Print Friendly and PDF
Deciphering dueling analyses of clean water regulations
science.sciencemag.org

Deciphering dueling analyses of clean water regulations

Some crazy cost-benefit accounting is happening in Trump's EPA

"We find no defensible or consistent basis provided by the agencies for the decision to exclude what amounts to the largest category of benefits from the 2017 ruling."


The Supreme Court on Wednesday takes up the Waters of the U.S. Rule, finalized in 2015 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The ruling expanded the number of waterways subject to the Clean Water Act, largely by including wetlands.

Critics called that overreach, and in February President Donald Trump ordered a review of that 2015 "WOTUS" ruling. In June, the agencies proposed rescinding the rule.

Both 2015 and 2017 rulings underwent a cost-benefit analysis. Both looked at largely the same data. Both ended up at totally opposite conclusions. The reason? The 2017 analysis concluded that upwards of $500 million in benefits gained by protecting wetlands couldn't be quantified and thus were worth exactly $0.

Earlier this week in Science, Kevin Boyle, Matthew Kotchen and V. Kerry Smith at Virginia Tech, Yale University and Arizona State University respectively, took a look at those dueling analyses. Their conclusion: the cost-benefit framework need more scientific rigor and structure. You can't, for instance, say research before 2000 showing the benefits of wetlands is too old while also citing 1983 data on the benefits of point-source pollution.

But what they really offer is yet another example of how you can get whatever you want when you cherry pick your data.

Become a donor
Today's top news

LISTEN: Gabriel Gadsden on the rodent infestation and energy justice connection

“What it really comes down to is political will and resource allocation.”

From our newsroom

WATCH: Pete Myers and Tyrone Hayes reflect on tremendous progress in the environmental health field

"It isn't one scientific finding that accomplishes a structural change in science. It's a drumbeat — one after the other — for decades."

What happens if the largest owner of oil and gas wells in the US goes bankrupt?

Diversified Energy’s liabilities exceed its assets, according to a new report, sparking concerns about whether taxpayers will wind up paying to plug its 70,000 wells.

Listen: EHN reporter discusses EPA's new proposed air pollution limits

Kristina Marusic joined Pittsburgh's NPR news station to discuss the proposed new rules

Racist beauty standards leave communities of color more exposed to harmful chemicals: NYC study

"How do you change centuries of colonialism and racism that have always uplifted light and white skin tone and features?”

Paul Ehrlich: A journey through science and politics

In his new book, the famous scientist reflects on an unparalleled career on our fascinating, ever-changing planet.