshwater resources in the Upper Mississippi River region and across the United States remains a serious concern.
H.R. 3898 would weaken crucial clean water protections including:
  • Limiting the scope of the Clean Water Act by redefining navigable waters to exclude (1) waste treatment systems, (2) ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, (3) prior converted cropland, (4) groundwater, or (5) any other features determined to be excluded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  • H.R. 3898 guts the Clean Water Act by focusing on what the cost of cleanup would be for the potential polluters verses following a scientifically researched and accepted set of water quality standards.
  • Redefining protected waters, potentially removing safeguards for small streams, wetlands, and seasonal waterways that feed into larger rivers and drinking water sources.
  • Allowing political appointees at the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to exclude waters from protection without public input, scientific basis, or oversight.
  • Reducing states' and Tribes' authority to consider the overall impact of a project on local water quality, as well as stripping states and tribes of their rights to block or set conditions of federal projects, including oil and gas pipelines that threaten waters and forcing them to focus solely on specific permit discharges.
  • Increasing the use of outdated pollution standards by extending wastewater discharge permits from 5 years to 10 years, limiting opportunities for public input and updated treatment technologies. 

Congress should be focused on putting people before polluters and working to ensure everyone has access to clean water. Numerous provisions of the PERMIT Act shield industrial dischargers who pollute or destroy our streams, lakes, wetlands, and other waters from responsibility and accountability, thereby forcing our communities to shoulder the financial and public health burden of increased pollution and flooding.  It allows industrial polluters to discharge forever chemicals into waters without informing pollution control officials. It prevents states and Tribes from acting to prevent harm to their critical water bodies from projects such as oil and gas pipelines.

The PERMIT ACT would weaken crucial clean water protections that maintain public health and welfare.  Changes to the Clean Water Act will reverse decades of progress in clean water protections, jeopardize safe drinking water and harm important ecosystems.  Join the sentiments of the majority of Americans that value clean water protections and vote against this bill!  

Sincerely,
​[Your Name]
[Your Address/Contact Information]


]]><![CDATA[Have We Crapped in Our Own Nest? A Look Into Iowa’s Agricultural Practices]]>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 06:24:41 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/have-we-crapped-in-our-own-nest-a-look-into-iowas-agricultural-practicesIowa is full of stories, including those of rural life, agriculture, and polluted surface waters – and no one tells them quite like Pulitzer Prize winner Art Cullen. LWV UMRR was very proud to have Art for a  Zoom  conversation with this Iowan on his new book “Marty, We Crapped in Our Own Nest: Notes from the Edge of the World” on March 14th, 2026.​
Co-sponsored by LWV UMRR ILO & LWV Metro Des Moines, this book discussion will explore impacts of a changing climate (physically and politically) on the lives of rural Iowans, highlighting stories in Cullen’s diverse hometown of Storm Lake. But, no matter where you live, his vision for a state powered by sustainable agriculture for the health of all its residents is sure to inspire you.   An engaging speaker, Cullen is also the winner of a Pulitzer Prize for his writing in the Storm Lake Times.​
This was a great discussion - watch the video on the LWV UMRR YouTube channel - click above!   
We also have a podcast with Art - just 5 minutes long!  Click below for the podcast 
Art Cullen Bio:
​Art Cullen grew up in rural northwest Iowa, where he is now the editor and co-owner of the Storm Lake Times Pilot. Before returning to run the newspaper, he studied journalism at the University of St. Thomas in the Twin Cities and wrote for the Mason City Globe Gazette. Back at his roots, Cullen has since written multiple books on Storm Lake and won a Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for a series of editorials focusing on the town’s agricultural runoff and surface water pollution. 

Further Links & Resources: 
Picture
Photo: St. Thomas University
Picture
Photo - Storm Lake outlet from Cullen website
Picture
Photo - St. Thomas University
]]><![CDATA[How to Comment on Proposed WOTUS Definition]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 02:39:21 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/how-to-comment-on-proposed-wotus-definitionOn November 15, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules clarifying the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS).  These proposed rules are based on the altered definition of the Clean Water Act in the US Supreme Court's 2023 Sackett decision.  Here, the Supreme Court found EPA's working definition of Waters of the US to be too broad, too vague, and that it exceeded the authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA) concerning the traditional balance between federal and state power over private property.

The proposed rules would significantly limit federal jurisdiction over wetlands and ephemeral streams, leaving these water bodies unprotected in states where there is not also state wetland regulation that would cover them.  Comments are due to US EPA by January 5.  ​
LWV UMRR's WOTUS Subcommittee has analyzed the proposed rule and identified ways it will impact the Mississippi River.   A comment letter was developed;  it was approved by LWV US and the state Leagues of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin all added their signatures.  This letter was submitted to US EPA on December 29, 2025.​
This is the full comment letter as submitted to US EPA on December 29:
lwv_umrr_wotus_rule_response_12-29-25.pdf
File Size: 364 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

​THE PROPOSED RULE WAS ANNOUNCED at 1pm ET 11/17/25. Public comments are now being accepted here.  The deadline for those comments is January 5, 2026.
Click here to access the comment site
New Guidance for Comment Periods Under Trump Administration 
During this comment period, it is critical that each group and individual provide its own unique comment tailored to the individual situation. The Trump administration is now flagging and discarding comments that appear too similar or duplicative, so the more personalized you and your organization can make your comment, the better.
​
Key principles for written and verbal testimony:
  • Make it personal - Share your relevant demographics- constituency, geographic, impacts, etc.
    • Why does clean water matter to you? Use your comments to add a personal face to this national problem. The more ways people use water the better
    • If you are making a connection to waters in your state/state impacts, you can use NRDC map and report to pull out examples: https://www.nrdc.org/resources/mapping-destruction
    • If there are any flooding, pollution, development issues (eg property got developed and now there are no birds)
    • If you have a farm, get water from wells for irrigation, drinking water, etc.
    • Any info on/ connection to impacts such as…flooding is worse in recent years, streams that used to flow all the time are now dry, etc.
  • Make a clear ask ​
On December 22,  LWV UMRR held a webinar to share our comments.  You can watch the 45-mnute recorded video by clicking the button below.  
Click here to view the recorded webinar
]]><![CDATA[Comments on Changes to WOTUS Decision]]>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 05:21:29 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/comments-on-changes-to-wotus-decisionA team of scientist's from LWV Upper Mississippi River Region reviewed the draft changes to the definition of Waters of the US, and has drafted comments that were submitted to LWV US for review.  LWV US's approval was necessary before the comments can be submitted because it's a federal issue.   The approval was granted on  December 17, 2025, and the letter was submitted to US EPA on January 4, 2026.

This is the comment letter in its entirety.  
umrr_wotus_rule_response_12-15-25_as_amended.pdf
File Size: 307 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
​The comments are based on the LWV position on Environmental Protection and Pollution Control (Impact on Issues 2024-26, page 110.
Picture
Summary of the Comment Letter:

What is the proposed 2025 USEPA WOTUS Rule?
  • It is the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACE) effort to develop regulations to implement the 2023 Supreme Court Sackett decision to change the WOTUS, found to be too broad, too vague, and exceeded the authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA) concerning the traditional balance between federal and state power over private property, without clear language to implement this.
 
  • The “nexus” approach implemented in 2015 attempted to account for protection of the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of water and connectivity, was found to be inconsistent with the CWA's text and structure and a source of regulatory uncertainty for landowners.
 
What’s included in the proposed EPA 2025 WOTUS Rule?
Revisions to key definitions:
  • “Relatively permanent waters”: only includes bodies of surface water that are standing and continuously flowing
  • “Continuous surface connection” for wetlands: wetlands must physically touch a regulated water body to qualify
  • “Tributaries”: must connect to a navigable water body, directly or through other connected features
New and clarified exclusions proposed:
  • Intrastate lakes or ponds or interstate waters, unless otherwise jurisdictional
  • Groundwater
  • Waste treatment systems
  • “Prior converted” farmland and certain ditches
Comment Letter Comments
  1. Role and Significance of EPA to the Clean Water Act
This was provided in previous testimony, and we have indicated that in the letter.
      2 .Failure to Rely on the Significance of Connectivity and Ecosystem Function
  • proposed rule only recognizes physical connectivity of the hydrologic systems, ignoring chemical and biological
  • fails to follow the mandate of the Clean Water Act to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of US waters.
  • removes water bodies from jurisdiction that continue to play a role in filtering pollutants, aquifer recharge, flood control, habitat and diversity, and other functions. Even if they don’t have a connection as defined in the proposed WOTUS, they are a part of the hydrologic system.  Ephemeral streams and intermittent streams act as natural buffers to prevent flooding.
  • the proposed definition of WOTUS focuses on permanence and what you can see with the naked eye of a farmer or developer
  • removal of protections from upstream waters in states that have no water protections now can negatively impact downstream waters with contaminants, our example is the dead zone in the Gulf of America
2. Consequences of Narrowing the Definition of WOTUS on the Upper Mississippi River Region
  • Losses and impacts due to the implementation of the amended WOTUS definition in the UMMR are discussed in this section. 
 
  • These include wetland quantity, water quality, drinking water, habitats and biota, extreme weather, geological complexity, agricultural concerns, increased mining pressure, increasing number of data centers, and impacts to states that rely on federal protection for waters in their states, Iowa and Missouri.
 
3, Alternatives Regarding the Proposed 2025 WOTUS Rule
  • Congress amend the CWA and with a statutory definition of WOTUS that explicitly includes wetlands and streams based on their physical, chemical, and biological connection to navigable waters, regardless of a continuous surface connection. 
 
  • legislation could 1) clarify that EPA and ACE have discretion to use the best available science, including connectivity of waters that are not permanent, when specifying jurisdiction, and 2) recognize state authority over land and water resources.
 
  • other alternatives include various ways to amend the CWA, including adding definitions of the significant nexus standard and continuous surface connection, and including rather than excluding ephemeral and intermittent waters.
 
  • All of these alternatives would address the clarity of scope and specificity of authority found lacking by the Supreme Court in the Sackett decision.
 
  • Use of a more integrated method with scientific data to confirm the hydrologic connection and state legislation that accounts for all aspects of connectivity to support waste and wetlands functions are two other alternatives
]]><![CDATA[Data Center Gold Rush: Diving into Water Demands]]>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 03:12:59 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/data-center-gold-rush-diving-into-water-demands
Most of the recent articles and webinars on data centers focus on their energy use, but there is another significant concern:  Water use.  The reality is, in this modern gold rush, there are more proposed hyperscale data centers than our water resources can support. These proposed projects don’t fit into our permitting and regulatory systems.  CURE is a leader on the rapidly emerging issues around data center development. 

As leaders on the rapidly emerging issues around data center development in the upper Midwest and nationally, CURE's Peg Furshong and Sara Mooradian will share lessons learned about how a lack of transparency harms communities across the country. The reality is, in this modern gold rush, there are winners and losers, and currently there are more proposed hyperscale data centers than our infrastructure and resources can support. These proposed projects don’t fit into our permitting and regulatory systems. We will look at why this matters for our communities, with a focus specifically on water.
​
Video now posted!  
Here's CURE's fact sheet on Data Centers.
20251108_data-centers-in-mn.pdf
File Size: 1082 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
CURE is sponsoring a further series of webinars on a variety of topics relating to data centers - follow the link below to sign up!  

Data Centers - the 800 Megawatt Gorilla in the Room
Picture
Peg Furshong and Sara Mooradian
Sarah Mooradian                                                                                        
Government Relations & Policy Director                                                                                                                                     
Sarah works on issues related to false climate solutions, rural electric cooperatives, siting and local power, clean transportation, and natural and working lands, participating in processes before state agencies like the Public Utilities Commission and at the state legislature. Previously, Sarah clerked for the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She has also worked on projects concerning tribal rights and land management, northern Minnesota mining, and New England’s surface water use.
Sarah is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with degrees in Journalism and Sociology and Vermont Law and Graduate School with a J.D. and a Master of Environmental Law and Policy. She is passionate about protecting the environment and believes that success comes, in part, from changing both public policy and societal attitudes about nature.
 
Peg Furshong
Constituent Relations & Special Projects
Peg is responsible for CURE’s Constituent Relations and Special Projects. These projects include water sustainability, landowner and community engagement for CURE’s NO Carbon Pipelines Campaign and coordinating outdoor engagement. Previously, Peg built the organization’s nature-based educational and experiential engagement programs, including initiatives like the Tallgrass Prairie BioBlitz and Freshwater Mussel Field Days. She also established CURE’s lasting partnership with the Minnesota Master Naturalist Program, where she continues to serve as a volunteer instructor.
Peg is a graduate from Montana State University-Billings with a Master of Science in Education Leadership with an emphasis in Information, Process & Communication (IPC).  She is a volunteer Commissioner for the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission. In 2025, she was appointed to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Task Force on the Future of Minnesota’s Water.
 
CURE is a rurally based nonprofit that protects and restores resilient communities and landscapes by harnessing the power of the people who care.   Learn more about CURE here!
]]><![CDATA[From Fields to the Gulf: How Agriculture Shapes the Mississippi River]]>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 02:21:30 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/from-fields-to-the-gulf-how-agriculture-shapes-the-mississippi-riverA conversation with Dr. Chris Jones
December 11, 2025 at noon, Via Zoom
What's really flowing down the Mississippi? From midwestern farm fields to the Gulf of Mexico, the story of water, agriculture, and the River's health affects us all. On December 11, LWV UMRR and One Mississippi hosted a fascinating conversation with author and research engineer Dr. Chris Jones, whose acclaimed book The Swine Republic pulls back the curtain on how modern agriculture drives water pollution—and what it will take to turn the tide.

Whether you're interested in farming and agricultural policy or simply care about water and our Mighty Mississippi, this program will leave you with a deeper understanding of how upstream actions ripple all the way to the Gulf.  
Click here to see the video
 Further Links and resources:
Dr. Chris Jones bio:
Until recently, Chris Jones was a Research Engineer with IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering at the University of Iowa. He holds a PhD in Analytical Chemistry from Montana State University and a BA in chemistry and biology from Simpson College. Previous career stops include the Des Moines Water Works and the Iowa Soybean Association. As an avid outdoorsman, he enjoys fishing, bird watching, gardening, and mushroom hunting in both Iowa and Wisconsin. While he spends most of his time in Iowa City, he is especially fond of the Upper Mississippi River and the Driftless Area of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. He recently retired from the Univ. of Iowa, and in addition to his Substack and many speaking engagements, he has become executive director of Iowa Driftless Water Defenders (DWD).
Dr. Jones has over 5,000 subscribers on his Substack, which he describes as: "Writing about confluence of agriculture and environment from the heart of the big ag beast here in Iowa."                                                                           
]]><![CDATA[US EPA proposes new definition of Waters of the US - omitting wetlands and small streams]]>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 18:28:42 GMThttps://www.lwvumrr.org/blog/us-epa-proposes-new-definition-of-waters-of-the-us-omitting-wetlands-and-small-streamsOn November 15, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules clarifying the definition of Waters of the United States.  These proposed rules are based on the altered definition of the Clean Water Act in the Sackett decision.   US EPA states that the proposed rule will "play a key role in EPA's Powering the Great American Comeback initiative"... 
From the US EPA WOTUS webpage:
Updated Definition of Waters of the United States
On November 17, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) announced the signing of a proposed rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States.” This proposal implements the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA. The proposed rule will play a key role in EPA’s Powering the Great American Comeback initiative by protecting water resources, strengthening cooperative federalism, and supporting American industry, energy producers, the technology sector, farmers, ranchers, developers, businesses, and landowners.

In developing the proposed rule, EPA and the Army reviewed and considered the extensive feedback and recommendations the agencies received from States, Tribes, local governments, and stakeholders throughout consultations and the pre-proposal recommendations docket and listening sessions. 

Here is the proposed rule 
Proposed Rule: Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States" (Pre-publication Version) (pdf) (1.12 MB)
These rules go further in removing Clean Water Act protections than was necessary under the Sackett decision, including fully excluding groundwater from the Clean Water Act and requiring that wetlands are only protected if they abut a jurisdictional water and have surface water at least during the wet season.    The excerpt to the right is from an US EPA factsheet prepared for the proposed rule release.

The current federal definition of Waters of the US, adopted on August 9, 2023, fully implemented the Sackett requirements.   
The League of Women Voters supported the Clean Water Act's passage 50+ years ago - the following excerpt is from the LWV US Impact on Issues, page 108:
Picture
LWV UMRR has covered the Sackett decision in meetings and blog posts: 

The Clean Water Act implementation after Sackett

What does the Sackett decision mean for our waters

Healthy Communities  - our water and watersheds

Sackett vs EPA Supreme Court decision limits extent of clean water act jurisdiction

And from the Mississippi River Ag and Water Desk:
Down the Drain - Wetlands in the Mississippi Basin


]]>