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.

Print Friendly and PDF
SUBSCRIBE TO EHN'S MUST-READ DAILY NEWSLETTER: ABOVE THE FOLD
Valspar cans. (Credit Lynne Peeples)
Originals

Exposed: Toward a BPA-free future

This is part 4 of a 4-part investigation of the science surrounding the chemical BPA and the U.S. regulatory push to discredit independent evidence of harm while favoring pro-industry science despite significant shortcomings.

Keep reading... Show less
Originals

Clouded in Clarity: A comic on chemicals & controversy

Harmful chemicals are difficult to understand. So, to pair with our investigation, "Exposed" we present EHN's first comic, "Clouded in Clarity," which focuses on BPA and the controversy around an ongoing, massive study on it.

Keep reading... Show less
A barge ships coal up the Ohio River near Cincinnati. (Photo by Lucia Walinchus/Eye on Ohio, the Ohio Center for Investigative Journalism)
Originals

The water is cleaner but the politics are messier: A look back at the Clean Water Act movement after 50 years

In June 1969, a Time Magazine article garnered national attention when it brought to light the water quality conditions in Ohio: a river had literally caught fire.

Keep reading... Show less
From our Newsroom

Above The Fold

Daily & Weekly newsletters all free.