Affirmative

1AC Plan text

Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its
protection of water resources in the United States by defining ephemeral streams,
intermittent streams, agricultural canals and irrigation canals as part of “Waters of the
United States” in the Federal Registry.
 1AC—Environment
Biden administration has rolled back Trump gutting of EPA protection under WOTUS,
but no new EPA definition in status quo.

Us EPA,Oa, 6-9-2021, "EPA, Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition of WOTUS," US EPA,
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-army-announce-intent-revise-definition-wotus

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of the Army
(the agencies) are announcing their intent to revise the definition of “waters of the United States”
(WOTUS) to better protect our nation’s vital water resources that support public health,
environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. As described in an EPA declaration
requesting remand of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, a broad array of stakeholders—
including states, Tribes, local governments, scientists, and non-governmental organizations—are seeing
destructive impacts to critical water bodies under the 2020 rule. “After reviewing the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule as directed by President Biden, the EPA and Department of the Army have
determined that this rule is leading to significant environmental degradation,” said EPA Administrator
Michael S. Regan. “We are committed to establishing a durable definition of ‘waters of the United
States’ based on Supreme Court precedent and drawing from the lessons learned from the current and
previous regulations, as well as input from a wide array of stakeholders, so we can better protect our
nation’s waters, foster economic growth, and support thriving communities.” “Communities deserve to
have our nation’s waters protected. However, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule has resulted in a
25 percentage point reduction in determinations of waters that would otherwise be afforded
protection,” said Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jaime A. Pinkham. “Together,
the Department of the Army and EPA will develop a rule that is informed by our technical expertise, is
straightforward to implement by our agencies and our state and Tribal co-regulators, and is shaped by
the lived experience of local communities.” Upon review of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the
agencies have determined that the rule is significantly reducing clean water protections. The lack of
protections is particularly significant in arid states, like New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly every one
of over 1,500 streams assessed has been found to be non-jurisdictional. The agencies are also aware of
333 projects that would have required Section 404 permitting prior to the Navigable Waters Protection
Rule, but no longer do. As a result of these findings, today, the Department of Justice is filing a motion
requesting remand of the rule. Today’s action reflects the agencies’ intent to initiate a new rulemaking
process that restores the protections in place prior to the 2015 WOTUS implementation, and anticipates
developing a new rule that defines WOTUS and is informed by a robust engagement process as well as
the experience of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the Obama-era Clean Water Rule, and the Trump-era
Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The agencies’ new regulatory effort will be guided by the following
considerations: Protecting water resources and our communities consistent with the Clean Water Act.
The latest science and the effects of climate change on our waters. Emphasizing a rule with a practical
implementation approach for state and Tribal partners. Reflecting the experience of and input received
from landowners, the agricultural community that fuels and feeds the world, states, Tribes, local
governments, community organizations, environmental groups, and disadvantaged communities with
environmental justice concerns. The agencies are committed to meaningful stakeholder engagement to
ensure that a revised definition of WOTUS considers essential clean water protections, as well as how
the use of water supports key economic sectors. Further details of the agencies’ plans, including
opportunity for public participation, will be conveyed in a forthcoming action. To learn more about the
definition of waters of the United States, visit: https://www.epa.gov/wotus.

Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools key to biodiversity

Mark Kinver, 11-25-2016, "Seasonal wetlands face uncertain future," BBC News,
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38091006

Seasonal wetlands - ecologically important habitats that become visible during rainy seasons - are
facing an uncertain future, warn scientists. These ephemeral ecosystems support unique flora and
fauna species that do not occur in permanent wetlands. Yet these poorly understood habitats are
being lost to future generations as a result of poor land-use practices, the authors observed. The
details have been published in the Global Change Biology journal. Although these intermittent, shallow-
water seasonal natural features are most closely associated with arid or semi-arid landscapes, they are
more widespread than generally realised. For example, more than half of the total river length in the
US, Greece and South Africa is made up by sections that have temporary flow. Changing landscape
"They tend to occur during the rainy season which is when you will see shallow water but for most
months of the year, it will appear to be dry," explained co-author Tatenda Dalu, from Rhodes University,
South Africa. The seasonal wetlands are dominated by aquatic biodiversity, he told BBC News. "You have
your plankton, you have your insects, which then brings in the birds to feed on these insects," Dr Dalu
said. "Some of these systems have unique communities of fish, such as the 'lung fish'." However, these
unique ecosystems were vulnerable for a number of reasons, explained Dr Dalu. "The biggest threat we
are seeing at the moment is either the digging up of the ecosystems or making them permanent. "By
making them permanent, people accidently introduce invasive species which then wipe out the unique
invertebrate communities." For example, people look to have a lake full of fish on their land. Very often,
the introduced species of fish results in the unique habitat that had previously thrived in the
intermittent water being squeezed to the point of becoming locally extinct. The team also recognised
that changes to the climate system were set to alter rainfall and temperature patterns. The researchers
observed in their paper: "In tropical regions of southern Africa, for example, drought is projected to be
particularly problematic. "In such areas, ephemeral wetlands are highly likely to be affected given that
ephemeral aquatic environments are internally drained systems, wholly reliant on localised rainfall."
Enriching features Dr Dalu said the time to act to attempt to make the wetlands more resilient was now.
"One of the most important things for us is to try to map as many of the systems as we can. "Having a
record of where these unique systems exist will be important for the development of any further
legislation." He said that the flora of ephemeral wetlands enriched people's lives, even if they were
not aware of the ecological importance of such sites. "People will tell you about some of the unique
flowers they see there," he said. "That's how people identify them but they do not know anything else
about these seasonal wetlands."
Ephemeral streams are threatened in USVI---the territory has no cohesive water regime.
Reiblich and Ankersen 16, [JESSE REIBLICH* THOMAS ANKERSEN†, * Fellow, Center for Ocean
Solutions, Stanford University. Jesse served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert A. Molloy, Superior
Court of the Virgin Islands, from 2015−2016. Email: jesselr@stanford.edu. The authors would like to
thank William White and Gennaro Scibelli for their research assistance. The authors would also like to
thank Joseph T. Gasper, II, Appellate & Complex Litigation Law Clerk, Superior Court of the Virgin Islands,
for his comments on an earlier draft of this Article. † Legal Skills Professor and Director, Conservation
Clinic and Costa Rica Program, University of Florida Levin College of Law. E-mail: ankersen@law.ufl.edu.
This project originates from a request from the U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife to the
University of Florida Law School’s Conservation Clinic to provide legal research assistance as it relates to
environmental protection and public access, Got Guts? The Iconic Streams of the U.S. Virgin Islands and
the Law’s Ephemeral Edge, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1801&context=facultypub]

The legal status of “guts”—the ephemeral streams of the U.S. Virgin Islands that typically flow only after
rainfall—is uncertain. Furthermore, it is unclear what, if any, property interest the Government of the
Virgin Islands, and the public, have in these watercourses. This uncertainty stems from the non-
navigable nature of guts, and is compounded by the Virgin Islands’ unique legal system, a legal system
that recognizes at least some Danish law from its colonial past, and has seemingly inconsistent
provisions purporting to confer legal and regulatory interests in these guts to the Government of the
Virgin Islands. The uncertain legal status of guts, coupled with the Territory’s lack of a cohesive
watercourse management regime, has caused guts to remain largely unmanaged and environmentally
threatened. Land use changes, poorly sited development, pollution, illegal clearing, and other
practices threaten the health of these guts. This Article first examines the legal status of guts in the
Virgin Islands within the Territory’s existing laws and legal precedents. Next, it looks to other
jurisdictions for guidance regarding best practices for regulating intermittent and ephemeral waterways,
and methods of ensuring government access to these waterways for better management and
protection. Finally, it proposes certain proprietary, regulatory, and management policy measures that
could be implemented within this legal framework to better manage and protect guts for the entire
Territory.

Each loss undermines resilience and risks extinction cascade

Bittel 18, [Jason Bittle writes for NRDC, “New Study Is First to Demonstrate That Biodiversity Inoculates
Against Extinction,” Natural Resources Defense Council, 3/8, https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/new-study-
first-demonstrate-biodiversity-inoculates-against-extinction]

Biodiversity has long been touted as important for staving off extinction. The more kinds of critters you
have, in other words, the less likely any one of them—or a whole bunch of them—will disappear forever.
The trouble is, no one has ever really demonstrated this idea in a lab setting. Until now.
In a study published this month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dirk Sanders of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom and his

coauthors show that when

you remove a species from a simple community —that is, a community with fewer overall species—it
can trigger extinctions in other species. What’s more, the scientists provide evidence that more complex
communities—those with more species—are better able to stave off the chain of events where one loss
leads to another and another. Scientists refer to this phenomenon as an extinction cascade.

Why should biodiversity be a buffer against tragedy? Well, because when you lose an animal in a complex
community, chances are good that something else will fill its role, says Sanders.

It’s sort of impossible to control for variables in a large ecosystem like a river or a forest, so the scientists
opted to study how extinction plays out
in mesocosms, or miniature ecosystems. These consisted of bean and barley plants inhabited by several species of tiny insects called aphids. Aphids eat
plants—technically, they suck sap—so they can represent a larger ecosystem’s grazers, like deer. As for predators, the study included three parasitic wasp species,
each of which preys on a specific type of aphid, as well as a fourth species of wasp that preys on any old aphid it can find.

Finally, because nature is a bit of a Russian nesting doll of horrors, there were also several species of wasps that prey on the wasps that prey on the aphids. These
so-called hyperparasitoids, or parasites that prey on parasites, represent yet another level in the food chain, like jaguars that kill caimans.

Each community was set up on a table outdoors and surrounded by a 6.5-foot square of fine mesh that contained the creatures and prevented other insects from
entering the mesocosm. At the same time, it allowed exposure to natural conditions like wind, rain, and sunlight, just as the plants and insects would experience in
the wild.

To simulate extinction in half of the mesocosms, the scientists started squishing mummies. And that’s when things got interesting. You see, these wasps don’t prey
on aphids by just killing and eating them. No, the wasps stab the aphid with a highly evolved syringe and then squirt an egg into its body. This egg hatches and
begins eating the aphid alive. After the wasp larva has had its fill, it spins a cozy little cocoon around itself and begins to transform into an adult. Just like the Very
Hungry Caterpillar turning into a butterfly―if that caterpillar were hanging out inside the corpse of an aphid.

The scientists sought out larvae from one parasitic wasp species, Aphidius megourae, and euthanized them with a pair of forceps. (To paraphrase T. S. Eliot, “This is
the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a tweezer.”)

A. megourae direct all of their destructive force against just one kind of aphid, Megoura viciae. So when this wasp was removed from the equation, its prey
experienced a population explosion. After a few weeks, there were twice as many M. viciae in these mesocosms as in the control mesocosms in which no wasps
were culled. That part was to be expected—get rid of wolves and mountain lions, and your deer population will go gangbusters.

What was less obvious was the way losing one species of wasp triggered the extinction of other wasp species.
“This is similar to deer overpopulation,” says Sanders. With so many new aphids of one species running around, the other aphid

species got crowded out. And as it became harder to find those crowded-out aphids, the wasps that relied
solely on them for food and a place to live began to decline until eventually they, too, went the way of
the dodo.

The extinctionssimulated in the lab indicated many more possible ecosystem impacts. For instance, more
aphids of
a certain species would likely lead to a decline of certain plants while others continue to thrive. That could
affect pollinator species, the animals that eat pollinators, and so on and so on. Soil structure, microbial
community, water quality—all of these variables also have the potential to change as a result of
extinction cascades.

The thing is, Sanders

and his colleagues found that mesocosms with more aphid and wasp species at the beginning of the
experiment were lesssusceptible to these extinction cascades. This jibes with other studies, Sanders says, that have
found that ecosystem functions, like decomposition and pollination, are dependent on maintaining a certain

threshold number of species. Which makes sense—you can’t expect a field full of flowers to mix genes
without a ton of insects, or a carcass to disappear without the help of beetles, maggots, turkey vultures,
and an array of other organisms. “Therefore, in general the loss of biodiversity is a major concern, and
extinction cascades can accelerate this loss,” says Sanders.

And that’s a scary finding, given that scientists believe the earth is experiencing its sixth mass extinction, in which we are losing species at as much as
10,000 times the normal rate. Some species will surely be goners moving forward. However, if we can focus our
conservation efforts on preserving as much biodiversity as possible, then we can give these ecosystems
a chance to weather the storm.

Specifically ephemeral stream pollution causes pollution floods into Virgin Island
oceans
Reiblich and Ankersen 16, [JESSE REIBLICH* THOMAS ANKERSEN†, * Fellow, Center for Ocean
Solutions, Stanford University. Jesse served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert A. Molloy, Superior
Court of the Virgin Islands, from 2015−2016. Email: jesselr@stanford.edu. The authors would like to
thank William White and Gennaro Scibelli for their research assistance. The authors would also like to
thank Joseph T. Gasper, II, Appellate & Complex Litigation Law Clerk, Superior Court of the Virgin Islands,
for his comments on an earlier draft of this Article. † Legal Skills Professor and Director, Conservation
Clinic and Costa Rica Program, University of Florida Levin College of Law. E-mail: ankersen@law.ufl.edu.
This project originates from a request from the U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife to the
University of Florida Law School’s Conservation Clinic to provide legal research assistance as it relates to
environmental protection and public access, Got Guts? The Iconic Streams of the U.S. Virgin Islands and
the Law’s Ephemeral Edge, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1801&context=facultypub]

Intermittent and ephemeral streams and rivers also provide various ecosystem services. For instance,
they provide flood control by acting as natural drainages to dispel rising waters when needed .51 The
Government of the Virgin Islands (GVI) has pointed out that guts might have the capability to mitigate
natural disasters, such as floods, and that this role could increase with the threat of development and
climate change.52 Virgin Islands courts have also noted guts’ ability to dispel flooding waters.53 Guts
also trap excess sediment that would otherwise end up suspended in downstream waters.54 This
service is lost once guts are paved, or flows are otherwise hastened by land use changes. Dry and
temporary streams also naturally cleanse water as it flows.55 This aspect of guts’ services is important
because these waters eventually flow into the waters near beaches where people swim, thus potentially
affecting these beaches’ swimmability.56 Guts also recharge groundwater, especially when they pool.57

Scientists in the Virgin Islands have identified and catalogued the most important guts in the Territory,
which they call “guts of interest.”58 They identified thirteen guts of interest on St. Croix, five on St. John,
and ten on St. Thomas.59 Several issues currently threaten these guts of interest,60 such as land use
change and altered drainage patterns, sedimentation of waterways, illegal dumping, and the
disappearance of plant species.61 Several types of pollution currently threaten guts, including solid
waste, agricultural waste, sewage disposal, and bacterial and nutrient contamination.62 Further issues
facing all guts include poor stormwater management and inadequate enforcement of existing laws.63
Finally, the current policy framework for protecting guts is inadequate. While current laws offer some
protection for guts, “the policy statements contained in the [Virgin Islands Code, the Territory’s
statutory law] have not, for the most part, been translated into a cohesive policy framework that
includes any specific reference to gut management.”64

The existing policy framework remains problematic for several reasons. For instance, while several
statutes in the Virgin Islands Code purport to protect guts and other watercourses, “there is no program
that translates the law into actual protection strategies or that offers protection of guts through the
development control process.”65 This lack of implementation has led to other related issues.
Importantly, the GVI’s inability to adequately manage guts threatens the Territory’s groundwater supply.
Specifically, “development patterns have increased surface runoff, thereby reducing groundwater
recharge.”66 Reduced recharge leads to reduced stream flows, which in turn influences stream
ecology.67 In response to these issues and the others outlined above, the GVI has prioritized the
“[d]evelopment of a policy framework and plan for management of watercourses in the U.S. Virgin
Islands.”68

Otherwise – sedimentation and low water quality kill coral

Ennis 16 [Rosmin S. Ennis, Marilyn E. Brandt, Kristin R. Wilson Grimes, Tyler B. Smith, "Coral reef health
response to chronic and acute changes in water quality in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands",
August 2016,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305924708_Coral_reef_health_response_to_chronic_and_a
cute_changes_in_water_quality_in_St_Thomas_United_States_Virgin_Islands]

The results of this study corroborate previous work documenting the negative impacts of chronic water
quality impairment on the health of coral reef ecosystems. Chronic nearshore water quality
impairment appears to contribute to nearshore coral reef health decline, as evidenced by increased
macroalgae overgrowth, increased sediment deposition on coral tissue, increased coral bleaching
prevalence, and decreased coral diversity. Additionally, these results support previous work suggesting
that short-term heavy sediment loads, like those experienced in Zone I, can have impacts on corals
equivalent to long-term chronic sedimentation (Fabricius, 2005; Weber et al., 2012; Philipp and
Fabricius, 2003). It also indicates that acute events could in fact be more detrimental to coral reef
health, as the coral bleaching stress response was more severe after heavy rainfall than that observed
during chronic water quality impairment.

Higher total nitrogen concentrations could be contributing to the higher macroalgae cover and
prevalence of overgrowth of corals in the nearshore zones, as nutrient enrichment favors macroalgae
growth (Szmant, 2002; Fabricius, 2005).

However, the significant increase in chlorophyll concentrations during acute events could indicate that
excess nutrients were instead rapidly taken up and utilized by phytoplankton in the water column
(Furnas et al., 2005). A strong positive relationship between sediment loading, macroalgae abundance,
and herbivore grazing has been documented previously (Rasher et al., 2012). Therefore, the higher
sediment loads to the nearshore zones observed in this study could be a main factor contributing to
higher macroalgae cover and overgrowth of coral. Sediment deposition onto coral tissue and water
column turbidity was most prevalent in the nearshore high impact zone and decreased extending
offshore. Coral bleaching prevalence prior to and during thermal stress followed the same pattern. Thus,
direct deposition of sediment on coral tissue and reduced light availability may also be contributing to
the impaired coral reef health state by increasing levels of coral bleaching, which has been well
documented (Nemeth and Nowlis, 2001; Fabricius, 2005). It has also been suggested that corals exposed
to chronic local stressors (i.e. runoff) are unable to recover as rapidly as unexposed corals following a
major thermal event (Carilli et al., 2009). Additionally, Sabine et al. (2015) found that tissue regeneration
rates of corals at Rupert's Rock, St. Thomas, USVI, located within the high impact Zone I of this study,
were about three times slower than sites less impacted by impaired water quality, located within the
offshore low impact Zone III of this study. This could indicate that the chronic runoff to the nearshore
high impact zone is also affecting the reefs' abilities to recover after stress events.

Key to biodiversity and the Caribbean economy

Wenner 17 [Mark D. Wenner currently holds the position of Country Economist in the IDB’s Guyana
Country Office, "How we can save Caribbean Coral Reefs and why we should", 3/1/17,
https://blogs.iadb.org/caribbean-dev-trends/en/can-save-caribbean-coral-reefs/]

Known as the “rainforests of the ocean”, coral reefs support an incredible amount of biodiversity and
play a critical role in sustaining tropical fisheries.

Not only do they provide food and shelter for a myriad of marine and fish species and direct support
commercial and recreational fishing activities, coral reefs help to filter water, create sand, and serve as
barriers that break the force of storm surges and high waves that if unchecked would accelerate
shoreline erosion and contribute to flooding of low-lying areas. For example, the Parrotfish, in the
grazing on algae accidentally ingests bits of coral that are then excreted, creating the brilliant, powdery,
sugar crystal white sand that graces many tropical beaches. Sponges and corals filter particulates out of
the water column and increase water clarity.

Another benefit is that thriving coral reefs support leisure and tourism activities. Most states in the
Caribbean depend on tourism, primarily selling sun, sand, and surf, which makes a contribution of 16-57
percent to GDP[1]. The commodity exporters of the southern Caribbean—Suriname (2.9%), Guyana
(8.2%), and Trinidad and Tobago (8.5%)——are the exceptions.

Caribbean coral reefs key to biodiversity

NOAA 14, [Marine Protected Areas of the US Virgin Islands Ecological Performance Report, October
2014]

Coral reef ecosystems of the USVI include a wide variety of fishes that are important to maintain a
healthy and productive ecosystem that provides valuable goods and services for island communities
and visitors. Over the past few decades, the number and biomass (weight) of fish on Caribbean coral
reefs, particularly large fish such as grouper, snapper and big parrotfish, have declined considerably7 .
To better protect coral reefs and associated fishes, MPAs have been established in the Caribbean. A
functionally intact fish community on healthy reefs is expected to include abundant herbivores and
carnivores, including large bodied species. In the USVI, declines in fish abundance, particularly of large-
bodied economically important species has resulted in a functionally impaired fish community. The
expectation for a well-protected MPA is that, over time, protection will result in a healthier reef, and
where fishing is prohibited, fished populations will be replenished. Economic benefits for fisheries are
thought to occur from the spillover of fish from the MPA into neighboring waters outside the MPA.
Although this study does not examine spillover, a related study that tracked fish movements in and out
of MPAs in the USVI provides direct evidence of spillover through fish movement out from MPAs into
neighboring unprotected areas where they can be fished8 . The performance of an MPA is measured
and assessed to help resource managers evaluate their actions, set realistic expectations for
performance and guide strategic decisions for future actions. We use a decade of fish survey data from
the joint NOAA and NPS coral reef ecosystem monitoring project to examine trends in key fishery
species, and groups of species (e.g., grouper), and the number of species (i.e., species richness) from
coral reefs inside and outside MPAs. With statistical analyses this report determines if a trend exists over
the monitoring period and whether a trend is increasing or decreasing inside the MPA compared with
data from a structurally similar range of seascapes outside the MPA. These results represent status and
trends for shallow water (<35 m) fish communities associated with coral reef and colonized hardbottom
habitat types sampled during daylight hours. More details on the sampling design and analyses used can
be found in the Appendix.

Caribbean war goes global

Ellis 14, [research professor of Latin American Studies at the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War
College, with a research focus on the region’s relationships with China and other non-Western
Hemisphere actors, Strategic Insights: The Strategic Relevance of Latin America for the United States,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/The-Strategic-Relevance-of-Latin-
America/2014/12/08]

One can debate whether senior U.S. officials visit or talk about Latin America and the Caribbean
frequently enough, or whether programs such as Plan Colombia, Plan Merida, the Central America
Regional Security Initiative, and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative are sufficient. Yet from
Washington DC, Latin American and Caribbean challenges, such as drugs, organized crime, and border
issues just do not seem to “stack up” to the immediate, existential threats confronting the United States
elsewhere in the world: Ebola, the fight against ISIL, a resurgent China, and a newly assertive Russia.

Frighteningly, in decisions about how the United States should focus its resources and attention in the
pursuit of global security in the post-Cold War era, this logic is almost ubiquitous. It is also shortsighted
and potentially creates grave risks for U.S. national security.

This essay argues that both those who argue for greater U.S. attention to Latin America’s problems and
those who argue the need to focus resources elsewhere, have it wrong. While Latin America and the
Caribbean face important challenges, such as transnational crime, governance, and development issues
in the post-Cold War world, U.S. policymakers and analysts too seldom think in strategic terms about
Latin America in the way that they do toward other parts of the world. Applying such a strategic lens to
Latin America, the region’s core strategic value to the United States derives not from individual
problems in the region itself (although it is certainly in the U.S. interest to address such issues). Rather,
the principal strategic imperative of Latin America for the United States historically has been, and
continues to be, its geographic and economic connectedness to this country and, by extension, the
potential for a powerful extra-hemispheric actor to use the region to harm the United States or impair
its ability to act in other parts of the world in the event of a future conflict.

The rise of China and its projection onto the global stage, coupled with Russia’s increasingly bold
reassertion of its imperial ambitions, increases the undesirable possibility of a serious conflict between
the United States, and one or both of these actors. Yet, while strategists regularly ponder the political
and military dimensions of how such conflicts could play out in Asia, it is unthinkable that a power with
global political, economic, and military ties, such as Russia or China, would allow the United States to
engage it in its own region without taking the fight to the U.S. “backyard” as well.

In short, there is a worrisome disconnect between the possible conflicts that U.S. strategic planners for
other theaters see on the horizon, and the focus of planners responsible for assessing Latin America and
the Caribbean. The later tend to evaluate the risks to the United States in terms of the challenges
coming from the region, but not those potentially coming through the region as a product of
developments in other parts of the world.

Things were not always so. During the Cold War, U.S. planners instinctively saw the Americas as an
arena where the Soviet Union would seek to act as part of its global struggle with the West. Concerns
over of a U.S. rival acting against the United States through proxy states in Latin America and the
Caribbean was manifest in U.S. attempts to contain Cuba, and to prevent pro-Soviet regimes from
coming to power in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic, among others.

It is not politically correct in the “enlightened” and globalized post-Cold War world to contemplate peer
competitors acting against the United States through sympathetic regimes or poorly governed spaces
within the Western Hemisphere, and yet the incentives for such a rival to do so have not changed:

1. The presence of such a threat forces the United States to divert resources and attention from actions
in other theaters.

2. U.S. trade and financial interdependence with the region allows an adversary to harm the United
States economically or undermine the sustainability of U.S. efforts elsewhere without acting directly
against the United States.

3. The geographic proximity to the United States gives an adversary the option to resupply forces or
hold U.S. targets at risk from the region during a global conflict.

While neither Russia nor China can be expected to openly threaten the United States in the near term,
both are significantly strengthening economic and military positions in the region, and they are moving
toward a posture in which a conflict with the United States is no longer unthinkable. While the United
States works to peacefully cohabit the globe with these states, it is the duty of those responsible for U.S.
national security to contemplate how such actors might move against the United States in the Western
Hemisphere in time of conflict, and how the United States should respond during such a conflict, and
mitigate risk in the period prior to it.

In 2008, when tensions escalated between Russia and the United States over the civil war in Georgia,
Russia sent the United States a powerful message by sending two nuclear-capable Tu-160 bombers to
Venezuela, to conduct flights in the Caribbean, followed 3 months later by the arrival of a naval flotilla
led by the Russian cruiser, Peter the Great. In 2014, as tensions with the United States and Europe
heated up again over the crisis in the Ukraine, Russia indicated its intention to establish facilities for the
resupply of Russian naval vessels in Cuba, Venezuela, and/or Nicaragua, as well as the reactivation of the
Soviet-era listening facility in Lourdes, Cuba. Even if such actions are “bluffs,” each should be a wake-up
call to U.S. policymakers and planners about the threats posed to U.S. security through willing
collaborators, or poorly governed spaces in the hemisphere.
 1AC—Spillover
Trump narrowed the Clean Water Act to exclude isolated and ephemeral waters. This
flouts scientific and economic evidence and markedly decentralizes.
Keiser et al 21, [David A. Keiser1,2,3, Sheila M. Olmstead4,5 , Kevin J. Boyle6 , Victor B. Flatt7 , Bonnie L.
Keeler8 , Catherine L. Kling2,3,5 , Daniel J. Phaneuf9 , Joseph S. Shapiro10,11 , Jay P. Shimshack12,
1University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA. 2Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 3Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. 4University of Texas, Austin,
TX, USA. 5Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA. 6Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
7University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 8University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 9University
of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 10University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 11National Bureau of
Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA. 12University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, April 16, A water
rule that turns a blind eye to transboundary pollution,
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/372/6539/241.full.pdf?
casa_token=uR2PP6LFI3QAAAAA:8pOM0qle2zqtOaBjLaz-
i51_DeUwoA9McNjZ_aq8UTecUVFnpCXUucpi5DytfCFsAXIDPI6hrJZDnA]

Early federal laws that allowed states to lead in setting environmental standards were replaced in the
1970s by a stronger role for federal regulation. Landmarks in this policy shift include the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA). But the scope of waters protected under the CWA has been
controversial. Unlike many environmental regulations, the CWR promulgated during the Obama
administration did not propose new environmental standards. Instead, it sought to define the
characteristics of water bodies that are subject to a variety of regulations under the CWA—those that
are considered “waters of the United States” (WOTUS)—with a particular focus on those waters in the
legal gray areas that have prompted litigation over the past several decades. These include small
headwaters, “isolated” wetlands, and ephemeral and intermittent streams. WOTUS jurisdictional
definitions determine which water bodies are subject to CWA regulations, affecting agricultural
operations, construction and land development projects, and other activities that involve such actions as
filling of wetlands or increasing runoff of water pollutants into the bodies of water in contention.
The Trump administration repealed and replaced the CWR with the NWPR, narrowing the CWA’s
jurisdictional reach. Although exact magnitudes are subject to debate, a 2017 analysis by EPA and ACE
suggests that the NWPR excludes 18% of streams (35% in the arid West) and just over one-half of
wetlands nationwide (4). This action had a weak scientific basis, as many of the excluded waters are
connected biologically, chemically, and hydrologically to protected waters downstream (5).
DOWNPLAYING THEORY AND EVIDENCE
The economic basis for the NWPR is also flawed. In their analyses, the agencies argued that removing
protection from the newly excluded waters would generate net economic benefits because states may
be better regulators of “local environmental public goods” (6, 7). The analysis represented a marked
shift to decentralized decision-making that downplayed transboundary impacts—the scientific and
economic basis on which the federal role is predicated (8).
For the first time since 1975, the NWPR eliminated “interstate waters” as a standalone category of
federal jurisdictional waters. Interstate waters could still be under federal jurisdiction, but only if they
met the requirements of a covered standalone category such as traditional navigable waters, their
tributaries, and adjacent water bodies. But, for example, according to the rule, any ephemeral or
intermittent stream that crosses state borders or any such stream that feeds into interstate waters
would no longer be under federal jurisdiction.

This violated basic tenets of benefit-cost analysis to such a degree that it incites and
sets a precedent for broader regulatory hollowing. It specifically risks CAA
nonattainment and Safe Drinking water standards.
Keiser et al 21, [David A. Keiser1,2,3, Sheila M. Olmstead4,5 , Kevin J. Boyle6 , Victor B. Flatt7 , Bonnie L.
Keeler8 , Catherine L. Kling2,3,5 , Daniel J. Phaneuf9 , Joseph S. Shapiro10,11 , Jay P. Shimshack12,
1University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA. 2Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 3Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. 4University of Texas, Austin,
TX, USA. 5Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA. 6Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
7University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 8University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 9University
of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 10University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 11National Bureau of
Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA. 12University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, April 16, A water
rule that turns a blind eye to transboundary pollution,
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/372/6539/241.full.pdf?
casa_token=uR2PP6LFI3QAAAAA:8pOM0qle2zqtOaBjLaz-
i51_DeUwoA9McNjZ_aq8UTecUVFnpCXUucpi5DytfCFsAXIDPI6hrJZDnA]

Where does this leave important debates about the appropriate locus of environmental regulation? The
agencies’ flawed estimates do not provide a clear picture. However, the best available scientific and
economic evidence suggests that the federalism argument should not be used to support the NWPR’s
removal of a large share of US waters from CWA protection. The federalism arguments in the NWPR,
although unconvincing in that setting, may have implications for other federal
environmental statutes in which debates about state versus federal control are germane, such
as the CAA’s designation of nonattainment areas or the Safe Drinking Water Act’s
maximum contaminant level standards.
The agencies’ economic analysis for the NWPR violated basic tenets of benefit-cost analysis and EPA’s
peer-reviewed guidelines, with no known precedent in federal rulemaking. The federalism analysis
contravened the best available knowledge in the peer-reviewed economics literature to such a degree
that the analysis can be considered arbitrary. Because the approach strongly affects the results of the
benefit-cost analysis, it also opens the agencies and the process of regulatory impact analysis to
concerns about strategic manipulation.

Scenario 1 is the Clean Air Act

Clean Air Act solves the ozone layer – EPA enforcement’s key
LSU 13 [LSU Biotechnology Law Resources, "The Clean Air Act in a Nutshell: How It Works", 3/22/13,
biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/caa_nutshell.pdf]
The ozone layer in the stratosphere protects life on earth by filtering out harmful ultraviolet

radiation from the sun. The Act contains a range of provisions to phase out production of chemicals that
harm the ozone layer, and prevent the release of such chemicals already in use. These provisions
implement the Montreal Protocol, the international agreement on ozone layer protection, and in some
respects go beyond it.

The Act requires EPA to phase out production and import of listed ozone‐depleting substances.51 The
best‐known ozone‐depleting substances, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have already been phased out.
EPA is currently phasing out hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are regarded as transitional
substitutes for CFCs. Certain exceptions to the phase‐outs are allowed. For example, EPA is authorized
to allow limited production of ozone‐depleting substances for export to developing countries. The Act
provides for implementing the phase‐outs through the issuance of allowances that can be traded among
companies.52 International trading is also allowed, subject to certain constraints.

EPA is required to issue regulations that reduce use and emissions of ozone ‐depleting substances to the
lowest achievable level, and that set requirements for recycling and disposal. The Act prohibits
intentional release of ozone‐depleting substances used as refrigerants in equipment including
appliances, industrial process refrigeration, and motor vehicle air conditioners.53 Mechanics servicing
auto air conditioners must be trained and use certified recycling equipment.54 Non‐essential uses of
ozone‐depleting substances, such as in noise horns and party streamers, are banned.55 Beginning in
2015, products containing or made with HCFCs must be labeled; a labeling requirement is already in
effect for products containing or made with other ozone‐depleting substances.56

Ozone depletion causes extinction – empirics

ScienceDaily 20 [ScienceDaily, "Erosion of ozone layer responsible for mass extinction event", 5/27/20,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200527150158.htm]

Researchers at the University of Southampton have shown that an extinction event 360 million years
ago, that killed much of the Earth's plant and freshwater aquatic life, was caused by a brief breakdown
of the ozone layer that shields the Earth from damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation. This is a newly
discovered extinction mechanism with profound implications for our warming world today.

There have been a number of mass extinction in the geological past. Only one was caused by an asteroid
hitting the Earth, which was 66 million years ago when the dinosaurs became extinct. Three of the
others, including the end Permian Great Dying, 252 million years ago, were caused by huge continental
scale volcanic eruptions that destabilised the Earth's atmospheres and oceans.

Now, scientists have found evidence showing it was high levels of UV radiation which collapsed forest
ecosystems and killed off many species of fish and tetrapods (our four limbed ancestors) at the end of
the Devonian geological period, 359 million years ago. This damaging burst of UV radiation occurred as
part of one of the Earth's climate cycles, rather than being caused by a huge volcanic eruption.
And – climate change
LSU 13 [LSU Biotechnology Law Resources, "The Clean Air Act in a Nutshell: How It Works", 3/22/13,
biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/caa_nutshell.pdf]

The Clean Air Act's authority to regulate emissions that cause or contribute to air pollution that may
endanger public health or welfare extends to air pollution from greenhouse gases. In 2007 the Supreme
Court decided that the Act’s definition of air pollutant includes greenhouse gases. Since then, EPA has
determined that certain provisions of the Act should be used to control large sources of emissions that
contribute to climate change.

EPA has issued greenhouse gas regulations for motor vehicles, including cars, trucks and buses.59
Because greenhouse gases are now regulated pollutants, large new and modified stationary sources of
greenhouse gases must comply with the preconstruction permitting provisions of the Act under the PSD
program, including the requirement to apply the best available control technology (BACT) considering
cost and other factors.60 EPA has issued rules to limit this statutory requirement to large emitters (e.g.,
power plants, cement manufacturers, refineries, etc.).

Warming causes extinction

Dunlop 17. (Ian Dunlop chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987-88, chaired the Australian
Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000 and was CEO of the Australian
Institute of Company Directors from 1997-2001. He has a particular interest in the interaction of
corporate governance, corporate responsibility and sustainability. An engineer by qualification, he holds
an MA (Mechanical Sciences) degree from the University of Cambridge, he is a Fellow of the Australian
Institute of Company Directors, the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and the Energy
Institute (UK), and a Member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (USA). He also chairs the
Australian National Wildlife Collection Foundation. David Spratt is a Research Director for Breakthrough
and co-author of Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action (Scribe 2008). His recent reports
include Recount: It’s time to “Do the math” again; Climate Reality Check and Antarctic Tipping Points for
a Multi-metre Sea-level Rise. A Failure of Imagination on Climate Risks. July 26, 2017.
www.resilience.org/stories/2017-07-26/a-failure-of-imagination-on-climate-risks/)

Climate change is an existential risk that could abruptly end human civilisation because of a catastrophic “failure of
imagination” by global leaders to understand and act on the science and evidence before them.

At the London School of Economics in 2008, Queen Elizabeth questioned: “Why did no one foresee the timing, extent and severity of the Global Financial Crisis?”
The British Academy answered a year later: “A psychology of denial gripped the financial and corporate world… [it was] the failure of the collective imagination of
many bright people… to understand the risks to the system as a whole”.

A “failure of imagination” has also been identified as one of the reasons for the breakdown in US intelligence around the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

A similar failure is occurring with climate change today.

The problem is widespread at the senior levels of government and global corporations. A 2016 report, Thinking the unthinkable, based on interviews with top
leaders around the world, found that:

“A proliferation of ‘unthinkable’ events… has revealed a new fragility at the highest levels of corporate and public service leaderships. Their ability to spot, identify
and handle unexpected, non-normative events is… perilously inadequate at critical moments… Remarkably, there remains a deep reluctance, or
what might be called ‘executive myopia’, to see and contemplate even the possibility that ‘unthinkables’ might happen ,
let alone how to handle them.

Such failures are manifested in two ways in climate policy. At the political, bureaucratic and business level in underplaying the high-end risks and in failing to
recognise that the existential risk of climate change is totally different from other risk categories. And at
the research level in
underestimating the rate of climate change impact and costs, along with an under-emphasis on, and
poor communication of, those high-end risks.
Existential risk

An existential risk is an adverse outcome that would either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential. For example, a big meteor
impact, large-scale nuclear war, or sea levels 70 metres higher than today.

Existential risks are not amenable to the reactive (learn from failure) approach of conventional risk
management, and we cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, or social attitudes developed from
our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Because the consequences are so severe — perhaps the
end of human global civilisation as we know it — researchers say that “even for an honest, truth-seeking, and well-
intentioned investigator it is difficult to think and act rationally in regard to… existential risks”.

Yet the evidence is clear that climate change already poses an existential risk to global economic and
societal stability and to human civilisation that requires an emergency response. Temperature rises that are now in
prospect could reduce the global human population by 80% or 90%. But this conversation is taboo, and the few who speak out are

admonished as being overly alarmist.

Prof. Kevin Anderson considers that “a

4°C future [relative to pre-industrial levels] is incompatible with an organized global
community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a
high probability of not being stable ”. He says: “If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4°C, 5°C or 6°C, you might have
half a billion people surviving”. Asked at a 2011 conference in Melbourne about the difference between a 2°C world and a 4°C world, Prof. Hans Joachim
Schellnhuber replied in two words: “Human civilisation”.

Scenario 2 is regulatory hollowing

Weakening of regulatory agencies undermines regulations that solve dangerous
nanotechnology
Reese 13 – Michelle Reese, J.D., 2013, Case Western Reserve University School of Law,
“Nanotechnology: Using Co-regulation to Bring Regulation of Modern Technologies into the 21st
Century”, Health Matrix: Journal of Law Medicine, 23 Health Matrix 537, Fall, Lexis

Nevertheless,nanotechnology may also present new risks. Scientists are not sure whether nanotechnology poses any serious health hazards to humans or the
environment. Considering our wide exposure to nanotechnology, it is critical that we identify potential risks and impose regulations that

strike a balance between accessing the benefits of nanotechnology and limiting the foreseeable harm to the
environment and public health.
Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter on an atomic scale to create tiny, functional structures. n3 These structures are incredibly small: one nanometer is precisely one-billionth of a
meter. n4 Nanotechnology is defined as the production of materials that are between one and one-hundred nanometers in size. n5 Although they cannot be seen with the naked eye, these
microscopic structures called "nanoparticles" have been proven to benefit humans in a variety of ways. For example, they can lead to new medical treatments. n6 They also can be used to
develop [*539] building materials with a very high strength-to-weight ratio. n7 Sunscreen and cosmetics that make use of nanoparticles apply more smoothly and evenly to human skin. n8
Other examples of products that utilize nanoparticles include stain-resistant clothing, lightweight golf clubs, bicycles, car bumpers, antimicrobial wound dressings, and synthetic bones. n9

While there are many benefits presented by nanotechnology, there are also potential risks. Studies have indicated that nanoparticles called carbon nanotubes act like asbestos within the
human body. n10 Cells that are exposed to nanostructures called "buckyballs" n11 have been shown to undergo slowed or even halted cell division. n12 In general, the small size and high
surface-area-to-volume ratio of nanoparticles indicates a higher potential for toxicity. n13

The application of nanotechnology to drug development has aided the treatment of common life-threatening diseases while concurrently posing toxic side effects. n14 For example, carbon
nanotubes n15 may be used to enhance cancer treatments, but there is also an indication that the nanotubes themselves might ironically have a carcinogenic effect on the human body. n16
Certain nanoparticles can be used to enhance water filtration systems, but there are concerns that the production of nanoscale products may lead to new types of water pollution. n17
Common [*540] to these examples is the difficulty in determining whether the benefits of nanotechnology will outweigh the risks.

One place to turn for answers is the regulatory agency tasked with investigating the risks posed by
nanotechnology. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the regulatory authority to assess the environmental
and public health risks associated with nanotechnology, and to prescribe regulations as needed to
prevent or reduce those risks. n18 Unfortunately, authority to assess those risks does not mean the EPA has adequate tools to do so. n19 Nanotechnology is becoming
ubiquitous as the industry continues to expand, and new products are being created every day. n20 The need for thorough risk assessment, followed by appropriate

risk management, is becoming more important as potential environmental and public exposure to nanoparticles is
becoming more common . n21

Nanotechnology is not categorically dangerous . n22 The current danger is that it is unknown whether
nanoparticles present any risks to the environment and public health . As more common household products are created or enhanced
with nanoparticles, public exposure to nanotechnology is increasing rapidly. n23 This increasing public exposure indicates an urgent need for

risk assessment. And as exposure increases, it becomes more important that the EPA be able to
determine what risks will accompany that exposure, if any, so that it can properly balance the risks
against the benefits and promulgate the most effective rules .

Generally speaking, the EPA is familiar with assessing risks and regulating new products. The EPA has
authority through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate chemical manufacturing . n24 TSCA requires manufacturers to inform the EPA of
the potential risks associated with a new product, or new uses for an existing product, before production begins. n25 This gives the EPA an opportunity to

prohibit or limit the manufacturing of that substance . n26 While this seems [*541] to suggest that the EPA is well-equipped to

manage the potential risks of products containing nanoparticles, some say that TSCA is outdated and that it will be difficult to use this older statute to
regulate modern technology. n27

Rapid advancements in nanotech and AI are coming and risk global war---a U.S.
regulatory lead role is key
Tate 15 – Jitendra S. Tate, Associate Professor of Manufacturing Engineering at the Ingram School of
Engineering, Texas State University, et al., “Military And National Security Implications Of
Nanotechnology”, The Journal of Technology Studies, Volume 41, Number 1, Spring,
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v41/v41n1/tate.html

All branches of the U.S. military are currently conducting nanotechnology research, including the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Army Research Office (ARO), and Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The U nited S tates

is currently the leader of the development of nanotechnologybased applications for military and
national defense. Advancements in nanotechnology are intended to revolutionize modern warfare with the development of applications such as nano-sensors, artificial intelligence, nanomanufacturing, and
nanorobotics. Capabilities of this technology include providing soldiers with stronger and lighter battle suits, using nano-enabled medicines for curing field wounds, and producing silver-packed foods with decreased spoiling rate

( Tiwari, A., Military Nanotechnology, 2004 ). Although the improvements in nanotechnology hold great promise, this technology has the potential to pose some risks .
This article addresses a few of the more recent, rapidly evolving, and cutting edge developments for defense purposes. To prevent irreversible damages, regulatory

measures must be taken in the advancement of dangerous technological developments implementing

nanotechnology. The article introduces recent efforts in awareness of the societal implications of military and national security nanotechnology as well as recommendations for national leaders.
Keywords: Nanotechnology, Implications, modern warfare

INTRODUCTION

Advances in nano-science and nanotechnology promise to have major implications for advances in the scientific field as well as peace for
the upcoming decades. This will lead to dramatic changes in the way that material, medicine, surveillance, and sustainable energy technology are understood and created. Significant
breakthroughs are expected in human organ engineering, assembly of atoms and molecules, and the
emergence of a new era of physics and chemistry . Tomorrow’s soldiers will have many challenges such as carrying self-guided missiles, jumping over large obstacles,
monitoring vital signs, and working longer periods with sleep deprivation. ( Altmann & Gubrud, Anticipating military nanotechnology, 2004 ). This will be achieved by controlling matter at the nanoscale (1-100nm). A nanometer is
one-billionth of a meter. This article considers the social impact of nanotechnology (NT) from the point of view of the possible military applications and their implications for national defense and arms control. This technological
evolution may become disruptive; meaning that it will come out of mainstream. Ideas that are coming forth through nanotechnology are becoming very popular and the possibilities will in practice have profound implications for
military affairs as well as relations between nations and thinking about war and national security ( Altmann J. , Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and Concerns, 2004 ). In this article some of the potential applicability

uses of recent nanotechnology driven applications within the military are introduced. This article also discusses how the impact of a rapid technological evolution in the
military will have implications on society .
POTENTIAL MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES

Magneto rheological Fluid (MR Fluid)

A magneto-rheological-fluid is a fluid where colloidal ferrofluids experience a body force on the entire material that is proportional to the magnetic field strength ( Ashour, Rogers, & Kordonsky, 1996 ). This allows the status of the
fluid to change reversibly from a liquid to solid state. Thus, the fluid becomes intelligently controllable using the magnetic field. MR fluid consists of a basic fluid, ferromagnetic particles, and stabilizing additives ( Olabi & Grunwald,
2007 ). The ferromagnetic particles are typically 20-50μm in diameter whereas in the presence of the magnetic field, the particles align and form linear chains parallel to the field ( Ahmadian & Norris, 2008 ). Response times 21 that
require impressively low voltages are being developed. Recently, ( Ahmadian & Norris, 2008 ) has shown the ability of MR fluids to handle impulse loads and an adaptable fixing for blast resistant and structural membranes. For
military applications, the strength of the armor will depend on the composition of the fluid. Researchers propose wiring the armor with tiny circuits. While current is applied through the wires, the armor would stiffen, and while the
current is turned off, the armor would revert to its liquid, flexible state. Depending on the type of particles used, a variety of armor technology can be developed to adapt for soldiers in different types of battle conditions.
Nanotechnology could increase the agility of soldiers. This could be accomplished by increasing mechanical properties as well as the flexibility for battle suit technology.

Nano Robotics

Nanorobotics is a new emerging field in which machines and robotic components are created at a scale at or close to that of a nanometer. The term has been heavily publicized through science fiction movies, especially the film
industry, and has been growing in popularity. In the movie Spiderman , Peter Parker and Norman Osborn briefly talk about Norman’s research which involves nanotechnology that is later used in the Green Goblin suit. Nanorobotics
specifically refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline or designing and building nano robots that are expected to be used in a military and space applications. The terms nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines or
nanomites have been used to describe these devices but do not accurately represent the discipline. Nanorobotics includes a system at or below the micrometer range and is made of assemblies of nanoscale components with
dimensions ranging from 1 to 100nm ( Weir, Sierra, & Jones, 2005 ). Nanorobotics can generally be divided into two fields. The first area deals with the overall design and control of the robots at the nanoscale. Much of the research
in this area is theoretical. The second area deals with the manipulation and/or assembly of nanoscale components with macroscale manipulators ( Weir, Sierra, & Jones, 2005 ). Nanomanipulation and nanoassembly may play a
critical role in the development and deployment of artificial robots that could be used for combat.

According to Mavroidis et al. ( 2013 ), nanorobots should have the following three characteristic abilities at the nano scale and in presence of a large number in a remote environment. First they should have swarm intelligence.
Second the ability to self-assemble and replicate at the nanoscale. Third is the ability to have a nano to macro world interface architecture enabling instant access to the nanorobots with control and maintenance. ( Mavroidis &
Ferreira, 2013 ) also states that collaborative efforts between a variety of educational backgrounds will need to work together to achieve this common objective. Autonomous nanorobots for the battlefield will be able to move in
all media such as water, air, and ground using propulsion principles known for larger systems. These systems include wheels, tracks, rotor blades, wings, and jets ( Altmann & Gubrud, Military, arms control, and security aspects of
nanotechnology, 2004 ). These robots will also be designed for specific military tasks such as reconnaissance, communication, target destination, and sensing capabilities. Self-assembling nanorobots could possibly act together in
high numbers, blocking windows, putting abrasives into motors and other machines, and other unique tasks.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a vast emerging field that can be very thought provoking . AI has been seen recently in a number of
movies and television shows that have predicted what the possibility of an advanced intelligence could do to our society. This intellect could possibly outperform human

capabilities in practically every field from scientific research to social interactions. Aspirations to surpass human capabilities include
tennis, baseball, and other daily tasks demanding motion and common sense reasoning (Kurzweil, 2005). Examples where AI could be seen include chess playing, theorem proving, face and speech recognition, and natural language

understanding. AI has been an active and dynamic field of r esearch and d evelopment since its establishment in 1956 at the Dartmouth
Conference in the United States ( Cantu-Ortiz, 2014 ). In past decades, this has led to the development of smart systems, including phones, laptops,
medical instruments, and navigation software.

One problem with AI is that people are coming to a conclusion about its capabilities too soon. Thus, people are becoming afraid of the probability that an artificial intelligent system could possibly expand and turn on the human
race. True artificial intelligence is still very far from becoming “alive” due to our current technology. Nanotechnology might advance AI research and development. In nanotechnology, there is a combination of physics, chemistry

Bringing together nanosciences and AI can

and engineering. AI relies most heavily on biological influence as seen genetic algorithm mutations, rather than chemistry or engineering.

will impact our society. This could be accomplished by successful

boost a whole new generation of information and communication technologies that

convergences between technology and biology ( Sacha & P., 2013 ). Computational power could be exponentially increased in current successful AI based military decision
behavior models as seen in the following examples.

Expert Systems

Artificial intelligence is currently being used and evolving in expert systems (ES). An ES is an “intelligent computer program that uses knowledge and interference procedures to solve problems that are difficult enough to require
significant human expertize to their solution” ( Mellit & Kalogirou, 2008 ). Results early on in its development have shown that this technology can play a significant impact in military applications. Weapon systems, surveillance, and
complex information have created numerous complications for military personnel. AI and ES can aid commanders in making decisions faster than before in spite of limitations on manpower and training. The field of expert systems
in the military is still a long way from solving the most persistent problems, but early on research demonstrated that this technology could offer great hope and promise ( Franklin, Carmody, Keller, Levitt, & Buteau, 1988 ). Mellit et
al. argues that an ES is not a program but a system. This is because the program contains a variety of different components such as a knowledge base, interference mechanisms, and explanation facilities. Therefore they have been
built to solve a range of problems that can be beneficial to military applications. This includes the prediction of a given situation, planning which can aid in devising a sequence of actions that will achieve a set goal, and debugging
and repair-prescribing remedies for malfunctions.

Genetic Algorithms

Artificial intelligence with genetic algorithms (GA) can tackle complex problems through the process of initialization, selection, crossover, and mutation. A GA repeatedly modifies a population of artificial structures in order to
adjust for a specific problem (Prelipcean et al., 2010). In this population, chromosomes evolve over a number of generations through the application of genetic operations. This evolution process of the GA allows for the most elite
chromosomes to survive and mate from one generation to the next. Generally, the GA will include three genetic operations of selection, crossover, and mutation. This is currently being applied to solving problems in military vehicle
scheduling at logistic distribution centers.

Nanomanufacturing

Nanomanufacturing is the production of materials and components with nanoscale features that can span a wide range of unique capabilities. At the nanoscale, matter is manufactured at lengthscales of 1-100nm with precise size
and control. The manufacturing of parts can be done with the “bottom up” from nano sized materials or “top down” process for high precision. Manufacturing at the nanoscale could produce new features, functional capabilities,
and multi-functional properties. Nanomanufacturing is distinguished from nanoprocessing, and nanofabrication, whereas nanomanufacturing must address scalability, reliability and cost effectiveness ( Cooper & Ralph, 2011 ).
Military applications will need to be very tough and sturdy but at the same time very reliable for use in harsh environments with the extreme temperatures, pressure, humidity, radiation, etc. The use of nano enabled materials and
components increase the military’s in-mission success. Eventually, these new nanotechnologies will be transferred for commercial and public use. Cooper et al. makes known how nanomanufacuring is a multi-disciplinary effort that
involves synthesis, processing and fabrication. There are however a great number of challenges that as well as opportunities in nanomanufacturing R&D such as;

Predictions from first principles of the progress and kinetics of nanosynthesis and nano-assembly processes.

23 Understand and control the nucleation and growth of nanomaterial and nanostructures and asses the effects of catalysts, crystal orientation, chemistry, etc. on growth rates and morphologies.

R&D IN THE USA

The USA is proving to have a lead in military research and development in nanotechnology . Research spans under
umbrella of applications related to defense capabilities. NNI has provided funds in which one quarter to one third goes to the department of defense – in 2003, $ 243 million of $774 million. This is far more
than any country and the US expenditure would be five times the sum of all the rest of the world ( Altmann
& Gubrud, Military, arms control, and security aspects of nanotechnology, 2004 ).

INITIATIVES

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was unveiled by President Clinton in a speech that he gave on science and technology policy in January of 2000 where he called for an initiative with funding levels around 500 million
dollars ( Roco & Bainbridge, 2001 ). The initiative had five elements. The first was to increase support for fundamental research. The second was to pursue a set of grand challenges. The third was to support a series of centers of
excellence. The fourth was to increase support for research infrastructure. The fifth is to think about the ethical, economic, legal and social implications and to address the education and training of nanotechnology workforce
( Roco & Bainbridge, 2001 ). NNI brings together the expertise needed to advance the potential of nanotechnology across the nation.

ISN at MIT

The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) initiated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2002 ( Bennet-Woods, 2008 ). The mission of ISN is to develop battlesuit technology that will increase soldier survivability,
protection, and create new methods of detecting toxic agents, enhancing situational awareness, while decreasing battle suit weight and increasing flexibility.

ISN research is organized into five strategic areas (SRA) designed to address broad strategic challenges facing soldiers. The first is developing lightweight, multifunctional nanostructured materials. Here nanotechnology is being
used to develop soldier protective capabilities such as sensing, night vision, communication, and visible management. Second is soldier medicine – prevention, diagnostics, and far-forward care. This SRA will focus on research that
would enable devices to aid casualty care for soldiers on the battle field. Devices would be activated by qualified personnel, the soldier, or autonomous. Eventually, these devices will find applications in medical hospitals as well.
Third is blast and ballistic threats – materials damage, injury mechanisms, and lightweight protection. This research will focus on the development of materials that will provide for better protection against many forms of
mechanical energy in the battle field. New protective material design will decrease the soldier’s risk of trauma, casualty, and other related injuries. The fourth SRA is hazardous substances sensing. This research will focus on
exploring advanced methods of molecularly complicated hazardous substances that could be dangerous to soldiers. This would include food-borne pathogens, explosives, viruses and bacteria. The fifth and final is nanosystems
integration –flexible capabilities in complex environments. This research focuses on the integration of nano-enabled materials and devices into systems that will give the soldier agility to operate in different environments. This will
be through capabilities to sense toxic chemicals, pressure, and temperature, and allow groups of soldiers to communicate undetected (Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies).

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of country’s armed forces is to provide protection from foreign threats and from internal conflict. On the other hand, they may also harm a society by engaging in counter- productive warfare or serving as an economic
burden. Expenditures on science and technology to develop weapons and systems sometimes produces side benefits, such as new medicines, technologies, or materials. Being ahead in military technology provides an important
advantage in armed conflict. Thus, all potential opponents have a strong motive for military research and development. From the perspective of international security and arms control it appears that in depth studies of the social
science of these implications has hardly begun. Warnings about this emerging technology have been sounded against excessive promises made too soon. The public may be too caught up with a “nanohype” ( Gubrud & Altmann,
2002 ). It is essential to address questions of possible dangers arising from military use of nanotechnology and its impacts on national security. Their consequences need to be analyzed.

NT and Preventative Arms Control

Background

The goal of preventive arms control is to limit how the development of future weapons could create
horrific situations , as seen in the past world wars . A qualitative method here is to design boundaries
which could limit the creation of new military technologies before they are ever deployed or even
thought of. One criterion regards arms control and how the development of military and surveillance technologies could go beyond the limits of international law warfare and control agreements. This could include
autonomous fighting war machines failing to define combatants of either side and Biological weapons could possibly give terrorist circumvention over existing treaties ( Altmann & Gubrud, Military, arms control, and security
aspects of nanotechnology, 2004 ). The second criterion is to prevent destabilization of the military situation which emerging technologies could make response times in battle much faster. Who will strike first? The third criterion,
according to Altman & Gubrud, is how to consider unintended hazards to humans, the environment, and society. Nanoscience is paving the way for smaller more efficient systems which could leak into civilian sectors that could
bring risks to human health and personal data. Concrete data on how this will affect humans or the environment is still uncertain.

Arms Control Agreements

The development of smaller chemical or biological weapons that may contain less to no metal could potentially violate existing international laws of warfare by becoming virtually undetectable. Smaller weapons could fall into
categories that would undermine peace treaties. The manipulation of these weapons by terrorist could give a better opportunity to select specific targets for assassination. Anti- satellite attacks by smaller more autonomous
satellites could potentially destabilize the space situation. Therefore a comprehensive ban on space weapons should be established ( Altmann & Gubrud, 2002 ). Autonomous robots with a degree of artificial intelligence will
potentially bring great problems. The ability to identify a soldiers current situation such as a plea for surrender, a call for medical attention, or illness is a a very complicated tasks that to an extent requires human intelligence. This
could potentially violate humanitarian law.

Stability

New weapons could pressure the military to prevent attacks by pursuing the development of new
technologies faster. This could lead to an arms race with other nations trying to attain the same goal.
Destabilization may occur through faster action, and more available nano systems . Vehicles will become much lighter and will be
used for surveillance. This will significantly reduce time to acquire a targets location. Medical devices implanted in soldiers’ bodies will enable the release of drugs that influence mood and response times. For example, an implant

[AI]
that attaches to the brains nervous system could give the possibility to reduce reaction time by processing information much faster than usual ( Altmann & Gubrud, Anticipating military nanotechnology, 2004 ).

Artificial intelligence based genetic algorithms could make tactical decisions much faster through
computational power by adapting to a situations decision . Nano robots could eavesdrop, manipulate or even destroy targets while at the same time being
undetected ( Altmann J. , Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and Concerns, 2004 ).
Environment Society & Humans

Human beings have always been exposed to natural reoccurring nanomaterials in nature. These particles may enter the human body through respiration, and ingestion ( Bennet- Woods, 2008 ). Little been known about how
manufactured nanoscale materials will have an impact to the environment. Jerome (2005) argues that nanomaterials used for military uniforms could break of and enter the body and environment. New materials could destroy
species of plants and animal. Fumes from fuel additives could be inhaled by military personnel. Contaminant due to weapon blasts could lead to diseases such as cancer or leukemia due to absorption through the skin or inhalation.
Improper disposal of batteries using nano particles could also affect a wide variety of species. An increase in nanoparticle release into the environment could be aided by waste streams from military research facilities. Advanced
nuclear weapons that are miniaturized may leave large areas of soil contaminated with radioactive materials. There is an increase in toxicity as the particle size decrease which could cause unknown environmental changes. Bennet-
woods ( 2008 ) argues that there is great uncertainty in which the way nano materials will degrade under natural conditions and interact with local organisms in the environment.

Danger to society could greatly be affected due to self-replicating , mutating, mechanical or biological plagues . In the event that these
intelligent nano systems were to be unleashed, they could potentially attack the physical world . There are a number of applications that will be developed with nanotechnology that could
potentially crossover from the military to national security that can harm the civilian sector ( Bennet-Woods, 2008 ). There is a heightened awareness that new technologies will allow for a more efficient access to personal privacy
and autonomy ( Roco & Bainbridge, 2005 ). Concerns regarding artificial intelligence acquiring a vast amount of personal data, voice recognition, and financial data will also arise. Implantable brain devices, intended for
communication, raise concerns for actually observing and manipulating thoughts. Some of the most feared risks due to nanotechnology in the society are the loss of privacy ( Flagg, 2005 ). Nano sensors developed for the battlefield
could be used for eavesdropping and tracking of citizens by state agencies. This could lead to improvised warfare or terrorism. Bennet-Woods ( 2008 ) argues that there should be an outright ban on nanoenabled tracking and
surveillance devices for any purpose.

Nanotechnology in combination with biotechnology and medicine raise concerns regarding human safety. This includes nanoscale drugs that may allow for improvements in terrorism alongside more efficient soldiers for combat.
Bioterrorism could greatly be improved through nano-engineered drugs and chemicals ( Milleson, 2013 ). Body implants could be used by soldiers to provide for better fighting efficiency but in the society, the extent in which the
availability of body manipulation will have to be debated at large ( Altmann J. , Nanotechnology and preventive arms control, 2005 ). Brain implanted stimulates could become addictive and lead to health defects. The availability of
body and brain implants could have negative effects during peace time. Milleson ( 2013 ) argues that there is fear that this technology could destabilize the human race, society, and family. Thus, the use in society should be
delayed for at least a decade.

CONCLUSIONS

Nanoscience will lead to a revolutionary development of new materials, medicine, surveillance, and sustainable energy. Many applications could arrive in the next decade. The US is currently in the lead in nanoscience research and
development. This equates to roughly five times the sum of all the rest of world. It is essential to address the potential risks that cutting edge military applications will have on warfare and civilian sector. There is a potential for
mistrust in areas where revolutionary changes are expected. There are many initiatives by federal agencies, industry, and academic institutions pertaining to nanotechnology applications in military and national security.

Preventive measures should be coordinated early on among national leaders. Scientists propose for national leaders to follow general
guidelines. There shall be no circumvention of existing treaties as well as a ban on space weapons. Autonomous robots should be greatly restricted. Due to rapidly advancing capabilities,

a technological arms race should be prevented at all costs. Nanomaterials could greatly harm humans and their environment therefore nations should work
The national nanotechnology of different nations should build confidence in
together to address safety protocols.

addressing the social implications and preventive arms control from this technological revolution .
ADV—Environment
 Add On—Drinking Water

Agriculture is key threat to drinking water quality through ephemeral streams.

Sarah Graddy 18 April 2018 Farm Runoff Causing Widespread Drinking Water Pollution in Midwest,"
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/farm-runoff-causing-widespread-drinking-water-
pollution-midwest

AMES, Iowa – A new report from the Environmental Working Group reveals that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture is failing to enforce a key farm bill provision, with dire consequences for drinking water in
the Midwest. “Farmers made a deal with taxpayers in 1985 to prevent soil erosion and polluted runoff in
return for billions of dollars in farm subsidies,” said Craig Cox, EWG’s Vice President of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. “But this ‘conservation compact’ has languished, and as a result, the water and
health of millions of Americans are at risk.” In a “conservation compact” made between farmers and
taxpayers in 1985, farmers agreed to prevent soil erosion and polluted runoff from their most vulnerable
cropland in return for billions of dollars in farm subsidies. The compact was remarkably successful,
cutting erosion and runoff on 100 million acres of highly erodible land by an estimated 40 percent. But
30 years later, an EWG investigation using satellite imagery has found excessive erosion and runoff on
highly erodible land covered by the compact in four Midwestern states. The damage is even worse on
cropland not covered by the compact. When it rains, small channels called ephemeral gullies form
along the drainage pathways that water follows as it flows off fields. The gullies act like pipelines,
funneling fertilizers, manure, sediment and other farm pollutants into waterways and aquifers,
resulting in widespread drinking water contamination. Simple practices like protecting the pathways
with strips of grass prevent gullies. Yet EWG found that 60 percent of the pathways on highly erodible
land covered by the compact in Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa and Illinois were unprotected, and nearly half
were scarred by gullies – clear evidence that even the minimal current requirements are not being met.
The situation is even worse on land not covered by the contract, where 80 percent of the pathways
were unprotected. “After 30 years, it’s more than fair to ask farmers to do more to prevent pollution in
return for the generous support they get from taxpayers,” Cox said. Nitrates from fertilizers and
manure that end up in drinking water increase the risk of colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers.
Phosphorus triggers algal blooms that react with disinfectant chemicals water utilities use, forming
harmful byproducts like trihalomethanes, or TTHMs. Drinking tap water contaminated with TTHMs
increases the risk of developing bladder cancer in humans. In animal studies, TTHMs are also
associated with liver, kidney and intestinal tumors. And studies suggest that TTHMs increase the risk of
problems during pregnancy, including miscarriage, cardiovascular defects, neural tube defects and low
birth weight. EWG’s 2017 “Trouble in Farm Country” report revealed that drinking water in 1,683 mostly
rural communities is high in nitrates, while TTHMs are high in 1,647. EWG has proposed a new
conservation compact for the 2018 Farm Bill that would require farmers and landowners applying for
and receiving federal subsidies to implement conservation practices that protect drinking water. To stay
eligible for subsidies, farmers and landowners should at least prevent or heal ephemeral gullies, and
keep a buffer of at least 50 feet between cropland and waterways. “Enacting a stronger, more rigorously
implemented conservation compact is an important step toward clean, safe drinking water, and would
protect the health of millions of Americans,” Cox said.
Lack of EPA enforcement jurisdiction causes human and nonhuman suffering on the
scale of the millions.

Wein 1-23-2020 [Stephanie, "New Dirty Water Rule puts Pennsylvania’s rivers, drinking water at risk,"
No Publication, https://pennenvironment.org/news/pae/new-dirty-water-rule-puts-pennsylvania
%E2%80%99s-rivers-drinking-water-risk]

Harrisburg, PA - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today finalized a rule that leaves half the
nation’s wetlands and thousands of streams -- which help provide millions of Americans with drinking
water -- without the federal protection of the Clean Water Act. "Pennsylvanians care deeply about clean
water - for drinking, swimming, fishing and sustaining nature. Yet this Dirty Water Rule will leave the
Delaware, Susquehanna and Ohio River - and many other waterways around the state - vulnerable to
pollution, as well as put our drinking water at risk,” said Stephanie Wein, Clean Water Advocate.
“Polluted water can make anyone sick -- no matter where you live or your politics. This move defies
common sense, sound science, and 50 years of bipartisan support for clean water." We’ve made such
progress in cleaning up our waters, from Lake Erie to the Delaware River; but all that progress will be at
risk if nearby streams and wetlands become degraded and polluted. The rule also opens our drinking
water sources to pollution. According to U.S. EPA’s own data, intermittent and ephemeral streams help
provide drinking water to 117 million Americans. The Dirty Water Rule removes Clean Water Act
protections for many of these streams, putting the drinking water of many Pennsylvanians at risk. Noting
the nexus among streams, wetlands, and larger waterways, the Dirty Water Rule was recently rebuked
by EPA’s own science advisors. Public support for maintaining Clean Water Act protections is
widespread. More than one million Americans -- including business owners, local officials, scientists,
and hunters and anglers -- provided comments to EPA, urging the agency to protect streams and
wetlands under the Act, including tens of thousands from Pennsylvania. But lobbyists for corporate
agribusiness, developers, and the oil and gas industry have long demanded that federal protections be
removed for streams and wetlands. Pollution from agribusinesses contributes to toxic algal outbreaks,
fish kills, dead zones, drinking water contamination and fecal bacteria that can make swimmers sick.
Some developers are eager to build on wetlands and the oil and gas industry has countless pipelines
running through them. Pennsylvania’s Members of Congress are speaking up too. Representatives
Madeleine Dean (PA-4), Susan Wild (PA-7), Matthew Cartwright (PA-8) recently co-sponsored a House
resolution urging EPA to reverse course on the Dirty Water Rule and several other attacks on clean
water. “The dirty water rule is a moment of truth for every single representative in Congress,” said
Stephanie Wein, Clean Water Advocate at PennEnvironment. “And Representatives Dean, Cartwright
and Wild are not sitting silently as this administration rips up protections for our rivers, our lakes and our
drinking water.” “With the Dirty Water Rule, the administration has put the interests of polluters over
those of the public and our drinking water,” said Wein. “We’ll be calling on Congress and the courts to
uphold the Clean Water Act.”
Not only are state environmental agencies overburdened by purifying water, but
purification measures can backfire, causing public health crises.

Guardian, 9-15-2020, "‘We’ve always known ours was contaminated’: the trouble with America’s
water," https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/15/america-water-crisis-contamination-
pollution-infrastructure

Pathogens remain a serious issue, too. E. coli in drinking water has caused deadly outbreaks. Norovirus,
Giardia and cryptosporidium have also contaminated drinking water supplies in recent years. But the
pathogens perhaps highest on the minds of experts today are those that grow in pipes. Legionella, the
bacterium that causes Legionnaires’ disease, a type of pneumonia, offers a critical case in point. It poses
a microbiological threat with widespread consequences. In Flint, the same issue that caused the release
of lead into the drinking water also resulted in deadly cases of Legionnaires’ disease in the surrounding
community. Repeated outbreaks at a Quincy, Illinois, veterans home have killed more than a dozen
people since 2015. And, in May 2019, a custodian died from Legionnaires’ disease after being infected at
Kettering Fairmont High School in Kettering, Ohio. The school’s water tested positive for Legionella this
July, and a current custodian has tested positive for the disease. Spokespeople with the Illinois veterans
home and the Ohio high school note that measures have been taken to reduce the risk of further
infections. When buildings go unused for long periods of time, stagnant water can become a breeding
ground for the bacteria. “The big problems are when you have water that sits a long time without
chlorine. Legionella love that and reproduce and bloom,” says Olson. “With schools and all sorts of other
commercial and other buildings where water has been sitting for a long time with little use, it could be a
massive problem. That’s a real worry post-Covid.” Agricultural practices remain implicated in much of
the nation’s tainted drinking water. Studies have shown that pesticides pose a serious threat. For
example, atrazine has been associated with low birth weight in babies. “Every spring in the Midwest,
a pulse of atrazine comes off the fields. Tough luck on you if you happen to be carrying a child during
that period,” says Sedlak, noting that regulatory standards might still be met because EPA regulations
average numbers over the course of an entire year. Neonicotinoids are another example. “Neonics are
wonderful [from a human health perspective] because they target receptors specific to insects,” Sedlak
says. “But, after a chemical reaction with chlorine, the product is something that is likely to target
people.” Limited data hints at potential health effects ranging from respiratory, cardiovascular and
neurological issues to birth defects. Excess fertilizer applications on farms also trigger major algal
blooms that can contaminate drinking water. Toxins produced by blue-green algae (also known as
cyanobacteria) in Lake Erie fed by runoff from farms in the watershed contaminated the Toledo, Ohio,
drinking water system in the summer of 2014. Almost half a million people were told to avoid drinking,
bathing or cooking with their tap water for a couple of days; 110 people got sick. It was neither the first
nor the last time that such toxins threatened public health. Residents of Carroll Township, Ohio,
received a similar warning in September 2013. And in July 2018, authorities in Salem, Oregon, advised
children and the elderly not to drink the city’s water.
Environmental pollution is a form of structural violence that must be rejected. Frame
your impacts through prioritizing structural, slow violence.

Davies, Thom. “Slow Violence and Toxic Geographies: ‘Out of Sight’ to Whom?” Environment and
Planning C: Politics and Space, (April 2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419841063.

Time is enjoying increased attention within critical geography. Timely calls for a politics of ‘slow
scholarship’ (Mountz et al., 2015), for example have been a breath of fresh air for those of us who are
trying – and failing – to keep pace with the compressed timescapes of the University Industrial Complex
(see Harrowell et al., 2018). Perhaps the most seismic temporal shift within geography and the wider
social sciences has been the rapid uptake of the term ‘Anthropocene’, which attempts to mobilize deep
time, and recast climate change from a risky future, to a very real and perilous present (Yusoff, 2018).
Another temporal trope that powerfully communicates environmental threats is the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists’ ‘Doomsday Clock’. This collective of nuclear and climate experts uses the symbolism of a
ticking timepiece to communicate current hazards, from nuclear conflict, to impending environmental
destruction. The election of President Trump in 2016, for example saw the apocalyptic clock brought
forward to ‘two and a half minutes to midnight’. Like slow scholarship, the Anthropocene, or the
Doomsday Clock, Rob Nixon’s (2011) concept of ‘slow violence’ uses time as a provocation. As Nixon
(2011) explains: ‘By slow violence I mean a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of
delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not
viewed as violence at all’ (2). Slow violence provokes us to expand our imaginations of what
constitutes harm. It insists we take seriously forms of violence that have, over time, become
unmoored from their original causes. From gradually acidifying oceans, to the incremental horrors of
climate change, to a myriad of other ‘slowly unfolding environmental catastrophes’ (Nixon, 2011: 2),
slow violence demands we look beyond the immediate, the visceral, and the obvious in our
explorations of social injustice. As a spatial concept, slow violence invites us to include the gradual
deaths, destructions, and layered deposits of uneven social brutalities within the geographic here-
and-now. At the same time, by unchaining our geographical imaginations from the shackles of the
present, slow violence provokes us to delve into the past to unearth the violent structures of inequality
that saturate contemporary life, and may well lay waste to the future. In this article, I suggest that
geographers make space for slow violence within our collective conceptual tool box and take seriously
the potential of bearing witness to the shifting temporalities of violence. The impacts of slow violence
are ‘pervasive but elusive’ (Nixon, 2011: 3) and resonate with Churchman’s (1967) notion of ‘wicked
problems’; they are often attritional, disguised, and temporally latent, making the articulation of slow
violence a representational challenge. In a world of click-bait and 24 hour news, how do we make sense
of long-form disasters that do not display themselves in spectacular moments of terror as a single event,
but instead quietly accumulate and defer their damage over time? How can the delayed violence of
microplastic pollution, endocrine disruptors, antimicrobial resistance, and countless other technological
hazards compete with the immediacy of more cinematic threats? How do we come to terms, Nixon
(2011) asks, with the toxic residues, degraded ecologies, and intergenerational harms that are ‘resistant
to dramatic packaging’ (200)? Slow violence presents us with a political geography of deferred
environmental threats, where violence is outsourced – not only to the Global South – but also to a
Global Future. Toxic pollution, species loss, and climate change are the silent killers of our age, yet the
casualties of such drawn-out emergencies appear geographically and temporally remote. As Nixon
(2011) explains, ‘to confront slow violence requires…that we plot and give figurative shape to formless
threats whose fatal repercussions are dispersed across space and time’ (10). I suggest that geographers
are well equipped to take up this challenge; of closing the distance between cause and effect, and
narrating the longue durée of dispersed environmental harm. In this article I suggest that – above all – it
is the communities who are exposed to slow violence who are best placed to witness its gradual injuries.
For those who live in the midst of toxic geographies and polluted landscapes, ‘everyday exposure’
(Wiebe, 2016) to the accumulations of slow violence is not necessarily a ‘formless threat’ but can be a
very real and often tangible brutality.
 2AC—Inherency
Ephemeral water sources and streams remain unprotected in the status quo.
Valerie Volcovici, 6-9-2021, "Biden regulators to revise Trump rollback of water protection," Reuters,
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-revise-trumps-water-protection-rollback-
2021-06-09/

President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday announced its intent to protect more U.S.
waterways through environmental regulations, reversing a Trump-era rollback that had been urged by
farmers, ranchers and manufacturers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
the Army reviewed ex-President Donald Trump's Navigable Waters Protection Rule and determined that
it "significantly" reduced clean water protections - a major concern as arid states in the west face
droughts. “After reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule as directed by President Biden, the EPA
and Department of the Army have determined that this rule is leading to significant environmental
degradation,” EPA Administrator Michael Regansaid in a press release. He said EPA and the Army will
work on a broader, "durable definition" of which waters of the United States can be protected based
on Supreme Court precedent and other cases so that it can withstand future legal challenges. The
agencies will also start a new rulemaking process that restores protections put in place before 2015. In
their review of the Trump rule, the agencies found that in New Mexico and Arizona, nearly all of the
more than 1,500 streams assessed were unprotected,and 333 projects that would have otherwise
required federal permitting no longer did. Farmers, ranchers and big industrial companies supported the
Trump rollbacks, saying previousdefinitions of which waterways should be protected were overly broad,
in some cases covering streams that were completely dry. Trump's rollback excluded seasonal streams
and wetlands. Some 14 states, including New York and California, had sued the Trump EPA over the
rollback because they said it would end federal protection for half of the nation’s wetlands and 15% of
streams across the country. Environmental groups supported broadening waterway protections, but
some urged quicker action. “We are urging the EPA to swiftly extend full clean Water Act protections to
all the nation’s waters,” said Julian Gonzalez, legislative counsel for healthy communities at
environmental group Earthjustice.

Biden administration is crafting the new WOTUS rule, but no conclusion on which
waters will be protected going forward.
Jacqui Fatka, 6-11-2021, "Biden administration: Will farmers see another WOTUS redo?," Beef
Magazine, https://www.beefmagazine.com/regulatory/biden-administration-will-farmers-see-another-
wotus-redo

This is the fourth installment of a special multi-part series offering what we might see under the
incoming President Joe Biden administration. One of the 17 executive orders signed by President Joe
Biden on his first day of office will require a review of certain environmental and health regulations,
including the “Waters of the U.S.” rule, or WOTUS, and a pesticide application exclusion zone rule. In
2015, the Obama administration proposed WOTUS and it quickly came under fire from agricultural
groups and others. The Trump administration’s several year process of withdrawing the Obama WOTUS
rule and re-introducing its version – the Navigable Waters Protection Rule - was welcomed by
agricultural groups. But now the question remains whether it will stick. American Farm Bureau
Federation President Zippy Duvall says he was proud of the final product completed in 2020. “The
Navigable Waters Protection Rule provided much needed clarity and allows farmers to understand
water regulations without having to hire teams of consultants and lawyers,” Duvall says. Over the past
four decades, all three branches of government have struggled with how to interpret the meaning of
WOTUS, which has resulted in extensive litigation and confusion on the county level. And an April 2020
Supreme Court ruling also looks to cause additional uncertainties over which navigable waters are within
federal jurisdiction and require additional permitting. Don Parrish, AFBF senior director of regulatory
relations, says he sees no legislative path on defining what constitutes a navigable water, so he expects
Biden to take action administratively. Parrish expects this administration would want to expand the
definition of what constitutes a navigable water, but maybe not as far as the 2015 rule tried. “The big
wild card is going to be what courts do on the Clean Water Act,” Parrish says. Currently, 14 cases are
challenging Trump’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule. He expects the Biden administration to pause
defending those cases. The focus then turns on whether a district court takes down the rule, and if yes,
will it be a nationwide ruling? Will the repeal action Trump take of the 2015 regulation create a backstop
and prevent courts from reverting to the very expansive 2015 definition of a navigable water? “We
could see a patchwork for regulations very similar to just before the Trump administration finalized their
latest rule,” Parrish adds. Meanwhile, the Biden administration will have to decide how it wants to
remedy finding that sweet spot. Parrish says they’ve signaled two key areas of the rule needing
changed: ephemeral waters and increasing the amount of waters covered under adjacent wetlands.
“It’s going to take time for this administration to put this together,” Parrish says. Ethan Lane, vice
president of government affairs at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, says at the end of the day
the rule will find its way back to the Supreme Court as each administration attempts to move that line
back and forth between a more broad interpretation and more narrow of what constitutes a
navigable water. When it does end up back at the highest court, he sees “more favorable judges looking
at that rule.”
 2AC—Biodiversity Terminal
Mass extinction happening now – freshwater is a key turning point to mitigate or
reverse species loss.

Tickner et al, David, Jeffrey J. Opperman, Robin Abell, Mike Acreman, Angela H. Arthington, Stuart E.
Bunn, Steven J. Cooke et al. "Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: an emergency
recovery plan." BioScience 70, no. 4 (2020): 330-342.

Humans have caused widespread planetary change, ushering in a new geological era, the Anthropocene
(a term first coined in the 1980s by Eugene F. Stoermer, a freshwater biologist). Among many
consequences, biodiversity has declined to the extent that we are witnessing a sixth mass extinction
(Ceballos et al. 2017). Recent discourse has emphasised the triple challenge of bending the curve of
biodiversity loss (Mace et al. 2018) while also reducing climate change risks and improving lives for a
growing human population. In 2020, governments will review international agreements relevant to this
challenge, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). There is a brief window of opportunity now to set out recommendations that can inform
these agreements and guide future policy responses. Nowhere is the biodiversity crisis more acute
than in freshwater ecosystems. Rivers, lakes, and inland wetlands (such as deltas, peatlands, swamps,
fens, and springs) are home to an extraordinary diversity of life. Covering less than 1% of Earth's surface,
these habitats host approximately one-third of vertebrate species and 10% of all species (Strayer and
Dudgeon 2010), including an estimated 70 species of freshwater-adapted mammals, 5700 dragonflies,
250 turtles (Balian et al. 2008), 700 birds (IUCN 2019), 17,800 fishes (Fricke et al. 2019), and 1600 crabs
(Neil Cumberlidge, Northern Michigan University, 4th June 2019). The levels of endemism among
freshwater species are remarkably high. For instance, of the fish species assessed for the freshwater
ecoregions of the world, over half were confined to a single ecoregion (Abell et al. 2008). Freshwater
ecosystems also provide services to billions of people, including impoverished and vulnerable
communities (Lynch et al. 2016). However, the management of freshwater ecosystems worldwide has
frequently prioritized a narrow range of services for macroeconomic benefit at the expense of
habitats, flora and fauna, and the diverse benefits they provide to communities. Consequently, the
current rate of wetland loss is three times that of forest loss (Gardner and Finlayson 2018), and
populations of freshwater vertebrate species have fallen at more than twice the rate of land or ocean
vertebrates (Grooten and Almond 2018). Of the 29,500 freshwater dependent species so far assessed
for the IUCN Red List, 27% are threatened with extinction. Among these, an estimated 62% of turtle
species, 47% of gastropods, 42% of mammals, 33% of amphibians, 30% of decapod crustaceans (crabs,
crayfish, and shrimps), 28% of fishes, and 20% of birds are at risk (figure 1; IUCN 2019). Populations of
freshwater megafauna, defined as animals that reach a body mass of 30 kilograms, declined by 88%
from 1970 to 2012, with the highest declines in the Indomalaya and Palearctic realms (−99% and −97%,
respectively; He et al. 2019).
Biodiversity loss threatens human extinction and global crises.

Brad Plumer, 5-6-2019, "Humans Are Speeding Extinction and Altering the Natural World at an
‘Unprecedented’ Pace (Published 2019)," No Publication,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-extinction-united-nations.html

WASHINGTON — Humans are transforming Earth’s natural landscapes so dramatically that as many as
one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction, posing a dire threat to ecosystems
that people all over the world depend on for their survival, a sweeping new United Nations assessment
has concluded. The 1,500-page report, compiled by hundreds of international experts and based on
thousands of scientific studies, is the most exhaustive look yet at the decline in biodiversity across the
globe and the dangers that creates for human civilization. A summary of its findings, which was
approved by representatives from the United States and 131 other countries, was released Monday in
Paris. The full report is set to be published this year. Its conclusions are stark. In most major land
habitats, from the savannas of Africa to the rain forests of South America, the average abundance of
native plant and animal life has fallen by 20 percent or more, mainly over the past century. With the
human population passing 7 billion, activities like farming, logging, poaching, fishing and mining are
altering the natural world at a rate “unprecedented in human history.” At the same time, a new threat
has emerged: Global warming has become a major driver of wildlife decline, the assessment found, by
shifting or shrinking the local climates that many mammals, birds, insects, fish and plants evolved to
survive in. When combined with the other ways humans are damaging the environment, climate change
is now pushing a growing number of species, such as the Bengal tiger, closer to extinction. As a result,
biodiversity loss is projected to accelerate through 2050, particularly in the tropics, unless countries
drastically step up their conservation efforts. The report is not the first to paint a grim portrait of Earth’s
ecosystems. But it goes further by detailing how closely human well-being is intertwined with the fate of
other species. “For a long time, people just thought of biodiversity as saving nature for its own sake,”
said Robert Watson, chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services, which conducted the assessment at the request of national governments. “But this
report makes clear the links between biodiversity and nature and things like food security and clean
water in both rich and poor countries.” A previous report by the group had estimated that, in the
Americas, nature provides some $24 trillion of non-monetized benefits to humans each year. The
Amazon rain forest absorbs immense quantities of carbon dioxide and helps slow the pace of global
warming. Wetlands purify drinking water. Coral reefs sustain tourism and fisheries in the Caribbean.
Exotic tropical plants form the basis of a variety of medicines. But as these natural landscapes wither
and become less biologically rich, the services they can provide to humans have been dwindling.
Humans are producing more food than ever, but land degradation is already harming agricultural
productivity on 23 percent of the planet’s land area, the new report said. The decline of wild bees and
other insects that help pollinate fruits and vegetables is putting up to $577 billion in annual crop
production at risk. The loss of mangrove forests and coral reefs along coasts could expose up to 300
million people to increased risk of flooding. The authors note that the devastation of nature has
become so severe that piecemeal efforts to protect individual species or to set up wildlife refuges will
no longer be sufficient. Instead, they call for “transformative changes” that include curbing wasteful
consumption, slimming down agriculture’s environmental footprint and cracking down on illegal
logging and fishing. “It’s no longer enough to focus just on environmental policy,” said Sandra M. Díaz, a
lead author of the study and an ecologist at the National University of Córdoba in Argentina. “We need
to build biodiversity considerations into trade and infrastructure decisions, the way that health or
human rights are built into every aspect of social and economic decision-making.” Scientists have
cataloged only a fraction of living creatures, some 1.3 million; the report estimates there may be as
many as 8 million plant and animal species on the planet, most of them insects. Since 1500, at least 680
species have blinked out of existence, including the Pinta giant tortoise of the Galápagos Islands and the
Guam flying fox. Though outside experts cautioned it could be difficult to make precise forecasts, the
report warns of a looming extinction crisis, with extinction rates currently tens to hundreds of times
higher than they have been in the past 10 million years. Editors’ Picks The Pill Helped Start the Sexual
Revolution. What Will Phexxi Do? The Story of a Famous Covid Widow Everyone Has a Theory About
Shopping Carts Continue reading the main story “Human actions threaten more species with global
extinction now than ever before,” the report concludes, estimating that “around 1 million species
already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken.” Unless nations step up their
efforts to protect what natural habitats are left, they could witness the disappearance of 40 percent of
amphibian species, one-third of marine mammals and one-third of reef-forming corals. More than
500,000 land species, the report said, do not have enough natural habitat left to ensure their long-term
survival. Over the past 50 years, global biodiversity loss has primarily been driven by activities like the
clearing of forests for farmland, the expansion of roads and cities, logging, hunting, overfishing, water
pollution and the transport of invasive species around the globe. In Indonesia, the replacement of rain
forest with palm oil plantations has ravaged the habitat of critically endangered orangutans and
Sumatran tigers. In Mozambique, ivory poachers helped kill off nearly 7,000 elephants between 2009
and 2011 alone. In Argentina and Chile, the introduction of the North American beaver in the 1940s has
devastated native trees (though it has also helped other species thrive, including the Magellanic
woodpecker). All told, three-quarters of the world’s land area has been significantly altered by people,
the report found, and 85 percent of the world’s wetlands have vanished since the 18th century. And
with humans continuing to burn fossil fuels for energy, global warming is expected to compound the
damage. Roughly 5 percent of species worldwide are threatened with climate-related extinction if global
average temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the report concluded. (The world
has already warmed 1 degree.) “If climate change were the only problem we were facing, a lot of species
could probably move and adapt,” Richard Pearson, an ecologist at the University College of London,
said. “But when populations are already small and losing genetic diversity, when natural landscapes are
already fragmented, when plants and animals can’t move to find newly suitable habitats, then we have a
real threat on our hands.” The dwindling number of species will not just make the world a less colorful
or wondrous place, the report noted. It also poses risks to people. Today, humans are relying on
significantly fewer varieties of plants and animals to produce food. Of the 6,190 domesticated mammal
breeds used in agriculture, more than 559 have gone extinct and 1,000 more are threatened. That
means the food system is becoming less resilient against pests and diseases. And it could become harder
in the future to breed new, hardier crops and livestock to cope with the extreme heat and drought that
climate change will bring. “Most of nature’s contributions are not fully replaceable,” the report said.
Biodiversity loss “can permanently reduce future options, such as wild species that might be
domesticated as new crops and be used for genetic improvement.” The report does contain glimmers of
hope. When governments have acted forcefully to protect threatened species, such as the Arabian oryx
or the Seychelles magpie robin, they have managed to fend off extinction in many cases. And nations
have protected more than 15 percent of the world’s land and 7 percent of its oceans by setting up
nature reserves and wilderness areas. Still, only a fraction of the most important areas for biodiversity
have been protected, and many nature reserves poorly enforce prohibitions against poaching, logging or
illegal fishing. Climate change could also undermine existing wildlife refuges by shifting the geographic
ranges of species that currently live within them. So, in addition to advocating the expansion of
protected areas, the authors outline a vast array of changes aimed at limiting the drivers of biodiversity
loss. Farmers and ranchers would have to adopt new techniques to grow more food on less land.
Consumers in wealthy countries would have to waste less food and become more efficient in their use
of natural resources. Governments around the world would have to strengthen and enforce
environmental laws, cracking down on illegal logging and fishing and reducing the flow of heavy metals
and untreated wastewater into the environment. The authors also note that efforts to limit global
warming will be critical, although they caution that the development of biofuels to reduce emissions
could end up harming biodiversity by further destroying forests.
 2AC—Ephemeral Key
Unprotected ephemeral streams key to biodiversity, drinking water, and recreation.

Caldwell 2020 [Emily, 13 August"A watershed moment for U.S. water quality," https://news.osu.edu/a-
watershed-moment-for-us-water-quality/]

A new federal rule that determines how the Clean Water Act is implemented leaves millions of miles
of streams and acres of wetlands unprotected based on selective interpretation of case law and a
distortion of scientific evidence, researchers say in a new publication. In a Policy Forum article
published in the Aug. 14 issue of Science, the researchers assert that the Navigable Waters Protection
Rule undermines the spirit – if not the letter – of the Clean Water Act by protecting only waters that
have a permanent hydrologic surface connection to rivers, lakes and other large “navigable” bodies of
water. Also omitted from consideration is maintaining the integrity of the biological and chemical quality
of the nation’s waters, protections that are explicitly called for in the Clean Water Act. “It’s so important
to say, right out of the gates, that the new rule does not protect water in the way that the Clean Water
Act was intended to protect water,” said lead author Mažeika Sullivan, director of the Schiermeier
Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at The Ohio State University. The rule went into effect on June
22. Left unprotected under the new rule are stand-alone wetlands across the country whose collective
area is approximately the size of the state of West Virginia. Among the millions of miles of ephemeral
streams – those that flow after precipitation events – losing federal protection are, for example, more
than 95 percent of Arizona’s streams, including many tributaries that flow into the Grand Canyon. The
change means that now-unprotected waters may be subjected to a variety of harmful human
activities such as dredging or filling in waters for development, or even unpermitted dumping of
industrial waste into streams or wetlands. Some potential results: higher risk for floods, loss of
biodiversity, and threats to drinking water and recreational fishing. “We’re talking about major roll-
backs in protections that limit activities that impair, pollute and destroy these systems,” said Sullivan,
also associate professor in Ohio State’s School of Environment and Natural Resources, who co-authored
the article with colleagues specializing in aquatic science, conservation science and environmental law.
“And it comes at a time when we’re really starting to understand multiple stressors on water – not just
urbanization or climate change or pollution, but how all these factors interact. And now we’re removing
protections and potentially undermining decades of taxpayer investment in improving water quality.
“It’s a travesty, not just for us now, but for future generations. It could really be a watershed moment in
that sense.” Legal battles have been waged for years over which non-navigable U.S. waters should be
protected under the Clean Water Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in with opinions in a 2006
case. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that non-navigable waters should be covered by federal law only if
they have a “relatively permanent” flow and a continuous surface connection to traditionally protected
waters. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested a non-navigable water body should be protected if it has a
“significant nexus” to a traditional navigable waterway – meaning it can affect the physical, biological
and chemical integrity of downstream waters. In 2015, the Obama administration implemented the
Clean Water Rule, which classified all tributaries and most wetlands as “waters of the United States”
that fall under federal jurisdiction. At the heart of that rule was a Connectivity Report produced by the
Environmental Protection Agency, backed by a review of more than 1,200 scientific publications and
input from 49 technical experts. The science supported protection for isolated or intermittent systems
that, if polluted or destroyed, would decrease water quality downstream. Sullivan was a member of the
EPA Scientific Advisory Board that confirmed the scientific underpinnings of the report and the rule. The
language of the new Navigable Waters Protection Rule instead harkens back to Scalia’s 2006 opinion,
protecting waters with “relatively permanent” surface flows and excluding from federal jurisdiction all
groundwater and all ephemeral bodies of water, as well as others. “So what’s extremely concerning
from a policy standpoint is that the federal government is, at least in part, leaving science aside,”
Sullivan said. “This idea of connectivity is one of the most crucial components of the science that has
largely been ignored in this rule. There are magnitudes of connectivity – it could be frequency or how
long it lasts. There are also different types of connectivity: biological, chemical and hydrologic. “Further,
just because a waterbody may be less connected to another doesn’t necessarily mean it’s less important
for water quality.” For human recreation and well-being, Sullivan said, small streams and wetlands are
critical, both in their own right, as well as because they support larger, downstream ecosystems such as
rivers, lakes and reservoirs. “There are tendrils that extend into every aspect of our lives, from how we
recreate and how we live, to our economy, with cultural implications for a lot of folks in the U.S. Water
is fundamental to people’s sense of place and where they belong,” he said. Sullivan and colleagues cited
an April 2020 Supreme Court decision that may influence outcomes of the more than 100 pending
lawsuits filed in opposition to the new rule. In County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, the court affirmed
for the first time that pollutants that travel through groundwater and then emerge into surface waters
are covered by the Clean Water Act. Until the litigation is sorted out, the authors urged mobilization of
grassroots efforts among watershed councils, other agencies and academics to conserve and protect
water – a tall order, Sullivan acknowledged, when it comes to staying coordinated and coming up with
resources. “We’re going to have to start thinking about this in a very different way,” he said. “Everybody
needs clean water, right? This isn’t a political issue.” Co-authors of the article include Mark Rains of the
University of South Florida, Amanda Rodewald of Cornell University, William Buzbee of Georgetown
University and Amy Rosemond of the University of Georgia.

Ephemeral water sources are a key nexus point in biodiversity processes.

S. Mažeika P. Sullivan, Mark C. Rains, and Amanda D. Rodewald 2019 [6-11-2019, "Opinion:

The proposed change to the definition of “waters of the United States” flouts sound science," PNAS,
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/24/11558]

Clean water depends on complex and highly variable interactions among climate, geology,
topography, land use–land cover, human perturbations, and ecosystem processes operating across
multiple spatial and temporal scales. As such, the SAB cautioned that connectivity of any single
waterbody must be evaluated from systems-level perspectives, such as watersheds and riverscapes,
groundwater basins, and fluvial hydrosystems. Although the contribution of a single wetland or stream
to water health may be small, the cumulative effects are striking. For example, ephemeral and
intermittent streams constitute more than two-thirds of all streams in the conterminous United States
(10), more than half of which feed public water systems supporting about a third of Americans (11).
The proposed rule fails to consider watersheds from such a broad perspective, instead excluding the
ephemeral streams and non-floodplain wetlands that maintain watershed integrity. The proposed rule
further deviates from science by improperly recognizing structural connectivity (i.e., how waterbodies
are physically connected to one another) and functional connectivity (i.e., interactions among elements,
such as the movement of sediments along river networks). Both mediate the movement of mass,
energy, and biota among waterbodies (6, 10). Although streams are structurally connected to
downstream waters through networks of continuous beds and banks, the proposed rule ignores the
typical physical evidence (e.g., use of bed, banks, and an ordinary high-water mark) and suggests
potentially using blue-line streams on U.S. Geological Survey topographic or National Hydrology Dataset
maps as a way to indicate a jurisdictional stream. Although the agencies indicate that combining this
information with other measures (for example, with fieldwork and the relative size of a stream, also
known as “stream order”) will be important to avoid overestimating flow and erroneously concluding
the presence of a jurisdictional tributary, they fail to recognize the opposite problem. In fact, the poor
resolution of currently mapped drainage networks can miss one-third of stream lengths relative to
higher-resolution data (e.g., Light Detection and Ranging [LIDAR]) and thus lead to a gross
underestimation of presence of streams. To the extent that the proposed rule improperly quantifies
structural connectivity, it ignores functional connectivity entirely. Functional connectivity varies widely
over time, partly as related to floodplain and river size and the propensity for overbank flooding. Indeed,
the functional connectivity of a water to downstream waters may persist even without direct hydrologic
surface connection “in a typical year,” a criterion used by the proposed rule to establish jurisdiction of
wetlands. Consistent with new science, the SAB recommended that functional gradients of connectivity
are not binary in nature and, rather, should be viewed as a gradient of frequency, duration, magnitude,
and predictability of connections (6). Yet the proposed rule uses that binary lens to eliminate protection
from all ephemeral streams and non-floodplain wetlands, irrespective of connectivity and the
consequences for downstream waters. The near-exclusive emphasis of the proposed rule on hydrologic
connectivity contradicts the CWA’s mandate to protect chemical and biological connectivity as well.
Multiple lines of evidence point to the importance of chemical and biological connectivity. For instance,
non-floodplain wetlands can be important chemical sources (e.g., nutrients, dissolved organic
compounds, salts) and sinks (via a suite of physicochemical processes including denitrification,
sedimentation, long-term storage in plant detritus, and ammonia volatilization) to downstream waters
(8). Likewise, animals transport nutrients, energy, and other organisms between disparate locations at
both local and landscape scales. Through these movements, biota also prevent inbreeding, escape
stressors, locate mates, find food resources, and recolonize habitats, thus contributing to biodiversity
and exchanging nutrients and carbon among waterbodies and serving as critical agents of connectivity
and resiliency among streams, wetlands, and downstream waters (7).

Ephemeral water sources key to replenishing freshwater species habitats.

Kaitlin Sullivan April 11, 2019, 4-11-2019, "Learn how changes to the Clean Water Act could hurt your
region before it’s too late," Popular Science, https://www.popsci.com/new-clean-water-act-changes/
Alabama ranks third in the nation for number of endangered species. Many of them are aquatic, which is
why the state’s waterways rank number one when it comes to vulnerable species of mussels, snails,
crayfish, turtles, and freshwater fish. Ephemeral streams, which don’t always flow and would,
therefore, lose protection under the revised Clean Water Act, play a huge role in supporting these at-
risk creatures. Like elsewhere in Appalachia, ephemeral streams in Alabama get filled in by
mountaintop mining and choked with coal ash. They’re also plagued by poultry. According to industry
data self-reported to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2015, two chicken processing plants in
the Black Warrior River basin released more than 1.2 million pounds of toxins––mostly nitrate––into
waterways connected to the river. Excess nitrates in aquatic ecosystems create a domino effect that
lowers oxygen levels so much it’s hard for fish to survive. It can also cause a disease in humans called
methemoglobinemia, where blood cannot release oxygen into muscles and organs . Meanwhile, steam
power plants in Walker and Greene County, also in the Black Warrior watershed, ranked among the top
10 sources of waterborne cancer-causing toxins and those linked to developmental disorders. These
chemicals aren’t good for people, and most certainly aren’t good for creatures that spend their entire
lives swimming among them. The more water in a watershed, the more power it has to dilute pollutants
and mitigate the risk they pose, but climate change is making Alabama hotter and drier. In 2016, more
than 98 percent of Alabama suffered drought conditions, fueling a year of wildfires that torched every
county in the state.
 2AC—Biod—Hotspots Key
Hotspots are uniquely key
Burkle 18, [Frederick is Senior Fellow & Scientist @ Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Current Crises &
Potential Conflicts in Asia and the Pacific: Challenges Facing Global Health or Global Public Health by a
Different Name April, ResearchGate]

Biodiversity areas are key to global survival as they contain the majority of the world’s plants and
vertebrates that are the foundation of human and ecosystem survival. Globally, 35 “biodiversity hotspots”
or “centers of diversity” exist as areas with high levels of species diversity and represent the most important sites for

biodiversity conservation worldwide. They are identified globally and nationally using global standardized criteria and
thresholds. A hotspot must meet two strict criteria:96

• It must have
at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics containing a high percentage of plant life found
nowhere else on the planet. A hotspot, in other words, is irreplaceable.

• It must have 30% or less of its original natural vegetation . In other words, it must be threatened as a hotspot.

They provide food diversity, fresh water, maintain social fertility, pollinate crops, balance species of
bacteria, viruses, and other organisms, provide raw materials and fuel, and regulate climate and air
quality. High biodiversity is the world’s major safeguard against infectious diseases. 96
 XT: Solvency/Fed Key

Plan solves – key to extending federal protection over vulnerable and temporary
water sources.

Derrick Z. Jackson 5-26-2021, "When It Comes to Protecting America's Rivers and Streams, There's No
Room for Compromise on Science," https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/05/26/when-it-
comes-protecting-americas-rivers-and-streams-theres-no-room-compromise

With its “Waters of the United States” rule, President Obama’s administration enacted unprecedented
protections of rivers and streams. The Trump administration, ignoring science and the importance of
wetlands, tried to return many of those waterways back to polluters by rolling back the Waters of the US
rule. Now Michael Regan, President Biden’s EPA administrator, says he wants to forge a compromise.
“We don’t have any intention of going back to the original Obama ‘Waters of the U.S.’ [rule] verbatim
and we don’t necessarily agree with everything that was in the Trump administration’s version as well,”
Regan told a House Appropriations Committee last month. “We’ve learned lessons from both, we’ve
seen complexities in both, and we’ve determined that both rules did not necessarily listen to the will of
the people.” The attempt at middle ground is understandable as Regan is in the first months of a new
administration dealing with the highly organized powers of manufacturing and factory agriculture. But
this sounds dangerously close to a false equivalency when it throws some of Obama’s efforts under the
bus while suggesting that the previous administration’s reversal of the rules was anything more complex
than a hatchet job by industry hacks, most notably former EPA Administrator and ex-coal-industry
lobbyist Andrew Wheeler. Before Administrator Regan tries to form one edible fruit out of an apple and
an orange in the EPA’s new rules, he must remember one thing: Obama’s regulations for aquatic
preservation were based on science. The science behind the Waters of the US rule When the Obama
administration issued its Clean Water Rule in 2015, it expansively redefined waters eligible for federal
protection as Waters of the United States (WOTUS). At that time, nearly half of the nation’s rivers and
streams and a third of our wetlands were in “poor biological condition,” according to the EPA’s water
quality report to Congress. So the administration sought to protect about 60 percent of water in the
nation, including many intermittent and ephemeral streams that experience natural dry periods but flow
during rainy periods. Most people don’t realize it but 59 percent of streams in the United States—and
81 percent of the streams in arid Southwestern states—are of this nature. A 2008 EPA report, published
during the George W. Bush administration, said it was “critical” to consider the cumulative human
impacts on such streams as 117 million people, a third of the populace, drinks water that relies at least
in part on them. “Given their importance and vast extent,” the EPA said back then, “individual
ephemeral or intermittent stream segment[s] should not be examined in isolation.” The science is
clear: even seasonal waterways are interconnected. Unfortunately, industry and its political enablers
went on a rampage to exempt as much water as possible from federal protection. The US Chamber of
Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National
Mining Association, the National Association of Home Builders, and the National Association of
Manufacturers all opposed the rule, often propping up “small farmers” as poster children who would be
burdened by having to worry that every “ditch” would be considered federally protected water. The
scare campaign reached such a level that a blogger for the Iowa Farm Bureau speculated, “You may not
be able to weed and feed your lawn, spray for bugs, landscape with treated lumber and wood chips, fill
in a low area with soil, or even dig a hole” without a federal permit. Iowa Senator Joni Ernst went so far
as to invoke the horror of federal regulation for every “tire track that collects rain water.” Discarding
science to eliminate protections for wetlands Playing on these trumped-up fears, the last
administration, led by Wheeler, rewrote the rules to say, essentially, that if you cannot visibly see the
connection of small creeks to large rivers and lakes on the surface, then there is no connection deserving
of federal protection. The reversal removed half of wetlands and a fifth of streams and tributaries
from protection. This change came despite the strenuous objection of a host of scientists, including
Wheeler’s own scientific advisory board. In a February 2020 admonishment, the board wrote Wheeler
to say that his narrow definition of WOTUS “does not incorporate best available science.” Reasserting
how science has established major hydrologic connections between tiny tributaries and intermittent
and ephemeral streams to large bodies of water, the board rebuked Wheeler for offering “no
comparable body of peer reviewed evidence, and no scientific justification for disregarding the
connectivity of waters” saying that it found “a scientific basis for the proposed rule. . . lacking.” Perhaps
most ominously, the board warned that the administration’s proposed rule excluded industrial and
agricultural irrigation canals that can carry harmful contaminants into the nation’s waterways, such as
E.coli bacteria from vegetable farms or steroids from confined animal feeding operations. Seconding
the board, specifically on behalf of wetlands, were the leaders of seven research institutions concerned
with freshwater science. In letters to the previous administration and Congress, they wrote that even
though wetlands comprise less than six percent of the landscape, they play a massive, outsized role in
filtering urban and agricultural runoff, trapping sediments, mitigating floods and being a nursery for a
myriad of wildlife. They noted that clean water is the backbone of an $400 billion-a-year outdoor
recreation industry. “Like diamonds,” the seven research organizations said of wetlands, “they can be
small but extremely valuable.” That is exactly what Administrator Regan needs to pay attention to as he
crafts the Biden administration’s rule to protect the nation’s rivers and streams. When he was secretary
of environmental quality for the state of North Carolina, he was lauded by both environmentalists and
industry for his ability to craft compromise. The Natural Resources Defense Council praised Regan, who
links his childhood asthma to coal plant pollution in his native Goldsboro, N.C., for an agreement with
Duke Energy that resulted in the largest coal ash cleanup in the nation and a settlement with former
DuPont subsidiary Chemours to better prevent PFAS “forever chemicals” from contaminating the Cape
Fear River. He also established the state’s first Environmental Justice and Equity Board. One of the
members of the board, Naeema Muhammad, told Grist, “We didn’t get a real voice until he came into
office.” Despite those positive testimonials, though, some questioned whether Regan also gave too
much deference to other powerful industries in North Carolina. Top on the list is the pork industry,
infamous for toxic waste lagoons, spills, and stench in nearby communities. Too often, some critics said,
Regan should have suspended operations in severe cases of environmental injustice from hog farm
pollution from concentrated animal farming operations (CAFOs) instead of merely fining chronic
offenders. Some activists said in a Rolling Stone profile that Regan often displays a style that appears to
bring stakeholders to the table as equals, when in reality, industry arrives with a loaded deck of money
and lawyers. Elizabeth Haddix of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, “It’s not an
equal playing field. The industry controls everything here.” She told E&E News that Regan’s decision not
to use his executive authority to pull permits from hog polluters, who she said are disproportionately
situated near communities of color, “was a horrible disappointment for us.”

And protecting streams at the source of contamination key – only affirmative solves.

Lynne Peeples via Ensia, 9-15-2020, "Across the U.S., millions of people are drinking unsafe water. How
can we fix that?," Great Lakes Now, https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2020/09/drinking-unsafe-water-
contaminants-solutions/

When Duane Munsterteiger’s 1-year-old son got sick with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in 1993, the
idea that his family’s drinking water could be to blame didn’t cross his mind. “It was the most beautiful
tasting water you’d ever want,” says Munsterteiger, of Ogilvie, Minnesota. But subsequent tests of the
water from his well found high levels of nitrate, which research suggests may be associated with
respiratory infections such as RSV. In addition to drilling a new, deeper well to supply his home,
Munsterteiger also has adopted a number of environmental conservation practices in his farming. He
uses cover crops and rotates his cows to graze different sections of his land, improving the health of the
soil and minimizing runoff, and thereby reducing the nitrate that seeps into the groundwater. He knows
that groundwater could become the water that his family members, and his cows, drink. “Good clean
water is important for our animals, too,” Munsterteiger says. Targeting the source of contaminants is a
particularly effective way to tackle dirty water. This might mean using cover crops to limit agricultural
runoff, as Munsterteiger did, or preventing the discharge of industrial chemicals. The Clean Water Act,
in theory, regulates discharges into U.S. waters and therefore protects sources of drinking water.
However, this year the Trump administration issued a new regulation, the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule, that narrows the scope of the Clean Water Act by revoking federal protections for
millions of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands. The NRDC and other environmental
groups have filed a lawsuit to stop the decision. “If we don’t have a strong Clean Water Act, we’ll never
have clean drinking water,” says Lynn Thorp, national campaigns director for the nonprofit Clean Water
Action. “We need to put equal effort upstream.” In this regard, too, some states are stepping up to fill in
the gaps. Munsterteiger is among farmers participating in the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality
Certification Program, which offers incentives, including financial assistance for practices such as cover
cropping, that can reduce the flow of agricultural pollutants into waterways. Other techniques to
prevent contaminants from sullying source water include installing wood chip bioreactors on farms to
reduce nitrate pollution. Allaire and other water experts suggest further strategies for reducing
drinking water threats, such as increasing funds for the EPA to more quickly identify and regulate
contaminants and upgrading water systems infrastructure. They also underscore the need for more
technological solutions both at the drinking water source and during treatment, while expressing
concern that today’s technologies — from carbon-activated filtration to reverse osmosis — are not
being fully leveraged. Joel Ducoste, a professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at
NC State University, underscores one key challenge: Many of the emerging contaminants of concern for
drinking water, such as PFAS, were previously unknown. “We didn’t know it was there, so we didn’t
engineer systems to be specifically effective in their removal,” he says. “We’re learning a lot now,
working on chemical methods as well as biological methods to see how we might try to remove some of
these compounds.” It tends to be the small systems that lack the means to install or even maintain
operation of the latest treatment technologies. Lanare, a small unincorporated community outside of
Fresno, California, received more than US$1 million from the state to install a treatment plant to remove
the arsenic that had chronically contaminated its drinking water. The facility was built but only stayed
online for about six months before the community had to abandon it. “It wasn’t affordable over the long
term to keep it up,” says Ryan Jensen, the community water solutions coordinator for the Central
Valley–based Community Water Center. Contaminated drinking water disproportionately affects small
water systems, which serve predominately rural, low-income communities with relatively high
percentages of people of color. Sometimes those systems can’t even afford the salary of a full-time
operator. Florencia Ramos’ hometown of El Rancho has only 65 people. The city of Lindsay has just over
13,000. “A lot of these folks are farmworkers, who are [unwittingly] helping to poison themselves,” says
Anne Schechinger, a senior analyst with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG, a partner in
this reporting project). There is now a push to build economies of scale so small systems don’t have to
go it alone. Kentucky has been a leader in water system consolidation. The state has gone from more
than 3,000 systems in the 1970s to fewer than 800 systems in 2018. But such consolidations don’t
always go so smoothly. Just a few miles down the road from El Rancho is Tooleville. For a long time, the
small town dealt with high levels of nitrate. Other contaminants include hexavalent chromium, the
compound that garnered notoriety from the movie “Erin Brockovich.” Tooleville has been trying for
years to connect its water system with that of the neighboring city of Exeter. But they’ve run into
political pushback. Exeter voted last year to reject Tooleville’s plea and has tabled the talks.
“Unfortunately, that’s not unique,” says Michael Claiborne, an attorney at the Leadership Counsel for
Justice and Accountability in Sacramento. “Few consolidations have gone smoothly. I’ve seen a lot of
situations where politics are a barrier, and there’s an unwillingness to serve nearby communities.” He
notes that more than 90% of Tooleville residents are Latino, while the city council of Exeter is 100%
white. Benjamin Cuevas, a resident of Tooleville, says that he and his wife, Yolanda Cuevas, have been
careful to make sure their three daughters and two grandchildren do not consume any of the water out
of their taps. Yolanda Cuevas rinses the kids down with bottled water after they shower. And she insists
that they also use bottled water to brush their teeth. The Cuevases and Ramos have different problems,
but they share a lot of same concerns — and aspirations. “I wish a lot more could be done so that we
could have clean water,” Ramos says. She adds another important strategy to improve drinking water
quality: “I urge people to be involved, to go to meetings, to give your input.” “I hope we can get this
solved soon,” Benjamin Cuevas says. “These problems have been going on a long time.”

Federal government key – because Ohio.

Berger 2021 [Beth, "Bill seeks to overturn protections for ephemeral streams; experts say water quality
will suffer," Columbus Dispatch, https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/06/02/ohio-seeks-to-
overturn-protections-for-ephemeral-streams-experts-say-water-quality-will-suffer/7415860002/]
For decades, Ohio has had laws in place that protect ephemeral streams. These streams sometimes only
flow after rain or snow melt. "While they are not like other streams that support fish habitat, ephemeral
streams are important in our watersheds because they are located at the top of the watershed, and
therefore can affect water quality downstream," said Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director
Laurie Stevenson during testimony at the Ohio House Agriculture and Conservation Committee. House
Bill 175, introduced by Rep. Brett Hudson Hillyer (R-Uhrichsville), would seek to remove protections
from those streams. The bill mirrors standards put in place by the Trump administration, which
removed similar protections at the federal level. The bill was introduced after "several constituent
concerns that were brought to me by businesses and leaders in my community in response to the
Federal Government’s rule in the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in April 2020," he said in
testimony. The bill, which has already undergone four hearings, could be headed to a committee vote
early in June. There are an estimated 115,206 miles of primary headwater streams throughout Ohio.
Of that total, an estimated 36,405 miles of those are ephemeral streams, according to Ohio EPA.
During the Trump administration, there were aggressive rollbacks to an estimated 100 regulations at the
national level. One of the changes included stripping the federal law from protecting ephemeral streams
as part of the U.S. EPA’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The rule went into effect in June 2020.
Stevenson told the Dispatch that she intended to keep protections for those streams at the state level,
but this bill, if passed, would make that impossible. If the bill gains traction and gets signed into law,
there are other ripple effects. Ohio EPA would no longer be able to issue "permits for direct discharges
of industrial wastewaters or sewage into these resources. The long-term effects of eliminating all such
regulatory oversight will result in significant degradation of Ohio’s waterways. Unregulated, unlimited
discharges into ephemeral streams that are located above underground aquifers also have the potential
to adversely affect drinking water," Stevenson said. The agency does not specifically track discharges to
ephemeral streams, but there are at least 1,482 individual permit discharge stations that have a
receiving stream listed with descriptions including "unnamed tributary" or "ditch," according to Ohio
EPA. As of March 2021, there were between 5.5 billion gallons per day to 9 billion gallons per day
reported flows to both unnamed tributaries and named streams combined from all permit holders
enrolled in the program that addresses water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge
polluted water. (Point sources are those coming from a single source, such as an industrial source.)
"We're starting to see this narrative. The evidence suggests even though Ohio has the capability of being
more restrictive, it's sort of defaulting to the federal standards. That is concerning," said Mažeika
Sullivan, professor of Ohio State University's School of Environment and Natural Resources and the
director of the Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, in an interview with the Dispatch.
"Protection for those streams at-large is being reduced. Those streams are critical. Ephemeral streams
are those that only flow after precipitation — snow melts and rain events," he said. "They don't flow all
year round, but they still have a bank, a bed and a channel. They still convey water and nutrients. ...
They're really important for organisms, and they're extremely important for water quality." Among the
contaminants regulated in the permits are 448 parameters including ammonia, total suspended solids
and E. coli. A wide variety of industries that are subjected to permitting include coal, plastics/chemical
manufacturers, electric generating facilities, steel manufacturers, and oil refineries. Wastewater
treatment plants make up the largest percentage of any one type of facility, according to Ohio EPA.
Fed key – states won’t fill in.

UT News, 4-15-2021, "Federal Water Rule Does Not Account for Pollution Across State Boundaries,"
https://news.utexas.edu/2021/04/15/federal-water-rule-does-not-account-for-pollution-across-state-
boundaries/

AUSTIN, Texas – In a research analysis to be published Friday in Science, scholars contend that a new
federal water rule enacted in 2020 does not adequately account for transboundary pollution across
state lines. One of the government’s rationales for enacting the new rule, which removed millions of
acres of wetlands and millions of miles of streams from federal protection, was an assumption that
states would fill gaps in federal oversight. The research analysis, co-authored by Sheila Olmstead of the
LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, suggests this may not occur. In late
March, President Joe Biden proposed a $111 billion investment in water infrastructure. He said his
administration will also modernize regulatory review and revisit the Donald Trump-era decision to
remove protections from wetlands and intermittent streams. But reversing that decision could be
challenging: Thirteen states sued to block the Obama-era Clean Water Rule, 17 states and several
environmental organizations sued to block the Trump-era replacement (the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule), and defining the protected waters of the United States has been the subject of debate
for decades. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2019 repealed
the Clean Water Rule, which clarified what bodies of water fell under federal protection from pollution
under the 1972 Clean Water Act. In 2020, the agencies replaced that rule with the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule, which removes isolated wetlands and ephemeral and intermittent streams from federal
protection. The rule change reduces restrictions for developers, agricultural operations, oil and gas
companies, and mining companies to dredge, fill, divert and pollute ephemeral streams and isolated
wetlands. According to a 2017 staff analysis by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, the new rule
leaves more than half of U.S. wetlands and 18% of U.S. streams unprotected, including 35% of streams
in the arid West. As they developed the rule, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers considered water
quality as a “local public good.” This runs counter to scientific research that shows that even ephemeral
streams and isolated wetlands are connected to larger watersheds, meaning what happens upstream
affects waterways downstream, increasing the risk of flooding, diminishing water quality, and causing
other problems that don’t stop at state borders. The article finds that the narrower definition of water
quality skewed benefit-cost analyses in a way that favored removing regulations. The agencies based
their benefit-cost analyses on the assumption that leaving streams and wetlands unprotected won’t
cause any harm to water quality in many states, because those states will rush in to protect
waterways as needed. “We cannot speculate that states will fill gaps in federal oversight,” said
Olmstead, a professor of public affairs at UT Austin and co-lead author of the paper. “When the agencies
zeroed out the benefits and costs of this action in 31 states, assuming those states would enact laws
that do not exist, they violated best practices in benefit-cost analysis. The Biden administration has
said it will review the practice of analyzing regulations’ economic impacts, and this would be an
important thing for them to look at.” The study also found that half of the states that the agencies said
will protect the affected wetlands and streams sued to overturn the earlier Clean Water Rule, so these
states’ decisions to protect isolated wetlands and ephemeral streams going forward would be a 180-
degree change in position. The External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, which
commissioned the review that prompted the Science paper, is supported by the Luskin Center for
Innovation at the University of California, Los Angeles and partially funded by the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation. In addition to Olmstead in the LBJ School, the article’s co-authors are David Keiser,
University of Massachusetts; Kevin Boyle, Virginia Tech; Victor Flatt, University of Houston; Bonnie
Keeler, University of Minnesota; Catherine Kling, Cornell University; Daniel Phaneuf, University of
Wisconsin; Joseph Shapiro, University of California, Berkeley; and Jay Shimshack, University of Virginia.

Fed key

Rebecca Beitsch, 1-23-2020, "Trump issues new rule replacing Obama-era waterway protections,"
TheHill, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/479553-trump-introduces-new-rule-replacing-
obama-era-policy-protecting

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a major rollback to protections for streams and
other smaller bodies of water on Thursday, saying it would institute a new rule advocated by farmers
and other industry groups. The new rule would replace the already-repealed Waters of the United
States rule (WOTUS), crafted under President Obama, which expanded the types of waterways
protected by federal law. The Obama administration argued smaller bodies of water, even some
seasonal ones caused by snowmelt, must be protected in order to stop pollution from reaching larger
sources, including those used for drinking water. Critics argue the changes will eviscerate the
protections guaranteed by the Clean Water Act, not just reversing Obama-era protections but setting
the U.S even further back. “This is not just undoing the clean water rule promulgated by the Obama
administration. This is going back to the lowest level of protection we’ve seen in the last 50 years,” Collin
O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said in a call with reporters. “This is a
staggering rollback.” But President Trump touted his plans to roll back the law when speaking over the
weekend to a conference of farmers‚ one of the chief adversaries of the previous administration's policy
and a key part of Trump’s base. Farmers and other groups have argued that law was too far-reaching,
requiring grand efforts to protect relatively small bodies of water that run through their property,
ultimately subjecting large swaths of land to federal oversight. Trump’s latest rule, the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule, will be implemented in the coming weeks and is likely to increase the amount of
pesticides and other industrial chemicals that leach into streams, wetlands and underground water
sources, leaving much environmental regulation to state and local authorities. Repealing WOTUS was a
campaign promise of Trump’s, who called it “one of the most ridiculous regulations of all” when
speaking at the American Farm Bureau Federation annual convention in Austin, Texas, on Sunday. “As
long as I’m president, government will never micromanage America’s farmers,” he told the crowd. But
the changes announced by the EPA Thursday would dramatically scale back protections, especially for
smaller bodies of water that serve as the sources for larger ones. “It’s like saying you want to keep the
bloodstream pure, but you’re not going to protect the capillaries. If you’re not going to protect
upstream waters, you won’t protect downstream ones,” said Blan Holman, a senior attorney with the
Southern Environmental Law Center. The EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board reviewed the rule
when it was first proposed, writing in a draft report that “aspects of the proposed rule are in conflict
with established science ... and the objectives of the Clean Water Act.” Betsy Southerland, who was
director of the Office of Science and Technology at the EPA’s Office of Water under the Obama
administration, called the new rule “scientifically indefensible and socially unjust,” forcing communities
to pick up the cost of controlling pollution from miners, oil and gas producers and land developers. The
new rule earned immediate condemnation from some of the nation’s largest environmental groups,
some of which have already suggested they will sue. “This all-out assault on basic safeguards will send
our country back to the days when corporate polluters could dump whatever sludge or slime they
wished into the streams and wetlands that often connect to the water we drink,” Earthjustice said in a
statement, vowing to use every tool available to defend the Clean Water Act. A diminished federal role
would leave a greater share of water supervision to the states, many of which have cut budgets for their
environmental regulators over the last decade. “There is no question that President Trump is making
millions of Americans vulnerable to polluted water with this action. This rollback was bought and paid
for by the mining industry, and it will have significant consequences for states, who will shoulder a huge
burden to protect drinking water from pollution,” Ryan Richards, a senior policy analyst at the Center for
American Progress, said in a statement. But a senior administration official pushed back on the idea that
states wouldn’t be reliable water regulations. “This isn't the 1970s and ‘80s. The states have robust
environmental programs; they value and cherish their resources. This is not a rule that presumes that if
the federal government doesn't regulate, there is no regulation,” the official said in a call with reporters.
“This isn't about what is an important water body — all water is important.” Farm and other industry
groups have stressed the new rule is needed after the Obama-era policy left confusion over whether
ditches, weather-dependent flows and seasonal waters were protected under law. “Farmers and
ranchers care about clean water and preserving the land, which are essential to producing healthy food
and fiber and ensuring future generations can do the same. That’s why we support the new clean water
rule. It provides clarity and certainty, allowing farmers to understand water regulations without having
to hire teams of consultants and lawyers,” Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau
Federation said in a statement. But the new law is expected to spur legal challenges, just as previous
rollbacks have.
 AT: Climate Alt Cause

Climate change isn’t distinct from biodiversity and action around biodiversity key to
solve climate change.

Guardian, 6-10-2021, "Climate and nature crises: solve both or solve neither, say experts,"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/10/climate-and-nature-crises-solve-both-or-
solve-neither-say-experts

Humanity must solve the climate and nature crises together or solve neither, according to a report from
50 of the world’s leading scientists. Global heating and the destruction of wildlife is wreaking increasing
damage on the natural world, which humanity depends on for food, water and clean air. Many of the
human activities causing the crises are the same and the scientists said increased use of nature as a
solution was vital. The devastation of forests, peatlands, mangroves and other ecosystems has
decimated wildlife populations and released huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Rising temperatures and
extreme weather are, in turn increasingly damaging biodiversity. But restoring and protecting nature
boosts biodiversity and the ecosystems that can rapidly and cheaply absorb carbon again, the
researchers said. While this is crucial, the scientists emphasise that rapid cuts in fossil fuel burning is also
essential to ending the climate emergency. They also warned against action on one crisis inadvertently
aggravating the other, such as creating monoculture tree plantations that store carbon but are wildlife
deserts and more vulnerable to extreme weather. “It is clear that we cannot solve [the global
biodiversity and climate crises] in isolation – we either solve both or we solve neither,” said Sveinung
Rotevatn, Norway’s climate and environment minister. The peer-reviewed report was produced by the
world’s leading biodiversity and climate experts, who were convened by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services, both which report to the world’s political leaders. The report identified actions to
simultaneously fight the climate and nature crises, including expanding nature reserves and restoring –
or halting the loss of – ecosystems rich in species and carbon, such as forests, natural grasslands and
kelp forests. “It’s very disturbing to see the impacts over recent years,” said Prof Alex David Rogers, of
conservation group REV Ocean and the University of Oxford, and a report author. “Between 1970 and
2000, mangrove forests have lost about 40% of their cover and salt marshes an estimated 60%. We’ve
also lost half of coral cover since Victorian times.” Food systems cause a third of all greenhouse gas
emissions, and more sustainable farming is another important action, helped by the ending of
destructive subsidies and rich nations eating less meat and cutting food waste. “Animal agriculture not
only emits 10 to 100 times more greenhouse gases per unit product than plant-based foods, they also
use 10 to 100 times more land,” said Prof Pete Smith, of the University of Aberdeen. “So more plant-
based diets would mean more environmentally friendly farming and then there would be more land on
which to apply nature-based solutions.” The scientists also warned against actions that tackled one crisis
but worsened the other. “When I went for a walk in a plantation forest in England, it was sterile. It was a
single, non-native species of tree,” said Prof Camille Parmesan, of the University of Plymouth. “There
was nothing else there, no insects, no birds, no undergrowth. You might as well have built a concrete
building.” Past tree planting on carbon-rich peatlands that had never been forested was another
example, said Smith. “That was an epic fail for the climate and for biodiversity.” Planting very large areas
with single crops to burn for energy was also problematic, even if the CO2 was captured and buried,
Smith said: “To get the billions of tonnes of carbon removal that has been proposed in some scenarios
for global stabilisation of climate, you would need thousands of millions of hectares – an area twice the
size of India.” Protecting and restoring natural ecosystems was the fastest and cheapest way to remove
CO2 from the atmosphere, the scientists said. Cutting fossil fuel emissions was essential, but not enough
at this point in the climate crisis, said Parmesan. “We cannot avoid dangerous climate change without
soaking up some of the carbon that we’ve already put into the atmosphere and the best way to suck up
carbon is using the power of plants,” she said. “The science of restoration of ecosystems has really
blossomed over the last 40 years. We are now able to efficiently and effectively restore complex
systems, tropical rainforest, coastal wetlands, kelp forests and seagrass meadows, natural American
prairie, and UK meadows back to their near historical diversity.” Prof Mark Maslin, of University College
London, said the report was seminal: “The science is very clear that climate change and biodiversity are
inseparable. To stabilise climate change we need massive rewilding and reforestation.” The UK
environment minister, Zac Goldsmith, said: “This is an absolutely critical year for nature and climate.
With the UN biodiversity [and climate summits], we have an opportunity and responsibility to put the
world on a path to recovery. This hugely valuable report makes it clear that addressing biodiversity loss
and climate change together offers our best chance of doing so.”
ADV—Spillover
 2AC—Warming—Yes Extinction
Every bit of mitigation diminishes extreme tail risks – it outweighs and exacerbates
every other threat
Busby 18, [JOSHUA BUSBY is Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin,
Warming World Why Climate Change Matters More Than Anything Else, July/August]

The world seems to be in a state of permanent crisis. The liberal international order is besieged from
within and without. Democracy is in decline. A lackluster economic recovery has failed to significantly
raise incomes for most people in the West. A rising China is threatening U.S. dominance, and resurgent
international tensions are increasing the risk of a catastrophic war.

Yet there is one threat that is as likely as any of these to define this century: climate change. The
disruption to the earth's climate will ultimately command more attention and resources and have a
greater influence on the global economy and international relations than other forces visible in the
world today. Climate change will cease to be a faraway threat and become one whose effects require
immediate action.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, now exceeds 410 parts per
million, the highest level in 800,000 years. Global average surface temperatures are 1.2 degrees Celsius
higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. The consensus scientific estimate is that the
maximum temperature increase that will avoid dangerous climate change is two degrees Celsius.
Humanity still has around 20 years before stopping short of that threshold will become essentially
impossible, but most plausible projections show that the world will exceed it.

Two degrees of warming is still something of an arbitrary level; there is no guarantee of the precise
effects of any temperature change. But there is a huge difference between two degrees of warming and
two and a half, three, or four degrees. Failing to rein in global emissions will lead to unpleasant
surprises. As temperatures rise, the distribution of climate phenomena will shift. Floods that used to
happen once in a 100 years will occur every 50 or every 20. The tail risks will become more extreme,
making events such as the 50 inches of rain that fell in 24 hours in Hawaii earlier this year more
common.

Making climate change all the more frightening are its effects on geopolitics. New weather patterns will
trigger social and economic upheaval. Rising seas, dying farmlands, and ever more powerful storms and
floods will render some countries uninhabitable. These changes will test the international system in
new and unpredictable ways.
 2AC—Warming—Climate Conflicts
Climate conflicts are more escalatory – haphazard mitigation independently causes
trade conflicts, great power resource wars, and destabilizing geo-engineering
Busby 18, [JOSHUA BUSBY is Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin,
Warming World Why Climate Change Matters More Than Anything Else, July/August]

Since 1945, although some states have split or otherwise failed, very few have disappeared. In the
coming century, climate change may make state deaths a familiar phenomenon as salt-water intrusion
and storm surges render a number of island countries uninhabitable. Although most of the islands
threatened by climate change have small populations, the disorder will not be contained. Even in other
countries, declining agricultural productivity and other climate risks will compel people to move from
the countryside to the cities or even across borders. Tens of thousands of people will have to be
relocated. For those that cross borders, will they stay permanently, and will they become citizens of the
countries that take them in? Will governments that acquire territory inside other countries gain
sovereignty over that land? New Zealand has taken tentative steps toward creating a new visa category
for small numbers of climate refugees from Pacific island states, but there are no international rules
governing those forced to leave home by climate change. The urgency of these questions will only grow
in the coming years.

As well as creating new crises, climate factors will exacerbate existing ones. Some 800,000 of
Myanmar's Rohingya minority group have fled to Bangladesh, driven out by ethnic cleansing. Many of
the refugee camps they now occupy are in areas prone to flash floods during the monsoon. To make
matters worse, much of the land surrounding the camps has been stripped of its forest cover, leaving
tents and huts vulnerable to being washed away. Although the world has gotten much better at
preventing loss of life from weather emergencies, climate change will test humanitarian- and disaster
response systems that are already stretched thin by the seemingly endless conflicts in Somalia, South
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

CLIMATE WARS

Climate change will also make international tensions more severe. Analysts have periodically warned of
impending water wars, but thus far, countries have been able to work out most disputes peacefully.
India and Pakistan, for example, both draw a great deal of water from the Indus River, which crosses
disputed territory. But although the two countries have fought several wars with each other, they have
never come to blows over water sharing, thanks to the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, which provides a
mechanism for them to manage the river together. Yet higher demand and increasing scarcity have
raised tensions over the Indus. India's efforts to build dams upstream have been challenged by Pakistan ,
and in 2016, amid political tensions, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi temporarily suspended
India's participation in joint meetings to manage the river. Peaceful cooperation will be harder in the
future.

Partnerships among other countries that share river basins are even more fragile. Several Southeast
Asian countries cooperate over the Mekong River through the Mekong River Commission, but China, the
largest of the six countries through which the river flows and where the river originates, is not a
member. The Chinese government and other upstream countries have built dams on the Mekong that
threaten to deprive fishing and agricultural communities in Vietnam and other downstream countries of
their livelihoods. Competition over the river's flow has only gotten worse as droughts in the region have
become more frequent.

Similar dynamics are at play on the Nile. Ethiopia is building a vast dam on the river for irrigation and to
generate power, a move that will reduce the river's flow in Egypt and Sudan. Until now, Egypt has
enjoyed disproportionate rights to the Nile (a colonial-era legacy), but that is set to end, requiring
delicate negotiations over water sharing and how quickly Ethiopia will fill the reservoir behind the dam.

Violence is far from inevitable, but tensions over water within and between countries will create new
flash points in regions where other resources are scarce and institutional guardrails are weak or
missing.

The ways countries respond to the effects of climate change may sometimes prove more consequential
than the effects themselves. In 2010, for example, after a drought destroyed about one-fifth of Russia's
wheat harvest, the Russian government banned grain exports. That move, along with production
declines in Argentina and Australia, which were also affected by drought, caused global grain prices to
spike. Those price rises may have helped destabilize some already fragile countries. In Egypt, for
example, annual food-price inflation hit 19 percent in early 2011, fueling the protests that toppled
President Hosni Mubarak.

State responses to other climate phenomena have also heightened tensions. Melting sea ice in the
Arctic has opened up new lanes for shipping and fields for oil and gas exploration, leading Canada,
Russia, the United States, and other Arctic nations to bicker over the rights to control these new
resources.

Moreover, the push to reduce carbon emissions, although welcome, could also drive competition. As
demand for clean energy grows, countries will spar over subsidies and tariffs as each tries to shore up
its position in the new green economy. China's aggressive subsidies for its solar power industry have
triggered a backlash from the makers of solar panels in other countries, with the United States imposing
tariffs in 2017 and India considering doing something similar.

As climate fears intensify, debates between countries will become sharper and more explicit. Since
manufacturing the batteries used in electric cars requires rare minerals, such as cobalt, lithium, and
nickel, which are found largely in conflict ridden places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
the rise of battery powered vehicles could prompt a dangerous new scramble for resources. Although
manufacturers will innovate to reduce their dependence on these minerals, such pressures will become
more common as the clean energy transition progresses. Companies and countries that depend heavily
on fossil fuels, for example, will resist pressure to keep them in the ground.

There are myriad potentially contentious policies governments might enact in response to changing
climate conditions. Banning exports of newly scarce resources, acquiring land overseas, mandating the
use of biofuels, enacting rules to conserve forests, and a thousand other choices will all create winners
and losers and inflame domestic and international tensions. As fears grow of runaway climate change,
governments will be increasingly tempted to take drastic unilateral steps, such as geoengineering,
which would prove immensely destabilizing.
 2AC—Ozone—Extinction
Extinction
Williams 96, David Crockett Williams 96, Jr., author of Tetron Natural Unified Field Theory, Chemist,
Personal and Financial Agent. February 7, 1996 THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/video96.html

Today all life on earth is threatened by many problems associated with the materialistic and
shortsighted human activities out of harmony with nature that have led to an oxygen crisis from massive
deforestation and fossil fuel combustion which has created global warming responsible for increased
weather extremes, flooding, droughts, disease vectors, etc., and an ozone layer depletion that threatens
all life on earth by the imminent destruction of the ocean's phytoplankton which produce over half of
earth's oxygen and form the beginning of the oceanic food chain. Nuclear testing has caused lasting
increases in seismic and volcanic activity, explainable by free energy science, which threatens
cataclysmic earth changes. The danger of nuclear conflagration still exists. All these conditions have
been predicted independently by many different religious prophecies since many hundreds of years ago.
How can this be understood and resolved?

Extinction
Smith and Daniel 99 (Tyrrel W. Smith, Jr., Ph.D. TRW Space & Electronics Group and John R. Edwards
Daniel Pilson Environmental Management Branch “Summary of the Impact of Launch Vehicle Exhaust
and Deorbiting Space and Meteorite Debris on Stratospheric Ozone” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA414306)

The ozone layer is critical to life on Earth because it absorbs biologically damaging solar ultraviolet
radiation. The amount of solar UV radiation received at any particular location on the Earth’s surface
depends upon the position of the Sun above the horizon, the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and
local cloudiness and pollution. Scientists agree that, in the absence of changes in clouds or pollution,
decreases in atmospheric ozone lead to increases in ground-level UV radiation (Martin [1998], WMO
[1998]). Prior to the late 1980s, instruments with the necessary accuracy and stability for measurement
of small long-term trends in ground-level UV-B were not available. Therefore, the data from urban
locations with older, less-specialized instruments provide much less reliable information, especially since
simultaneous measurements of changes in cloudiness or local pollution are not available. When high-
quality measurements were made in other areas far from major cities and their associated air pollution,
decreases in ozone have regularly been accompanied by increases in UV-B (WMO [1998]). Therefore,
this increase in ultraviolet radiation received at the Earth's surface would likely increase the incidence of
skin cancer and melanoma, as well as possibly impairing the human immune system (Kerr et al., [1993]).
Damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems also may occur (Martin [1998], WMO [1998]).

Ozone depletion causes extinction

NOAA 2 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, State Department, 10-1)
The stratosphere is an atmospheric layer about 6 to 30 miles above the Earth's surface where the ozone
layer is found. The ozone layer prevents the sun's harmful ultra-violet radiation from reaching the
Earth's surface. Ultra-violet radiation is a primary cause of skin cancer. Without upper-level ozone, life
on Earth would be non-existent.
 2AC—Ozone—A2: Resilient
Ozone isn’t resilient
Nolan 12 – James Nolan, Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service and Deputy Director of the
Interpretation, Meetings and Publishing Division of the United Nations, Interpretation: Techniques and
Exercises, p. Google Books

The ozone layer, a fragile shield which protects the Earth from the harmful portion of the rays of the sun
(namely, excess solar UV-B radiations) is being damaged by man-made chemicals released on Earth.

The main danger from the weakening of this shield is that it could lead to a rising intensity of the ground
level UV-B radiation. This in turn could lead to increased rates of skin cancer and eye cataracts, to
stunted agricultural production and to the possible disappearance of phytoplankton - organisms which
form the base of the marine food chain. The main chemicals involved are CFCs (used in refrigeration,
aerosols and as cleaners in many industries), halons (used in fire extinguishers), methyl bromide (used
mainly for soil fumigation in agriculture) and some industrial solvents. Because CFCs and other chemicals
remain in the atmosphere for decades, the ozone layer will be at its most vulnerable over the next
decade. The most important and effective measure included in the Montreal Protocol is the
commitment to limit the use of, and to gradually phase out, all of these man-made chemicals (known as
ozone depleting substances, or ODSs) ... Activities expected to take place in countries all over the world
as part of the celebration of the second International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer
include:
 AT: Food Prices

High food prices causes switch from meat consumption – check climate change.

Ben Popken, 5-28-2021, "Meatless is having a moment, as pandemic fuels change in consumer
appetites," NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/meatless-having-moment-
pandemic-fuels-change-consumer-appetites-n1268868

Memorial Day weekend marks the official kickoff to grilling season. After a year of slaughterhouse
closures due to Covid outbreaks and concerns, soaring meat prices, and increased attention to health
and sustainability, the makers of plant-based meat alternatives are betting more of their products will
be cooking up on grills this year. “What Covid has done is it has enabled people to briefly give some
attention to where their meat comes from,” said Pat Brown, CEO and founder of Impossible Foods,
makers of plant-based meat alternatives. He cited inefficient and government-subsidized production,
low wages, and crowded processing lines. “It’s a disaster.” Along with all groceries, sales for both beef
and plant-based meat alternatives shot up during the pandemic as consumers under lockdown switched
to making most of their meals at home. From May 2020 to 2021, fresh meat sales were over $60 billion,
according to checkout data tracked by NielsenIQ, an analytics company. While sales for meat
alternatives were just $932 million, they grew by 25 percent in that period, compared to about 9.5
percent for meat. Meatless is having a moment. Popular online recipe site Epicurious announced in April
it would publish no new recipes containing beef, due to concerns over the cattle industry’s climate
impact. Influential New York City restaurant Eleven Madison Park announced its reopening menu would
be entirely plant-based, with the chef writing in a letter to customers, “the current food system is simply
not sustainable.” Even the meme stock crowd seems to be getting in on the trend. Beyond Meat's stock
surged over 16 percent Wednesday after CNBC's Jim Cramer said it should be the next pick for the social
media stock-picking crowd congregating on Reddit and other platforms that have previously boosted
shares of companies like GameStop and AMC. Once relegated to the tofu cabinet in the supermarket,
meatless burgers can now be found in a special plant-based meat case in some grocery stores — in the
meat section, separate, but adjacent to traditional ground beef. Even getting there took some wrangling.
Plant-based meat maker Beyond Meat declined to sell to supermarkets that tucked their products away
in the vegan section, according to Chuck Muth, the company's chief growth officer. Plant-based meat
producers have also had to fend off the traditional agricultural industry as they fought their way into
supermarkets and restaurants. In 2018, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) sent a letter
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture asking the agency to define meat as coming from animal-based
products. In 2020 alone, agribusiness spent over $140 million lobbying, according to Open Secrets, a
nonprofit research group that tracks lobbying. Impossible Foods said it employs a single government
relations employee. “He's a very busy guy,” Brown said. “But let's say he punches above his weight.”
Both companies have had some help in the fight. Billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who is the
largest private owner of farmland in the U.S., has invested in several synthetic meat startups, including
Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek Foods. He has advocated for rich
nations to switch to "100 percent synthetic beef" in order to reduce greenhouse emissions. Livestock,
including cattle, account for about 2.5 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA.
The beef trade group itself doesn't pull punches when it comes to the animal versus plant proteins. In a
statement, Danielle Beck, senior executive director of government affairs at the NCBA, said that the
retail value of U.S. beef in 2019 was over $111 billion and its industry included 800,000 farms and
ranches. "Cattle and beef production is not just an iconic feature of American cuisine and our shared
history — it’s an economic powerhouse," Beck said. "No other protein, plant- or animal-based, delivers
the same mix of 10 essential nutrients as beef." As the pandemic unfolded, consumers said issues at
meatpacking platns were one reason they switched. “Our concern about that was of availability and
prices being ridiculous, and wondering why those places were being affected by the virus so badly,” said
Lisa Hartley, a 47-year-old artist who lives in upstate New York. She began cooking plant-based Gardein
brand burgers for her husband and two teenage sons. Customers say the taste of the latest generation
of meat-free products are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, especially after adding a bun
and condiments. “It’s got ground pieces of fat, it has things that mimic the texture,” said Josh Teder, a
26-year-old business development analyst. “It’s eerily similar [to beef], considering it’s all made from
plants.” The makers of plant-based meats are moving to capture the spike in demand. Impossible Foods
is selling frozen packs of six pre-formed, quarter-pound patties for $13.99 at select grocery stores. With
the release of the newest version of its signature product, Beyond Meat is also launching its first-ever
refrigerated value 4-pack for $9.99. “We’re very bullish on the grilling season,” Muth said. Both beef and
plant-based alternatives can have similar fat and saturated fat content. To enhance flavor, plant-based
meats are higher in sodium, with over 350 milligrams per serving, compared to 70 milligrams for beef.
But plant-based meats have no cholesterol. Depending on what consumers are trying to limit in their
diet, one choice may be better. Prices are still higher than for traditional ground beef, about $2 to $3 per
pound more on average for a one-pound pack. “That price difference is going to hold a lot of people
back,” said Ernest Baskin, associate professor of food marketing at St. Joseph’s University in
Philadelphia. He estimated that plant-based meat makers need to get within 10 percent of the price of
traditional beef to get really high market penetration. Plant-based meat makers also say their products
use dramatically fewer resources and cause less pollution. “We’re not anti-animal meat,” Muth told NBC
News. “We’re just saying there are protein options you need to look at. And we’re one of them. And
we’re doing it through plants.” Impossible says its production process is safer than traditional beef. Its
workers push buttons on industrial machines instead of using cutting implements in close quarters. “It’s
much more like how you would imagine cupcakes being made at scale,” Brown said of his company's
methods. Early adopters of plant-based meats say they know price will come down and availability
increase as the trend catches on and the producers can expand, increasing efficiency and lowering price
on volume. To nudge things along, some consumers are voting with their dollar. “I’m sending a signal to
the market as an individual consumer that this is something that I want, and want more of,” Teder said.
“The more people who think their choices as consumers can impact the market, the more it has the
potential to.” Families who made the switch say they’re looking forward to enjoying the traditional
Memorial Day grilling experience with all the trappings and trimmings, minus the animal meat. “It’s
great to get outside and grill, and I’m glad we have options and don’t have to feel like we’re missing
out,” Hartley said.

Food price increase due to COVID and will stabilize within the year.
Brooke Cain And, 4-14-2020, "Yes, your groceries are costing more each month. What’s behind the price
increases?," Raleigh News & Observer,
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article251381193.html

WHAT’S DRIVING GROCERY PRICE INCREASES?

Nearly all of the factors contributing to increases in grocery prices can be linked back to the COVID-19
pandemic.

▪ Supply chain disruptions: The grocery supply chain is made up of three major components: production,
processing and retail. Within those sectors, there are costs associated with transportation, energy and
more, and those costs are influenced by things such as weather disruptions (to both crops and
transportation) and population fluctuations — and of course, a global pandemic and an oil pipeline hack.

▪ Higher demand: During the past year, people have been cooking, eating and working at home much
more, so they are doing more grocery shopping. To ease a bit of the pain early on, suppliers worked to
shift high-demand products from shuttered restaurants to grocery stores.

▪ Raw materials prices have increased: Bloomberg reports that rising commodity costs are also a factor.
The Bloomberg Commodity Spot Index, which tracks 23 raw materials, is now at its highest level in
almost a decade, according to Bloomberg.

▪ Transportation costs: Gas prices have risen, and there are lots of reasons for that. The primary one is
demand, according to a USA Today fact check on gas prices. Prices plummeted during the early part of
the pandemic, when everyone was staying at home. As everything has started to reopen, demand
increased and so did prices. Second, gas prices are always higher in the summer, when refineries switch
to summer blends. And third, the winter storms in Texas in February and the more recent ransomware
attack on the Colonial Pipeline also helped drive up gas prices, which impact the cost of the goods being
transported.

▪ Higher labor costs: Labor shortages have forced many employers to pay higher wages, especially in
jobs considered higher risk during the pandemic (such as factory, restaurant and grocery jobs). Many
companies in turn increase the costs of their products to maintain profit margins.

▪ Grocers may offer fewer discounts: When demand for products is high, food manufacturers and
grocery stores may offer fewer discounts and coupons. According to the Wall Street Journal, discounts
dipped at the start of the pandemic, when shoppers were scrambling to buy essentials and stockpile
groceries. But later in 2020, when consumers started spending less, as extra unemployment money ran
out, some of the discounts returned.

WHICH FOOD CATEGORIES ARE MOST IMPACTED?

All of the food categories tracked by NielsenIQ are more expensive than a year ago.
Over the past year, the price of eggs has increased nationwide by 8.2% and fresh meat has increased by
8.6%. Pasta, rice, dry beans and grains increased by 5.7% and processed meats, such as bacon, increased
9.2%.

At restaurants, Bloomberg reports that prices are increasing in “packaging, pork and pancake mix,”
along with chicken — all of which could lead to supply problems and higher prices at restaurants.
Bojangles, a Charlotte-based fast food chain, recently reported supply problems for Chicken Supremes
chicken tenders.

ARE GROCERY PRICES DIFFERENT FROM REGION TO REGION?

An analysis of NielsenIQ data by NBC News found that the price increases varied across the country.

For example, bacon costs nearly $1 more than the national average per pound in Boston and
Philadelphia, and about 70 cents more per pound in Chicago. In Dallas, items such as eggs, chicken
breast, ground beef and sandwich bread increased by more than 5% at one time, according to NBC.

HOW LONG SHOULD WE EXPECT FOOD PRICES TO CONTINUE TO RISE?

The trend is expected to continue over the coming months, according to a recent report on the
pandemic’s impact on inflation written by White House economic advisors.

But the good news, reports USA Today, is that many economists believe that higher prices across the
board are a result of increased demand from reopening the economy (which is a good thing), and that
those costs should stabilize by next year.
AT: States
 2AC—AT: States—Environmental Protection
States fail—race to the bottom and require federal support
Buzbee 7 [WILLIAM W. BUZBEE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCES LAW PROGRAM, EMORY LAW SCHOOL, DIRECTOR, CENTER ON FEDERALISM AND
INTERSYSTEMIC GOVERNANCE, "THE CLEAN WATER ACT FOLLOWING THE RECENT SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS IN SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY AND RAPANOS-CARABELL", 12/13/7,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg73582/html/CHRG-110shrg73582.htm]

The CWA's weakening after Rapanos creates several sorts of problems and likely regulatory gaps in
protection of America's waters.

First, one of the paramount reasons for creation of a national CWA with uniform, protective provisions
and prohibitions was to deter a destructive `` race to the bottom'' where states would be tempted to
offer regulatory laxity to attract or retain business with attendant tax and employment benefits. If whole
categories of previously protected waters are now possibly beyond Federal protection, states will once
again face the difficult choice between protecting their environment, and pleasing businesses that may
argue for lowered regulatory requirement and threaten to invest in other jurisdictions.

Second, numerous states have enacted laws that prohibit their environmental regulators from adopting
more protective regulations than required by Federal law and regulations . Professor Jerome Organ
thoroughly analyzed this phenomenon in a 1995 article, Limitations on State Agency Authority to Adopt
Environmental Standards More Stringent than Federal Standards: Policy Considerations and
Interpretative Problems, 54 Maryland Law Review 13T3 (1995). Recent Federal regulatory comments
updated that study, finding that thirty states now have some versions of ``no more stringent'' laws. See
Response to Clean Water Act ANPRM of National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Earthjustice et al.,
April 6, 2003, at 117. In a 2006 presentation by Indiana's environmental commissioner, he indicated that
such constrained states are often especially eager for the Federal Government to remain rigorously
protective so State environments will not suffer. See
www.in.gov/idem/commissioner/speeches/2006/eqsc--nmst--10-30- 06.ppt

Third, states have come to depend on a productive, cooperative relationship with the Army Corps and
EPA in protecting waters. To avoid government waste and unnecessarily redundant State and Federal
requirement, many states have avoided creating duplicative State law. Instead, the states tailor their law
so it complements longstanding Federal schemes and requirements. They often have done so as part of
assuming obligations to implement and enforce Federal law as provided under the CWA's delegated
program structures. State law then often follows or explicitly references Federal law. For this reason, in
Supreme Court briefs and regulatory comments, numerous states have not seen Federal CWA
protections as a hindrance, but as something crucial to preserve.
 2AC—AT: States—Transboundary
States fail – conflicting interests, local politics, and enforcement shortfalls
Giles 17 [Cynthia Giles, former Obama EPA administrator. “Why we can’t just leave environmental
protection to the states.” 4/26/17. https://grist.org/opinion/why-we-cant-just-leave-environmental-
protection-to-the-states/]

The Trump budget proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t just slash funding for the
EPA. It contains a less-noticed but important policy shift: eliminating federal enforcement where states
and the EPA share enforcement authority. The budget plan directs the EPA to stop enforcing laws to
protect clean air and water in most cases, based on the false assumption that if the EPA pulls back, the
states can pick up the slack. Here’s why that’s wrong.

First, states often don’t enforce the laws within their own borders when the people primarily harmed
live downwind or downriver in another state. States don’t want to spend their money or their political
capital to benefit other states. The federal government has the responsibility to protect everyone — like
the millions of people on the East Coast who suffer the effects from large air polluters in the Midwest.

Second, many significant violators are national companies that operate in many states. Individual states
can’t effectively take on nationwide operations. Filing cases one state at a time is inefficient and leads to
inconsistent results. The EPA enforces against national and multinational companies, and, through a
single case, can secure an agreement that cuts pollution at all of a company’s facilities nationwide.
States frequently join the EPA in these national cases, as they did in the recent case against Tesoro
Corporation that required the company to cut health-threatening air pollution from its refineries in six
states, from Hawaii to North Dakota. Without the EPA taking the lead, these nationwide results would
be impossible.

Third, many states don’t take action to enforce criminal environmental laws. Environmental crimes have
real victims, who are injured and sometimes killed by companies that cut corners on toxic pollution
control. The EPA’s criminal enforcement, especially against individual managers, sends a powerful
deterrent message: Company managers who are considering cheating on drinking-water tests or turning
off air-pollution controls better think twice before making choices that could land them in jail.

Fourth, states don’t always have the political will to take on powerful companies. When the EPA sued
Southern Coal Corporation for long-standing and serious water-pollution violations across Appalachia,
four states — Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia — joined the EPA in that case. West Virginia
did not sign on, even though many of the violations occurred there. Why? The owner of the company
was influential in the state, and now serves as its governor. The EPA is far less likely to be held hostage
to companies with local political clout.

Fifth, companies that play by the rules need protection from companies that cheat. Weak enforcement
gives an unfair competitive advantage to companies that violate the law. The EPA helps to ensure a
level playing field and prevent a race to the bottom by providing backup for states that don’t have the
resources or the will to insist on compliance. When I served at the EPA, companies would contact us
frequently — even from Oklahoma, the home state of Scott Pruitt, the EPA’s current administrator —
asking the EPA to take action against competitors that were skirting the law.
Sixth, sidelining the EPA won’t empower states, it will weaken them. Companies have known that if they
don’t resolve their enforcement problems at the state level, they may have to face the EPA instead.
Announcing that the EPA is no longer a threat will change that dynamic. A diminished EPA will
encourage companies to push back against state enforcers. The proposal that Trump claims will help
states will instead make their jobs harder.

The vast majority of the EPA’s enforcement work where it shares authority with states is focused on
health threats that states can’t or won’t address. The people of Flint, Michigan, understand this too
well; even though the city and state were primarily responsible for delivering clean water to city
residents, it was an EPA order that started the city on the road to recovery.

When Congress created our national environmental laws, with huge bipartisan majorities, it envisioned
a dynamic state and federal partnership. The laws won’t work with only federal or only state
implementation; protection of the public requires strong government at both levels . But Trump’s EPA
proposes that the federal government vacate the field.
 2AC—AT: States—Enforcement
States alone fail – funding and a history of enforcement failure
Rechtschaffen 4 [Clifford, Professor of Law, Golden Gate University. “Enforcing the Clean Water Act in
the Twenty-First Century: Harnessing the Power of the Public Spotlight”. October.
http://www.progressivereform.net/articles/Enforcement_WP_Oct_2004.pdf]

The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) was intended to protect the nation’s waterways from pollution,
making lakes, rivers, and streams safe for swimming, fishing, and a host of other activities. In the
absence of enforcement, laws alone pack little punch. In the case of the Clean Water Act, the federal
government relies on state agencies to enforce many of the key provisions of the law, including the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a system by which polluters are issued permits
to emit specific quantities of pollution into waterways. More than three decades after CWA’s
enactment, it is now clear that state enforcement of the NPDES provisions is woefully inadequate. A
new survey of state environmental protection agencies reveals the extent of the failure of state
enforcement and documents the barriers to adequate state enforcement. The survey, conducted by
CPR Member Scholar Clifford Rechtschaffen, professor of law at Golden Gate University School of Law,
gathered data from agencies in 17 states – Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wyoming. Key findings of the survey: • Eleven of the 17 states report that their
funding for enforcing the NPDES permits is inadequate. • Seven of the states report that the funding
available for enforcement is 60 percent or less of what is needed to do the job, with Wyoming’s funding
calculated at 29 percent of what is required, and Georgia’s at 20 percent. • Just five states report
funding that they deemed sufficient. These generally were more heavily supported by permit fees. (One
state did not report funding.) Additional research reported in these pages demonstrates that: • At least
in part because of funding shortfalls, state regulators are slow to renew NPDES permits. As a result,
many facilities are operating with outdated and inadequate permit limits. • Once permits are issued,
state enforcement is poor. States fail to carry out inspections, fail to take timely and appropriate
enforcement actions, and fail to obtain meaningful penalties for noncompliance, including penalties that
recover the economic benefit of noncompliance. As a result, many permitholders are significantly out of
compliance with restrictions imposed as a condition of their permits. • States are failing to monitor the
quality of the water in lakes, rivers, and streams within their borders, as required by the Clean Water
Act.
 2AC – USVI Deficit
USVI can’t effectively enforce CWA standards – the federal government enhanced
enforcement after 2015 report
Walton 15 [Brett Walton, writes about agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and the politics and
economics of water in the United States. He also writes the Federal Water Tap, Circle of Blue’s weekly
digest of U.S. government water news. He is the winner of two Society of Environmental Journalists
reporting awards, one of the top honors in American environmental journalism: first place for
explanatory reporting for a series on septic system pollution in the United States(2016) and third place
for beat reporting in a small market (2014). He received the Sierra Club’s Distinguished Service Award in
2018. “Federal Water Tap, June 1: EPA Offers Many Exemptions in Clean Water Act Rule.” June 1, 2015.
https://www.circleofblue.org/2015/federal-water-tap/federal-water-tap-june-1-epa-offers-many-
exemptions-in-clean-water-act-rule/]

EPA Management Challenges

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency needs to improve its oversight of state monitoring and
enforcement programs, according to an evaluation by the agency’s internal watchdog. Most federal
environmental laws — including the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act — are implemented
by state agencies and overseen by the EPA. But much neglect occurs, the report states. In just the last
year, the Office of the Inspector General identified a number of agency missteps:

Failure to oversee sewage facility programs for pretreatment of sewage

Failure to ensure that state data on the use of revolving loan funds for drinking water and wastewater
are logged in the agency’s database, which is a loan requirement

Widespread neglect by the U.S. Virgin Islands to adequately fulfill the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking
Water, and other statues

They’re broke and can’t enforce

CRS 20 [Congressional Research Service, “Economic and Fiscal Conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”
2/13/20. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45235.pdf]

Fiscal and economic challenges facing the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) government raise several issues for
Congress. Congress may choose to maintain oversight of federal policies that could affect the USVI’s
long-term fiscal stability. Congress also may consider further legislation that would extend or restructure
long-range disaster assistance programs to mitigate those challenges and promote greater resiliency of
infrastructure and public programs. Federal responses to the USVI’s fiscal distress could conceivably
affect municipal debt markets more broadly. Greater certainty in federal funding for disaster responses
and Medicaid could support the USVI economy.

The USVI, like many other Caribbean islands acquired by European powers, were used to produce sugar
and other tropical agricultural products and to further strategic interests such as shipping and the
extension of naval forces. Once the United States acquired the U.S. Virgin Islands shortly before World
War I, they effectively ceased to have major strategic importance. Moreover, at that time the Virgin
Islands’ sugar-based economy had been in decline for decades. While efforts of mainland and local
policymakers eventually created a robust manufacturing sector after World War II, manufacturing in the
Virgin Islands has struggled in the 21st century. In particular, the 2012 closing of the HOVENSA refinery
operated by Hess Oil resulted in the loss of some 2,000 jobs and left the local economy highly
dependent on tourism and related services. A renovation of the HOVENSA complex is reportedly in
progress.

The territorial government, facing persistent economic challenges, covered some budget deficits with
borrowed funds, which has raised concerns over levels of public debt and unfunded pension liabilities.
Local policymakers have proposed tax increases and austerity measures to bolster public finances, which
currently operate with restricted liquidity. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed
doubts that those fiscal measures would restore access to capital markets or address shortfalls in the
funding of public pensions. The previous governor, Kenneth Mapp, set forth measures in his FY2019
budget proposals to delay expected public pension insolvency from 2024 to 2025 and promised to
outline other measures that would further delay insolvency until 2028. Governor Albert Bryan Jr.
succeeded Mapp in January 2019.

Damage caused by two powerful hurricanes—Irma and Maria—that hit the USVI in September 2017
created additional economic and social challenges. Public revenues, according to estimates based on
USVI fiscal data, were halved after the two hurricanes. The USVI economy has relied heavily on tourism
and related business activity, which made it more vulnerable to the effects of hurricanes than
jurisdictions with more diverse economies. The severity of damage from Irma and Maria, and the
subsequent disruption of the USVI tourism industry, suggest that a full economic recovery could take
years.