1AC

Contention One --- Inherency

 1AC --- Inherency:

Contention one is inherency:

Biden administration is moving to reverse the NWPR --- but this will take years and
ensures litigation
SNIDER 21 --- ANNIE SNIDER, Politico, “Biden EPA to reverse Trump's sweeping Clean Water Act
rollback” 6/9/21, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/09/epa-navigable-waters-protection-rule-
repeal-492638

The Biden administration is

moving to undo a Trump-era rule that vastly shrank the number of streams and
wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act, taking on a politically combustible issue that has cost Democrats in farm country
for more than a decade.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan announced Wednesday that his agency will formally repeal the 2020 Navigable
Waters Protection Rule, which removed federal pollution oversight from tributaries of iconic waterways
and broad swaths of the arid West. EPA will then begin crafting its own, more expansive definition of waterways

subject to federal water protections.

“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,” Regan said in a
statement, pointing to data that found the Trump rule had led to the greenlighting of 333 projects that would have
previously required a Clean Water Act dredge-and-fill permit.

Those include a massive proposed open-pit copper mine near Tucson, Ariz., and a heavy mineral sand strip mine
proposed for just outside of Georgia’s Okefenokee Swamp, home to a national wildlife refuge and national wilderness area.

The issue of which streams and wetlands are subject to federal regulation has been the source of intense debate virtually since the Clean Water
Act was passed, and has
been a legal and political quagmire for the past decade and a half after the Supreme
Court issued a pair of muddled opinions that created enormous confusion on the ground.

Over the past two presidential administrations, the country has ping-ponged back and forth among
three different regulatory definitions, sometimes with different rules in effect in different parts of the
country.
Although those regulations are felt most sharply by housing developers, coal miners and oil and gas companies, the issue has taken on outsized
importance among the agricultural community, despite the fact that most farming practices are exempt from the law. When the Obama
administration crafted an expansive definition of protected waterways in 2015, farm country revolted, launching an aggressive political
campaign that argued federal bureaucrats would be regulating dry ditches and rain puddles.

Regan, who worked closely with farmers and ranchers in his previous job as head of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
won broad support from agricultural groups when Biden tapped him to helm EPA.

In his statement Wednesday, Regan

said he is committed to crafting a new , more protective definition that is
“durable,” consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and informed by lessons from the previous
whipsaw of regulations. The agency has already committed to holding public outreach sessions around the country this summer and
fall.
But forging a compromise in the decades-long battle appears to be a long-shot, with environmental groups
holding firmly to a strong stance on wide protections.

“It’s hallucinogenic” to think any sort of agreement could be reached among the long-warring parties, Vermont Law
School Professor Patrick Parenteau told POLITICO last month.

Any rule finalized by the Biden administration would immediately face court challenges, and many legal
experts think the issue will only truly be resolved if the Supreme Court rules again or if Congress steps in to
clarify the issue.

Concurrent with its announcement, EPA on Wednesday asked a district court in Massachusetts, where green groups were challenging the
Trump rule, to remand it to the agency.

Repealing and replacing the Trump rule stands to be a years-long regulatory process, and the agency said the
prior rules, issued in 1986 and amended through guidance, would be in effect in the meantime.

Biden changes will be too weak and too late --- he’ll water it down to survive the Court
and polluters will take advantage of legal stays to finish their projects
Magill 20 --- Bobby Magill, Reporter for Bloomberg Law, “Federal Water Rule Expected to Stay Murky
Through Biden Term (2)”, Federal Water Rule Expected to Stay Murky Through Biden Term (2), Nov 20 th
2020, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/federal-water-rule-expected-to-stay-
murky-through-biden-term

A Biden administration won’t be able to untangle the legal and regulatory “mess” under part of the Clean Water Act
that determines which streams, wetlands and other waters get federal protection, legal scholars and litigators say.

Any move the Biden administration takes to clarify the definition of Waters of the United States, known as WOTUS, will
continue the decades-long “merry-go-round” of administrative rule changes and litigation , said Larry
Liebesman, a former Justice Department environmental lawyer who is now a senior adviser at the environmental and
water permitting firm of Dawson & Associates.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling failed to define WOTUS fully. And a bitterly divided Congress in 2021 is
unlikely to make headway on the issue , particularly when congressional efforts to address Clean Water Act jurisdiction have
failed in the past.

“I think it’s going to be a mess for a pretty long time,” said Dave Owen, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings
College of the Law.

Rush on Development

A Biden administration will

likely propose a new rule that expands the Trump administration’s of WOTUS , but
not as broad as the Obama rule in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, said Patrick Parenteau,
senior counsel at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.

The Environmental Protection Agency scrapped the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of federal waters last year, and the new
definition, known as the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, took effect in June. Both the Obama and Trump era rules are being challenged in
court. The original rule was written in 1986.

The Trump-era definition, written after business sectors raised concerns that WOTUS applied to previously unregulated creeks and ditches, says
the Clean Water Act doesn’t apply to small streams.

The new rule, which lifts federal protections for many small waterways, prevents developers from needing a federal permit for work in some
types of waterways now excluded from the Trump administration’s WOTUS definition.
The narrower rule is in effect in every state except Colorado, where a judge blocked it from taking effect.

Developers are “rushing under this more lenient approach to wetlands and waters so they can get everything
confirmed and move on with their projects, sometimes without getting a permit,” said Ellen Gilinsky, an
independent consultant who served as the EPA’s associate deputy assistant administrator for water under the Obama administration.

WOTUS is the foundation for all Clean Water Act programs and the new rule’s repeal should be high on President-elect Joe Biden’s list of
environmental priorities, Gilinsky said. The Biden transition team didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Options on the Table

Biden can take several avenues to redefine WOTUS or try to bring long-term certainty to what waters will receive federal
protection during his term, legal scholars say. His Justice Department, for example, could switch positions in lawsuits challenging the 2015
WOTUS rule, Owen said.

“The DOJ could say we’re not going to defend the rule,” Owen said. “Litigation against the rule would be defended by intervenors. The litigation
would be ongoing, but DOJ would be on the other side.”

A Biden EPA could decide whether to begin a new rulemaking process. That could be simple repeal, and then a replacement, which, like each
iteration of the rule before it, likely would be challenged in court, he said.

“Any replacement is also going to have uncertain prospects. That means it’s going to take a long time
for things to filter up to the Supreme Court, which itself doesn’t have a track record on issuing any finality
to any of these rules,” Owen said.
Passing Court Muster

Rulemaking could take too long to prevent many streams and waters from being damaged by development,
so the first step would be to get the Trump rule off the books, Gilinsky said.

“If that was the case, you’d go back to what was the status quo before the 2015 rule,” Gilinsky said . It would be unlikely that a new
rulemaking would be finalized in four years, she said.

But the
Supreme Court’s April ruling in County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund may complicate a return to Obama’s
expansive WOTUS definition, said David Buente, a Sidley Austin LLP lawyer who represents industry clients.

The justices ruled that polluters must get permits for indirect water contamination that’s the “functional
equivalent” of a direct discharge into federal waterways. Some attorneys interpreted the ruling as suggesting that pollution to
groundwater would more often be regulated at the federal level.

Conservative Court guarantees Trump rule survives

King & Jacobs 21 --- Pamela King and Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E News reporters, “What Trump's dismal
deregulatory record means for Biden”, January 11, 2021, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063722109

Of the high-profile rules the Trump administration crafted, its new definition of what waterways qualify for Clean
Water Act protections likely has the most staying power.

Trump's Navigable Waters Protection Rule tees up the issue of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over "waters of the
U.S.," or WOTUS, that was muddled by the Supreme Court in 2006.

The split 4-1-4 Rapanos v. United States decision threw uncertainty into the issue. The Obama administration issued
a rule that espoused the "significant nexus " test for determining whether a waterway was jurisdictional in former
Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion.
Trump's rule, however, was based on former Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion, which earned a total of four
votes.

Court watchers say that there appear to be at least five justices on the bench now who have signaled
support of Scalia's opinion in that case.

The rule has been challenged in various courts across the country. And Trump's water rule may be more difficult to freeze than
other regulations because that would create even more uncertainty surrounding federal enforcement.

"If I'm looking at the big Trump rules and I'm looking at the one that I think the current Supreme Court would be
most skeptical of the arguments against, that's the one," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case
Western Reserve University School of Law.

Adler, who has written extensively on the Clean Water Act , said that there do appear to be some issues with the Trump
EPA rulemaking process.

"It's not that it's a slam-dunk," he said. "It's that the

big picture part of the rule — how broadly or narrowly do we
construe jurisdiction — that question is ... where I think the Trump administration is defending relatively
strong legal ground."

Pat Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School, suggested that Biden should seek to have all the cases challenging the Trump water rule
consolidated. Then the president-elect should ask for a stay of the Trump rule while his EPA drafts a new regulation, he said.

But Parenteau cautioned that process

is likely to take at least two years, and he said the new administration would
have to keep the Supreme Court in mind.

"This is the most chaotic a federal statute that has ever been," he said, referring to the Clean Water Act controversy.
"Whatever the new rule is, it is going to have to pass muster with the Supreme Court."
 Contention Two --- Harms
Contention Two is Harms --- We outline __2__ advantages:
Advantage 1 --- Water
 1AC --- Advantage 1 --- Water --- Top Level

Advantage 1: Water

Trump’s NWPR dangerously erodes the CWA --- putting millions of miles of water at
risk --- particularly wetlands and ephemeral streams / tributaries
Sullivan et al 20 --- S. Mažeika Patricio Sullivan, Professor, School of Environment and Natural
Resources (SENR) Director, Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park & Assistant Director,
Mark C. Rains, Amanda D. Rodewald, William W. Buzbee, Amy D. Rosemond, “Distorting science, putting
water at risk”, Science 14 Aug 2020: Vol. 369, Issue 6505, pp. 766-768,
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/766.summary

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) (1), which was published in April by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of the Army (“the Agencies”), has redefined “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) to restrict federal protection
of vulnerable waters (2). With its emphasis on “continuous surface connections” and “permanen[ce],” the
NWPR removes or reduces protection for U.S. waters, including millions of miles of streams and acres of
wetlands, many of which comprise headwaters that are critical for sustaining water quality and healthy
watersheds (3) (see the figure). Although the Agencies claim to have “looked to scientific principles to inform” the NWPR, science has
been largely ignored and oversimplified. These new exclusions are based on selective parsing of
statutory language and earlier case law, rather than on previously established, science-based
interpretations of the U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) (4). The EPA's own
Science Advisory Board (SAB) found sufficient evidence to conclude that “… the proposed Rule lacks a scientific justification ,
while potentially introducing new risks to human and environmental health” (5). Responding to this unprecedented
distortion of science and rollback in water protections, which went into effect nationwide on 22 June, will require coordinated efforts among
scientists, lawmakers, and resource managers.

Clearly articulated in the CWA is the intention “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters”
(4). The CWA was explicit in protecting “navigable waters,” which Congress defined broadly as WOTUS;
however, the extent to which waters other than navigable rivers, lakes, and territorial seas [traditional navigable waters (TNWs)] are protected
has repeatedly provoked legal skirmishing. Particularly contentious are determinations about which nontraditional waters, such as wetlands
and small tributary streams, contribute to the integrity of TNWs. The
NWPR functionally ends the debate by elevating
state over federal regulatory authority . Without federal law as a protective regulatory floor, states can and
often do choose to leave waterbodies unprotected, making waters vulnerable to unregulated
pollution, dredging, filling, and other activities that may profoundly erode water quality (3).

The NWPR downplays science by redefining protected “waters” and explicitly states that “science
cannot dictate where to draw the line between Federal and State waters.” The NWPR relies
overwhelmingly (and arguably arbitrarily) upon the 2006 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Scalia in Rapanos v. United
States, Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers that lacked majority support. A more scientifically nuanced
position was articulated by Justice Kennedy on the same case; the four dissenting Justices agreed with Kennedy's rationales
for protecting waters, but would have protected even more.

The realized impacts are likely to be worse than projected, as ephemeral streams and nonfloodplain
wetlands are usually underestimated by remotely sensed data (3). The economic analysis filed with the NWPR was largely
silent about impacts, simply acknowledging that “the [A]gencies are unable to quantify [the scope] of these changes with any reliable accuracy”
owing to geospatial data issues and uncertainty about government responses (6). Yet, in spite of this uncertainty and the potential for harm,
the Agencies proceeded with a restrictive and risky rule.

Connectivity and Quality

Connectivity is a cornerstone in understanding how freshwater ecosystem functions are sustained. In 2015,
the Obama administration promulgated the Clean Water Rule (CWR) that included all tributaries and most wetlands as
WOTUS (7). The scientific rationale for the CWR was reviewed in the EPA Connectivity Report (8), which
synthesized >1200 peer-reviewed scientific publications and input from 49 technical experts. After a public review process,
the 25-member EPA SAB confirmed the scientific underpinnings of both the Connectivity Report and the CWR.

Since then, the body of supporting evidence has grown (3, 9), enhancing our understanding of how the
integrity of freshwater ecosystems within a watershed relates to the biological, chemical, and
hydrological connectivity among waterbodies, including wetlands and ephemeral streams. This understanding
recognizes as critical to services derived from freshwater ecosystems gradients of connectivity (versus a
binary property: connected, not connected) that operate as a function of frequency, magnitude, timing, and
duration of biological, chemical, and physical connections among waterbodies (10). By disregarding or
misinterpreting the science of waterbody connectivity, the NWPR draws scientifically unsupported
boundaries to distinguish WOTUS, reaches conclusions contrary to current science, and asserts legal and
scientific views substantially different from those of the Agencies under previous administrations of both
political parties going back to the 1970s. The NWPR promotes regulations contrary to what science shows about effective water protection.
Although agencies often have latitude to adjust regulatory choices when implementing longstanding statutes, they cannot do so arbitrarily and
without reasoned justification and rationales in light of relevant law, facts, and science.

In contrast to the CWR's recognition of biological, chemical, and physical connectivity, the NWPR relies
solely on direct hydrologic surface connectivity to determine wetland jurisdiction. Nonfloodplain
wetlands and ephemeral streams are categorically excluded on the basis of lack of hydrological
connectivity irrespective of their degree of biological or chemical connectivity. Also excluded are
floodplain wetlands lacking a direct surface water connection to TNWs “in a typical year,” and intermittent tributaries
lacking relatively permanent surface flows.

Such exclusions are inconsistent with evidence demonstrating that these waters are functionally
connected to and support the integrity of downstream waters. Removal of federal protection is likely to diminish
numerous ecosystem services, such as safeguarding water quality and quantity, reducing or mitigating
flood risk, conserving biodiversity, and maintaining recreationally and commercially valuable fisheries (3).
Ephemeral, Isolated

Just as tiny capillaries play critical roles in the human body, nonfloodplain wetlands (so-called “isolated”) and
ephemeral streams (that flow only after precipitation events) support an extensive suite of ecosystem services.
Because nonfloodplain wetlands and ephemeral streams are connected to one another and downstream
waters along a gradient of connectivity, they also provide substantial cumulative or aggregate
ecosystem services (10).

Because these wetlands and streams will summarily lose federal protection, they will be vulnerable to
outright destruction, fill, or unpermitted industrial pollution discharges that risk transporting pollutants
throughout watersheds. Losses of nonfloodplain wetlands could include particularly vulnerable and
often valuable waters (2), including some playa lakes, prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva Bays, pocosins, and
vernal pools. A preliminary analysis predicts widespread losses of wetland functions, with particularly high
impacts on wetlands in arid and semi-arid regions. For example, the CWR protected 72%, whereas the NWPR will only
protect 28% of wetland acres, in New Mexico's Río Peñasco watershed (11).

The NWPR also categorically excludes subsurface hydrologic connectivity. To disregard groundwater
connectivity is to disregard the scientific understanding of how natural waters function . The Agencies justify
this exclusion by claiming that “A groundwater or subsurface connection could also be confusing and difficult to implement.” Although
implementation may be challenging in some cases, claimed implementation ease under the NWPR should not supersede an evidence-based
determination of connectivity given the potential for economic and environmental harm.

A Path Forward in Uncertain Times

The NWPR directly conflicts with a growing body of scientific evidence and with input and review by
federal and nonfederal scientists. The rule narrows WOTUS in ways that are inconsistent with
longstanding views about the CWA's mandate to safeguard access to clean water. The NWPR opens
previously protected waters to filling, impairment, and industrial pollution, and will undermine decades of
investments restoring water quality across the United States and lead to profound loss or impairment of
ecosystems and the services they provide . For context, the economic value of ecosystem services provisioned by nonfloodplain
wetlands alone has been estimated at $673 billion per year (2).

The Trump rule ensures TOTAL ECOSYSTEM LOSS --- ONLY federal regulation solves
Parenteau 19 --- Pat Parenteau, Professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School, being
interviewed by Steve Curwood of “Living on Earth”, “Clean Water Rollbacks”, Transcript, Sept 20 th 2019,
https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=19-P13-00038&segmentID=3

Wetlands are ecological powerhouses that clean our water, take up carbon dioxide, and provide habitat
for birds, young fish, insects and so much more. The United States has already lost about half of its
wetlands since the 1700’s. And we could lose still more, thanks to a Trump administration rule rollback.
The Waters of the United States, or WOTUS rule, gave the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate any flows
upstream of the nation’s major rivers and lakes. Here to explain what’s at stake is Pat Parenteau of the Vermont Law
School. Pat, welcome back to Living on Earth!
PARENTEAU: Good to be with you, Steve.

CURWOOD: Pat,we need a brief refresher here. What kind of waterways was the Obama administration's
Water of the United States, or WOTUS, rule meant to protect?

PARENTEAU: Well, the big controversy was over what are called headwater streams. These are obviously
the places where the larger river systems -- think Missouri River , Mississippi River, and so forth -- begin. And
the Obama administration was trying to clarify how far up into the watershed federal regulation would
go. They were trying to capture sources of pollution, and also sources of drinking water. Fully two-thirds of
the areas that they identified for federal protection are source water areas for public water supplies . So
that was the driving force, they did a lot of scientific analysis of the importance of these smaller headwater streams. And of course, in
the western United States, a lot of the streams are what we call ephemeral; they don't flow year-round,
they flow in response to heavy rain or snow melt. And so the Obama administration was simply following
the science from their, their point of view, and saying, if we're going to protect the waters downstream, the big lakes
and rivers, we're
going to have to go up into the watershed and protect those areas that feed down into
the bigger water.
CURWOOD: I guess if you have garbage in, you're going to get garbage out to the main water.

PARENTEAU: Yeah, that's kind of the system. That's a hydrologic cycle. That's what that word means, things are in a system. And the Obama
administration's approach was to look at watersheds as a system and go where the pollution was.

CURWOOD: Remind us, Pat, why these water systems are so important. Yes, we need drinking water, and...?

PARENTEAU: Oh, yeah, so the wetlands in particular, that's, that's the one category of waters that has been
really reduced in what the Trump administration is proposing. They perform all kinds of important services,
they're naturally flood control. And you think about the kinds of record flooding we've been seeing, particularly this year; there's
still flood conditions five months after those heavy rains in the spring. You know, wetlands are sponges, and they soak up that
excess water and help protect downstream communities. Wetlands also take up a lot of pollutants. If you
think about nutrient pollution , which is causing these awful algal blooms around the country with some
cyanobacteria involved with it, which is a public health threat. Those kinds of conditions are threatening public
water supplies, for example, the city of Toledo, Ohio, and Lake Erie. And so wetlands are a great source of protecting
drinking water sources. And then wetlands also provide habitat for fish and wildlife; they're carbon sinks
that help deal with climate change issues. So they have an awful lot of really important services for human beings.
And without federal protection, the majority of states don't have laws that restrict filling and draining and

pollution in wetlands. So it's either the federal government or nothing in some places.
CURWOOD: Please give me an example of a region or a state that could really get hit hard in terms of public and ecological health with this.

PARENTEAU: Yeah, well, Arizona would be, you know, Exhibit A on that score, because 90% of Arizona's waterways are what are called either
intermittent or ephemeral, which simply means they don't flow all the time. And some major river systems like the Santa Cruz River dries up. I
know, I've been there, and I've seen it -- I think, maybe you have, too, Steve -- but flows right through Tucson, Arizona; but it's dry major
portions of the year. So, big question mark, about whether even big rivers like that, that dry up periodically for extended periods of time, would
still be covered. What
the Trump rule is saying is that if the only thing that's causing the flow in the river is a
major rain event, then it's not covered, it's considered ephemeral. So all throughout the semi-arid West,
you're going to see major loss of federal protection and regulation for these waterways.
CURWOOD: So who's been pushing for this rollback of the Waters of the United States rule?

PARENTEAU: Well, the Farm Bureau has been kicking the mule, as they say on this one. They've been the ones that have really gone after the
clean water rule, and now are cheering in support of Trump's repeal of the rule. The Association of Home Builders is close behind. They have a
lot of sprawl development going on around the country in streams and wetlands. And they are opposed to strong federal permit requirements
that stall their development. So those two, I think, are the chief protagonists in this one.

CURWOOD: So, given this rollback of this Waters of the United States rule that the Trump administration has announced -- should it
stick, what kinds of activities would farms and industries be allowed to do on wetlands that were
previously protected?

PARENTEAU: Well, you know, they're

going to be able to discharge pollutants from pipes and ditches and a
variety of what we call point sources, as long as they move that point of discharge above where the
proposed new mark, the new rule is going to say federal jurisdiction ends . And then you have this
argument that the Trump administration is making -- "well, but the states will pick up the slack, they'll
step up and start regulating those sources that we no longer will regulate." But when you look at the laws of these
various states, what you find is that over half of the states have laws on their books which say they will
not regulate beyond what the federal Clean Water Act requires. "No stricter than federal," is the way they put that. And
no surprise, the states that are arguing for the Trump administration to remove federal protection
happen to be those very same states that have laws saying we will not go further than what the federal law
requires us to do. So this is going to leave a huge gap in major areas of the country , where we will not have significant
regulation to protect these water sources. And the job will be for people to try to lobby their state legislatures to restore some of that
protection. Unless, of course, the courts step in here and stop some of this Trump rollback . And then a new
administration may come along and restore some of these protections. But right now, we're in kind of a chaotic situation, frankly.

CURWOOD: What other kinds of activities would be allowed if this rollback of the Waters of the United
States goes forward?

PARENTEAU: Well, you know, spills of oil and hazardous substances that do occur on a chronic basis, from
oil pipelines, gas pipelines, containment tanks, and other kinds of structures that contain these
potentially toxic and hazardous materials . The Clean Water Act has a program to deal with those spills ,
both requiring spill prevention and containment and clean up requirements, but also liability, significant liability for failure to
prevent and deal with spills and leaks. And that all depends on whether or not these waters that remain after the Trump rollback are going to
be covered by that requirement. So
you could see pipelines crossing wetlands and streams that are no longer
subject to the Clean Water Act, and therefore, the spill containment requirements wouldn't apply. So
there's a whole category of industrial activity that depends on the definition of the waters that are
covered by the Clean Water Act.
CURWOOD: What about mining?

PARENTEAU: Mining,the same thing. If you're mining in headwaters -- I'm dealing with a big copper mine in Arizona right
now where they're in, you know, very
high in the Santa Rita mountains . These are incredibly important,
biologically important areas. They're called the Sky Island habitats. They even have habitat of the jaguar -- one or two, anyway;
jaguars that travel up from Mexico. So these are high quality areas, but the water that flows through them is ephemeral. It's these intermittent
streams. But that's all the water there is, in these systems. And what
Trump is proposing would mean copper mining , this
massive copper mine a half a mile deep, mile across, would be exempt from any kind of requirement for dealing with
pollution and de-watering of these streams. So lots of different impacts, some of which you can foresee, some of which will be
hard to foresee.

CURWOOD: And how correct is it to say with this rollback of the Waters of the United States that developers
are going to be able to, well, literally destroy areas that are not considered wetlands?

PARENTEAU: There's all kinds of wetlands that don't have this "continuous surface connection" that the
Trump rule is requiring. And in fact, many wetlands are fed by groundwater; some wetland areas are the result of
an overflow from a lake or a river; you think the Lower Mississippi River, most of those great bottomland hardwoods swamps,
they're wet because the Mississippi River overflows its banks , has traditionally and is even more so now. And if you take
away protection for some of those areas, you're removing some of the most important biological resources
in the country. We've already destroyed 55% of the wetlands that used to exist in the United States. So every last wetland we
have is doing all the wonderful things that wetlands do . But if they don't have federal protection, it's
going to be hard to keep them in place.

<Insert Module(s)>
 1AC --- Water Module --- Extreme Weather Terminal Insert

Scenario ___ --- Extreme Weather

Loss of wetlands exacerbates extreme weather impacts --- which threatens millions ---
it outweighs
Endter-Wada et al 20 --- Joanna Endter-Wada, Department of Environment and Society and Ecology Center, Utah State University,
USA, Karin M. Kettenring, Department of Watershed Sciences and Ecology Center, Utah State University, USA, Ariana Sutton-Grier, Earth System
Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland College Park, USA, “Protecting wetlands for people: Strategic policy action can help
wetlands mitigate risks and enhance resilience”, Environmental Science & Policy Volume 108, June 2020, Pages 37-44,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901119309463?
casa_token=b6ysOBNp7BkAAAAA:zhx7ac5dPikghto_UiSuvrDfA52sOxHWHobE-n4laiQ6KUUO4rpoQJGJZT9HlO-wqwyxv9lZ

Extreme weather and climate events are becoming the norm—breaking records, dominating news, and creating
cumulative impacts to regions suffering from recurrent events (Ummenhofer and Meehl, 2017). In The Global Risks
Report (World Economic Forum, 2020), expert assessment of the global risk landscape rated extreme weather events second (2014–2016) or
first (2017–2020) in terms of likelihood for the past seven years, and among the top four risks in terms of impact for the fourth year in a row.
For the first time in the annual report’s history, all
top five global risks in terms of likelihood and three of the top five
risks in terms of impact are environmental in nature. Accompanying extreme weather events in the top five likely risks the
world faces in 2020 are the closely related challenges of climate action failure, natural disasters, biodiversity loss,
and human-made environmental disasters (World Economic Forum, 2020).

Hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, and monsoons are wreaking havoc across the globe (WMO (World Meteorological
Organization), 2019). Tropical storms are slowing due to climate change, resulting in more fatalities and
destruction, particularly in densely populated urbanized areas, mostly due to compound flooding from storm surges and heavy rainfall
(Needham et al., 2015; Kossin, 2018). Climate
change is also causing tropical cyclones to have enhanced average
and extreme rainfall (Patricola and Wehner, 2018). Mounting devastation has occurred just in the past three years. Most
notably, 2019 saw hundreds of people killed and widespread devastations from Cyclone Idai in southeast Africa (the deadliest storm ever in the
Southern Hemisphere), Typhoon Hagibis in Japan, Typhoon Lekima in China, and historic floods in the United States (U.S.) Midwest and South.
In 2018, Super Typhoon Mangkhut ravaged parts of the Philippines and China, Hurricane Florence devastated several states in the U.S.
Southeast, the Indian state of Kerala experienced the worst monsoon flooding in at least 100 years with over a million people displaced and 400
killed, and an overwhelming 125 cm of rain in 24 h led to massive flooding and mudslides in Hawaii’s island of Kauai. And in 2017, communities
throughout the Caribbean and southeastern U.S. suffered extensive losses from hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Maria. The third largest U.S.
city, Houston, was subjected to a 500-year flood, supposedly a rare event, for the third year in a row with billions of dollars in damages.

Meanwhile, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Greece, Portugal and the U.S. are among the growing number of places experiencing what has been called
“the Age of Megafires,” where “unprecedented”
dangers from widespread, fast-moving, and intense fires have
increased in areas subject to drought and often undergoing rapid landscape-scale change (Pyne, 2009; Attiwill
and Binkley, 2013). Australia experienced one of its most calamitous summer fire seasons in 2019–2020 with widespread destruction resulting
from millions of acres burned, thousands of homes destroyed and people displaced, and close to a billion animals and dozens of people killed
(Morton, 2019). In 2018, California experienced its most deadly and destructive wildfire season on record , part of
a trend where 75 % of the largest, 75 % of the most destructive, and 50 % of the deadliest top 20 wildfires in the state’s history have occurred
since 2000 (Cal Fire, 2019). A recent study suggests that extreme swings from heavy precipitation to drought conditions are likely for California
throughout the rest of the century (Swain et al., 2018), supporting other evidence that climate change will further increase the
frequency and impacts of extreme fire events (Flannigan et al., 2009).

The ecological, human, and economic consequences of catastrophic storm and drought events can , at
times, be linked directly or indirectly to landscape-scale changes that have resulted in massive losses of
wetlands. Yet, the protective services of wetlands—for preventing and mitigating weather-related
disasters—are greatly undervalued by people and governments worldwide. We have failed to sufficiently protect wetlands to
protect ourselves as well as the wildlife that depend on them. It is time to take bold, effective, and coordinated policy action to incorporate
wetland protective services into societies’ defenses against extreme weather events (Endter-Wada et al., 2018). Here we lay out the scientific
case for how wetlands provide
protective services and why it is important to link wetland management to
disaster risk planning and climate adaptation strategies. We then propose one policy alternative for better protecting and
managing wetlands to help people mitigate flood, drought, and fire risks and their devastating consequences: national-level wetland
commissions. This suggestion is based on the general success of the commission model applied to rivers and lakes as an effective way to
manage transboundary water resources and to bring together diverse stakeholders interested in their protection. Finally, we present our
arguments with U.S. examples of opportunities for inter-agency cooperation and a proposed structure for a U.S. National Interagency Wetland
Commission. While the commission model has been widely applied in water management and other problematic governance situations, its
adoption, purpose, and design to specifically help wetlands mitigate societal risks and enhance resilience to extreme weather events is the
strategic policy innovation that we offer here.

2. Recognizing and valuing wetland protective services

2.1. Wetlands provide essential ecosystem services and terrestrial-aquatic linkages

Wetlands are some of the most productive ecosystems on earth and play
critical roles in hydrologic, nutrient, and carbon
cycling while providing vital wildlife habitat (Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Alexander et al., 2018). Their habitat value has
motivated wetland protection through avenues such as wildlife refuges and spurred vast restoration efforts in response to waterfowl
population declines. Wetlands play critical hydrologic roles in landscapes through storing and slowly releasing
water downstream or recharging shallow groundwater, enabling them to mitigate flood risks during hurricanes or
other extreme precipitation events while also delaying the onset and impacts of drought under some
circumstances (Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Westbrook et al., 2006; Alexander et al., 2018; Fairfax and Small, 2018; Ameli and Creed, 2019). The
dendritic landscape patterns of riparian networks can also lessen the impacts of wildfire (especially those that
are beaver-dammed) by serving as a firebreak and providing refuge for wildlife (Fig. 1; Fairfax and Whittle, 2019; Wheaton
et al., 2019). Wetlands can also dissipate wave energy which reduces stream and coastal erosion and
associated land loss, decreasing risks to growing cities and urbanized areas (Duarte et al., 2013; Narayan et al., 2017; Espeland and
Kettenring, 2018; Narayan et al., 2019). Because of these protective services of wetlands, there is growing interest in their role in risk and
disaster reduction, but these protective services have not received sufficient policy action.

Wetlands, by their very nature, are highly dynamic and provide essential linkages between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and between
human-dominated and natural landscapes (Alexander et al., 2018). Wetlands
often constitute the critical landscape nexus
between land and water on coasts, lakeshores, and river and stream banks where they buffer and
stabilize these transition zones. Paradoxically, their locations at these nexuses make them highly productive
and simultaneously vulnerable. Many wetlands are threatened due to human competition for land and water, lack of landscape-level planning,
and lack of appreciation for the integral functioning of wetlands within watersheds (Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Clare et al., 2011; Narayan et al.,
2017). The highest levels of competition for land often occur in the very places where protective services of wetlands are most needed,
surrounding and within human communities (Narayan et al., 2017), the largest of which are often located on coasts and rivers (Li et al., 2015).
Understanding their protective services and the important functions wetlands play in different contexts requires a landscape perspective and
greater scientific integration.

2.2. Insufficient wetland protection has enormous societal costs

Humanity has viewed wetlands as wastelands and vigorous national campaigns to drain and fill them have been pursued over centuries (Vileisis,
1999; Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Gardner, 2011). These ‘marginal’ lands have been deemed too costly to protect, given society’s insatiable
appetite for ever-increasing land development, first for agricultural expansion and more recently with (sub)urban sprawl. Wetland degradation
and destruction have resulted in radical landscape transformations with less natural wetland protection and more highly engineered built water
infrastructure that often gives society a false sense of security (Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Creed et al., 2017; Sutton-Grier et al., 2018). Hindsight
has revealed the cumulative effects of wetland loss. Failure to protect wetlands has not only led to extensive
ecological impacts but also resulted in enormous societal costs (Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Creed et al., 2017). Many
countries face increased loss of life as well as rising costs of destroyed assets, unsustainable insurances risks, and
mounting government debt from weather-related disasters in flood- and drought-prone areas (Deryugina, 2017; Smith,
2020). These financial burdens—often the result of poor land-use planning—fall on citizens, and the political will of taxpayers and
investors to compensate other people for short-sighted decisions is diminishing (Choe, 2020). Mounting
societal costs provide an
urgent and compelling rationale for policy action now to save lives and avoid public and private financial
losses.

Independently extreme weather is catastrophic for grid durability --- nuclear reactors
are particularly vulnerable
Brody 19 --- Sarah Brody, Associate Partner at McKinsey & Company based in New York City, New York. Previously, Sarah was a Research
Assistant at Duke University, Matt Rogers, leader of McKinsey Electric Power & Natural Gas, Oil & Gas, and Sustainability Practices as well as
supporting energy clients globally, and Giulia Siccardo, Energy and automotive consultant, She holds deep expertise in renewable energy
technologies, battery storage, and sustainable transportation solutions, “Why, and how, utilities should start to manage climate-change risk”,
McKinsey and Company, April 24th 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/why-and-how-
utilities-should-start-to-manage-climate-change-risk#

The Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in late 2018, stated that climate change was already having noticeable effects in the United
States and predicted “more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events,” such as floods and
hurricanes. For utilities, the assessment concluded, the possibilities were grave: lower efficiency, higher
expenses, and more power outages—even as demand for energy rises. And many utilities are not ready. As the
assessment noted, “Infrastructure currently designed for historical climate conditions is more vulnerable to
future weather extremes and climate change.”

The cost of extreme weather is already high , and the frequency and the cost to life and property of extreme
weather events has increased in recent years. If such events become more common or intense, as the assessment
predicts, the price will be even higher. Even now, some utilities are making investments in long lived assets in risky locations,
increasing system vulnerability and balance sheet risk. On that basis, we believe there is a strong case for utilities to start now to take steps on
climate-change adaptation. And there are ways for them to do so—for example by strengthening the grid, exploring investments in batteries
and microgrids, and working with new partners.

The brewing cost storm for utilities

In 2017, Hurricane
Irma made landfall in the Caribbean and Florida. A category 4 and 5 storm, Irma damaged 90 percent of the buildings
on the island of Barbuda and caused
the fourth-largest blackout in US history . The total cost of damage was $50 billion. And
Irma was no outlier. Since 1958, the frequency and intensity of serious Atlantic hurricanes , like Irma, has risen
(Exhibit 1).

In other ways, too, utilities are already more vulnerable to extreme weather events than in the past. When
homes are built in areas prone to wildfires, power companies follow, placing their own assets at higher risk. These can even exacerbate the
problem, if sparks from power lines ignite. Fires also emit additional carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
In California, the devastating 2018 fire season emitted approximately 15 percent of the CO2 California emits from all sources in a typical year.

If climate change brings significant sea-level rise, as many models predict, that raises new vulnerabilities, but the risk is material today. In the
United States, nine
nuclear-power plants are located within two miles of the ocean. Many of the nation’s
8,625 power plants were deliberately sited near shorelines in order to have access to water. As a result, when
hurricanes strike, power plants already face significant flooding damage.

According to the Department of Energy, 44

power plants were in flooded areas in Hurricane Irene and 69 were in
flooded areas in Hurricane Sandy. During these hurricanes, eight nuclear power plants had to shut
down or reduce service. During Houston’s Hurricane Harvey in 2017, wind and catastrophic flooding knocked
down or damaged more than 6,200 distribution poles and 850 transmission structures; 21.4 gigawatts of
generation were affected by wind damage, flooding damage, fuel supply issues, or evacuations and shutdowns. If sea levels rise, storm surges
would hit further inland, causing more damaging coastal flooding to generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure.
Unless utilities become more resilient to extreme weather events, they put themselves at unnecessary
risk, in both physical and financial terms. Repairing storm damage and upgrading infrastructure after the fact is
expensive and traumatic. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 forced Entergy New Orleans into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. There
are, of course, compelling environmental and social reasons to invest in mitigation efforts sooner rather than later. We believe there are also
economic ones. Power utilities need to invest on the basis that the present is already riskier than what was planned and the future will be more
volatile. There is evidence that climate change adaptation can also be cost-effective.

The benefits of being prepared

In order to understand the economics of mitigating climate-change risk in the United States, we considered the
effect of extreme
storms, largely hurricanes, on utilities, because it is relatively easy to measure storm-related impacts. To
do so, we examined the financial records of ten large power utilities in seven states where hurricanes are common
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas), plus New Jersey, where hurricanes are less common but
dense coastal populations mean damage from storms can be particularly costly.

According to this analysis, a

typical utility saw $1.4 billion in storm-damage costs and lost revenues due to
outages caused by storms over a 20-year period. Then, using estimates from the Fourth National Climate Assessment for increases in
extreme weather events and coastal infrastructure damage driven by climate change, we estimated that by 2050, the cost of damages and lost
revenues would rise by 23 percent ($300 million), or approximately two to three additional years with major hurricane damage. (These
projected increases are conservative; they are based on estimates of regional increases in extreme weather or storm damage due to sea-level
rise.) Combined, these estimates give us a baseline: $1.7 billion in economic damage for each utility by 2050.

Blackouts threaten critical supply chains --- triggers multiple existential scenarios
Pry 21 --- Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland
Security, “When will America protect itself against EMP, cyber and ransomware attacks?”, The Hill,
05/21/21, https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/554503-when-will-america-protect-itself-
against-emp-cyber-and-ransomware

“A long-term outage owing to EMP could disable most critical supply chains, leaving the U.S. population
living in conditions similar to centuries past , prior to the advent of electric power. In the 1800s, the U.S. population was less
than 60 million, and those people had many skills and assets necessary for survival without today’s infrastructure. An extended
blackout today could result in the death of a large fraction of the American people through the effects
of societal collapse, disease and starvation. While national planning and preparation for such events could help mitigate the
damage, few such actions are currently under way or even being contemplated.” — Congressional EMP Commission (2017)

The people of Rangely, Colo., are not waiting for Washington to protect them from a Great American Blackout caused by a solar superstorm or
cyber warfare or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Like several other Western municipalities, Rangely, a town of 2,300 in northwest
Colorado, home to a community college, has rolled up its sleeves and, in the best traditions of Western pioneering spirit, independence and
self-sufficiency, is building redundant microgrids so they can survive anything.

Texas state Sen. Bob Hall and his colleagues aren’t waiting for Washington to “provide for the common defense,” either. Hall’s bill to protect
the Texas electric grid from all hazards — including EMP, cyber warfare and sabotage — recently passed the state Senate.

Texans had a small taste of “electronic apocalypse ” in February when an ice storm caused statewide rolling
blackouts, resulting in property damage totaling billions of dollars, fuel shortages including a reduction in the
national fuel supply, industrial accidents, including a major explosion and fire in a chemical plant, and 100 deaths.
Experts have cautioned the same could happen during hot, summer weather.

Sen. Hall, a former Air Force officer and an EMP expert, has been warning Texas for years that electric grid vulnerability to EMP and
cyber attack could have catastrophic consequences. The Electric Reliability Council Of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the state’s electricity
infrastructure, proved in February that they and the utilities are not even prepared to cope with a severe ice
storm, let alone existential threats from EMP and cyber warfare.

The plan obviously doesn’t SOLVE weather --- but wetland protection provides
RESILIENCE to storms
Brody 19 --- Sarah Brody, Associate Partner at McKinsey & Company based in New York City, New York. Previously, Sarah was a Research
Assistant at Duke University, Matt Rogers, leader of McKinsey Electric Power & Natural Gas, Oil & Gas, and Sustainability Practices as well as
supporting energy clients globally, and Giulia Siccardo, Energy and automotive consultant, She holds deep expertise in renewable energy
technologies, battery storage, and sustainable transportation solutions, “Why, and how, utilities should start to manage climate-change risk”,
McKinsey and Company, April 24th 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/why-and-how-
utilities-should-start-to-manage-climate-change-risk#

Environmental management. Active

management of the natural environment can provide utilities and other
infrastructure owners with protection against extreme weather. For example, coastal wetlands provide a
natural barrier to lessen the impact of extreme storms. A recent study estimated that New Jersey’s coastal
marshes reduce flood damage by 16 percent during normal storm years, and that after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the
presence of wetlands and marshes up and down the east coast reduced hurricane damage by 27 percent.

In 2015, Entergy and other Gulf Coast companies began a pilot program to restore coastal wetlands in
Louisiana to provide storm protection. The effort can also be counted as an offset to the companies’ carbon emissions, since
wetlands act as a carbon sink, providing a direct financial benefit.

The Alabama Power Company has constructed wetlands near its generation facilities; these also serve as
filtration systems to remove chemicals from the water used in power-plant cooling.
 1AC --- Water Module --- Biodiversity Terminal Insert

Scenario ___ - Biodiversity

Loss of wetlands has devastating consequences for biodiversity

Kelley and Bantz 19 - *obtained his Juris Doctor from the Sturm College of Law where he served as
the Volume 22 Editor-in-Chief of the University of Denver Water Law Review. **Cassandra Bantz
obtained her bachelor’s degree in Environmental Sustainability from the University of Washington.
*Kelley, Kole W. and **Bantz, Cassandra N. (2019) "WOTUS: The Water Definition Battle that Defines
the Nation," Mitchell Hamline Law Review: Vol. 46 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at:
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol46/iss1/3

These potential negative impacts extend to wetlands. Under the 2015 Rule, most wetlands, regardless of their
proximity to navigable waters, were protected under the CWA.85 This designation aligns with goals of
maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters .86 Although wetlands are
often overlooked, they are essential ecosystems that help maintain the quality of the Nation’s waters. Not only do they
provide critical habitat to fish, waterfowl, and wildlife, they also provide indispensable ecosystem
services that are beneficial to the surrounding communities.87 For example, wetlands act as natural filtration systems.88 Due
to the slow flow of water within a wetland, sediments suspended in water that would typically be washed away into waterways settle onto the
wetland floor.89 Those sediments are filtered out by root systems, then broken down and used by
microorganisms, effectively purifying water. Wetlands also help maintain the base flow of surface water systems.90 For
example, because of the characteristics that make up a wetland, they are naturally adept at storing water.91 In times of drought,
wetlands release stored water, allowing that water supply to enter into surface water systems. 92 In
addition to water purification and storage, wetlands help reduce the impacts of severe weather events like flooding
and storm protection in coastal areas.93 Wetlands can absorb large quantities of water. This
characteristic allows wetlands to act as a buffer, slowing the momentum of water and reducing flood
heights, ultimately lessening flood damage in areas downstream of the wetland .94 While these are only a
few of the ecosystem services provided by wetlands, the benefits of keeping them intact are substantial.
If the removal of the 2015 Rule is successful, many wetlands will be at risk. The proposed rule will
drastically reduce the waters covered under the CWA, leaving these ecosystems subject to development .
Repealing the 2015 Rule is problematic because it would eliminate the ecosystem services provided by
wetlands, resulting in the reduction of productivity and diversity of the environment and leaving
communities with the complex problem of replacing the services provided by wetlands.

Biodiversity loss causes extinction

Welle 19 --- Deutsche Welle, Germany's international broadcaster for EcoWatch, “Why Biodiversity
Loss Hurts Humans as Much as Climate Change Does”, EcoWatch, May, 06, 2019,
https://www.ecowatch.com/biodiversity-loss-human-health-2636410357.html

They are the tireless stewards of the air, water and land from which we live. But the millions
of species whose toil underpins
our prosperity are gravely endangered by human activity, scientists say — and that imperils us in turn.
Biodiversity loss is as big a threat to humans as climate change, said UN biodiversity chief Robert Watson last week at a
conference in Paris to release a landmark report on global biodiversity and ecosystems.

"The continuing loss of biodiversity will undermine our ability for poverty reduction, food and water
security, human health and the overall goal of leaving nobody behind."

The report, the first of its kind since 2005 and published Sunday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES), warns of grave consequences to humanity from mass die-offs and degradation of nature.
Drawing together the work of more than 400 experts, it paints a bleak picture of a world in which essentials such as
food and drinking water are endangered through species and ecosystem decline.

The unprecedented and accelerating deterioration of nature in the past 50 years has been driven by changes in land and sea use, exploitation of
living beings, climate change, pollution and invasive species, the report found. These five drivers are, in turn, underpinned by societal behaviors
ranging from consumption to governance.

In a blow to human progress, damage

to ecosystems undermines 35 of 44 UN sustainable development targets
for poverty, hunger, health, water, cities climate, oceans and land, the authors found.

Diplomats from 130 nations gathered in Paris last week to agree on the final wording of the report's summary for policymakers.

"The loss of species, ecosystems and genetic diversity is already a global and generational threat to
human well-being," said Watson. "Protecting the invaluable contributions of nature to people will be the
defining challenge of decades to come."
Why Biodiversity Matters

Biodiversity, a contraction of biological diversity, means the abundance and variety of life on the planet. The
definition encompasses more than just the creatures we can see. It ranges from tiny genes, bacteria, plants and animals, right up to ecosystems
such as the Amazon rainforest and Great Barrier Reef.

That makes it hard to count — and even harder to value.

While there are about 1.5 million identified species in the world, scientists estimate the true figure may be closer to ten million or even as many
as two billion. Many organisms are so small they can only be identified as distinct species through DNA sequencing.

"If you think about biodiversity, you think about tigers and polar bears," said Rebecca Shaw, chief scientist at the World Wildlife Fund. "Those
species are very important — but also important are the species you never see and talk about."

Without bees pollinating crops and trees turning carbon dioxide into oxygen, even basic human tasks such as eating and breathing become
harder. But quieter
losses hurt people too, such as the decline of medicinal plants and mangroves that
protect coastlines.

The ways in which organisms interact mean the decline of any single species can trigger unexpected
losses in the wider ecosystem. For instance, a fall in earthworms, fungi or soil microbes limits the amount of
recycled nutrients in the soil and the number of holes for rainwater to flow through, stunting crop growth and
hindering humanity's ability to feed itself.

"We don't consider that nature, but it is nature," said Shaw. "Not paying attention to all those complex interactions in the
soil — and thinking we can just put on fertilizer or pesticide and have it stay the same productive soil into the next generation —
is foolish."
 1AC --- Water Module --- Carbon Sequestration Terminal Insert

Scenario ____ - Climate Change

Wetlands are the largest storages of carbon on the planet --- Loss causes a massive
warming feedback
Moomaw 18 --- William R. Moomaw Center for International Environment and Resource Policy. The
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts
University, Medford, MA, et al, Wetlands In a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management,
Wetlands volume 38, pages183–205 (2018), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-018-
1023-8

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) identifies climate regulation as one of the most significant
ecosystem services provided by wetlands, and also identifies their role in buffering the effects of
climate change (thereby supporting climate adaptation and resiliency), as well as many additional ecosystem services.
Wetlands sequester some of the largest stores of carbon on the planet, but when disturbed or warmed, they
release the three major heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous
oxide (N2O). Rising planetary temperatures are causing a positive feedback from warming wetlands and thawing permafrost
that is accelerating global warming. By 2015 increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have raised the global average
temperature by approximately 1°C above preindustrial values (Hawkins et al. 2017). Further warming is expected to add 130-160 Pg (1
Petagram is 1015 grams) of permafrost carbon (C) to the atmosphere by 2100 (Schuur et al. 2015). To place this in perspective, that amount of
C is comparable to continuing current annual United States fossil fuel emissions until the end of the century (Friedlingstein et al. 2014, USEPA
2017).

Protecting all types of wetland ecosystems from direct human disturbance, minimizing additional warming by reducing GHG
emissions from all sources, and increasing terrestrial CO2 sinks to remove atmospheric CO2 are major priorities for limiting
future temperature increases.
In Part 1 of this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the consequences of climate change for saltwater and freshwater wetlands.
Freshwater wetlands include a variety of cover types characterized by herbaceous plants, shrubs and/or
trees. Some freshwater wetlands are underlain by permafrost (soil temperature <0°C for two or more years). In this paper, saltwater
wetlands refer to tidal coastal wetlands that include salt marshes, mangroves and seagrass meadows. We also examine the important and
often-neglected role that wetlands play in actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering C in wetland soils over long time
periods, the potential for expanding that role and the important climate adaptation and resiliency ecosystem services that wetlands provide.
For the purposes of this paper, resiliency is defined as the ability for an ecosystem to restore healthy ecological function, complexity, diversity
and processes following a disruption, although specific species and species assemblages may change.

In Part 2 of this paper, we identify international, national, sub-national and local wetlands policies and explain their implications for addressing
climate change. We note that often the role of wetlands in climate treaties and policies is only by inference. We conclude by describing how
climate scientists, wetland scientists, policy makers and wetland practitioners can manage and conserve wetlands in light of climate change.

Part 1: Wetlands In a Changing Climate: The Science

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change calls for the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (UNFCCC 1992). The Paris Climate Agreement in
2015 (UNFCCC 2017) established a goal of keeping global average temperature increase substantially less than 2oC above the preindustrial
value, and making every attempt to keep it below 1.5oC.

In order to have a two in three probability of keeping global average temperature from rising by more
than 2°C, it is essential to have “negative emissions " of GHGs; in other words, meeting the goal of the
Paris Climate Agreement requires active removal and sequestration of atmospheric C (Sanderson et al. 2016).
Sequestration is used here to refer to the photosynthetic removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and its conversion into cellulose and other
carbon compounds in plants, and its conversion from decaying plants into soil organic matter. Ricke and Caldeira (2014) have shown that
peak warming occurs within about one decade after a pulse of CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Hence
the benefits of avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to
avoid those emissions. Solomon et al. (2009) have shown that after peak warming is reached, effects will persist for
1000 years. IPCC estimates that depending upon the scenario, “about 15 to 40% of CO2 emitted by 2100 will remain in
the atmosphere longer than 1000 years” (Ciais et al. 2013) affecting 40 generations. Hence avoiding emissions of GHGs
to the atmosphere is recommended to be a prime consideration that benefits both present and future generations.

For most types of wetlands, the bulk of sequestered carbon is in the soils rather than in the plant communities.
Draining these wetlands to convert them to agriculture as has been done in many countries and regions including
Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, New Zealand, Florida Everglades and in Northern Europe, allows soil organic matter to be oxidized and release
CO2 into the atmosphere. When mangroves are removed for coastal development and for aquaculture,
or forested wetlands are harvested, additional carbon is released from soils and harvest residues. In the
Southeast United States, a major wood pellet fuel industry has developed where the carbon in the wood is released as CO2 immediately upon
combustion. The use of wood pellets to replace coal for electricity, on the mistaken assumption that it is carbon neutral, is expected to grow
substantially by 2050 (IEA 2017), further degrading forested wetlands while adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

CO2, added to the atmosphere by human activity, is the primary GHG responsible for climate change,
followed by CH4 and N2O (Myhre et al 2014). These gases move among the natural reservoirs of terrestrial and marine plants, soils, oceans and
the atmosphere. Human activity has reduced the size and capacity of these reservoirs while increasing GHG emissions (Ciais et al. 2013).
Altering albedo (solar reflectivity from the earth’s surfaces) from land use change can increase or decrease global warming. Climate forcing
(heat trapping) from black C (particulate matter from fossil fuel and biofuels combustion (Bond et al. 2013) is a significant contributor to global
warming.

The average annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the period 2006-2015 are estimated to be 10.3 PgCy-1 (Petagrams C per year or 1015
grams C per year) with 9.3±0.5 PgCy-1 from fossil fuels and industrial processes and 1.0±0.5 PgCy-1 from land use change (Fig. 1, Le Quéré et al.
2016). The total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes between 1750 and 2011 are estimated to be 375±30 PgC, and the total
amount from land use change is estimated to be 180±80 PgC. Therefore, nearly
one-third of CO2 added to the atmosphere
from human activity has come from deforestation and oxidation of disturbed soil organic matter (Ciais et al. 2013). By
November 2017, CO2 in the atmosphere had increased to 865 PgC or 406 ppm (NOAA 2018).

The net annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere each year is 4.5±0.5 PgCy-1 or slightly less than half of annual emissions, and concentrations
have increased by over 40% above preindustrial levels. The
biosphere has been the major means for removing and
sequestering atmospheric CO2 for over 300 million years, but its potential to be a major resource for
addressing climate change has been underappreciated in current policy discussions. Each year, 2.6±0.5 PgC equal to about
25% of annual emissions is removed by the ocean’s phytoplankton or is dissolved in the ocean’s waters. The difference between total emissions
to the atmosphere and net removals by the oceans requires that an additional amount of CO2 equivalent to 3.1±0.9 PgCy-1 would need to be
removed by terrestrial ecosystems to balance the carbon flows. This is nearly 30% of annual anthropogenic emissions from all sources. This
analysis only reports estimates of the aggregate removal of CO2 by the terrestrial biosphere (all plants and soils), and does not explicitly
consider the specific role of wetlands as either a source or a sink (Fig. 1, Le Quéré et al. 2016).

CH4 has a 100-year Global Warming Potential more than 28 times that of CO2 (Myhre et al. 2013). It is
estimated that between 1750 and 2011 human activity has increased atmospheric CH4 by a factor of 2.5 from 1984 to
4954 Tg CH4 y-1 (722 ppb to1803 ppb) (1 Teragram CH4 is 1012 grams CH4) (Ciais et al. 2013). Currently the major sources of emissions arise
from fossil fuel usage (85-105 Tg CH4 y-1), ruminant livestock (87-94 Tg CH4 y-1), landfills and waste (67-90 Tg CH4 y-1), and rice production
(33-40 Tg CH4 y-1). Average annual anthropogenic emissions of CH4 from all these sources between 2000 and 2009 total between 272-329 Tg
CH4 y-1 CH4 is removed from the atmosphere at a rate of 492-785 Tg CH4 y-1 mostly by atmospheric chemistry with small contributions from
soil oxidation (Fig. 2) (Ciais et al. 2013). CH4 emissions from wetlands are between 177 and 284 Tg CH4 y-1, with an additional 8-73 Tg CH4 y-1
emitted from freshwater sources.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) has a radiative forcing ~300 times that of CO2. It is a byproduct of both nitrification (under
aerobic conditions) and denitrification (under anaerobic conditions), and thus can be produced in wetland soils (Megonigal et
al. 2004). However, freshwater and saltwater wetland soils are a source of N2O only if they receive excessive levels of reactive nitrogen –
otherwise they may be a sink for this potent GHG (e.g. Auget et al 2014, Chmura et al. 2016).

While natural solutions have focused on the role of forests to remove and sequester CO2, there is substantially more C sequestered in soils than
in vegetation. The range of estimates for carbon sequestered in vegetation is 450-650 PgC, while the estimate for C stored in soils is 1500-2400
PgC with an additional 1700 PgC estimated to be in permafrost (Ciais et al. 2013). The large amount of carbon sequestered in wetlands is
discussed in subsequent sections. As soils warm, and as permafrost thaws, these soils releasetheir stored C as CO2 or CH4
resulting from microbial decomposition of soil organic carbon (SOC). These feedback emissions trap
additional heat and warm the planet further. A first priority is to avoid disturbing wetlands and keep
temperatures from rising as much as possible. As the subsequent sections illustrate, wetlands can play a significant role in
addressing climate change by sequestering C, and by providing climate resiliency and adaptation while providing additional
ecosystem services.

To limit excessive warming, it is necessary to stabilize CO2, CH4, N2O and other GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere at an appropriate level, by decreasing emission rates and increasing removal rates. There are three basic strategies for
accomplishing this goal.

Feedbacks accelerate climate change --- overwhelms all defense

Pearce 20 --- Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the U.K. He is a contributing
writer for Yale Environment 360 and is the author of numerous books, “Why ‘Carbon-Cycle Feedbacks’
Could Drive Temperatures Even Higher”, Yale360, April 28 th 2020, https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-
carbon-cycle-feedbacks-could-drive-temperatures-even-higher

The risks of such rapid runaway carbon releases to the atmosphere have been worrying ecologists for a
while. That worry is now being reinforced by the projections of a new generation of climate models designed
to factor in how ecosystems respond to climate change.

Until now, most

climate models have largely confined themselves to assessing how our CO2 emissions warm
the air, and how that warming interacts with physical feedbacks such as reduced ice cover, elevated
atmospheric water vapor, and changes to clouds. This remains a work in progress. I wrote here on Yale Environment 360 in February how new
field research suggests that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms, pushing global heating into
overdrive.

When ecological feedbacks have been included in the models, it has mostly been in a very simplistic way.
But new models being developed for the next IPCC assessment of climate science are changing that. For the first time,
they capture the full range of possibilities for how nature’s ability to soak up CO2 may change as the climate
changes, says Richard Betts of Britain’s Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the world’s top climate modeling groups. His initial assessment of the
early outcomes of these new models is sounding alarm bells.

Writing with Zeke Hausfather, of the Breakthrough Institute, in a blog this month on the website Carbon Brief, he warns that many
of the
projections of the new models “end up with much higher CO2 concentrations by 2100.” That means more
warming. “The combination of high climate sensitivity and high carbon-cycle feedbacks could result in
substantial warming, even under more moderate emissions scenarios,” they say.

Even a scenario that is “reasonably consistent with currently enacted climate policies ” could deliver up
to 5 degrees C of warming rather than the current estimate of 3 degrees. This, Betts says, is “because the
upper end of possible feedbacks results in 40 percent more CO2 in the air than previously supposed: 936
parts per million [ppm] by 2100, compared to a prediction without the carbon-cycle feedbacks of 670 ppm.” (Current levels are 415 ppm, and
pre-industrial levels were around 280 ppm.)
And if the world backtracks on existing climate policies, things
could be a great deal worse. One such scenario based on this
produced an almost unimaginable warming of 7.7 degrees C (13.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century,
rather than the 6 degrees C predicted without the carbon-cycle feedbacks.

Extinction
Worland 20 --- Justin Worland is a Washington D.C.-based correspondent for TIME covering energy
and the environment., “2020 Is Our Last, Best Chance to Save the Planet”, Time, JULY 9, 2020,
https://time.com/5864692/climate-change-defining-moment/

We’re standing at a climate crossroads: the world has already warmed 1.1°C since the Industrial Revolution. If we
pass 2°C, we risk hitting one or more major tipping points, where the effects of climate change go from
advancing gradually to changing dramatically overnight, reshaping the planet. To ensure that we don’t
pass that threshold, we need to cut emissions in half by 2030. Climate change has understandably fallen out of the public
eye this year as the coronavirus pandemic rages. Nevertheless, this year, or perhaps this year and next, is likely to be the most
pivotal yet in the fight against climate change. “We’ve run out of time to build new things in old ways,” says Rob
Jackson, an earth system science professor at Stanford University and the chair of the Global Carbon Project. What we do now will
define the fate of the planet–and human life on it–for decades.
The time frame for effective climate action was always going to be tight, but the coronavirus pandemic has shrunk it further. Scientists and
policymakers expected the green transition to occur over the next decade, but the pandemic has pushed 10 years of anticipated investment in
everything from power plants to roads into a monthslong time frame. Countries have already spent $11 trillion to help stem the economic
damage from COVID-19. They could spend trillions more. “It’s in this next six months that recovery strategies are likely to be formulated and
the path is set,” says Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank chief economist known for his landmark 2006 report warning that climate change
could devastate the global economy.

We don’t know where the chips will fall: Will a newfound respect for science and a fear of future shocks lead us to finally wake up, or will the
desire to return to normal overshadow the threats lurking just around the corner?

We find ourselves on the brink of climate catastrophe in large part because of the decisions made during a past crisis. As
the world came out of the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. launched a rapid bid to remake the global economy–running on fossil
fuels. In the first postwar years, Americans moved to suburbs and began driving gas-guzzling cars to work, while the federal government built a
highway system to connect the country for those vehicles. The single biggest line item in the Marshall Plan, the U.S. government program that
funded the European recovery, went to support oil, which ensured that the continent’s economy would also run on that fossil fuel. Meanwhile,
plastic, an oil derivative, became the go-to building block for consumer goods after the U.S. had developed production capacity for use in World
War II.

The underlying philosophy of economic development in this time period was a focus on gross national product, a term developed by U.S.
government economists during the Depression, which included consumption as a proxy for prosperity: the more we consume, the better off we
are, according to this model, which, in the postwar era, the U.S. assiduously spread abroad. The promise of endless growth also required an
endless supply of oil to power factories, automobiles and jet planes. In 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sealed a deal with Ibn Saud, the
first King of Saudi Arabia, trading security for access to the country’s vast oil reserves. Every U.S. President since, implicitly or explicitly, has
continued that exchange.

The coronavirus pandemic is the most significant disruption yet to the postwar fossil-fuel order. The global economy is expected to contract
more than 5% this year, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is a challenge so big that it has also created a once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to change direction.

This moment comes just in time. In 2018, a landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.’s climate-science
body, warned that allowing the planet to warm any more than 2°C above preindustrial levels would drive
hundreds of millions of people into poverty , destroy coral reefs and leave some countries unable to adapt.
A 2019 analysis in the journal Nature identified nine tipping points–from the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet
to the thawing of Arctic permafrost–that the planet appears close to reaching, any one of which might very well be triggered if
warming exceeds 1.5°C. “Going beyond 2°C is a very critical step,” says Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research, “not only in terms of economic and human impact but also in terms of the stability of the earth .”

To keep temperatures from rising past the 1.5°C goal, we would need to cut global greenhouse-gas emissions 7.6% every year for the next
decade, according to a report from the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP). That’s about the level the COVID-19 pandemic will reduce
emissions this year, but virtually no one thinks a deadly pandemic and accompanying unemployment is a sustainable way to halt climate
change–and recessions are typically followed by sharp rebounds in emissions.

To achieve the 1.5°C goal without creating mass disruption has always meant thoughtfully restructuring the
global economy, moving it away from fossil-fuel extraction slowly but surely. Scientists and economists agree
this is the last opportunity we have to do so. “If we delay further than 2020,” says Rockstrom, “there’s absolutely
no empirical evidence that it can be done in an orderly way.”
 1AC --- Water Module --- Hypoxia

Scenario ___ -- Hypoxia

Loss of wetlands causes algae blooms --- massive dead zones

Kelley and Bantz 19 - *obtained his Juris Doctor from the Sturm College of Law where he served as
the Volume 22 Editor-in-Chief of the University of Denver Water Law Review. **Cassandra Bantz
obtained her bachelor’s degree in Environmental Sustainability from the University of Washington.
*Kelley, Kole W. and **Bantz, Cassandra N. (2019) "WOTUS: The Water Definition Battle that Defines
the Nation," Mitchell Hamline Law Review: Vol. 46 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at:
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol46/iss1/3

There are multiple sources that feed navigable waters. If protection is only granted to navigable waters, then efforts to
eliminate pollution will be ineffective because the water flowing into those navigable water systems are
not monitored at the same level as the waterway systems themselves . The EPA suggests nutrient pollution is
“one of America's most widespread, costly and challenging environmental problems.”76 Nutrient
pollution is caused when an excess amount of nitrogen and phosphorus enter into the water system.77
While both of these elements occur naturally in the environment, human activities can greatly influence their
concentration in natural systems through excess runoff and mismanagement .78 In large concentrations,
nitrogen and phosphorus will decrease the productivity of aquatic ecosystems by disrupting their
chemical balance.79 The overabundance of nitrogen and phosphorous encourages the growth of algae
that can overwhelm the ecosystem leading to dangerous algae blooms.80 When this occurs, the
availability of oxygen drastically decreases, resulting in a die-off of fish and aquatic life, as well as the
creation of potentially hazardous drinking water .81 Without proper management systems in place,
tributaries, lakes, and streams can introduce higher levels of nutrient pollutants into rivers causing a
decrease in the productivity of the entire system .82 The 2015 Rule created a management system for these water
sources83 and extended protection to these sources under the CWA.84 The protection granted to these waters
helps to maintain water quality and supports the aquatic life and wildlife depending on these sources for
habitat and survival. If the removal of the 2015 Rule is successful, the ramifications could lead to
further deterioration in aquatic ecosystems.

Dead zones trigger chain reactions --- destroying entire oceans --- Wetland filtration
system key to mitigation
Daley 17 --- Beth Daley editor and general manager of The Conversation US, an independent, nonprofit
media organization dedicated to authenticated explanatory journalism and high-quality public discourse,
“Gulf of Mexico ‘dead zone’ is already a disaster – but it could get worse”, The Conversation, Aug 11 th
2017, https://theconversation.com/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-is-already-a-disaster-but-it-could-get-
worse-82175

It is perhaps no surprise then that ultimate

cause of the Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone can be found many miles
inland. Fertilisers used by farmers then wash into the Mississippi River and eventually into the sea, where
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus stimulate an explosion in microscopic algae , creating huge
“algal blooms”. The algae then die and sink to the bottom, where they decompose . But the same bacteria which
decompose the algae also use the sea’s oxygen during the process, leaving an “anoxic” ocean.

Fish and other mobile sea creatures are able to escape the suffocating dead zone. Less lucky however are the
sponges, corals, sea
squirts and other animals who live their lives fixed in one place on the sea bed. Low oxygen levels place them under
great stress and we have seen huge mortalities. Such losses will of course ripple up the food web,
creating a negative chain reaction of increasing mortality rates in larger and larger animals.
The “dead zone” has grown this year due to increased rainfall in America’s Midwest washing ever greater amounts of nutrients into the
Mississippi, which ultimately end up in the Gulf. Not
only is this a huge conservation issue – the Gulf contains key
nursery habitats such as mangrove forests, sea grass beds and coral reefs that benefit adjacent fisheries – but it also has huge
consequences for the local fishing economy , particularly the shrimp industry.

Steps are under way to slow down the ecological disaster . Some farmers in the Mississippi basin are using large
grassy zones along waterways in order to soak up the agricultural fertilisers and filter out many of the
nutrients before they make their way down the Mississippi to pollute the Gulf. However, it remains to be seen
whether such measures are effective – and US farmers certainly need to greatly reduce the nitrogen and phosphates they use.

In the century since Muir’s death, things have sped up. A larger population demands more food which means more deforestation, more
farmland and more fertiliser. The increase demand placed on our land is ultimately affecting the marine environment.

These losses are unsustainable. The marine environment is integral for all life on earth, from an
ecological and economic point of view. If we keep losing ecosystem services such as coastal nursery
habitats and spawning grounds at this current rate, it will not just be an area the size of a state that is a
dead zone, but the whole Gulf, or even whole oceans.

Extinction
Senanayake 18 --- Ranil Senanayake, Chairman at Earthrestoration, “Are we killing the future ?”, Oct
29th 2018, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-killing-future-ranil-senanayake

A new study by Princeton University shows Earth's oxygen levels are on the decline . By studying the Air bubbles trapped
within ice, the time of "deposition" and can be analysed for paleo-oxygen levels. The study found that the amount of oxygen found in the
atmosphere is decreasing steadily by 0.7% but over the last 100 years it has suddenly declined to a comparatively speedy 0.10%. Although this
decline will not cause immediate health problems globally, areas of low concentration are now beginning to appear. In
highly industrialized and urbanized cities like Mexico City or New Delhi, Oxygen concentrations as low as 17% have been recorded. Living in
these ‘islands’ of low Oxygen concentration will impact individuals negatively . This reality is totally ignored in the
process of ‘Urban Development’.

But it is the disappearance of Oxygen from the oceans, should ring alarm bells. Ocean dead zones with zero
oxygen have quadrupled in size since 1950. Again, Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning is the cause of the large-scale deoxygenation, as
warmer waters hold less oxygen

In coastal regions, fertiliser,

manure and sewage pollution cause algal blooms and when the algae decompose
oxygen is sucked out of the water. Oceanographer Dr. Diaz states “No other variable of such ecological
importance to coastal ecosystems has changed so drastically in such a short period of time from human
activities as dissolved oxygen.”

But when it comes to Oxygen, The Ocean is even more efficient than the forests , accounting for about
70% of annual production of free molecular Oxygen , the bulk of which is released into the atmosphere. Thus the
increase of ‘dead zones’ with no oxygen, not only impacts fisheries and food, it also impacts the
presence of phytoplankton responsible for the massive amount of Oxygen released into the global
commons. As this is the process that provides 60-70 % of the annual input of free Oxygen required to
maintain our global stock at equilibrium, any increase of oceanic dead zones will mean reduction of
Oxygen production provided to the atmospheric. Currently, Oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is 1.2x1015 ton
(12,000,000,000,000,000 t), with a Turnover rate about 4000 years, whereby Oxygen from photosynthesis by plants are constantly added to the
atmosphere so that a mean of 21.9 % in the atmosphere is maintained.

In the current use of Oxygen, supply is taken for granted with no investment nor responsibility for its replacement. The combined
effects of respiration, fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and loss of oceanic production, has begun to affect the Global Commons of our
atmosphere and are creating increasing events of reduced air quality and low atmospheric oxygen
concentration. Already that
effect is being felt as increases in lung disease and difficulty in breathing in many cities . Bringing into stark
focus, the motto of the American Lung Association: “If you can’t breathe, nothing else matters .”

So, while waiting for industry to become responsible and replace the atmospheric Oxygen that they consume, we should not be holding our
breath. We should be working at initiatives that seek to build up the Photosynthetic Biomass stocks wherever possible. The most promising
areas for development being the deforested and degraded lands. The most promising resource for implementation being the rural poor. Each
tree estimated to produce over 150Kg of Oxygen per year. Each human being uses about 750 kg of Oxygen per year for breathing. Thus
establishing 4-5 trees will compensate for the Oxygen we breathe from the Global Commons. But in the end, it is those who live in rural areas
who will be able to help us by planting, looking after and protecting the trees we plant. It will be rural societies who can help us be responsible
for the air we breathe. They could be empowered if those industrial users of atmospheric Oxygen like, chemical industries, internal combustion
engines, jet engines and industrial use of atmospheric Oxygen that is being used furiously with not a penny paid to replace the Oxygen that our
lungs require.

The magic engine of photosynthesis is being destroyed. The forests are disappearing for ‘fossil based development’ and
the Oceans are dying due to ‘fossil based development’ as is the air, dying on the altar of ‘fossil based development’. This
notion of ‘development’ has become an abused word used by political hacks to defend their greedy, self-centered actions. For how long
can we allow them to destroy the very basis for life on their crooked altar?
 1AC --- Water Module --- Economy Terminal

Scenario #___ is Economy

Trump’s WOTUS interpretation causes extreme depletion of fish --- collapsing the
economy
Colvin et al 19 --- Dr. Susan A. R. Colvin is an Assistant Professor of Sustainable Fisheries at Unity
College in Maine, et al, “Headwater Streams and Wetlands are Critical for Sustaining Fish, Fisheries, and
Ecosystem Services”, Jan 2019, https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsh.10229

Headwaters are broadly defined as portions of a river basin that contribute to the development and
maintenance of downstream navigable waters including rivers, lakes, and oceans (FEMAT 1993). Headwaters
include wetlands outside of floodplains, small stream tributaries with permanent flow, tributaries with
intermittent flow (e.g., periodic or seasonal flows supported by groundwater or precipitation), or
tributaries or areas of the landscape with ephemeral flows (e.g., short-term flows that occur as a direct
result of a rainfall event) (USEPA 2013; USGS 2013). Headwater streams comprise the majority of river networks
globally (Datry et al. 2014a); in the conterminous United States, headwater streams comprise 79% of river length,
and they directly drain just over 70% of the land area (Figure 1). Along with wetlands, these ecosystems are
essential for sustaining fish and fisheries in the USA (Nadeau and Rains 2007; Larned et al. 2010; Datry et al. 2014b).
When headwaters are polluted, or headwater habitats are destroyed, fish, fisheries, and ecosystem
services (i.e., benefits that humans gain from the natural environment and from normally functioning ecosystems) are compromised or
completely lost.

With theU.S. Clean Water Act of 1972 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act), Congress recognized the importance of
aquatic habitat and ecosystem connectivity in the stated objective of the Act "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Biological integrity has been defined as "the capability of supporting and maintaining a
balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that
of the natural habitat of the region" (Frey 1977; Karr and Dudley 1981). The
Act provides authority for the federal
government to protect navigable waterways from channelization, pollution , and other forms of impairment by
making it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into "navigable waters" without a permit, 33 U.S.C.
§§1311(a), 1342(a). This authority extends to wetlands that are not navigable but adjacent to navigable-in-fact waterways (United States v.
Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 1985). The authority does not extend to waters that lack a "significant
nexus" to navigable waters (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. [SWANCC] v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 2001).
However, federal jurisdiction over non-navigable waters and their adjacent waters remained unclear .

The 2006 Supreme Court decision Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715, 2006) did little to resolve the confusion, with a split
decision from the court regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. In writing for four justices. Justice Scalia defined "waters of the United

States" as only those waters and wetlands that contain "a relatively permanent flow"or that possess "a
continuous surface connection" to waters with relatively permanent flow. Scalia's definition excluded intermittent and
ephemeral streams, and wetlands that lack a continuous surface connection to other jurisdictional waters (i.e., wetlands outside of floodplains). This
definition differs from that posited by Justice Kennedy in an opinion concurring with the plurality judgment
to remand the case for further proceedings but not agreeing with the reasoning of the four justices
represented by Scalia. In contrast, Kennedy gave deference to Congressional intent to allow the agencies to
regulate pollution (dredge and fill) of waters of the United States . Justice Kennedy ruled that wetlands
outside of floodplains, and intermittent and ephemeral streams should be included as waters of the United States
if they "significantly affect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity" of downstream navigable
waters. Therefore, Kennedy's definition of waters of the United States includes headwaters that are not
necessarily navigable but are nevertheless connected to some degree with navigable waters
downstream.
Following an extensive scientific review of the literature on waterbody connectivity (USEPA 2015a), which included a detailed review by an EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB) of technical experts from the public ("SAB Review") (SAB, Letter to Gina McCarthy. October 17, 2014. SAB Review
of the Draft EPA Report Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence), the
Obama administration issued the Waters of the U.S. ( WOTUS) Rule in 2015, which clarified the jurisdiction
of the Clean Water Act to include protections for intermittent headwater streams and hydrologically
connected wetlands (i.e., with a permanent surface inflow or outflow and directly adjacent to navigable waters), with wetlands outside
of the flood plains to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The American Fisheries Society (AFS) supports that rule and
the science underpinning its development, as documented by review of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed
scientific studies by technical experts to determine degrees of connectivity and their ecological consequences between navigable waters,
wetlands, and headwater streams (USEPA 2015a).

On February 28, 2017, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army to review and rescind or revise the 2015 rule. The
proposed "Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, US EPA, 2018 Revised Definition
of "Waters of the United States") establishes a narrower legal definition, implementing the pre-Obama era
regulations that provided fewer protections for thousands of miles of headwater streams and millions of acres
of wetlands outside of floodplains. Those wetlands are distributed across 6.59 million hectares in the
conterminous USA as, for example, playa lakes, prairie potholes , Carolina and Delmarva Bays, poco-sins, and vernal
pools; they provide valuable habitat for fish and other organisms and are particularly vulnerable
ecosystems (Tiner et al. 2003; Lane and D'Amico 2016; Creed et al. 2017; Figure 2). We refer to headwater streams and
wetlands outside of floodplains collectively as " headwaters." However, we also emphasize the inherent
complexity of natural systems, and recognize and provide examples of waterbody types that provide
similar functions as headwaters such as floodplain wetlands that lack a continuous hydrologic surface
connection to a river, low-gradient streams that flow through floodplains, and sloughs and side-channels of navigable rivers.

Headwaters provide numerous services that are essential to ecosystems (Peterson et al. 2001; Meyer et al. 2003),
including sustaining aquifers and supplying clean water for more than a third of the U.S. population (USEPA 2009). At
regional scales, headwaters are critical for sustaining aquatic biodiversity (Meyer et al. 2007; Clarke et al. 2008) and
for providing vital spawning and rearing habitat for migratory fishes, including commercially fished
species (Quinn 2005; Schindler et al. 2010; McClenachan et al. 2015). Headwaters provide dispersal corridors and habitat for fishes and
other aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms (e.g., invertebrates, amphibians, and birds), including many endemic and rare species (Steward et al.
2012; Jaeger et al. 2014; Sullivan et al. 2015). Ephemeral
headwater streams can support levels of aquatic
invertebrate diversity and abundance comparable to, or greater than, those estimated for perennial
headwaters, as well as taxa found nowhere else in the watershed (Dieterich and Anderson 2000; Progar and Moldenke 2002; Price et al.
2003).

Headwaters and their ecosystem services are tightly intertwined with the nation's cultural landscape (Boraas and Knott 2018) and are
highly vulnerable to a host of human impacts (Creed et al. 2017). Climate change, channel modification, water diversion, and
land development (e.g., urbanization, agriculture, mining, deforestation) impair and destroy headwaters by, for example, increasing erosion,
sedimentation, and desiccation in both headwaters and downstream reaches of river networks (Walsh et al. 2005; Freeman et al. 2007; Perkin
et al. 2017). Pollution
of headwaters, including runoff of excess nutrients and other pollutants, degrades
water quality affecting downstream ecosystems. Two striking U.S. examples are discharge effluent from mining (Woody et al.
2010; Daniel et al. 2015; Giam et al. 2018) and nutrient loading in the Mississippi River causing the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone", a vast area of
hypoxia that reduces biodiversity and commercial fisheries, with major economic and social costs (Rabalais et al. 1995; Rabotyagov et al. 2014).
Similarly, polluted
headwaters contribute to harmful algal blooms that result in toxic water, fish kills,
domestic animal and human morbidity, and economic damage (Tango 2008; Staletovich 2018; Zimmer 2018). For
wetlands outside of floodplains, global estimates indicate continued loss of >30% since 1970 (Dixon et al. 2016).

Headwater stream losses in many regions of the USA are underestimated because drainage networks have not been mapped at
sufficiently fine spatial scales (Hughes and Omernik 1983; Meyer and Wallace 2001; Colson et al. 2008), thus posing serious risk to
ecological and societal benefits (Creed et al. 2017). For example, 207,770 km (33%) of the total length of stream networks in the
conterminous western USA mapped as perennial was determined to be non-perennial or not a stream. The map error varied from 55% of
stream length in the Southwest to 33% in the western Great Plains to 24% in the western mountains (Stoddard et al. 2005). Changes in
estimates from perennial to intermittent or ephemeral streams is a result of mapping errors, climate change, and water withdrawals. Similarly,
Perkin et al. (2017) determined a loss of 558 km (21%) of stream length from 1950 to 1980 in the Upper Kansas River Basin, presumably as a
result of ground-water pumping accentuated by climate change. These investigators projected a cumulative loss of 844 km (32%) by 2060. In
other words, highly vulnerable intermittent and ephemeral streams and rivers are increasingly replacing perennial streams and rivers.

Although the proposed rule in part uses a hypothetical model developed in the SAB Review (SAB, Letter to Gina McCarthy. October 17, 2014)
that illustrates how gradients in connectivity might be used to provide a semi-quantitative evaluation of the downstream impacts of changes to
streams and wetlands (Figure 3, pg. 54) to support lack of protection for wetlands outside of floodplains (i.e., wetlands lacking a surface
connection to protected waterways), ephemeral streams, and some intermittent streams, it is important to clarify this model and put it in the
full context of the SAB Review. As supported by the SAB Review (SAB, Letter to Gina McCarthy. October 17, 2014), connectivity between
headwaters and downstream waterbodies does indeed reflect a gradient in the variability of the frequency, duration, magnitude, predictability,
and consequences of physical, chemical, and biological connections. Conceptually, this connectivity gradient suggests that, comparing individual
stream or wetland to individual stream or wetland, intermittent and ephemeral streams and non-floodplain wetlands have a decreased
probability that changes at the location of interest will be transmitted to downstream waters as compared to perennial streams and flood plain
wetlands, respectively (e.g.. Figure 3, pg. 54). However, the SAB Review also notes that even
low levels of connectivity can be
important relative to impacts on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters.
The SAB Review also highlights the importance of the cumulative effects of streams and wetlands on
downstream waters. Treating the vast number of non-perennial streams and wetlands outside of
floodplains as single units is akin to treating a capillary as an isolated anatomical part, ignoring their
collective importance to the entire human circulatory system.

Because of the importance of headwaters, any

rule that excludes their protection will have far reaching
implications for fish, wildlife, and their habitats, as well as economies dependent on those ecosystems.
Headwaters are key to the sustainability of fish stocks in both upstream and downstream waters. Threatened and
endangered species will be harder to recover, and more species will be at risk of becoming imperiled.
Simply put, loss of protections for headwaters would have grave consequences for fish and fisheries.
Ultimately, communities across the USA would lose the economic, social, and cultural benefits derived
from headwaters. In the following sections, we provide a brief overview of scientific evidence supporting the ecological, social,
economic, and cultural importance of headwaters, and highlight some implications of returning to reduced federal protections.

Headwaters Support Ecosystems Headwaters perform ecological functions (i.e., biological, geochemical, and physical processes that occur
within an ecosystem) that are critical for ecosystem services throughout their drainage basins. Headwaters deliver water, sediments, and
organic material to downstream waters; contribute to nutrient cycling and water quality; enhance flood protection and mitigation; and provide
recreational opportunities (Gomi et al. 2002; Richardson and Danehy 2007; Hill et al. 2014; Cohen et al. 2016 ).
Headwater ecosystems
provide both habitat and food resources for fish and other aquatic and riparian organisms; in turn, fish
in headwaters affect food-web dynamics and contribute to the functioning of headwater ecosystems (Hill et al. 2014; Richardson
and Danehy 2007; Sullivan 2012). Ecosystem functions in headwaters also maintain aquatic and riparian
biodiversity and the sustainability of fish stocks not only in headwater reaches, but also in larger
downstream habitats. These and other functions of headwater streams make them economically vital, with recent
estimates at US$15.7 trillion per year in ecosystem services for the conterminous USA and Hawai’i (Nadeau and Rains
2007). For wetlands outside of floodplains, ecosystem service estimates are $673 billion per year for the conterminous USA (Lane and D’Amico
2016).
Headwaters receive runoff and groundwater from watersheds and discharge to larger waterbodies downstream. In doing so, they transport
sediment and organic material, including large wood, from adjacent and upstream riparian systems, that are essential for the ecological
condition of downstream ecosystems (Gregory et al. 1991; Benda and Dunne 1997). Drifting organic matter (organisms and particulate organic
matter) from headwaters provides food for fishes and invertebrates in downstream reaches (Gomi at al. 2002;
Wipfli and Gregovich 2002; Wipfli and Baxter 2010). The provisioning of large wood for habitat development is crucial for aquatic biota,
including juvenile salmon and trout (Bilby and Ward 1991; Bilby et al. 2003; Herdrich et al. 2018). Changes in the large-wood recruitment
regime resulting from timber harvests have depleted complexity in many mountain streams (Fausch and Young 2004) as well as in streams in
other areas of the country (e.g., Upper Midwest; Richards 1976; Wohl 2014). Removing wood from streams can also result in reduction of pools
and overall habitat complexity as well as fewer and smaller individuals of both coldwater and warmwater fishes (Fausch and Northcote 1992;
Dolloff and Warren 2003). Unpolluted headwaters are essential for maintenance of coldwater fish stocks,
including Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Coho Salmon O. kisutch, Steelhead O. mykiss, Cutthroat Trout O. clarkii, Bull
Trout Salvelinus confluentus, Apache Trout O. apache, Gila Trout O. gilae, Golden Trout O. aguabonita, Redband Trout O. mykiss spp., Brook
Trout S. fontinalis, Brown Trout Salmo trutta, and Atlantic Salmon S. salar.

When the natural flow regimes of headwater streams are altered, downstream water quality often is
impaired. Headwaters mediate the intensity and frequency of downstream floods, and play a significant role in global carbon and nitrogen
cycling (Gomi et al. 2002; Bernhardt et al. 2005; Lowe and Likens 2005; Marx et al. 2017). Discharge from headwaters also
influences downstream fluxes of dissolved and particulate organic matter and nutrients (Alexander et al. 2007;
Lassaletta et al. 2010). The cycling of nutrients—Including rates of nitrogen uptake, storage, regeneration, and
export—is a critical function of headwaters. For instance, Peterson et al. (2001) reported that the most rapid uptake and
transformation of inorganic nitrogen can occur in the smallest streams of a catchment, particularly temporary streams, where tightly coupled
waterstreambed interactions facilitate instream retention of nitrogen. Most nitrogen flowing through a drainage network is estimated to come
from headwater streams; in the Northeast, headwater tributaries can deliver up to 45% of the nitrogen load flowing downstream (Alexander et
al. 2007). Additionally, transfer of nitrogen to the atmosphere occurs in headwater systems through denitrification (Mulholland et al. 2009).
Hotspots of nutrient transformations are typically linked to physical and microbial processes in headwaters (e.g., McClain et al. 2003). Channel
alterations, excess nutrients and sediments, and losses of flows in headwater streams deteriorate water quality (e.g., eutrophication and
hypoxia) in downstream systems throughout the USA (Alexander et al. 2007; USEPA 2009, 2016). Further loss of headwater systems is expected
to have major negative consequences for biogeochemical cycles at local to continental and global scales. Even ephemeral and intermittent
headwaters provide important ecological functions and ecosystem services (Steward et al. 2012). In arid and semi-arid regions, dry streambeds
are "seed and egg banks" for aquatic biota, and when flowing, function as dispersal corridors and temporal ecotones linking wet and dry
phases. During dry phases, ephemeral streams store organic material; when flowing, these streams are hotspots for nutrient cycling and other
biogeochemical processes (Fisher et al. 1982; McClain et al. 2003). In some arid regions, up to 96% of streams contain little or no flow during
much of the year; however, during monsoons they are critical for conveying runoff (Meyer et al. 2003). Permeable surficial geology and low
slopes can reduce flood peaks in headwaters and extend the flow of cool water to downstream reaches, thereby expanding thermal refuges
(Gomi et al. 2002). Cool headwaters
provide important thermal refuges in regions especially susceptible to
climate change, including the Desert Southwest and Intermountain West.
Although fish abundance and diversity generally are lower in headwater systems compared to downstream reaches (Schlosser 1987), species
composition can be distinct from the rest of the network (Paller 1994). Further, headwaters often support ecological specialist
as well as threatened taxa not found elsewhere within the river network (Lowe and Likens 2005; Liang et al. 2013;
DeRolph et al. 2015; also see The importance of headwaters for imperiled species). Fish inhabiting wetlands located outside of
floodplains may benefit from greater availability of food resources compared to habitats in other aquatic ecosystems
(Snodgrass et al. 1996; Baber et al. 2002).

Fish contribute both directly and indirectly to headwater ecosystem processes (e.g., Hanson et al. 2005) that in turn affect biodiversity and
productivity in the receiving river network (Meyer et al. 2007). Through their spawning and foraging activities, fish influence local biotic
communities by modifying substrates (e.g., spawning salmonid redds; Montgomery et al. 1996; Moore et al. 2004) and resuspending detritus
and other particulate organic matter into the water column (e.g., benthic feeding by the Ozark Minnow Notropis nubilis; Gelwick et al. 1997),
where it drifts downstream to support populations of aquatic invertebrates. Furthermore, fish feeding and excretion increase availability of
inorganic nutrients and stimulate aquatic primary productivity (McIntyre et al. 2008).

Fish are often the top predators in headwater food webs, and thereby exert top-down control of invertebrate assemblages and indirectly affect
ecosystem functions such as aquatic primary and secondary production, the latter including emergent aquatic insects that export biomass from
streams to terrestrial food webs (Nakano et al. 1999; Baxter et al. 2004). Fish also link aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in other, more direct
ways. During annual leaf-out periods, insectivorous fishes feed on arthropods that fall from riparian vegetation into streams (Wipfli 1997;
Baxter et al. 2005). Fish also provide important nutritional subsidies for terrestrial consumers, such as the American dipper Cinclus mexi-canus.
North America's only aquatic songbird (e.g., Sullivan et al. 2015), and grizzly bear Ursus arctos (Matt and Suring 2018).

Many fish species occupy both headwater and downstream habitats during their life cycles (Fausch et al. 2002). For instance, most anadromous
salmonids return to their natal streams after spending most of their lives in the ocean. In doing so, fish transport marine-derived nutrients
(MDN) to headwater streams (Zhang et al. 2003). MDN from salmon carcasses have been shown to increase production of aquatic basal
resources, macroinvertebrates, and resident fish stocks (Zhang et al. 2003; Janetski et al. 2009). MDN is especially important for oligotrophic
streams, which are predominant in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska where even small inputs of certain nutrients and sources of organic matter
can significantly augment ecosystem productivity (Bilby et al. 1996). Moreover, fish in headwater streams are an important food source for
terrestrial consumers, thereby transferring nutrients and energy from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. By linking nutrients, energy, and gene
pools across space and time, fish migration has been characterized as a type of ecological "memory" of an ecosystem (Holling and Sanderson
1996).

Headwaters, their receiving waters, and their functions have already been severely affected by multiple human activities, including channel
alteration, water diversion, and land modification by agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, and urbanization (e.g., Beschta etal. 2013; Hugheset
al. 2010,2014, 2016). These land uses and others have eliminated countless headwater streams and wetlands that naturally once served as
primary, secondary, and tertiary nutrient, sediment, and contaminant treatment systems, thereby leading to untreated runoff from diffuse
pollution sources (Karr and Schlosser 1978; Kan-1991; Gammon 2005; Woody et al. 2010; Hughes et al. 2014; Daniel et al. 2015). These
stressors have caused biological and environmental degradation to over 70% of stream and river length in the conterminous USA (USEPA 2009,
2016; Crawford et al. 2016). Wetland loss—including but not limited to wetlands outside of floodplains—across the USA is staggering, with
some midwestern states (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri) having lost more than 85% of wetland area since the 1780s (Dahl 1990). Given
the vulnerability and many important ecosystem functions provided by headwaters, policies that would reduce protections are a serious
concern.

Headwaters Support Imperiled Species

Habitat loss and pollution are the primary causes of extinction of aquatic biota (Miller et al. 1989; Dudgeon et al.
2006; Arthington et al. 2016), and emerging threats exacerbate population decline of rare or range-restricted species (Minckley and Deacon
1991; Reid etal. 2018; Shirey et al. 2018). Many threatened desert fishes, such as pupfishes Cyprin-odon spp., have geographic distributions
limited entirely to one or more isolated spring-fed headwaters (Rogowski et al. 2006; Dzul et al. 2013; Figure 4), but many such isolated waters
would likely not be protected under a narrower rule. In the 1950s and 1960s, groundwater pumping in Nevada destroyed springs and
associated spring-fed wetlands, resulting in the extinction of Las Vegas Dace Rhinichthys deaconi and Ash Meadows Pool-fish Empetrichthys
merriami, and put other species at risk of extinction, including the Devils Hole Pupfish Cyprinodon diabolis. By highlighting the plight of the
remaining imperiled desert fishes, fisheries professionals increased public awareness of the nexus between groundwater and surface water
habitat (Deacon and Williams 1991). This awareness stimulated support for halting groundwater pumping in order to protect the remaining
habitat and avert further extinctions, although new threats continue to emerge (Deacon et al. 2007). For instance, up to 31 rare and
endangered fish species or subspecies that inhabit headwater streams or springs of Nevada, Utah, and California are threatened by proposed
groundwater withdrawals in southern Nevada.

Again, the primary objective of the Clean Water Act (1972) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters. That objective includes species that have become
imperiled and are listed as threatened or endangered federally under the Endangered Species Act or protected by states and other entities
(An-germeier and Karr 1994). If headwater impairment threatens a federally listed species residing in navigable waters
downstream, then that headwater dearly would merit protection under the Clean Water Act because it meets the
significant nexus test (after SW-ANCC, 2001), and this would be true whether flows are intermittent or ephemeral.

Cavefish habitat demonstrates the importance of the “significant nexus" perspective, because ephemeral or intermittent headwaters support
habitat for imperiled spedes living in habitat farther downstream (Figure 5). Aquatic habitats of federally listed Ozark Cavefish Ambtyopsis
rosae (threatened) in Cave Springs Cave, Arkansas (Graening et al. 2010), and Alabama Cavefish Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni (endangered) in Key
Cave, Alabama (USFWS 2017), are supplied water from streams that flow intermittently above and below the surface at intervals as well as
seeps, sink holes, and fractures in karst formations.

Headwater streams in this region are not navigable, but they are essential for cavefish habitat, and their discharge contributes to flows in the
Illinois (Arkansas; Brown et al. 1998) and Tennessee (USFWS 2017) rivers. Therefore, pollution of a sinkhole affects both cave habitat and
navigable waters downstream. A narrower rule defining waters of the United States that exdudes headwaters in karst terrain would allow
cavefish habitat to be polluted or destroyed such as by filling of or discharging to sinkholes.

Whereas cavefish are restricted to habitats fed by headwaters, other fishes use
headwater streams and wetlands that are
intermittent or ephemeral during limited stages of their life cycles . Because they may be dry for much
of the year, these headwaters might seem unimportant for fishes , and yet they can be essential for the
persistence of certain stocks. Intermittent streams are important spawning and refuge habitats for imperiled salmon, trout, darters,
minnows, suckers, and other fishes (Figure 6). Examples include federally listed Coho Salmon and Chinook Salmon, species with juveniles that
occupy headwater tributaries and seasonal floodplain wetlands during winter. During the rest of the year, these habitats are either dry or so
small that they are not considered suitable salmon habitat (Brown and Hartman 1988; Sommer et al. 2001; Jones et al. 2014; Katz et al. 2017;
Woelfle-Erskine et al. 2017). Nonetheless, these intermittent habitats can play a critical role in recruitment. Coho Salmon smolts that inhabit
pools in intermittent headwater streams in Oregon are larger than smolts from perennial streams in the same river basin (Wiging-ton et al.
2006). Because larger smolts have higher ocean survival rates, the loss of these intermittent streams could be detrimental to salmon
populations in coastal drainages.

Historically, western Oregon's upper Willamette River was bordered by a floodplain forest 2-9 km wide, with multiple shaded waterways;
winter floods markedly increased its floodplain stream network (Hughes et al., in press). During the past century, agriculture and channelization
have altered or eliminated most intermittent water bodies in the valley. However, the remaining temporary streams and ditches still provide
critical habitat for a wide diversity of native fish species, such as Cutthroat Trout, Rainbow Trout, endangered Chinook Salmon, and the endemic
Oregon Chub Oregonichthyes crameri. These seasonal habitats provide flood refuge, rearing habitats, and separation from invasive alien fish
species, all of which are essential for recovering and maintaining valuable sport and commercial fisheries and endangered species (Colvin et al.
2009; Hughes et al., in press; Figure 5). Collaborations with Willamette Valley landowners have been instrumental in improving Oregon Chub
habitat and leading to its delisting, and farmers are pleased to know that their winter-wet waterways offer important habitats for valued
salmonids.

Headwater streams also are important for salmon in the eastern USA. In Maine, federally endangered
Atlantic Salmon migrate up rivers and streams in early summer to take residence in deep pools with
cool, well-oxygenated water prior to their ascent into tributaries for spawning during fall (Baum 1997; NMFS 2009). Atlantic Salmon eggs,
larvae, and juveniles require clean gravel and cool, oxygenated water to ensure adequate growth and survival in headwaters until returning to
marine habitat to mature (Danie et al. 1984; NMFS 2009). Recovery of Atlantic Salmon stocks may also require reestablishing populations of
other diadromous species, such as Alewives Alosa pseudoharengus, that also depend on headwaters and that are important prey (Saunders et
al. 2006). A narrower rule that excludes intermittent headwaters in the Pacific Northwest and New England would allow pollution and
destruction of significant salmon habitat and further risk the extirpation of salmon.

Non-anadromous trout and charr also use headwaters as critical habitats, including for spawning and refuge from harsh conditions. Nearly half
of the population of Rainbow Trout O. mykiss in a Sierra

Nevada mountain stream spawned in an intermittent tributary that provided refuge from flood
disturbance and nonnative Brook Trout (Erman and Hawthorne 1976). In their native range. Brook Trout are highly reliant on cool
headwaters (Figure 7) and face declines in much of their native distribution due to impacts from dams, water diversion, channelization, and
sedimentation (Curry et al. 1997; Etnier 1997; Hudy et al. 2008). Throughout the West, the many subspecies of native Cutthroat Trout persist
primarily in small headwater streams above natural or created barriers that create refuges from nonnative species (Shepard et al. 2005; Roberts
et al. 2013).

Many headwaters of the western Great Plains and dry valleys of the intermountain West are
ephemeral, and yet are important habitats for fish during months when they have water (Figures 5 and 8). Some of the
imperiled minnow species use highly intermittent backwaters in floodplain wetlands adjacent to stream channels for spawning and rearing
(e.g., Hybogna-thusspp.; Falke et al. 2010, 2012; Medley and Shirey 2013; Hutson et al. 2018). Many minnows, suckers, sunfishes, and darters in
arid-land streams disperse between deep pools that retain water by exploiting ephemeral channels when flowing (Fausch and Bramblett 1991;
Labbe and Fausch 2000). Though adjacent floodplain wetlands of navigable waters that are defined as wetlands are currently regulated under
the Clean Water Act (U.S. v. Riverside Bayview 1985), if
the protection of temporary headwaters were to be rescinded,
significant amounts of this essential fish habitat would be at risk from changes in headwater source flows or pollution
resulting from fill and contaminated discharges.

Headwaters sometimes provide the last refuge for species threatened by loss of habitat elsewhere in
the watershed. Examples include the federally endangered Yellowcheek Darter Etheostoma moorei (endemic to the Boston Mountains of
Arkansas; Robison and Buchanan 1988; Magoulick and Lynch 2015) and the federally threatened Leopard Darter Perdna pantherina (endemic to
a few headwater streams in the Ouachita Mountains of southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas; Zale et al. 1994). The endangered
Shortnose Sucker Chasmistes breviros-tris and Lost River Sucker Deltistes luxatus depend on clean gravel in headwater tributaries or springs for
spawning as well as adjacent wetlands and nearshore vegetation for juvenile rearing (USFWS 2012b). Wetlands that were replaced by pasture
and cropland have contributed to the continued listing of this species. Thermal habitats unique to mountain headwater streams throughout the
West are expected to provide important refuges for native species in the face of climate change, including many of conservation concern, such
as Bull Trout and many subspecies of Cutthroat Trout (Wenger et al. 2011; Isaak et al. 2016). For the highly endemic Miller Lake Lamprey
Lampetra minima and southeastern pygmy sunfishes Elassoma spp., headwaters provide refuge from thermal stress, extreme hydrological
conditions, and exposure to invasive species (Hayes et al. 1998; Meyer et al. 2007).

Protecting headwater habitats is critical for the recovery and delisting of several endangered fishes. For
instance, the recently delisted Modoc Sucker Ca-tostomus microps is abundant in intermittent and low-flow headwater streams in northeastern
California and southern Oregon (Moyle and Marciochi 1975). Delisting resulted from protecting headwater tributaries and wetlands on public
and private lands from threats that included livestock grazing and stream channelization that eliminated refuge pools (Moyle and Marciochi
1975; USFWS 2015). By protecting headwaters, the USA can not only reduce the uncertainty and economic costs that come with an imperiled
species being listed under the Endangered Species Act, but also provide the foundation for successful recovery and delisting of species.

Headwaters Support Recreational and Commercial Fisheries

Inland and coastal fisheries resources have tremendous economic and social importance In the USA,
commercial and recreational fisheries contributed over $208 billion in economic impact and 1.62
million jobs in 2015 (NMFS 2015). Fishing is a major recreational activity in the USA, with nearly 12 million
participants in 2011 and creating 439,000 jobs and generating more than $63 billion across the United States in 2015
(USFWS 2012a; NMFS 2015). For instance, headwater tributaries in the western U.S. are visited annually by
thousands of anglers for both catch-and-release as well as harvest fishing. Nationally, trout anglers spent $3.5 billion on their pursuits,
supported over 100,000 jobs, and had a $10 billion economic impact, including $1.3 billion in federal and state tax revenues in 2006 (USFWS
2014).

An important consideration for the protection of headwaters is to safeguard recreational and

commercial fisheries from point and non-point sources of pollution. Removing those protections will perpetuate
current sources of pollution and worsen future impacts to downstream fisheries. In many regions of the USA, past and
current pollution continues to degrade fisheries. For example, in the western USA, legacy metal and acid-mine drainage into headwater systems
continue to threaten recreational trout fisheries (Woody et al. 2010). In 2015, the Gold King Mine spilled approximately 3 million gallons of
untreated acid mine drainage into a headwater stream, instantly changing the color and turbidity of the stream for 2 days, and closing a
valuable trout fishery for the entire summer (Rodriguez-Freire et al. 2016). Climate change and the increased frequency of warmer and drier
years is predicted to extirpate trout from nearly half their habitat throughout the interior West by the 2080s (Wenger et al. 2011b), as well as
fragment the remaining habitats and reduce trout population sizes and their connectivity (Williams et al. 2015; Isaak et al. 2016). Further
erosion of protections for headwaters may reduce or end opportunities to catch trout in these waters
and have huge impacts on recreational angling tourism.
Recreational fisheries and headwaters are tightly interconnected. Depending on the state and location, the daily economic value of trout
angling was $50-157 per person (USFWS 2012a). For example, blue-ribbon trout streams in two Idaho and Wyoming river basins yielded $12
and $29 million in county income and 341 and 851 jobs in 2004, respectively (Hughes 2015). The trout fishery in Colorado alone was valued at
$1.3 billion in 2011 (Williams et al. 2015). Brook Trout fishing in northern Maine generated over $150 million in 2013 and anglers spent $200
per day on fishing logistics (Fleming 2016). In Pennsylvania, trout anglers spent $45 per day and generated $2 million annually for rural
economies (MDNR 2018). North Carolina trout anglers generated $ 174 million in economic output (NCWRC 2013). Based on travel cost
modeling, Georgian trout anglers spent $60-160 per trip, generating $70-200 million annually (Dorison 2012). Recent estimates of freshwater
fishing contributions to U.S. Gross Domestic Product total $41.9 Billion while providing 526,600 jobs nationwide (Allen et al. 2018).
Economic contributions from freshwater fishing is also increasing, growing 11% since 2011 (Allen et al. 2018).
It's also critical economic growth when compared to other sectors, collectively the outdoor recreation economy grew
3.8% in 2016 with the overall economy grew 2.8% during the same time period (Allen et al. 2016).

The headwater systems that support these recreational fisheries are typically found at higher elevations, with critical physical habitat
requirements (e.g., temperature, flow, and dissolved oxygen) for prized trout species. Species-specific habitat requirements are uniquely
provided by these streams and driven by annual snow accumulation (and snowmelt). Recreational anglers avidly pursue several target fishes
(Cutthroat Trout, Rainbow Trout, Bull Trout, Brook Trout, Brown Trout, and Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus) found in these higher-elevation
streams. Although they represent a small proportion of recreational angling nationally, these stocks sustain a huge market for fly-fishing anglers
from throughout the USA and other nations.

Trout are not the only prized fishery that depends on headwaters. The Alligator Gar Atractosteus spatula, one of the largest and most primitive
fishes in North America, is a popular target for anglers and archers in the southeastern USA. This fishery has created a booming market for gar-
fishing guides that charge $750 per day (Benning 2009). Alligator Gar stocks have declined throughout their native ranges, including apparent
extirpations in many regions. During late spring and summer high flows, adult gar move from rivers into small floodplain tributaries (and
ditches) to spawn in flooded ephemeral wetlands and fields containing submerged vegetation (Solomon et al. 2013; Kluender et al. 2016).
Recruitment success of juvenile gar is correlated with large, long-duration summer floods and spawning habitat availability (Buckmeier et al.
2017; Robertson et al. 2018). This connectivity allows for gar dispersal between rivers and ephemeral floodplain headwaters, which is critical for
sustaining this species (Robertson et al. 2018).

Headwaters both directly and indirectly affect commercial fisheries . Among the most valuable commercial
fisheries dependent on headwaters are the salmon fisheries of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. From 2012 to 2015, salmon
commercial and recreational fisheries were valued at $3.4 million in economic output and produced
$1.2 million in wages and 27,000 full-time jobs annually (Gislason et al. 2017). The world's most valuable wild
salmon fishery in Bristol Bay, Alaska, where headwaters remain relatively pristine, generates $1.5 billion in annual economic
activity and 20,000 full-time jobs (BBNC 2017). As mentioned previously, spawning Pacific salmon import MDN into nutrient-poor
headwaters, thereby augmenting production of basal resources in aquatic food webs. In the northeastern United States, a burgeoning
commercial fishery has developed for juvenile American Eel Anguilla rostrata to supply Asian markets. American Eel catches in Maine were
valued at more than $10 million annually from 2015-2017 (ASMFC 2017), and the fishery provided well over $20 million in 2018 (Whittle 2018).
Some estimates suggest American Eel stocks along the eastern coast of North America have declined dramatically in the last several decades
(Busch et al. 1998). However, conclusions from recent assessments on stock status are variable, ranging from "threatened" and "endangered"
to "not threatened or endangered" (Jessop and Lee 2016). More dearly, headwaters are important rearing habitats for American Eel, and
stream restoration has been recommended as an important strategy for recovery where depleted (Machut et al. 2007).

Protections currently afforded to headwaters through the 2015 WOTUS rule help maintain and
contribute to the stability of commercial and recreational fisheries and the rural economies that they
support. In rural areas, nature tourism also contributes to sustainable economic growth where visitors spend
recreational dollars to see rare fish up close (Figure 4). For example, the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is home to the highest
concentration of endemic species in the USA and draws nearly 70,000 visitors annually that contribute over $3 million to the local economy
(unpublished data from Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Visitor Service Staff).

Headwaters are Culturally Significant

Cultural values of headwaters and the downstream rivers they support are diverse, and clearly expressed in nature-based tourism, aesthetic
values, recreational fishing, and other activities (Beier et al. 2017). Human-natural resource relationships have evolved in the context of
intricate interactions among cultures, communities, and water (e.g., its quality, access, use, and associated resources) for both indigenous and
other peoples (Johnston 2013). Wild salmon, for example, hold central roles in the creation and migration narratives of Native peoples, and
continue to be present in prayers and visions in addition to diets (Stumpff 2001). Fly fishing for trout can be a religious, transformative
experience for many. This pursuit strengthens ties with nature, shapes local-to-regional economies, and has a complex history with
environmental stewardship (Hemingway 1973; Maclean 1976; Brown 2012, 2015). However, impairment of headwaters has strongly altered
the interactions between people and nature, with the ecosystem services provided by rivers to society declining over time (Gilvear et al. 2013;
Lynn et al. 2013; Marttila et al. 2016).

The spiritual and socio-cultural values of fish and healthy ecosystems—which are dependent on clean, free-flowing headwaters—are intangible
and extend well beyond any economic measures (Boraas and Knott 2018). Pacific salmon fisheries are a major source of subsistence and
income for many Native peoples in Alaska and the American West (e.g., Boraas and Knott 2018). Salmon are also a traditional "first food," which
are honored in many tribal traditions and are also strongly linked to cultural identities (e.g., CR1TFC 2018; NPT 2018). For example, the
Nimiipuu (Nez Perce) view salmon as economic and spiritual keystones, with the survival of the tribe and the salmon being interdependent
(Colombi 2012).

Similar to Pacific salmon. Bull Trout inhabiting western streams are culturally important to many groups, including the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes. Bull Trout are part of the history, oral traditions, culture, and identity that are passed down among generations (CSKT 2011).
The Confederated Tribes of western Montana credit the abundance of Bull Trout for preventing starvation during harsh winters (Laughlin and
Gibson 2011). Even though Bull Trout are not currently harvested for subsistence and economic purposes, Rich Janssen, the natural resource
manager for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, highlights their interrelationship as follows: "It’s part of who you are. It's part of your
culture. It's part of your history. You don't want to lose who you are. You don't want to lose that connection" (Laughlin and Gibson 2011).

The importance of headwaters to indigenous cultures extends beyond the well-established examples from Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and
Intermountain West. For instance, the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is also culturally important to the Timbisha Shoshone and
Southern Paiute Peoples because of its life-giving pools fed by headwater springs (Shirey et al. 2018). The Rio Grande and Colorado River flow
from headwaters in the Rocky Mountains through traditional lands of the largest concentrations of indigenous peoples within the conterminous
USA (Navajo, Apache, Pueblo, and others) and intersect the ranges of Apache Trout and Gila Trout. These headwater systems and the
ecosystem services they provide are central to traditional place-based lifestyles of indigenous tribes (Johnston 2013). Eastern North Carolina
Cherokee highly value headwater streams for their cultural significance (extending back thousands of years) as well as for fishery-based tourism
(Balster 2018). For the Passa-moquoddy of present-day Maine, water and fish are sacred and inextricably linked to their history, culture,
traditional beliefs, lore, and spirituality (Bassett 2015). Caloric-rich Alewife and Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis migrate from the ocean to
spawn in the headwaters of the St. Croix River, Maine, where they were a key resource with cultural importance for the Passamoquoddy for
thousands of years before European colonization and habitat impairment from pollution, dams, overfishing, and stocking of alien species. In
2013, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
others, the Passamoquoddy began restoring the St. Croix Watershed and returning these species to the ecosystem and the Passamoquoddy
people.

Traditional ecological knowledge provides an important line of evidence supporting protection and restoration of headwaters. For example,
Maine Sea Grant and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collaborated to document and disseminate harvesters' knowledge of
Alewife, Blueback Herring, and American Eel, all of which are returning to headwater streams following recent dam removals (Hitt et al. 2012;
Hogg et al. 2015). Similarly, the Yurok and Karuk people of the Klamath region in northern California, who have deep cultural and subsistence
ties with Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata, provided important information that improved understanding of lamprey population crashes in
the Klamath Basin (Lewis 2009).

The strong interrelationships between Native peoples, fish, and fluvial systems also implicate environmental justice issues, particularly as
related to chemical contaminants and traditional food systems that include fish (Kuhnlein and Chan 2000). Contaminants affect not only human
health, but also broader issues of food security and social and cultural wellbeing (Jewett and Duffy 2007). Impairment of headwaters and water
quality extends to many other groups as well, and can lead to greater environmental inequality (e.g., Elkind 2006). Moving forward, heightened
respect for and recognition of the rights and values of culturally diverse peoples in the use of river systems, including headwaters and
associated resources, warrants additional and thoughtful consideration when legislating and implementing protections (Johnston 2013).

Headwaters Need Continued Protection

The repeal and replacement of the 2015 Clean Water Rule would roll back Clean Water Act protections
for a majority of the nation's streams and wetlands, induding thousands of miles of headwater streams
and millions of acres of wetlands that provide invaluable ecosystem services and habitat for many species of fish. The recently
proposed rule, which excludes wetlands outside of floodplains (or those that lack a continuous surface connection to other
jurisdictional waters), ephemeral streams, and likely some intermittent streams, would threaten fish and the
headwater ecosystems on which they rely, result in severe economic losses, and cause irreparable
cultural and social damage. To recap, some examples of headwaters that would not meet Scalia's definition and could lose
protection under the new rule include the karst features critically important to threatened and endangered cavefish (Figure 5), intermittent
streams used by imperiled fish for spawning and early rearing (Figure 8), and intermittent side channels and floodplains that provide critical
habitat for juvenile salmon (Figure 6). Justice Scalia's definition, which largely aligns with the proposed rule, ignored the intent of Congress in
passing and updating the Clean Water Act, failed to give deference to the agencies that implement the law, and issued a decision not grounded
in science. In contrast. Justice Kennedy's
definition deferred to Congressional intent and federal agency experts
and relied on the available scientific evidence. The science of waterbody connectivity has advanced
markedly in the time since the Rapanos case, and the 2015 Clean Water Rule was based on the
demonstrated importance of physical, chemical, and biological connections of headwaters to the
ecological condition of navigable waters and their biota (Liebowitz et al. 2018).

Headwaters are critically important for many ecosystem functions, including sustaining fish stocks, with influences extending
from small tributary streams and wetlands to navigable waterbodies downstream. The recently proposed rule offers protection only to

a narrower subset of headwaters and will have far-reaching implications for fish, wildlife, and humans
that depend on freshwater ecosystems. Species already at risk of extinction would be more difficult to recover, and it is highly likely
that many fishes and other aquatic taxa would face greater impediment . Although it is clear that
communities across the USA would lose significant economic, spiritual, and socio-cultural benefits that are
derived from headwaters under the proposed rule, we recommend that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency follow the approach in its
National Aquatic Resource Surveys and conduct a formal ecological and economic risk assessment to quantify the potential effects of changing the current

WOTUS rule.
Economic growth in rural America is CRITICAL to US economic and national leadership
and US democratic model --- solves multiple existential impacts
Baird 20 --- Zoë Baird is CEO and President of the Markle Foundation, which works to realize the
potential of technology to achieve breakthroughs in addressing some of the nation’s most pressing
issues, “Equitable Economic Recovery Is a National Security Imperative”, Chapter 13 | Equitable
Economic Recovery Is a National Security Imperative, 11/2020, https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/Chapter-13_Baird_Equitable-Economic-Recovery.pdf

Broadly shared economic prosperity is a bedrock of America’s economic and political strength—both
domestically and in the international arena. A strong and equitable recovery from the economic crisis created by
COVID-19 would be a powerful testament to the resilience of the American system and its ability to
create prosperity at a time of seismic change and persistent global crisis. Such a recovery could attack the profound
economic inequities that have developed over the past several decades . Without bold action to help all workers
access good jobs as the economy returns, the United States risks undermining the legitimacy of its
institutions and its international standing. The outcome will be a key determinant of America’s
national security for years to come.

An equitable recovery requires a national commitment to help all workers obtain good jobs—particularly the two-
thirds of adults without a bachelor’s degree and people of color who have been most affected by the crisis and were denied opportunity before
it. As the nation engages in a historic debate about how to accelerate economic recovery, ambitious public investment is necessary to put
Americans back to work with dignity and opportunity. We need an intentional effort to make sure that the jobs that come back are good jobs
with decent wages, benefits, and mobility and to empower workers to access these opportunities in a profoundly changed labor market.

To achieve these goals, American policy makers need to establish job growth strategies that address urgent public needs through major
programs in green energy, infrastructure, and health. Alongside these job growth strategies, we need to recognize and develop the talents of
workers by creating an adult learning system that meets workers’ needs and develops skills for the digital economy. The national security
community must lend its support to this cause. And as it does so, it can bring home the lessons from the advances made in these areas in other
countries, particularly our European allies, and consider this a realm of international cooperation and international engagement.

Shared Economic Prosperity Is a National Security Asset

A strong economy is essential to America’s security and diplomatic strategy . Economic strength
increases our influence on the global stage, expands markets, and funds a strong and agile military and
national defense. Yet it is not enough for America’s economy to be strong for some—prosperity must be broadly shared.
Widespread belief in the ability of the American economic system to create economic security and
mobility for all—the American Dream— creates credibility and legitimacy for America’s values, governance,
and alliances around the world.
After World War II, the United States grew the middle class to historic size and strength. This achievement made America the model of the free
world—setting the stage for decades of American political and economic leadership.

Domestically, broad
participation in the economy is core to the legitimacy of our democracy and the
strength of our political institutions. A belief that the economic system works for millions is an important
part of creating trust in a democratic government’s ability to meet the needs of the people.
The COVID-19 Crisis Puts Millions of American Workers at Risk

For the last several decades, the American Dream has been on the wane. Opportunity has been increasingly concentrated in the hands of a
small share of workers able to access the knowledge economy. Too many Americans, particularly those without four-year degrees, experienced
stagnant wages, less stability, and fewer opportunities for advancement.

Since COVID-19 hit, millions have lost their jobs or income and are struggling to meet their basic needs—including food, housing, and medical
care? The crisis has impacted sectors like hospitality, leisure, and retail, which employ a large share of America’s most economically vulnerable
workers, resulting in alarming disparities in unemployment rates along education and racial lines. In August, the unemployment rate for those
with a high school degree or less was more than double the rate for those with a bachelor’s degree.2 Black and Hispanic Americans are
experiencing disproportionately high unemployment, with the gulf widening as the crisis continues.3

The experience of the Great Recession shows that without intentional effort to drive an inclusive recovery, inequality may get worse: while
workers with a high school education or less experienced the majority of job losses, nearly all new jobs went to workers with postsecondary
education. Inequalities across racial lines also increased as workers of color worked in the hardest-hit sectors and were slower to recover
earnings and income than White workers.*

The Case for an Inclusive Recovery

A recovery that promotes broad economic participation , renewed opportunity, and equity will strengthen
American moral and political authority around the world. It will send a strong message about the
strength and resilience of democratic government and the American people’s ability to adapt to a
changing global economic landscape.

An inclusive recovery will reaffirm American leadership as core to the success of our most critical
international alliances, which are rooted in the notion of shared destiny and interdependence. For example, NATO, which has
been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and a force of global stability for decades, has suffered from
American disengagement in recent years. A strong American recovery—coupled with a renewed openness to international
collaboration—is core to NATO's ability to solve shared geopolitical and security challenges . A renewed
partnership with our European allies from a position of economic strength will enable us to address
global crises such as climate change, global pandemics, and refugees . Together, the United States and
Europe can pursue a commitment to investing in workers for shared economic competitiveness , innovation,
and long-term prosperity.

The U.S. has unique advantages that give it the tools to emerge from the crisis with tremendous
economic strength— including an entrepreneurial spirit and the technological and scientific infrastructure to lead global efforts in
developing industries like green energy and biosciences that will shape the international economy for decades to come.

Rural economic decline collapses Bidens foreign policy --- causes global isolationism
Kupchan & Trubowitz 21 --- Charles A. Kupchan Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
Professor of International Affairs in the School of Foreign Service and the Government Department at
Georgetown University, and Peter L. Trubowitz, Professor of International Relations at the London
School of Economics and Political Science and an Associate Fellow at Chatham House, “The Home
Front”, May/June 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-04-20/foreign-
policy-home-front

U.S. President Joe Biden has declaredthat under his leadership, “America is back ” and once again “ready to
lead the world.” Biden wants to return the country to its traditional role of catalyzing international
cooperation and staunchly defending liberal values abroad . His challenge, however, is primarily one of politics, not policy.
Despite Biden’s victory in last year’s presidential election, his internationalist vision faces a deeply skeptical
American public. The political foundations of U.S. internationalism have collapsed. The domestic
consensus that long supported U.S. engagement abroad has come apart in the face of mounting partisan
discord and a deepening rift between urban and rural Americans.

An inward turn has accompanied these growing divides. President Donald Trump’s unilateralism, neo-isolationism,
protectionism, and nativism were anathema to most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. But
Trump’s approach to statecraft tapped into public misgivings about American overreach , contributing to his
victory in 2016 and helping him win the backing of 74 million voters in 2020. An “America first” approach to the world sells
well when many Americans experience economic insecurity and feel that they have been on the losing
end of globalization. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center revealed that roughly half the U.S. public believes that the country
should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate more on fixing problems at home.

Redressing the hardships facing many working Americans is essential to inoculating the country against
“America first” and Trump’s illiberal politics of grievance. That task begins with economic renewal.
Restoring popular support for the country’s internationalist calling will entail sustained investment in pandemic
recovery, health care, infrastructure, green technology and jobs, and other domestic programs. Those steps will require structural
political reforms to ease gridlock and ensure that U.S. foreign policy serves the interests of working
Americans.

What Biden needs is an “inside out” approach that will link imperatives at home to objectives abroad.
Much will depend on his willingness and ability to take bold action to rebuild broad popular support for internationalism from the ground up.
Success would significantly reduce the chances that the president who follows Biden, even if he or she is
a Republican, would return to Trump’s self-defeating foreign policy . Such future-proofing is critical to
restoring international confidence in the United States . In light of the dysfunction and polarization
plaguing U.S. politics, leaders and people around the world are justifiably questioning whether Biden
represents a new normal or just a fleeting reprieve from “America first.”
WILL IT PLAY IN PEORIA?

U.S. presidents who have overlooked the challenge of mobilizing and maintaining domestic support for
their efforts to redefine the country’s international ambitions have often paid a price for their political
malpractice: their foreign policies ran aground at home. Having won the election of 1844 in part by embracing an
expansionist platform, President James Polk, a Democrat from Tennessee and a protégé of President Andrew Jackson, took a divided country to
war against Mexico in 1846. The United States handily won the war, and the deal to end it extended the border of Texas southward and led to
the U.S. acquisition of a major swath of Mexican territory. But this expansion fueled the intensifying sectional rivalry over slavery between the
North and the South, contributing to the defeat of the Democrats in 1848 and pushing the country toward civil war. Manifest Destiny overran
its domestic foundations.

Retrenchment causes global nuclear war

WRIGHT 20 --- THOMAS WRIGHT is Director of the Center on the United States and Europe and a
Senior Fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institution, “The Folly
of Retrenchment”, Foreign Affairs, April 2020, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-02-10/folly-
retrenchment

Amid the shifting political winds, a growing chorus of voices in the policy community, from the left and the right, is
calling for a strategy
of global retrenchment, whereby the United States would withdraw its forces from around the world
and reduce its security commitments. Leading scholars and policy experts, such as Barry Posen and Ian Bremmer, have called on
the United States to significantly reduce its role in Europe and Asia, including withdrawing from NATO. In 2019, a new think tank, the Quincy
Institute for Responsible Statecraft, set up shop, with funding from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation and the liberal philanthropist
George Soros. Its mission, in its own words, is to advocate “a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint.”

Global retrenchment is fast emerging as the most coherent and ready-made alternative to the United States’ postwar strategy. Yet
pursuing it would be a grave mistake. By dissolving U.S. alliances and ending the forward presence of U.S.
forces, this strategy would destabilize the regional security orders in Europe and Asia. It would also increase the
risk of nuclear proliferation, empower right-wing nationalists in Europe, and aggravate the threat of
major-power conflict.
This is not to say that U.S. strategy should never change. The United States has regularly increased and decreased its presence around the world as threats have risen and ebbed. Even though
Washington followed a strategy of containment throughout the Cold War, that took various forms, which meant the difference between war and peace in Vietnam, between an arms race and
arms control, and between détente and an all-out attempt to defeat the Soviets. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States changed course again, expanding its alliances to include
many countries that had previously been part of the Warsaw Pact.

Likewise, the United States will now have to do less in some areas and more in others as it shifts its focus from counterterrorism and reform in
the Middle East toward great-power competition with China and Russia. But advocates
of global retrenchment are not so
much proposing changes within a strategy as they are calling for the wholesale replacement of one that
has been in place since World War II. What the United States needs now is a careful pruning of its overseas
commitments—not the indiscriminate abandonment of a strategy that has served it well for decades.
RETRENCHMENT REDUX

Support for retrenchment stems from the view that the United States has overextended itself in countries that have little bearing on its national interest. According to this perspective, which is
closely associated with the realist school of international relations, the United States is fundamentally secure thanks to its geography, nuclear arsenal, and military advantage. Yet the country
has nonetheless chosen to pursue a strategy of “liberal hegemony,” using force in an unwise attempt to perpetuate a liberal international order (one that, as evidenced by U.S. support for
authoritarian regimes, is not so liberal, after all). Washington, the argument goes, has distracted itself with costly overseas commitments and interventions that breed resentment and
encourage free-riding abroad.

Critics of the status quo argue that the United States must take two steps to change its ways. The first is retrenchment itself: the action of withdrawing from many of the United States’ existing
commitments, such as the ongoing military interventions in the Middle East and one-sided alliances in Europe and Asia. The second is restraint: the strategy of defining U.S. interests narrowly,
refusing to launch wars unless vital interests are directly threatened and Congress authorizes such action, compelling other nations to take care of their own security, and relying more on
diplomatic, economic, and political tools.

In practice, thisapproach means ending U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, withdrawing U.S. forces from the
Middle East, relying on an over-the-horizon force that can uphold U.S. national interests, and no longer
taking on responsibility for the security of other states . As for alliances, Posen has argued that the United States should
abandon the mutual-defense provision of NATO, replace the organization “with a new, more limited security cooperation agreement,” and
reduce U.S. commitments to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. On the question of China, realists have split in recent years. Some, such as the
scholar John Mearsheimer, contend that even as the United States retrenches elsewhere, in Asia, it must contain the threat of China, whereas
others, such as Posen, argue that nations in the region are perfectly capable of doing the job themselves.

Since Trump’s election, some progressive foreign policy thinkers have joined the retrenchment camp. They diverge from other progressives, who advocate maintaining the United States’
current role. Like the realists, progressive retrenchers hold the view that the United States is safe because of its geography and the size of its military. Where these progressives break from the
realists, however, is on the question of what will happen if the United States pulls back. While the realists favoring retrenchment have few illusions about the sort of regional competition that
will break out in the absence of U.S. dominance, the progressives expect that the world will become more peaceful and cooperative, because Washington can still manage tensions through
diplomatic, economic, and political tools. The immediate focus of the progressives is the so-called forever wars—U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the broader war on
terrorism—as well as the defense budget and overseas bases.

Although the progressives have a less developed vision of how to implement retrenchment than the realists, they do provide some guideposts. Stephen Wertheim, a co-founder of the Quincy
Institute, has called for bringing home many of the U.S. soldiers serving abroad, “leaving small forces to protect commercial sea lanes,” as part of an effort to “deprive presidents of the
temptation to answer every problem with a violent solution.” He argues that U.S. allies may believe that the United States has been inflating regional threats and thus conclude that they do
not need to increase their conventional or nuclear forces. Another progressive thinker, Peter Beinart, has argued that the United States should accept Chinese and Russian spheres of influence,
a strategy that would include abandoning Taiwan.

IS LESS REALLY MORE?

The realists and the progressives arguing for retrenchment differ in their assumptions, logic, and intentions. The realists tend to be more
pessimistic about the prospects for peace and frame their arguments in hardheaded terms, whereas the progressives downplay the
consequences of American withdrawal and make a moral case against the current grand strategy. But they share
a common claim:
that the United States would be better off if it dramatically reduced its global military footprint and
security commitments.

This is a false promise, for a number of reasons. First, retrenchment would worsen regional security
competition in Europe and Asia. The realists recognize that the U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia does dampen security competition,
but they claim that it does so at too high a price—and one that, at any rate, should be paid by U.S. allies in the regions themselves. Although
pulling back would invite regional security competition , realist retrenchers admit, the United States could be safer in a
more dangerous world because regional rivals would check one another. This is a perilous gambit, however, because
regional conflicts often end up implicating U.S. interests. They might thus end up drawing the United
States back in after it has left—resulting in a much more dangerous venture than heading off the conflict in the first
place by staying. Realist retrenchment
reveals a hubris that the United States can control consequences and
prevent crises from erupting into war.

A U.S. pullback from Europe or Asia is more likely to embolden regional powers.
The progressives’ view of regional security is similarly flawed. These retrenchers reject the idea that regional security competition will intensify
if the United States leaves. In fact, they argue, U.S. alliances often promote competition, as in the Middle East, where U.S. support for Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has emboldened those countries in their cold war with Iran. But this logic does not apply to Europe or
Asia, where U.S. allies have behaved responsibly. A
U.S. pullback from those places is more likely to embolden the
regional powers. Since 2008, Russia has invaded two of its neighbors that are not members of NATO, and if
the Baltic states were no longer protected by a U.S. security guarantee, it is conceivable that Russia
would test the boundaries with gray-zone warfare. In East Asia, a U.S. withdrawal would force Japan to
increase its defense capabilities and change its constitution to enable it to compete with China on its
own, straining relations with South Korea.

The second problem with retrenchment involves nuclear proliferation. If the United States pulled out of
NATO or ended its alliance with Japan, as many realist advocates of retrenchment recommend, some of its allies, no longer
protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella , would be tempted to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Unlike the
progressives for retrenchment, the realists are comfortable with that result, since they see deterrence as a stabilizing force. Most Americans
are not so sanguine, and rightly so. Thereare good reasons to worry about nuclear proliferation: nuclear materials
could end up in the hands of terrorists, states with less experience might be more prone to nuclear accidents, and nuclear powers in
close proximity have shorter response times and thus conflicts among them have a greater chance of spiraling into
escalation.

Third, retrenchment would heighten nationalism and xenophobia. In Europe, a U.S. withdrawal would send the
message that every country must fend for itself. It would therefore empower the far-right groups already making this claim—such as the
Alternative for Germany, the League in Italy, and the National Front in France—while undermining the centrist democratic leaders there who
told their populations that they could rely on the United States and NATO. As a result, Washington
would lose leverage over the
domestic politics of individual allies, particularly younger and more fragile democracies such as Poland. And
since these nationalist populist groups are almost always protectionist, retrenchment would damage U.S.
economic interests, as well. Even more alarming, many of the right-wing nationalists that retrenchment would
empower have called for greater accommodation of China and Russia.

A fourth problem concerns regional stability after global retrenchment. The most likely end state is a spheres-
of-influence system, whereby China and Russia dominate their neighbors, but such an order is inherently
unstable. The lines of demarcation for such spheres tend to be unclear, and there is no guarantee that China and Russia will not seek to
move them outward over time. Moreover, the United States cannot simply grant other major powers a sphere of
influence—the countries that would fall into those realms have agency, too. If the United States ceded Taiwan to China , for
example, the Taiwanese people could say no . The current U.S. policy toward the country is working and may be sustainable.
Withdrawing support from Taiwan against its will would plunge cross-strait relations into chaos. The
entire idea of letting regional powers have their own spheres of influence has an imperial air that is at
odds with modern principles of sovereignty and international law.
 1AC --- Water Module --- Clean Water

Scenario ___ --- Clean Water:

The NWPR threatens water quality for hundreds of millions --- its an existential threat
MCCRORY & RAYMOND 20 --- MARTIN A. MCCRORY, Associate Professor in the Kelley School of
Business, Indiana Universit, AND ANJANETTE H. RAYMOND, Director, Ostrom Workshop, Program on
Data Management and Information Governance; Associate Professor, Kelley School of Business, Indiana
University; Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, “NAVIGATING
MURKY WATERS: THE RISE AND FALL OF CLEAN WATER PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES”, REVIEW
OF LAW AND SOCIAL JUSTICE , [Vol. 29:2 2020],
https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume29/summer2020/1-3-martin-
anjanette.pdf

The freshwater resources in the United States are immense and varied; they contain over two million
miles of rivers and streams.4 However, about 59 percent of those waters are properly characterized as
“intermittent or ephemeral.'"’ That water does not flow all year long; instead, its flow is dependent on
rainfall, season, or drought.

In addition to streams and rivers, there is a vast array of large bodies of standing water . In fact, there are
approximately forty million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs across the country.6 The Great Lakes alone
contain over 20 percent of the world’s freshwater 7 and 84 percent of North America’s surface fresh
water.8

Even more amazing is the fact that there

are over one-hundred million acres of wetlands within the United
States.9 In this context, the legal term “wetlands" is defined as zones of water-saturated soil supporting or
capable of supporting vegetation and wildlife ecologically adapted to these particular environmental conditions; it includes
areas such as swamps, marshes, or bogs.10 These numbers begin to illustrate the remarkable amount
fresh water located within the borders of this country.

For example, theamount of surface water (the water located on the surface of the ground) that needs protecting from
anthropogenic contamination is almost overwhelming. Our surface waters provide the source for 60
percent of the water supplied to American homes .11 Additionally, an estimated 117 million Americans
depend upon water supplies that draw at least in part from intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater
streams (tributary stream of a river).12 That means that nearly one-third of all Americans rely on
seasonal waters, small streams, and tributaries for their daily drinking water .13 Certainly, surface water
quality is significant for recreation, wildlife, and sheer aesthetic pleasure, but it is also critically
important for drinking, food supply, infrastructure, and power ; i.e., for our life.

In addition, U.S.
ground water (water below the surface of the Earth)14 makes up approximately 33 percent of
the water that municipal and county departments use every day to supply homes and businesses .15
Perhaps more important is the fact that almost 100 percent of those who provide their own water
obtain it from groundwater sources.16 The EPA estimates that over thirteen million people rely on their own
private wells, which obtain water from groundwater sources .17 These numbers are astounding and
underscore the fact that conservation and protection of our water resources are a massive but
imperative undertaking. However, our recent water pollution assessments belie concern for this vital
resource.

The Natural Resources Defense Council’s (“NRDC”) 2017 report on water conditions states that 70.5
percent of all assessed lakes,
reservoirs, and ponds had “impaired water quality.” 18 Similarly, the EPA’s 2017 report found that nearly
half of the country’s ponds, half of reservoirs, and a third of lakes are so polluted that they are unfit for
drinking, swimming, or fishing.19 The report also found that over 13 million acres of the assessed lakes, ponds,
and reservoirs were impaired.20

Incredibly, this
number excludes any impairments to the Great Lakes ;21 the Great Lakes numbers were so
dismal, they would have drastically skewed the statistics at large . The EPA’s 2017 assessment found that 98 percent
of the Great Lakes’ waters were impaired for one or more designated uses.22 The leading sources of
contamination were three extremely hazardous substances : polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), dioxins, and
mercury.2’

Rivers and streams fared relatively better, but over half of the rivers tested violated the scientifically
established requirements necessary to keep these waters healthy for our use.24 In fact, over 55 percent of all assessed
rivers and streams were in violation of their own state’s water quality standards .25 In addition, over 600.000
miles of rivers and streams failed to meet water quality requirements —that is over twice the distance to the moon.26
These facts indicate that water pollution is an immediate existential threat to our citizens.
As established in the chart below, a
varied number of contaminants cause direct impacts to individuals in terms of
damage to the nervous system, increased of risk of cancer, fertility problems, and even long-term
developmental harms.
Considering the decades of work done by citizens; industry; grassroot groups; national NGOs; and local, state, and federal agencies, these
numbers are staggering. The unceasing struggle for water quality often seems a Sisyphean task.

This Article aims to explore the impact of the policy changes relating to water protections and sets out
the research that supports the return to prior policy commitments to protect the “waters of the United
States” (“WOTUS”). The detrimental effects of water pollution are often concentrated in particularly
vulnerable communities who often fail to have a voice in policy development ; as such, it is imperative that prior
policy commitments are restored.

This Article will support these assertions first by examining the evolution of water protections in the United
States, including the need to protect those who are at the greatest risk of suffering the negative environmental impacts of water pollution.
Second, by considering policy changes prompted by recent Supreme Court holdings, this Article will
explore how science and stakeholder-driven governance have influenced the recent promulgation of
WOTUS rules. This Article asserts that these cases drastically changed prior water protection mandates and
thereby granted permission for sweeping administrative policy changes favoring water polluters. Finally,
this Article calls for a return to strong sciencebased water policy creation for the protection of all members of
society.
 1AC --- Plan Option Ver 1.0

The United States Supreme Court should hold that the Navigable Waters Protection
Rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to consider the impact of
the rule change on persons most affected by the rule change nor seeking their input.
Advantage 2 – Demosprudence
 1AC --- Advantage 2 --- Demosprudence

Advantage 2 is Demosprudence:

The Court should rule that the NWPR failed to take into account the impact the NWPR
would have on communities most affected --- This type of demosprudential ruling on
water justice facilitates a culture shift toward greater participatory democracy and
polycentric decision-making on water rights
MCCRORY & RAYMOND 20 --- MARTIN A. MCCRORY, Associate Professor in the Kelley School of
Business, Indiana University and former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Indiana (specializing in
environmental law), & ANJANETTE H. RAYMOND, Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, Maurer School of
Law, Indiana University, “NAVIGATING MURKY WATERS: THE RISE AND FALL OF CLEAN WATER
PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES”, REVIEW OF LAW AND SOCIAL JUSTICE [Vol. 29:2 2020].
https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume29/summer2020/1-3-martin-
anjanette.pdf

D. Using Demosprudential Thinking to Further Water Justice

Throughout U.S. history, the Supreme Court's attitude toward federal environmental regulation has
been at times tepid, and at others, openly hostile.3,1 Nonetheless, the judiciary could become an
essential entity to assist in returning the focus to those who are actually affected by pollution—a
concept known as demosprudence.

Demosprudence is a term coined by Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres that describes the process of creating and
interpreting laws from an external perspective, outside of legal thinking.312 The premise is that major
legal change can only occur when cultural modifications accompany the technical legal rule changes.313
Demosprudence postulates that social movements can create predictable and inevitable legal changes .314

Social movements help change the way we understand the minimum obligations the law owes its citizens
and the obligations citizens owe each other .315 This dynamic balance of power between lawmaking and social action
describes demosprudence.316 When dynamic constituencies choose to call power to account through
contentious politics and legal actions, they can reshape the nation .317 Accordingly, the collective
wisdom and voice of the people should always inform the rulemaking enterprise in our democracy.318

Similar to devolved collaboration and the Ostroms philosophy, demosprudence explores how ordinary people become
engaged in meaningful participatory democracy.319 It queries whether political, social, and economic
minorities are actively engaged in productive dialogue so that it is obvious that “We the People” plays a
role in the lawmaking.320 This general notion of inclusive collaboration is an old concept in U.S. democracy.

In his speech on the Dred Scott decision, Fredrick Douglass said:

“We, the people”—not, we the white people—not we, the citizens, or the legal voters—not we, the
privileged class, and excluding all other classes but we, the people ... the men and women, the human inhabitants of
the United States!.]321
All three branches of government can and should play an active role in a participatory democracy. Nevertheless, if the legislative branch and
the executive branch cannot ensure this foundational principal, it becomes a judicial imperative.

The courts can and should become an active force in the shaping of social conscience and justice. The
courts have the ability to force conscious awareness of problems faced by disenfranchised or
disadvantaged groups that are easily shut away from public view 322 As a result, courts can shed light upon
societal needs for intervention and help alleviate the problems long before they become too dire 323
New WOTUS rules defining CWA jurisdiction must reflect meaningful
participatory democracy324 To do this, there must be a collaborative effort between the legislature, regulatory agencies,
courts, and affected communities—all working together as moral actors calling democracy to account?25 Regulatory transformation and
judicially driven change only achieve their enduring power from, “We the People”326

If Congress will not act to clarify CWA jurisdiction, and the regulators will not work to protect vulnerable communities, courts
must work
to advance the cultural shift necessary to safeguard these communities. Consequently, courts become the
catalyst for this genuine form of democratic accountability .327 Longstanding legal thinking has argued
that courts are the bastion of social change and justice . Years ago. Justice Cardozo wrote.
What really matters is that the judge is under a duty, within the limits of his power of innovation, to maintain a relation between law and
morals, between precepts of jurisprudence and those of reason and good conscience?28

He stated that the ultimate purpose of law is the welfare of society and that existing rules had to be extended or restricted
based upon societal welfare.329 He recognized that the court had considerable latitude in effecting social welfare; the
power of the court needs to be both supple and adaptive. 330 Accordingly, there is no moral quandary;
courts are required to use their insight to determine social values and their innovation to advance social
justice.331

Toward these ends, courts must ensure that “We the People” deliberately includes a fully consenting community
of affected poor, minorities, women, and children .332 Courts must also work with rural and urban,
working-class people who need clean and safe communities i n which to raise their families. Courts should seek
to reinvigorate regulators, lawmakers, and other public officials by scrutinizing the people’s role (or the
lack thereof) in the environmental lawmaking process.333 The judiciary must become a dynamic participant in
shaping our nation's future by comprehensively and constantly evaluating this nation’s legal rules and
processes to promote social justice.334

Courts must act when rules are made about essential environmental safeguards without the requisite
approval of those people most likely to be adversely affected. Informed consent is imperative in
environmental rulemaking, especially when it involves freshwater pollution. Yet, there is no
indication that the Trump administration solicited or seriously considered the concerns of vulnerable
communities before drafting the current WOTUS rule335 The promulgation and enforcement of clean water
rules should not continue to reflect the ever-shifting balance between the influential leaders in business,
academics, politics, governments (conservative or liberal), and NGOs336

All of these groups certainly have important roles to play, but environmental
regulatory negotiations must begin and end
with the will of the communities of the people most likely to be impacted by such regulations. The fate of
families living in cancer clusters and other affected communities cannot constantly rely upon the swing of the
political pendulum. Specifically, courts must work to ensure a cultural shift that makes our clean water
rules a direct reflection of the will of those directly and tangibly impacted by the federal government's
exercise of CWA jurisdiction (or its refusal to do so). The judiciary and others must promote a shift in the
national culture to guarantee democratic accountability, and most importantly, that non-elite voices are
heard and effectuated337
VII. CONCLUSION

For over a century, it has been almost impossible for people to determine when their federal government protected their water. The lack of
state enforcement and an increasing awareness of pollution led to the forming of a strong national water protection statute in the CWA. Yet,
the enigmatic nature of the jurisdictional terms ‘‘navigable waters” and “ Waters of the United States”
cannot lessen the national significance of the CWA. This groundbreaking statute was created to clean U.S.
waters and prohibit U.S. water pollution. The shift from comprehensive clean water protection to
deregulation fundamentally affects whose water we are (or are not) protecting. Too often, it is the most
vulnerable among us who are caught in the political crossfire relating to environmental enforcement and protection.

Therefore, before there are any significant changes to water regulation, it is imperative that the changes reflect the
voices of people who either have been or are currently at risk of being harmed by water pollution. Courts
must play an active part in creating a new cultural paradigm reflecting devolved collaborations and
polycentric decisionmaking. The judiciary must assure that environmental law is less easily manipulated
by the elites and more readily accountable to the public.

Instead of resurrecting timeworn regulatory concepts of the late 1800s, courts must guarantee that
regulatory agencies allow the CWA to evolve with current scientific understanding relating to water
pollution. As President Abraham Lincoln said, “[t]he dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present.
The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with occasion ... . [W]e must think anew, and act new .”338
Antiquated concepts of federal water protection will cause the CWA to sink into the quagmire. As time
moves on, water law must flow with it or stagnate.

Demosprudential decisions by the Court trigger “consciousness-raising” and builds

“intellectual capital “that maximizes the effectiveness of social movements
Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles

As an initial matter it is important to note that Guinier's description of demosprudence is not inconsistent with
this understanding of the role that law plays. Thus, in describing the "facilitative" dimension of a
demosprudential dissent, Guinier suggests that it " may, for example, appeal to the audience's own
experience or inspire them to participate in a form of collective problem solving ." (128) She goes on to suggest
that such opinions can play an "educational role ." (129) While mass media publicizing the dissent could
accomplish this directly, demosprudential opinions could also "function indirectly through organized
constituencies publicizing the existence and content of the dissent." (130) Guinier allows that demosprudential dissents
may play other, more direct roles, but throughout the article she emphasizes that any such influence depends on the existence of these kinds of
responsive "organized constituencies." (131)

More importantly, McCann describes "a general path model for guiding analysis of legal mobilization activity in diverse types of situations."
(132) That model uses a series of interconnected, double-sided arrows to depict a dynamic relationship among several factors, including legal
action, that work together to create the possibility for socioeconomic change. (133) In McCann's description, which Rosenberg quotes, legal
actions "can spark actual insurgency" in "'ripe' situations by cultivating the rights consciousness of
identified movement constituents and their allies." (134) Situations are ripe for legal action where "[i]ncreasingly favorable
political opportunities ... converge with preexisting organizational resources." (135) All three factors--legal action, organizational resources and
political opportunities--"are essential, though not sufficient, to the process of legal mobilization." (136)

Rosenberg is clearly correct that McCann's framework demonstrates that "opinions alone are unlikely to
matter much." (137) But that does not mean that judicial opinions are irrelevant. Instead, they play a key
role, alongside these other, equally necessary factors, in creating the required conditions for legal mobilization .
Understood in context, McCann's caveat that the effects of legal actions are " partial, conditional and volatile over
time" is not a claim that legal action does not matter , but only that it does not matter where these other two elements are
absent. Legal action is "partial" because it is one of three required factors; it is "conditional" because it depends on existence of these other two
factors; and its effects are "volatile" because all three factors rarely converge at the same point in time.

The importance of court decisions is even more evident in McCann's description of how legal actions affected
the pay equity reform movement. In a chapter titled "Law as Catalyst" McCann describes the roots of the pay equity movement in
the broader civil rights developments that began in the 1960s. In language strikingly similar to Guinier's, McCann highlights the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., (138) claiming it "provided new language that shifted the focus of fighting discrimination from
discrete acts of individual 'ill will' to systematic biases in institutional practices and policies." (139) Far from discounting the effect of legal
opinions, as Rosenberg suggests, McCann says that "[t]his judicial recognition of 'systemic discrimination' provided a
direct catalyst of unparalleled significance...." (140)

Moving into a description of the pay equity cases, McCann sounds a similar theme. The
pay equity issue "burst into the
national spotlight" in 1981 as a result of several developments, including the Supreme Court's decision
in County of Washington v. Gunthe (141), where the Court held that Title VII's provisions extended to
discrimination among different jobs as well as discrimination within a single position. (142) Echoing Guinier's
description of the effects a judicial opinion can have on public debate, McCann quotes a Bureau of National Affairs study which said that
"'Gunther marks the beginning of the modern debate on wage equality. The
debate is, in part, a response to the decision.'"
(143) He concludes that "[e]ven more important for the discussion here, however, is that the
court decision 'jump started' the
pay equity movement's activity and organization nationwide." (144)

A key federal district court decision in Washington State then played a central role "invit[ing] activists around
the nation to rush in" to the pay equity movement. (145) Describing interviews with activists involved in the effort, McCann
says that a "large majority" of them "credited the Washington State decision and other early cases as primary educational cues that generated
their own initial personal interest and involvement in the cause." (146) And
a Massachusetts report found that "'[i]n
Massachusetts, and throughout the nation, the comparable worth debate has been influenced by ...
AFSCME v. Washington. It has had an enormous social and political impact' in sparking collective action
on the issue." (147) From this evidence McCann concludes that "[s]uch dramatic correlations between highly
publicized legal cases, participant testimony about raised hopes, and rapidly escalating organizational action
around the nation thus provides strong evidence for the significant role of litigation as a catalyst for the
pay equity movement's development." (148)

McCann is, of course, describing the effects of majority court opinions, not the oral dissents that are the focus of
Guinier's article. And, as stated above, Rosenberg emphasizes the problems specific to attributing any causal
effects to an oral dissent. (149) Nonetheless, McCann's analysis of precisely how these opinions influenced the pay equity
movement in many respects mirrors Guinier's broader understanding of the influence a demosprudential
opinion could have. For example, Guinier argues that "[b]y illuminating an alternative view of the law , [the dissenter]
can invite critical reflection and inspire a sense of agency among the people themselves ." (150) McCann finds
that "[t]he movement drew its very normative logic as a rights claim from the evolution of
antidiscrimination law in the postwar era." (151) This is because "legal victories signaled to potential activists
that they might be able to count on judicial support " and that activists "appropriated the language of
rights to interpret, or to 'name,' a long-experienced injustice in new, more compelling and sensible terms."
(152)

Guinier also emphasizes the educational role that demosprudential

opinions can play: "A demosprudential dissent provides a
powerful pedagogical opportunity to open up space for public deliberation and engagement." (153)
McCann similarly describes legal opinions as giving "primary educational cues" (154) and lawsuits serving as
"consciousness raising" agents. (155) He specifically claims that "attention to high profile court cases helped to
make 'rights talk' a staple discourse of the emerging social reform movement culture." (156) And he notes
that "the primary architects of pay equity litigation have since the early 1970s frankly touted the educational and
mobilization potential of litigation." (157)

Finally, Guinier emphasizes the connection between demosprudential opinions and what she calls "norm
entrepreneurs." (158) One principal potential effect of a demosprudential opinion is to provide intellectual capital
to elites within a social movement that they can use to mobilize grass roots constituencies and help
shape the broader debate within society. (159) This also tracks McCann's explanation of the dynamics of
consciousness raising within the pay equity movement. After describing the surge in publicity around the pay
equity issue following key legal actions, McCann says that "such publicity campaigns were not aimed for the most part at the
mass public. Rather, the primary targets of legal consciousness raising were more selective or 'attentive'
audiences of potential movement activists." (160) Leaders within the movement "distributed news and
journal articles, press releases, and other information regarding court decisions to existing networks of
political allies as well as to potentially interested unions and other associations." (161) According to McCann, "it was through such
targeted publicity efforts that movement leaders focused attention on" the pay equity issue . (162)

Rosenberg's focus on opinion studies that show court judgments have little or no effect on public opinion
ignores this important dynamic. Demosprudential opinions can form the raw material for intellectual
entrepreneurs without directly penetrating public consciousness. Such opinions also create leverage for
social movements by raising the possibility for real change. Rosenberg acknowledges that social movements use
majority holdings to effect social and political change. McCann's study supports that argument but also complicates it. McCann notes that
"contrary to most legal scholars' expectations, legal leverage can be gained without clearly or consistently favorable judicial statements of
standards on issues at stake." (163) Instead, uncertainty about the legal outcome is sufficient in itself "to endow movements with significant
bargaining power." (164) Demosprudential
opinions, including dissents, can create that uncertainty by offering an
alternative interpretation of the constitution . Guinier describes demosprudential dissents as playing this kind of role:
"Dissenters can play a useful role in structuring the controversy to facilitate learning through a continuous process of public participation and
engagement." (165)

This dovetails with the need to develop rights consciousness. Thus opinions can have two
complementary effects: on the formal legal level, the mere fact of a dissent can create the kind of uncertainty that
McCann says can create leverage. At the same time, a demosprudential dissent can provide the language and ideas
the intellectual entrepreneurs can use to raise rights consciousness within a movement.
Community empowerment is essential in the fight for the right to water --- including
the physical infrastructure, institutional capacity, and water protection --- This is
achieved through long-term sustained activism
FRANCIS & FIRESTONE 11 --- ROSE FRANCIS, staff attorney for the Community Water Center and
graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. in 2005, & LAUREL FIRESTONE, Co-Executive Director and
cofounder of the Community Water Center as well as a member of the Tulare County Water
Commission. She graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. in 2004, “IMPLEMENTING THE HUMAN
RIGHT TO WATER IN CALIFORNIA’S CENTRAL VALLEY: BUILDING A DEMOCRATIC VOICE THROUGH
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN WATER POLICY DECISION MAKING”, WILLAMETTE LAW REVIEW [47:495
2011],
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/pages/57/attachments/original/13943
94957/CWC-Law-Review-Article-on-Implementing-Human-Right-to-Water-in-CA.pdf?1394394957

To explore what implementation of the human right to water might mean and how it can be achieved, we
offer our experience working for the Community Water Center (CWC) as a case study. CWC is a nonprofit
organization whose mission is to achieve universal access to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water in
the Central Valley. CWC was at the forefront of a collaborative statewide effort in 2009 successfully persuading elected
representatives in the California legislature to pass a bill that would have codified the existence of a
human right to water in this state .71 Unfortunately, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger exercised his veto power to prevent this
bill’s adoption.72 While we will persist in our collaborative efforts to formalize this right in California, regardless of the success of that effort,
CWC continues to work toward achieving universal safe drinking water, even in the absence of a clearly
codified and enforceable legal entitlement recognizing a human right to water. Based on our learned experience
through ongoing interactions with impacted community residents , allied civil society organizations,73 local and state
public officials, and interested members of the private sector, CWC is striving to develop an approach to achieve
sustainable water justice and, concomitantly, full implementation of the human right to water. This
approach does not depend on formal acknowledgment by domestic or international governing bodies of the existence of such a right.

A. The
Four Components of a Fully-Implemented Human Right to Water CWC has identified four
components to achieving universal access to safe , affordable drinking water. Each of these components are
necessary, but not sufficient on their own, to ensure successful implementation of the human right to water.

1. Physical Infrastructure First, a community water system must have adequate physical infrastructure, such as wells, pipes, storage
tanks, treatment facilities, and water service delivery technology, all of which require access to sufficient funding.74 This is perhaps the most
obvious and straightforward component, and the one most focused on by government funding programs and international water charities.75
That focus is not unjustified, as this component is the most expensive to implement and often requires far more funding than many smaller,
economically-depressed communities, have the capacity to raise through local service delivery revenues.76 It is important to note, however,
that even the most expensive new pipes are only as good as the water flowing through them, and treatment plants are useless when the
community can’t afford to keep them in operation.77 Therefore, while physical infrastructure is a significant challenge to implementing the
human right to water and clearly deserves both attention and resources, even with unlimited access to money and technology, a community is
only one quarter of the way towards securing a reliable supply of safe and affordable water.

2. Source Water Protection Second, there must be a reliable resource of clean, healthy water available, such as a river or an aquifer,
which necessitates source water protections in place to safeguard water quality and quantity.78 As the population expands, there is ever-
increasing pressure on finite water resources, and human history demonstrates that unchecked private activity will eventually deplete and
destroy this commons.79 At our current pace, no matter what technology is available or how much is spent on new infrastructure, if community
drinking water sources are not protected, we will inevitably continue to discover the presence of new drinking water toxins,80 and wells and
reservoirs will eventually dry up.81

Yet, particularly when consumers have no idea where the water out of their tap comes from, it is easy for regulatory agencies to cave to
pressure from powerful political lobbies and fail to set requirements or guidelines for protection of those sources. While communities can
engage in local voluntary efforts like wellhead protection programs,82 for the most part individual community water systems do not have
authority to set requirements or restrictions on potentially harmful land uses and activities affecting their source water quality and quantity.83
The inequity of this situation is striking, because small drinking water systems in this region are far more likely to face groundwater
contamination due to their relative proximity to intensive agricultural activities, and they simultaneously face greater challenges in affording
the sophisticated treatment equipment required to remove these toxins.84 In the Central Valley, residents rely on the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, a subdivision of the state environmental protection agency, to impose requirements on pollution sources to protect water
quality. Therefore, one vital component of ensuring that all residents in the Valley can secure safe drinking water for themselves and their
communities is ensuring that the Regional Board regulates agricultural practices and other private sector activity effectively.85

3. Institutional Capacity Third, the community and its water service provider must have the institutional capacity, commonly referred
to as technicalmanagerial-financial capacity, or TMF, to operate and maintain the system affordably.86 Even if a system has a safe water source
and workable infrastructure, local residents may still find themselves without safe, affordable drinking water if their water provider lacks the
capacity to operate the system effectively.87 Institutional capacity boils down to a water provider’s ability to keep the water system running
safely and efficiently. This includes the ability to conduct planning studies for system upgrades and the ability to apply for available grants and
loans, which are frequently necessary because revenues from water service provision to small, low-income communities often will not cover
the cost of improvements due to lack of economies of scale.88 It also means being able to develop rate structures that are affordable and
budgets that cover the costs of ongoing operation and maintenance while building cash reserves.89 For small, low-income communities, it is
often extremely difficult to address this component without creating joint operation, management and funding mechanisms with neighboring
communities and municipalities. In the long term, this may lead to full consolidation into a larger system that can benefit from an increased
economy of scale.90

4. Community Power The fourth and final component is that the community itself must have the political power to
hold decision makers accountable—not just the water service provider, but also local, regional, and state government officials.91
This is the most vital component to full implementation of the human right to water, as it is the vehicle
not just for securing the other three components, but also for ensuring that they are sustained. Without
community power, financial investment in water infrastructure is often granted to other, more politically
powerful interests, passing over those communities that need it most.92 Regulatory agencies charged with
protecting water resources prioritize the interests of industries and leave the least powerful to bear the costs of ensuing
pollution. The most politically and economically marginalized California residents are left to fend for
themselves in small water systems, without the institutional capacity to improve or sustain effective and
affordable operations. In essence, it is the absence of community power that has resulted in the reality of
the Central Valley today.93 Only by changing this fundamental power imbalance can we hope to
eradicate water injustice in the Valley.94 It is this component to which we devote the remainder of our
discussion.

B. Sustainable Implementation is a Process, Not an End Goal Community power is the most human aspect of the human
right to water, and for this reason, perhaps the most difficult. In the short run, successful implementation could be achieved if the first three
components are in place—namely, source water protections, money and technology, and trained system operators—all of which could be
provided to the community as “supply side” solutions from outside and above.95 In the long run, however, true water justice
requires sustainability, and this necessitates that impacted residents become empowered to assert
themselves in the water policymaking arena and to influence decisions about water resources and
water services that impact their community.96 Historically marginalized communities must develop a
political voice—one that is heard and heralded by decision makers. Like many scholars and activists before us, CWC
firmly believes that lack of political voice is at the heart of most environmental human rights violations and
the greatest source of environmental injustice.97 For this reason, we do not believe that drilling wells or
donating money to charity alone will solve drinking water disparities in the Central Valley, let alone the world.98
The root cause—lack of sociopolitical influence—is central to the solution . Unquestionably, money and
physical infrastructure are necessary, but they are not sufficient, and the current, widespread myopic
focus on supply side strategies may actually undermine the most important component of community
power, and with it, sustainability.99 Unfortunately, the General Assembly’s recent resolution declaring the existence of a human right to
water does not skirt this tension carefully, as it explicitly encourages rich countries to donate money and technology to poor countries in
furtherance of fulfilling the human right to water, while simultaneously failing to emphasize the importance of involving, engaging, or
empowering the very people who are affected by the implementation decisions those resources may facilitate.100
CWC believes that developing true sociopolitical accountability between impacted residents and decision
makers is the only means of achieving sustainable change in the communities with which we partner,
because eventually donor funds dry up, trained operators move on to better-paying jobs, and there is always
pressure on government by some percentage of the private sector to loosen source water protections for private
material gain. Thus, unlike the first three components of a human right to water, this last one requires
continued vigilance from within; it cannot be donated or imposed.101 Ultimately, therefore, the human
right to water is not an end goal that can be achieved and set aside as a mission accomplished. Rather, it is an
ongoing process—a process in which disadvantaged communities that are perpetually at the risky end of
the water service delivery pipe must remain engaged in order to carve out a permanent seat at the
decision making table next to industry lobbyists, engineers, and public officials.102

C. Community Empowerment Through Direct Engagement If

environmental justice communities exist in large part
because of the socioeconomic and political marginalization of their residents, and if sustainable
implementation of the human right to water requires an ongoing process by which these communities
hold water policy decision makers accountable, then the critical question becomes how to achieve this
historically-deficient ingredient of accountability. The Community Water Center’s theory is that the answer lies in
community empowerment through direct engagement. We certainly did not invent this concept,103 but through our
work on the ground in impacted communities, we are fleshing out what community engagement actually means in practice.104

There is plenty of discussion in academic and policy literature,105 and even in international instruments like the General
Assembly and HRC resolutions,106 about the need to build capacity in environmental justice communities and
about the virtues of including residents from these communities as participants in decision making. To the
extent that public participation is touted as the answer to environmental and social injustices, however, much of the focus remains on the
agency and obligations this instills in other actors besides the community residents themselves; usually, the target audience appears to be
benevolent government officials.107 CWC believes that some
of the focus should shift to civil society , and specifically, the
communities themselves.108 We posit that, at least here in the Central Valley, impacted communities already possess
the power to inject themselves into decision making processes , to assert their authentic needs onto the
policy agenda, and ultimately to bring about real improvements in their daily lives.109 At CWC, we strive
to help communities recognize, build, and use this power to rebalance the scales of water injustice.
D. CWC’s Approach to Community Empowerment in the Central Valley

1. The Foundation: Education and Engagement with Impacted Residents Building

political power must start with an
individual resident in an individual community. Therefore, CWC first and foremost grounds its work directly
in local communities that currently lack access to safe, affordable drinking water, providing outreach and education to
increase local understanding of drinking water challenges.110 Many community residents are drawn in to community-
based activism by drinking water because it directly affects both their pocketbooks and the health and safety
of their families.111 CWC starts by helping these residents understand how to find out if their water is safe and what can be done in the short
term to access safe drinking water. An important next step, however, is educating
them on how to navigate local and
regional water bureaucracies, both to hold decision makers accountable for the causes of these problems and to
ensure that action is taken toward long-term solutions .112 It is at this juncture that the discourse of
justice and human rights is perhaps at its most powerful.
CWC next supports local residents as they build power within their own community, such as by helping form community-based organizations or
providing training sessions at local community meetings on subjects like residents’ rights to attend public meetings and demand information
from their water service provider in a language they can understand. CWC also provides basic technical information on topics such as safe
drinking water laws, as well as legal assistance when necessary and appropriate to help support these community-driven efforts.113

Information dissemination flows in both directions, however. CWC learns a great deal through this sustained and direct engagement with
impacted community residents about the challenges they face in securing safe and affordable drinking water, as well as the relative efficacy of
attempted drinking water solutions.114 CWC leverages this knowledge to inform development of its water justice advocacy messages and
policy recommendations to county, regional and state levels of government. These messages and recommendations are geared toward
systemic change that addresses the root causes of unsafe and unaffordable drinking water, including the creation of new and better
mechanisms and practices within public agencies and institutions to foster meaningful involvement by disadvantaged communities in the
decisions that affect them. It cannot be emphasized enough, however, that the foundation for this advocacy is CWC’s sustained grassroots
engagement with impacted communities, which continually informs both the policy positions we adopt and the strategies we use to promote
them.

2. Strength in Numbers: Building a Broader Coalition of Impacted Communities A single community cannot alone tackle the root causes of
unsafe and unaffordable drinking water in the Valley. The process of restructuring existing power dynamics that impact drinking water requires
the creation of a more collective power, whereby affected individuals from diverse communities come together to confront common
challenges. Addressing larger problems—such as widespread groundwater contamination from non-point sources like irrigated agriculture and
the relative inaccessibility of funding sources for water planning and infrastructure for under-resourced community water systems—cannot be
addressed solely on an individual community basis. These
issues require sustained engagement at the regional and state level
and far greater influence than any one individual community can exercise alone . Therefore, CWC helps coordinate
a coalition of representatives from more than seventeen different impacted communities in the San Joaquin Valley, called Asociacion de Gente
Unida Por El Agua (AGUA).115 As CWC works with individuals to address their own particular community challenges, we encourage them to
become part of the regional movement for water justice by participating in AGUA.116

AGUA convenes for regular monthly meetings, during which local community members take turns leading the meetings, recording minutes, and
dispensing advice and support to representatives from other communities facing similar challenges. AGUA meetings also provide a forum to
inform community members about water policy advocacy opportunities and processes and to provide training on skills such as speaking with
media correspondents and testifying at public hearings. AGUA thus serves as a training ground for developing participatory and leadership
skills. These skills help arm community members, and especially those from marginalized population groups like lowincome Latinos from
farming communities, with the confidence to articulate their concerns as well as proposed solutions to their local water boards, county
supervisors, media correspondents, regulatory agency staff, and the state legislature, and even to serve on decision making bodies
themselves.117

3. Strength in Stability: Steadfast Persistence and Issue-Oriented Expertise Finally,

building sustained power for communities
around drinking water issues requires persistent, long-term engagement. CWC strives to build on the experience
and expertise we have developed over time through direct interaction with impacted communities and to serve as a stable, enduring base for
engagement on community drinking water challenges. In the short term, a discrete and emotionally-laden issue, like the
pending state registration of a carcinogenic pesticide such as methyl iodide, which risks further contaminating our primary source of drinking
water, makes it relatively easy to motivate affected community residents to volunteer their time and engage with the
decision makers. When these concentrated passions ebb , however, as they inevitably must, it is CWC’s
sustained persistence with decision makers at every level that keeps the water justice struggle on the
policymaking agenda. This is how we are gradually building a permanent seat at the table where
important decisions about drinking water get made, and it is why we believe that some form of
professionalized, institutionalized center, like CWC, so long as it is rooted in direct community engagement, is
a necessary ingredient in the sustainable implementation of the human right to water.118

Courts are key --- When they act demosprudentially it fosters the necessary
democratic dialogue catalyzing change
GUINIER 09 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “BEYOND
LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 89:539 2009],
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf

Rosenberg’s substantive argument seems to rest on the assumption that law almost never influences
politics or vice versa. His skeptical certitude reduces to insignificance the recursive interactions between the
courts and the activists in the 1950s and ’60s over civil rights, in the 1970s over the meaning of gender equality, in the 1990s over
affirmative action, and in the 2000s over the meaning of marriage. In addition. Professor Rosenberg’s
certitude goes well
beyond the evidence he cites. He believes demosprudential dissents “are not necessary because if there is
an active social movement in place then no judicial help is needed.”93 At the same time, he quotes McCann approvingly
despite the fact that McCann concludes law can in fact make a difference under the right circumstances.94

There is more than a friendly misunderstanding at work. Within Professor Rosenberg’s critique of
demosprudence lurks a deep disciplinary tension about the nature of causation and the primacy of uniform
metrics of measurement, as well as the meaning of political participation and influence. 95 What I value about
political engagement cannot simply be reduced to what can be measured. When judges participate
openly in public discussion, whether through book tours or oral dissents, their words or ideas may have traction
without causing measureable changes in public opinion.

As Robert Post notes, I am of the school that values “the texture and substance of dialogue.”96 I do not define
politics, more generally, primarily by election outcomes or polling data. As I write elsewhere, opportunities for participation
enhance democratic legitimacy in part because “democracy involves justice-based commitments to voice,
not just votes: participation cannot be reduced to a single moment of choice.”97 Opportunities for
formal and informal deliberation are important because of “the texture and meaning of the
relationships among political actors, as well as the texture and substance of the values that emerge from public
discussion.”98

The methodological aspect of Rosenberg’s critique involves his taste for numbers and other metrics of
certainty.99 Rosenberg would prefer that I treat the format of a dissent as something to be studied by literary critics but as irrelevant to
political or public relationships.100 The notion that storytelling is not the stuff of politics ignores the important
work of social psychologists and linguists who write at length about the processes by which the brain
hears and evaluates information. For example, what people say they believe is not necessarily predictive of
what they do.101 Indeed, attitudes are not recalled like USB memory sticks, but are reconstructed in relationship to the environment.102

My argument assumes that the river of social change has many tributaries , from the strategic mobilization of diverse
resources that Marshall Ganz identifies to the narratives of resistance that Fred Harris explores.103 No single institution of
government, acting alone, successfully controls or enables these mighty currents. For example, the Supreme
Court, when it wields law to establish relationships of power and control , primarily legitimates rather than
destabilizes existing relationships of power and control .104 Thus I agree with Rosenberg that the Court
rarely functions as the central power source for fundamental structural change.

Nevertheless, I argue that members of the Court can catalyze change when they help craft or expand the
narrative space in which mobilized constituencies navigate the currents of democracy. That role may be
hard to measure, especially when demosprudential politics do not use the same language or framing devices
as ordinary politics.105 That role may also be inaccurately interpreted if the evaluation tool is survey data that asks open-
ended questions or miscodes respondents’ answers.106 For example, after recalibrating the measurement tools on which conventional wisdom
relies, Professors Gibson and Caldeira conclude that the American people may not be as woefully ignorant about the Court as has been
consistently reported.107 In addition, when members of the Court direct their dissents to social movement actors and other role-literate
participants, the recursive nature of that discourse would be difficult to capture in national survey instruments.108

Rosenberg’s technical claim dismisses the form of oral dissents because they are not readily available.109 Yet the technology that presently
limits the reach of dissenting opinions does not tell us what the future holds regarding wider dissemination of the ideas and values of Justices
who dissent.110 Justice Ginsburg already makes copies of her oral dissents available to the press, and Justice Scalia is a recognizable face on
television and in the media. Fueled by video or simultaneous audio transmission, more people might actually read or hear the opinions,
especially the oral dissents,111 which are usually quite short. The technology of dissemination, like the technological framing of the story, is
certainly relevant to who hears the story and who understands it. The inherent limitations on the current forms of outreach of demosprudential
dissents, as well as the lack of public awareness of the majority’s holdings, is incontrovertible. That oral dissents are not widely disseminated,
however, does not establish their uselessness were more people to hear them.112
Consider two approaches to Justice Ginsburg’s role in the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. One way of viewing
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is to discount almost entirely the role played by judicial elites (Ginsburg and
her fellow' dissenters). After all, it was legislative elites (the United States Congress) who passed a bill that was
signed into law by an executive elite elected on a change agenda. Viewed this way, the Supreme Court
dissenters were peripheral actors in a policy development orchestrated by executive and legislative change
agents. The dissent and subsequent Act affected ordinary women, but the process of enacting the law did not include
them. Few Americans in 2008 could name Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a Supreme Court Justice,113 and it is difficult to imagine that figure would
be any higher for those who could name Lilly Ledbetter. Without linear data identifying the precise trajectory of the bill’s passage , we can
assume that the Court played a unidirectional role that distracted attention from, undermined the
importance of, and had little direct influence on the behavior of the other role-literate actors in this
series of dramatic events.114 This story suggests that Justice Ginsburg’s dissent was mostly irrelevant because
the political changes in the executive and the legislative branches, alone, could account for the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The framing effects of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent were so small as to be insignificant.

Now consider an alternative. In this scenario, members of a judicial elite (Ginsburg and her fellow dissenters) sounded
the alarm to get the immediate attention of “role-literate participants” who knew how to make
themselves known among a watchful public . That alarm was heard by a middle elite of women’s and
civil rights advocates who helped organize a campaign to change the law . That campaign capitalized on,
but also contributed to, the momentum of a historic presidential election campaign and emboldened a
seventy-year-old grandmother from Alabama to jump onto the public stage. Not to be left out of the arc of
change was the culture-changing effect of Hillary Clinton’s “eighteen million cracks” in the glass ceiling
during the Democratic primaries of 2008.1,5 In this alternative, Lilly Ledbetter’s willingness - after consulting with
her husband - to step into the national stage reflected a complex process of which at least one element was
Justice Ginsburg’s forceful oral dissent. Justice Ginsburg’s dissent did not cause Congress to pass the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but did play a role. It articulated, in widely accessible terms, a storyline that was picked up in
the mobilization that ultimately led to a new President signing a law enshrining Lilly Ledbetter’s name in
history.116

I subscribe to this more complex view in which a forceful dissent sounded the alarms as first responder. Indeed, the
language of that dissent was audible to those outside the legal elite. The process that followed not only
affected ordinary people. It included them.

Those who believe it is possible to calculate with precision the inputs and outputs of social change might
find the first hypothesis more plausible. The first approach has the virtue of certainty and clarity. It views
members of the Supreme Court as members of a weak and dependent branch of our government who are
dependent upon support from other branches. By themselves, they are not credible agents of progressive
change.117 Thus, we can dismiss demosprudential dissenters as “neither necessary nor sufficient for
democratic deliberation.”118

However, those whose reality is closer to the second alternative imagine social change along a multi
faceted trajectory that consists of competing yet interdependent stories, resources and means of
exercising power. Although this narrative of change is concededly imprecise, it is not per se irrelevant. As Michael
McCann writes: “[JJudicial decisions express a whole range of norms, logics, and signals that cannot be
reduced to clear commands and rules . ..19 Instead, their power comes from generating information and
knowledge that reshape the tactical judgments of social change actors and “refin[e] the language of
politics.”120 Through their opinions, judges send messages to social change activists as to what is possible .
They “reshap[e] perceptions of when and how particular values are realistically actionable as claims of
legal right.”121

I defend the second hypothesis on the grounds that an important dialogic relationship exists between
law and politics. Law does not substitute for politics. But politics is informed by and can inform law. Here,
McCann is again on point when he says that court actions can play an important , though partial, role in “fashioning the
different ‘opportunity structures’ and discursive frameworks within which citizens act.”122 Thus, in courting
the people, Justice Ginsburg’s Ledbetter dissent opened up an analytic space for productive dialogue and what
Daniel HoSang terms “politically potent action” by the people themselves.123

Politically potent action, however, is not limited to casting a ballot or engineering policy outcomes that can be quickly aggregated and counted.
Nor is it always precisely what the judicial dissenter imagines. As Martha Minow writes, “[l]egal language, like a song, can be
hummed by someone who did not write it and changed by those for whom it was not intended.”124 Or, as I note in the
foreword, the demosprudential dissenter’s real power “comes when the dissenter is aligned with a social
movement or community of accountability that mobilizes to change the meaning of the Constitution over time.”125

We have often seen this dynamic on the right, where Justice Scalia is perhaps the most demosprudential of the
Justices.126 Were more dissenters on the left, not just the right, to participate self-consciously in a larger
demosprudential project, a more dynamic set of “politically” potent relationships might emerge between legal elites and aggrieved
community actors. In other words, judges (and other legal professionals) could play a more active and self-conscious role in
creating “analytic” space for citizens to advance alternative interpretations of their own lived experience
and ultimately help change the law. Law and politics are not the same, but they constitute and shape each other over time
through mass conversation as well as mass mobilization.

At the same time, I readily concede that the challenges of courting the people are neither captured by, nor limited to, what Justices say aloud
and in dissent. Justices operate under multiple constraints that Professor Rosenberg painstakingly documents.127 To the extent Supreme Court
Justices appear to politicize their own internal decision-making process, they may lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public.128

How, then, might President Obama proceed were a vacancy to arise on the Court during his term? Consider these facts. Republicans, although
now out of power in Congress and the White House, still enjoy a supermajority on the Supreme Court.129 The age and the health of the
Justices make it likely that President Obama, should a vacancy arise, will only get to replace one moderately liberal dissenter with another.130
Even if President Obama gets to name two or three new Justices, his nominees will likely reflect their judicial philosophies primarily in dissent.

As President Obama considers candidates for a future Court vacancy, he may therefore find himself thinking demosprudentially, especially if his
nominees reflect his commitment to engaging “We the People” in deliberation about the meaning of our democracy. Thinking
demosprudentially has both a mobilizing and mirroring dimension. It is a call to understand the ongoing dialogue between constitutional law
and constitutional culture. It invites public debate about the meaning of constitutional principles. At the same time it is reflective. It raises to
public consciousness the aspirational merits of deliberative accountability. It summons social movement actors to meditate on what it means
for the Constitution to belong to the people and not just to the Supreme Court. Thinking demosprudentially is a reminder that the people
themselves have a role to play in the conversation about the conflicts at the core of our democracy.

Thinking demosprudentially is not a project of the left or the right. It is a project of democratic
accountability. To the extent Justices root their disagreement about the meaning and interpretation of
constitutional law in a more democratically accountable soil , they may spark a deliberative process that
enhances public confidence in the legitimacy of the judicial process itself.

Environmental injustice perpetuates and amplifies broader structures of racial

oppression—community empowerment strategies are crucial
Roberts 98 - Senior note and comment editor at American University Law Review, JD from American
University (R. Gregory, “ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT: LEARNING
FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT”, October 1998,
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol48/iss1/5/, American University Law Review 48, no.1)

Community empowerment strategies must play a prominent role in any environmental justice strategy
because they are the most effective means of addressing the root-cause of environmental injustice:
economic and political powerlessness. As noted above, this powerlessness makes poor and minority
communities the “path of least resistance,” which has two principal effects: (1) a disproportionate
number of “locally undesirable land uses” (“LULUs”) are sited there; and (2) once sited, enforcement of
environmental laws at these facilities is lax, resulting in the creation of toxic “hot-spots” in these
communities. 1. The problem of siting: NIMBY The most vivid manifestation of economic and political powerlessness is the NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) syndrome.111
Traditionally, NIMBY has been used by affluent sectors of society to block the siting of LULUs in their communities.112 These communities are effective at blocking LULUs primarily because: (1)
they are able to expend the necessary resources;113 and (2) politicians typically relate to these communities and are thus more sensitive to their needs and desires.114 When these
communities say “Not In My Backyard,” developers turn their attention to communities where opposition is less organized and less powerful—poor and minority communities.115 In fact,
some have labeled this response by developers and political officials the “PIBBY principle”—"Place in Black’s Backyard.”116 Regardless of how it is characterized, the result is clear: because

NIMBY and the

poor and minority communities are unable to muster sufficient resistance to the siting of LULUs, these undesirable facilities end up in their neighborhoods.

resultant problem of siting are harmful to poor and minority communities for reasons beyond that of
pollution. First, LULUs engender a sense of unfairness because they tend to gravitate toward
disadvantaged communities, thereby making those communities worse places to live. Second, NIMBY
has operated to insulate non-minority and affluent communities from the adverse impacts of solid waste
facilities while simultaneously providing them with benefits, such as garbage disposal . This has led Robert Bullard to
argue that NIMBY creates and perpetuates privileges for affluent communities at the expense of poor and

minority communities. 2. The problem of enforcement The problems that lead to the siting of LULUs in poor and minority communities also contribute to the lax
enforcement of environmental laws once the facilities are sited.122 In 1992, the National Law Journal conducted a study of the EPA’s enforcement practices and found there to be a significant
enforcement gap between predominately white communities and predominately minority communities.123 Among other things, the study found that: (1) hazardous waste sites in minority
communities took 20% longer to get placed on the EPA’s National Priorities List than those in white communities;124 (2) clean-up projects began approximately 42% later in minority
communities than in white communities;125 (3) penalties against polluters in low-income communities were 54% lower than for wealthier communities;126 (4) a 500% disparity in fines levied
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act existed between white and minority communities;127 and (5) the Clean Air Act enforcement cases were overwhelmingly brought in white
communities.128 These findings strongly suggest that unequal environmental protection places minority communities at special risk. B. The Public Choice Process The public choice process
provides an excellent illustration of why the interests of poor and minority communities are largely ignored on the institutional level. Debunking the myth that the public choice process is open
to everyone, Professor Denis J. Brion argues that political experiences suggest that decisions can often be explained by a perceived hierarchy of power, where wealthy communities are not
subjected to LULUs while poorer communities are.130 The question then is: why does the public choice process produce such inequitable results? Brion provides two answers: (1) the
operation of government precludes groups with fewer resources from fair consideration of their interests, and (2) the personal agendas of decision-makers often prevent objective decision-
making.131 Addressing the first point, Brion argues that to participate adequately in the public choice process, two types of resources are required.132 The first type includes resources that
enable participation, such as time, negotiation and presentation skills, and a thorough understanding of the workings of and interplay among the various governmental entities involved.133 In
theory, anyone may acquire these resources. In practice, however, the cost of acquiring them frequently prevents participation—the classic collective action problem.134 The second type of
resource is one that comprises the substance of participation.135 This substance consists of both advocacy for a particular outcome and the information necessary to make an informed
decision.136 Brion contends that because decision-makers are frequently uninformed on a particular issue, they rely solely on people—such as industry representatives—who have the
information readily available, thereby further prejudicing the decision-making process. 137profession, politicians do not begin to evaluate each issue from a neutral stance. Given their desire
to remain in office, they are inclined to cater to the constituencies that elected them.138 Bureaucrats, on the other hand, exhibit two strong biases: to avoid making controversial decisions and
to expand their particular department.139 Poor and minority communities lack economic and political clout; therefore, they enjoy little influence over government officials.140 Conversely,
wealthier communities are better able to influence and obtain favorable decisions from politicians since politicians can more closely relate to the wealthier communities.141 The public choice
process illustrates why economic and political powerlessness is so detrimental to poor and minority communities. Lacking political representation and influence, the powerlessness of minority
and poor communities creates and perpetuates the disparate siting of LULUs and unequal enforcement of environmental laws once a facility is sited. Given the nature of the public choice
process, the only means of remedying this problem is by increasing the political and economic influence of poor and minority communities. Community empowerment strategies are aimed at

Community empowerment strategies are

accomplishing just this goal. C. Transforming the Path of Least Resistance: Community Empowerment Strategies

necessary because they are the only means to adequately address and remedy the underlying cause of
environmental injustice—powerlessness. To be effective, however, these strategies must seek to accomplish three goals: improving education; building the
movement; and addressing the root-cause of the problem.143 The first objective focuses on two types of education: educating the community about a proposed land use;144 and educating
the community that it must take power for itself.145 The second objective mandates the creation of an active community group that will remain intact and active long after the problem at
issue is resolved.146 Finally, the third objective demands an effective strategy that will address the root-cause of environmental injustice and not merely a symptom of the problem.147 In

community empowerment strategies seek to enable those who face the consequences of
short,

environmental decisions be the ones making the decisions. By educating and mobilizing communities, these strategies
attempt to remedy the inequitable results generated by NIMBY and the normal functioning of the public
choice process. The ultimate goal of community empowerment strategies is to create numerous
empowered communities that will coalesce into a movement capable of exerting pressure on and
affecting the personal agendas of key decision-makers. D. Community Empowerment in Action: St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment
—the Shintech, Inc. Controversy The recent controversy in St. James Parish, Louisiana surrounding the proposal by the Japanese firm, Shintech, Inc., to build a $700 million PVC plant in the
predominantly black community provides an excellent example of how and why community empowerment strategies are effective.151 Controversy began virtually from the moment citizens
heard of the proposal.152 Despite protest, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) initially approved the requisite air permits for the plant.153 Citizens groups
subsequently filed petitions with the EPA requesting that the Agency rescind the permits on environmental justice and technical grounds.154 The environmental justice issue centers on
whether the siting of the plant in St. James Parish violates President Clinton’s Executive Order. The controversy was widely viewed as the EPA’s test case for implementing the Executive
Order.155 1. Formation of the community group St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment (the “Group”) was formed to provide a
community voice in opposition to the siting ofthe proposed Shintech, Inc. PVC plant.156 The Group is opposed to the plant for several reasons.157 First, the Group believes the area is
presently overburdened with three chloride processing plants, an oil refinery, a plastics plant, and other industries within a three-mile radius of the proposed plant.158 Second, the plant
would be located within a mile of the local elementary school, raising concerns about the condition of the school and whether it is adequate for “shelter-inplace” warnings.159 Third, the
Group believes that the promise of jobs at the plant is an empty promise.160 2. The Group’s activities The Group has been active in the community from the moment it heard of the
proposal.161 When news of the proposal first became public, the Group organized and funded two informational meetings.162 The Group distributed fliers about the meetings, placed
announcements in newspapers, and arranged transportation for those who would otherwise not have been able to attend.163 The purpose of these meetings was to obtain information from a
diverse group of people164 and to encourage “open and frank” discussion about the pros and cons of the proposal, including economic, health, and environmental impacts.165 In addition to
organizing informational meetings, the Group widely advertised the LDEQ’s public hearing on the Shintech air permits.166 The Group also educated itself about the plant’s operating
procedures and the vinyl chloride, dioxin, and other hazardous materials that the plant would produce.167 Likewise, in an effort to understand better their rights under existing law, the Group
studied the permitting process and regulatory actions by the LDEQ and the EPA.168 Through these efforts, the Group has sought to influence the decision-making process and ensure that the
community’s interests and concerns are fully considered in the permitting process.169 3. Results of the Group’s efforts In response to the Group’s protests, the filing of an environmental
justice petition with the EPA on April 2, 1997,170 and a request for an adjudicatory hearing with the LDEQ on May 15, 1997,171 the Group achieved several successes. First, on September 8,
1997, J. Dale Givens, Secretary of the LDEQ, reopened the permitting process to enable further dialogue between the LDEQ and concerned citizens, and to address potential environmental
justice issues.172 Second, on September 10, 1997, EPA Administrator Carol Browner rejected Shintech’s air permit on technical grounds—for its failure to regulate all potential sources of
pollution.173 The Agency, however, failed to act explicitly on the environmental justice issues,174 instead leaving them to the LDEQ to address in the reopened permitting process.175 Third,
on September 17, 1998 Shintech announced that it was suspending plans to build the PVC plant in St. James Parish.176 Instead, it plans to build a smaller, $250 million plant near Plaquemine,
Louisiana.177 Perhaps most importantly, to avoid the “firestorm” it encountered in St. James Parish, Shintech conducted a series of public meetings with residents in the parishes surrounding
the newly proposed plant to identify issues that the company should address when it submits its new permit applications.178 These results are both discouraging and encouraging. They are
discouraging because in its test case for environmental justice, the EPA ultimately left the decision to the LDEQ.179 On the other hand, the results are encouraging because community
involvement and pressure clearly influenced the decision-making process, as shown by the LDEQ’s decision to reopen the permitting process, and Shintech’s decision to relocate its plant and
conduct public meetings at the new location before submitting its permit application. 180 4. Assessing the effectiveness of the Group’s tactics To assess the Group’s effectiveness, one must
examine whether its actions accomplished the three goals of community empowerment strategies: increasing education; building the movement; and addressing the root-cause of
environmental injustice.181 Arguably, all three have been accomplished. First, the tactics clearly educated the community.182 The Group researched relevant issues, identified their rights and
how they could participate in the process, and also learned about the plant’s production processes and the nature of the toxins that would be released.183 Second, the Group’s efforts have
helped build a movement.184 By organizing meetings and posting notices about the LDEQ public hearings, the Group encouraged more people to attend and join the efforts to block the
plant.185 Additionally, the Group’s efforts attracted national186 and international attention187 and the Group gained the support of influential national public interest groups such as
Greenpeace.188 Third, the Group’s efforts have profoundly affected decisionmakers. In her letter to the LDEQ Secretary J. Dale Givens, EPA Administrator Carol Browner stressed that the EPA
felt it was essential that the concerns of the residents be adequately addressed in the permitting process.189 Similarly, in her speech to the Congressional Black Caucus the day after rejecting
the Shintech air permits, Browner explained that “I took this action, in part, because the local residents convinced us . . . that their concerns about being disproportionately subjected to
environmental hazards were not being adequately addressed.”190 At the local level, the Group’s efforts spawned two environmental justice laws191 and played a role in Shintech’s decision to
suspend plans for building its plant in St. James Parish and to hold public meetings prior to submitting its permit application for its newly proposed plant in Plaquemine.192 By influencing the
decision-making process, the Group’s tactics addressed the root-cause of environmental injustice—the powerlessness of minority and poor communities. III. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
STRATEGIES ARE THE ANSWER The outcome of the Shintech controversy demonstrates the efficacy of community empowerment strategies. The actions taken by the St. James Citizens for Jobs
and the Environment accomplished the goals of community empowerment strategies, and as a result, the Group was able to influence the decision-making process. Although this outcome may

Empowerment
have been the ideal, a less favorable outcome for the citizens of St. James would not mean that community empowerment strategies are ineffective.

strategies are effective because their ultimate goal is to win the war against social injustice. The
outcome of any particular battle, while important for those involved, is not important in terms of the
final goal, social justice. Empowerment strategies focus on building a movement ultimately capable of
exerting pressure on decision-makers. The building of a movement is a gradual process, likely replete
with set-backs. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s provides an excellent example of this gradual process. Efforts by individuals like Rosa Parks196 and four North Carolina A&T
students197 to change the prejudiced political system began with only a few supporters, but gradually spread from town to town across the South. As entire communities began taking part, a
national movement was born that ultimately resulted in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.198 A. The Civil Rights Movement The main goals of the
Civil Rights Movement were to mobilize communities to bring about social justice, equal protection, and an end to institutional discrimination.199 The environmental justice movement has the
same goals.200 As such, it is useful to examine the strategies employed by the Civil Rights Movement and evaluate them within the empowerment model. 1. Tactics employed by the Civil
Rights Movement Four principal tactics were employed by the Civil Rights Movement in its quest for social justice. The first tactic was litigation.201 Black activists used the legal system to chip
away gradually at school segregation and Jim Crow laws;202 eventually achieving school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education. The second principal tactic was the use of mass
meetings. These meetings usually convened in churches and were places where participants could express their emotions and formulate strategies.205 The emotional expressions at these
meetings became a way of channeling fear and rage into positive collective action.206 The third tactic took the form of mass protest actions such as marches or sit-ins.207 Both were designed
to rally community support and bring attention to the movement’s cause.208 Marches were especially effective at showing black solidarity and serving as a means for demanding reform and
federal action.209 A fourth, and less well-known, tactic was the establishment of citizenship schools.210 These schools focused on racial matters, holding interracial meetings and workshops
that dealt with race relations, political education, and leadership training.211 2. Evaluating these tactics within the empowerment model The tactics employed by the Civil Rights Movement
accomplished the three goals of empowerment strategies. First, they educated the community. Through institutions like citizenship schools, blacks learned to read, learned of their rights, and
learned how the government operated.212 Similarly, activities like marches and sit-ins enabled blacks to take control of the struggle.213 Second, the tactics helped build a movement. Sit-ins
and marches were extremely effective at building local support that spilled over into town after town.214 Likewise, public meetings were an effective means of channeling individual feelings
into collective action.215 Third, the tactics sought to remedy the root-cause of social injustice.216 Through unified action, blacks were able to place significant pressure on local and national
politicians,217 ultimately culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. CONCLUSION: LEARNING FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT The Civil Rights
Movement demonstrates that community empowerment strategies are an effective means of overcoming powerlessness. The tactics employed by the Civil Rights Movement empowered
individuals, communities, and ultimately, a national movement. To succeed, the environmental justice movement must do the same. Although specific tactics may differ,220 the underlying

empowerment
concept of empowering individuals to take control of the struggle for themselves should be at the core of any environmental justice strategy.221 In fact, any

strategies adopted by the environmental justice movement stand a better chance of success than
those embraced by the Civil Rights Movement. First, black communities have in place many of the
institutions established during the Civil Rights Movement. Second, because they have experience with
collective action through various community groups and institutions, minority communities may be
more responsive to organization efforts. Third, through institutions such as the Congressional Black Caucus, environmental justice advocates are better able
to attract the government’s attention to the interests and concerns of minority communities. Finally, the President has already involved himself in the environmental justice debate through
Executive Order 12,898, thus providing the movement with a degree of national legitimacy. The Shintech controversy is a solid foundation on which the environmental justice movement can
build. Through their organization, education, and legal efforts, the citizens of St. James Parish were able to address the inequities of the public choice process. Their participation not only
ensured that the community’s concerns were heard but that decisions were made on the basis of complete information. Through these efforts, the citizens of St. James Parish gained a voice in
the decision-making process. This is the goal of community empowerment strategies. Thus, the Shintech controversy demonstrates that the strategies employed by the Civil Rights Movement
are just as effective today as they were almost forty years ago.
The case outweighs --- The utilitarian framework of the negative disads asks the judge
to sacrifice water quality to save money --- Rather, the judge should embrace “positive
peace” --- doing so is a moral imperative that privileges racial justice over “economic
concerns”
Abuelaish & Russell 17 --- Izzeldin Abuelaish & Kirstie K. Russell, Dalla Lana School of Public Health,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, “The Flint water contamination crisis: the corrosion of positive
peace and human decency”, Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 33(4), 242–249, 2017,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29171290/
The human body is 70% water and people need two or three litres of it per day to remain hydrated (Mayo Clinic 2016). The United States has
made it a priority to have one of the safest public drinking water supplies in the world (CDC 2014) . So why did a severe water contamination
crisis occur in Flint, Michigan between 2014 and 2017. Indeed, lead
contamination prevails in many other communities
besides Flint Moreover, this public health emergency is [ human-caused] manmade - a consequence of
government neglect and carelessness. It represents a government's 'cost-saving' decision to switch the Flint
municipal water system to a new and less safe water source. As a result lead leached into Flint's water system, poisoning residents - mainly
poor, African-American and under the age of five (Hanna-Attisha et al. 2016). What are the driving forces behind this crisis?

Positive peace is defined as 'the attitudes, institutions and structures which create and sustain peaceful
societies.' (The Institute for Economics and Peace 2015) . It requires a well-functioning government, the equitable
distribution of resources and the free flow of information. The Flint water contamination is an invisible act of what
Johan Galtung calls ‘structural violence,' (Galtung 1969) carried out by government officials against a poor and
ethnically distinct community. To achieve reconciliation in Flint, it is necessary to uncover the truth behind the crisis. We argue that
health professionals, including public health workers, have a moral duty, not only to prevent and treat disease, but also
to address the upstream factors' of ill health and conflict and to advocate for social justice and peace.
Flint's demographics

According to the Global Peace Index developed by the Institute for Economics and Peace, in 2010 Michigan ranked 29th out of the 50 states in
the US. This means that it is less peaceful than the majority of US States. Flint, with a population of approximately 100,000, is the seventh
largest metropolitan area in Michigan. It is 57% African-American and has a median income of $24,834, compared to the state’s median income
of $48,411 (Heavey 2016). While only 17% of the state of Michigan lives below the nation’s poverty line, approximately 40% of Flint residents
do so (Nelson 2016). As an industrial city, since the 1980s, the Greater Flint region has lost 77% of its manufacturing employment and 41% of its
employment.

Both in lower and higher income countries, the lower an individual’s or community’s socio-economic status, the worse is their health (WHO
2016). The Flint region is near the worst in the state in terms of childhood poverty, unemployment, violent crime, illicit drug use, domestic
violence, preterm births, infant mortality and overall health outcomes. Flint has had a long history of crime, financial distress, population
decline and now a public health disaster (HannaAttisha et al. 2016).

Politics and the voices of the people Positive peace requires the free flow of information so that people are well-informed about what is
occurring around them and can make rational decisions. But throughout the Flint water contamination crisis, information was not shared with
the people; rather, government officials refused to listen to them, failed to investigate their concerns and hid information affecting their health.

The crisis started in April 2014, when the state-appointed emergency manager switched the city’s water source from Detroit’s water supply
system, which comes from Lake Huron, to the Flint River. The decision was a cost-saving measure to ‘save’ Flint from financial collapse (Nelson
and Eligon 2016). However, while the water from Lake Huron has low corrosivity and is treated with anticorrosive, the Flint River water source
has high levels of chloride and was not treated with anticorrosive, which would have cost the authorities $100 per day (Nelson and Eligon
2016).

Flint’s water distribution system is out-of-date, containing numerous lead pipes (Nelson and Eligon 2016). The river water corroded the old lead
pipes, creating perfect conditions for lead, a toxic substance, which can also create conditions in which it is easier for bacteria to flourish, to
leach into the municipal water system.
Shortly after the switch, residents began to complain about the water’s odour, taste and colour and an increase in skin rashes. In October,
Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality blamed a bacterial outbreak on cold weather and ageing pipes and did not look any further
into the concerns of the people. However, in that same month the General Motors (GM) plant in Flint switched back to using Detroit’s water
system, explaining that the Flint River water was causing car parts to rust. If so, what was its impact on human bodies? A wealthy corporation
such as GM can control its fate, unlike the people of Flint. Three months later, in January 2015, the Detroit Water and Sewage Department
offered to reconnect Flint to the Lake Huron water source, without charging the $4 million reconnection fee. Despite overwhelming support
from the Flint Water City Council to reconnect to the Detroit water source, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager declined the offer,
stating that the costs would be too high and that the water from Detroit was not any safer than the water from Flint (CNN 2017; Lin, Rutter, and
Park 2016).

In February 2015, officials stated that the water was ‘not an imminent threat to public health.’ (Lin, Rutter, and Park 2016). However, later that
month, 104 parts per billion (ppb) of lead were detected in the drinking water of one Flint resident. According to the Safe Drinking Water Act
Lead and Copper Rule, the US Environmental Protection Agency must act when lead levels reach 15 ppb. By March, the same resident’s tap
water tested at 397 ppb. By May, high levels of lead were found in two more homes in Flint. (Lin, Rutter, and Park 2016). In August and
September of 2015, a research team at Virginia Tech University found that 101 of 252 legitimate water samples from Flint homes had first draw
lead over 5 ppb and several samples exceeded 100 ppb (Edwards 2015).

In September 2015, Dr. Marc Edwards, an expert on municipal water quality and a professor at Virginia Tech, reported that the corrosiveness of
the water was causing lead from the ageing water pipes to leak into the water supply (Lin, Rutter, and Park 2016). Indeed, after reviewing the
blood lead levels (BLLs) for children of five years and younger, before and after the water source change Dr. Hanna-Attisha and her research
team found that elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) increased from 2.4 to 4.9% after the switch. It was not until October 2015 that Flint city
officials finally urged residents to stop drinking the water.

Only then did the state government order the distribution of filters, the testing of water in schools and the expansion of water and blood
testing. Flint reconnected to Detroit’s water system but still urged residents not to use unfiltered tap water for drinking, cooking or bathing. In
January 2016, President Obama declared a state of emergency, letting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provide up to $5
million in aid (Lin, Rutter, and Park 2016). National Guard troops arrived in Flint to help distribute bottled water. Essentially, the federal
government had to call in an army to reduce the structural violence that political leaders inflicted on their own people. Structural violence
overwhelmingly affects the poor and minority groups and usually results from decisions by economic and political elites (Byrne and Senehl
2012). If Flint were not a poor, African-American industrial town, it is unlikely that state regulators would have let this public health crisis occur
(Nelson 2016; Nelson and Eligon 2016).

The main victims: children An estimated, 12,000 children in Flint are thought to have been exposed to lead-tainted water (Lawrence 2016).
While adults can only absorb 3–10% of an oral dose of water-soluble lead, children can absorb 40–50%. The biggest threat of lead poisoning is
to infants who consume formula made from tap water. In fact, tap water may be responsible for more than 85% of total lead exposure among
infants consuming baby formula (Hanna-Attisha et al. 2016). Lead is also an abortifacient and has been involved in reduced birth weights and
increased foetal deaths (Hanna-Attisha et al. 2016).

Lead is a neurotoxin with extremely detrimental and irreversible effects on children’s long-term health. It can affect many developmental and
biological processes, including intelligence, behaviour and overall life achievement (Hanna-Attisha et al. 2016). Early life exposure has a major
impact on future health and productivity. If children suffer developmentally from lead poisoning, they cannot achieve their educational
potential and education is one of the factors that enables an individual to lead a prosperous life. Education gives a person a voice, an ability to
question what people say and resilience when faced with challenges. In many ways, education is the antidote to poverty. By allowing Flint’s
children to be poisoned with lead, government officials have hindered their development biologically and neurologically, potentially reducing
their ability to excel and possibly even rendering them vulnerable to a cycle of poverty. The impacts of lead exposure may be passed on,
affecting not only the people of this generation but potentially their offspring as well (Sen et al. 2015).

Although government officials initially viewed switching Flint’s water source as a cost-saving measure, they now face an even more costly
situation. They have to locate and replace the majority of the city’s water infrastructure (including approximately 15,000 lead pipes), and hire
engineers and planners for the job. They have to buy bottled water and filters, and provide nutritional assistance and additional health care
(Bosman 2016). However, these are downstream, after-the-fact ‘fixes.’ Policy-makers should proactively focus on prevention, not treatment.
Through poor decision-making and reactive solutions, politicians risked the lives of many innocent citizens. Indeed, if the government had been
proactive, as opposed to reactive, it is very possible that the Flint water contamination crisis could have been prevented.

Truth, responsibility, apologies and justice Health

is a political matter (Navarro 2009). For positive peace, a community
needs a healthy environment and a well-functioning government (Institute for Economics and Peace 2015) – one
that provides good public services and engenders trust among its people. The contaminated water
eroded both the city’s physical infrastructure and trust in public institutions. Yet, the community has demonstrated
tremendous resilience. For example, the Flint Fwd Project is a movement inspired by the people of Flint, which aims to bring together citizens
of Flint through social media and to revitalize the community after facing difficult circumstances, including the water contamination crisis (Flint
Fwd Project, n.d.). Furthermore, in the wake of the water contamination crisis, the Flint Community Resilience Group was formed, which is
comprised of a number of local health systems, organizations, academic institutions and community partners. This group works with Flint
residents to get feedback on the needs of the community since the water contamination crisis (CDC, 2016). The victims of this crisis have
collectively adapted and coped with this unjust situation and have bonded together through protest to demand acknowledgement from state
politicians.

The ultimate goal in times of conflict, whether it is physical or structural in nature, is order and justice. To
achieve justice, it is necessary for the perpetrators – in this case, government officials – to acknowledge the truth and to be held accountable.
Indeed, transparency and trust are requirements for achieving reconciliation, which can be understood as both a health and peace determinant
(Abuelaish et al. 2013). Government officials must acknowledge and take responsibility for their decision to prioritize economics over human
life and health, and for ignoring the voices of civil society, health and water experts. They must acknowledge and take responsibility for
jeopardizing the futures of innocent children.

Finally, after three years, on June 14 2017, five officials were charged with involuntary manslaughter for the water crisis (Ganim 2017). The
government must also have the courage to apologize to the community for the injustices they have inflicted. Furthermore, to achieve
reconciliation, the community of Flint must be compensated for what they have incurred and included in the process of solving the problem.
Once forgiveness and trust have been obtained, the community has a much stronger foundation on which it can begin to heal and rebuild as a
peaceful society (Abuelaish et al. 2013).

Health care professionals as advocates for justice Dr. Hanna-Attisha and her team were among the first to recognize the horrifying impact of the
water source switch on the BLLs of Flint’s children. She listened to the concerns of Flint residents and reviewed the BLLs for children of five
years and younger, before and after the water source change. They also noted that the neighbourhoods with the highest water lead levels
experienced a 6.6% increase in the incidence of EBLLs. The study further demonstrated that socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods
had the greatest increase in EBLLs. Children living in Flint, a city with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage, are disproportionately at-risk
for lead exposure due to poor nutrition, older housing and concentrated poverty (Hanna-Attisha et al. 2016). Furthermore, families living in
Flint have limited resources for water alternatives, increasing their likelihood of consuming lead-contaminated water (Hanna-Attisha et al.
2016). This finding highlights how socio-economic status is a key determinant of health.

In emergency situations, there is a dire need for accurate and evidence-based information. By providing this information to a community that
was consistently neglected and ignored by politicians, and to the authorities responsible for their services, Dr. Hanna-Attisha exemplifies the
health care professional as an agent for change and social justice. Physicians and other health care workers have the knowledge, education and
power to advocate for and to influence political decision-making. They have a moral obligation to fight for marginalized communities. They
should use their academic education to go beyond interacting with patients in a clinical setting. Indeed, health strategies should include political
and social interventions that address ‘the cause of the causes’ or the upstream factors, the political, social and economic influences on health.
Health professionals must advocate for those whose rights are being infringed on, especially as they relate to health.

Conclusion At the time of writing, it is uncertain when safe drinking water will be restored to Flint. For now residents are still collecting bottled
water from fire stations. However, simply replacing the ageing corrosive lead pipes and reconnecting the water source to Lake Huron is not a
sufficient solution as it does not address the upstream causes, such as government neglect, the inequitable distribution of resources, the
poverty, racism and lack of transparency, that led to the crisis in the first place.

Structural violence takes place in the United States, which purports to value human rights , despite refusing to
sign major human rights treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That treaty acknowledges that the human rights of children
must be protected (United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund 2016). We
must ensure that all individuals are considered
equal, and that the law protects the human rights, dignities and freedoms of all people , no matter their gender,
class, race, age, ethnicity or religion.

Peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace is about healthy connections within and among people,
societal and political structures and the environment . So public health professionals are peace workers too when they
advocate for the powerless, even by securing their access to safe drinking water.
Contention Three --- Solvency
 1AC --- Solvency

Restoring WOTUS solves clean water --- provides clarity and enforcement
Pitts 20 --- Joe Pitts is a past president of James River Basin Partnership, “Restoring Clean Water Act
should be top priority for Biden/Harris administration”, Springfield News-Leader, Dec 3 rd 2020,
https://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/2020/12/03/restoring-cwa-should-priority-biden-
harris/3808984001/

Changes to the Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS) finalized in 2019 were based on misleading information
touted by special interests and are a clear and present danger to the health and safety of Americans. The
implementation of these rule changes is ongoing and generates a multi-dimensional issue because the
intent is to gut WOTUS and in effect the entire Clean Water Act (CWA).
Let me be clear, I am biased toward clean water and anyone who imbibes water should be interested in clean water. That said, I am old enough
to remember when our lakes, streams and rivers were so polluted with domestic and industrial wastes that some of them caught fire. In other
instances, water was deemed unsafe for human body contact or consumption. Today, thanks
in large part to the
implementation of the CWA, most of our lakes, streams and rivers have changed from flammable to
fishable.

The WOTUS rule implemented by the Obama administration was a response to numerous lawsuits against the
Environmental Protection Agency by a diverse group of organizations to force them to implement and enforce regulations
to achieve the stated goal of the CWA that all waters of the United States be fishable and swimmable by 1986. While CWA
rules and regulations have restored roughly 60 percent of our waters to a fishable and swimmable
status, 40 percent are still seriously impaired (polluted).

In past practice the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers did not enforce the CWA on bodies of water that
were not clearly defined in the CWA. In other words, the agencies buckled to influence and pressure from special interest groups such
as corporate agriculture, land developers and industries that discharge wastewater.

The Obama WOTUS rule was an attempt to provide the EPA and COE with guidance to clarify the
definition of Waters of the United States. This “new” guidance was aimed mostly at waters that form the
headwaters of streams and rivers. Many of these bodies of water are ephemeral streams and temporary
wetlands. The guidance included in the Obama version of the WOTUS rule was a reasonable scientific approach to
identifying these waters.
What WOTUS did not do was provide EPA or the COE any additional authority to regulate private property and the waters on that property. The
CWA does not regulate private property and won’t under WOTUS. In fact, the definitions make it easier for regulated entities to decide if they
need permits for activities they might need to conduct in and adjacent to waterways.

The 2019 changes to WOTUS by the Trump administration only made things worse and crippled [wiped
out] the CWA protections. These changes are a 40-year leap backward for our nation’s waters. Of particular
concern is removal of regulations on wastewater and stormwater discharges to groundwater, ephemeral streams and wetlands that will be
lethally damaging to water quality.

Stormwater runoff is one of the largest threats to water quality in the James River and nationally contributes to hazardous algal blooms and to
the so-called “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. The new WOTUS rule has the potential to return the country to a time when rivers were on fire
and many of our waterways were characterized as “open sewers.”

The past 40 years of experience with CWA implementation provide some important lessons: (1) it is
always cheaper to prevent water pollution than it is to clean it up; and (2) the individual states are either
unwilling or unable to protect water resources , which is why we have a federal CWA. The real purpose of the CWA
is to protect human health and welfare from the abuses of corporate greed. The premise is that no individual, corporation or unit of
government has a constitutional right to profit at the expense of the health and welfare of the people. Water connects us all and those who
pollute water affect us all.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been expended over the past 40 years to attain about 60 percent of
the 1972 goals of the CWA. If we are to avoid a complete loss of that investment, the newly minted
Biden/Harris administration must make the revitalization of the CWA a high priority during the first year of
their term in office. Lack of a strong CWA to ensure compliance with standards and to measure pollution
impacts on water quality amounts to a cynical giveaway of federal funds to polluting industries.

Failing to consider the impact of the NWPR on communities that would be most
affected nor seeking their input are grounds for the Court to strike down the NWPR
Weiser 20 --- Attorney General Phil Weiser, AG of Colorado, Filing for State of Colorado V US EPA,
Andrew Wheeler, Army Corps of Engineers, and RD James, Filed 5/22/2020,
https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2020/05/WOTUS-Complaint-5-22-20.pdf

COUNT 1 Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act Agency Action not in Accordance with Law
90. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

91. Under the APA, a court must “set aside agency action” that is “not in accordance with law .” 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

92. The Clean Water Act requires the Agencies to assert jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined
as “waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a), 1344(a), 1362(7), 1362(12). The
United States Supreme Court has
interpreted this authority to mean that adjacent wetlands would fall within the scope of the Clean Water Act if, either
alone or in combination with “similarly situated lands in the region,” they had a “significant nexus” to traditional navigable waters. Rapanos,
547 U.S. at 779-80 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

93. The 2020 Rule defines “waters of the United States” in a way that is inconsistent with the
Agencies’ statutory authority as established by existing case law defining the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act,
which uniformly holds that the Kennedy concurrence in Rapanos is the controlling opinion from that case. Contrary to this controlling law, the
2020 Rule categorically excludes waters that may have a significant nexus to traditional navigable
waters.

94. The 2020 Rule’s definition is also inconsistent with the Clean Water Act’s statutory objective “to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. §
1251(a). The restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters depends on the protection of
headwaters and headwater wetlands, in particular those that satisfy the Significant Nexus test. By stripping federal protections away from
those protected headwaters and wetlands, the 2020 Rule will undermine the basic goal of the Clean Water Act.

95. The 2020 Rule must be set aside because it is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act’s scope as
interpreted by the controlling analysis in Rapanos and is therefore “not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),(C).

COUNT II Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action

96. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

97. Under the APA, an agency engaging in rulemaking must examine relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action. A court must “set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

98. Under this standard, agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion when an
agency fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action backed by relevant data, fails to
consider an important aspect of the problem, or offers an explanation for its decision that runs counter
to the evidence before the agency.
99. An agency’s departure from prior practice can also serve as a basis for finding an agency’s interpretation to be arbitrary and
capricious if the change in policy constitutes an “unexplained inconsistency.”

100. The 2020 Rule constitutes a significant departure in the definition of Waters of the United States from past agency practice,
guidance, and rules, resulting in a substantial reduction in the number of ephemeral streams, intermittent streams, tributaries, and wetlands
that are subject to federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction compared to the status quo under the 2008 guidance and controlling case law. The
Agencies did not provide a satisfactory explanation for this change, which ignores important scientific
data that was before the Agencies and which was relied on in a prior rulemaking action, including the
Connectivity Report.
101. In making this significant regulatory change, the Agencies also failed to provide a reasoned explanation for their departure from
long-standing agency guidance on how jurisdictional determinations should be made under the Clean Water Act in conformance with the
significant nexus test.

102. The 2020 Rule is not grounded in scientific principles , and contradicts scientific information
developed by and previously relied on by the Agencies in prior rules and guidance. The 2020 Rule’s
exclusion of intermittent and ephemeral waters currently within federal jurisdiction under the 2008
Guidance ignores basic science regarding wetlands hydrology and connectivity and the importance of
intermittent and ephemeral waters to downstream water quality in the West. The 2020 Rule’s reliance on flow
during a “typical year” to make jurisdictional determinations lacks any explanation or guidance on how it will be applied and is not supported by
science. Because
these conclusions are not “reasonable conclusions regarding ‘technical or scientific
matters within the [Agencies’] area of expertise,*” they are not entitled to deference and are arbitrary
and capricious. Zzyym v. Pompeo, 2020 WL 2393789 at *8 n.5 (10th Cir. May 12, 2020) (internal citation omitted).

103. Establishing a fundamental rule for the scope of the Clean Water Act without relying on science
is contrary to the purpose and structure of the Clean Water Act. Without scientific underpinning and support,
the Agencies’ conclusion of what is and what is not waters of the United States is arbitrary' and
capricious.

104. In adopting the 2020 Rule, the Agencies also failed to consider other important aspects of the
problem and other relevant evidence, including but not limited to the economic harm that the 2020 Rule could create in
Colorado, the creation of a “404 permitting gap” in Colorado, the potential degradation of Colorado waters from the 2020 Rule, and the
potential harm to Colorado species from the 2020 Rule. The failure of the Agencies to consider these important aspects of the
problem was arbitrary and capricious.

105. The 2020 Rule must be set aside because it constitutes a change in policy unsupported by
sufficient scientific or other satisfactory explanation and is therefore “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C).

COUNT III Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act Agency Action in Reliance on Faulty Economic Analysis

106. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

107. Under the APA, an agency engaging in rulemaking must examine relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.
A court must set “aside agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

108. If federal agencies engage in and rely on an economic analysis to justify a decision, that analysis is subject to scrutiny under the
arbitrary and capricious standard. A serious flaw undermining an economic analysis can render a rule arbitrary and capricious.

109. The Agencies’ Economic Analysis contains significant flaws, as articulated above. It did not comply with the EPA Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses or with basic professional standards for cost-benefit analysis.

110. The Economic Analysis fails to examine the degree to which the 2020 Rule would result in a loss of federal jurisdiction over waters
that were previously determined to be jurisdictional; underestimates the value of lost wetlands benefits; incorporates speculative state
regulatory changes in response to reduced federal jurisdiction; and relies on incorrect assumptions with regard to Colorado.

111. The 2020 Rule must be set aside because it relies on a faulty Economic Analysis and is therefore “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

COUNT IV Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act Agency Action - Procedural Defects

112. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

113. Before an agency may finalize a rule, it must provide the public with a meaningful opportunity
to participate in the rulemaking process, including an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule and the
information supporting the rule through the submission of written data, views, and arguments. 5 U.S.C. § 553.

114. A final rule must be set aside if it was promulgated “without observance of procedure required
by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

115. The 2020 Rule was promulgated without sufficient opportunity to comment on how the Agencies will
determine a “typical year” for the purposes of determining whether waters are jurisdictional. The Agencies have not provided information on
how data will be aggregated to determine whether a year is “typical” under the Rule. Without this information, Colorado could not fully
comment on the impacts of the new definition of “typical year” on its waters, and does not have a basis for assessing what would constitute a
“typical year” in certain watersheds.

116. The 2020 Rule was promulgated without sufficient opportunity to comment on how the Agencies will evaluate whether intermittent
streams contribute flow to traditional navigable waters. The vast majority of temporary stream systems do not possess streamflow gages or
flow records, the timing of seasonal flows is dependent on local hydrology and regional climatic conditions, and flow may occur at different
times of year. The Agencies failed to provide information on these issues as part of the proposed rule, and as a result Colorado did not have
sufficient opportunity to analyze and comment on the proposal's treatment of intermittent waters.

117. The 2020 Rule must be set aside because it exceeds the Agencies’ statutory authority under the
Clean Water Act and is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5
U.S.C. § 706(2XA).

Demoprudential decisions highlight a failing in democracy --- speak to the people ---
and call out actors --- The aff does that
Bell et al 20 --- Monica Bell, Associate Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Stephanie Garlock, J.D.
candidate at Yale Law School Alexander Nabavi-Noori, J.D. candidate, Yale. Law School “Toward a
Demosprudence of Poverty”, 69 Duke L.J. 1473 (2019-2020), https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/duklr69&div=43&id=&page=

This Article proposes a midrange alternative between a perspective that treats judges as the quintessential
legal-rights protectors and one that shifts analytic focus away from judges altogether. Our alternative
returns to Guinier's earlier approach to demosprudence. In that view, demosprudence "is not concerned
primarily with the logical reasoning or legal principles that animate and justify a judicial opinion" and "is
instead focused on enhancing the democratic potential of the work of lawyers, judges, and other legal
elites." (195)
Guinier originally described judicial
opinions, specifically oral dissents, as demosprudential if they satisfied one or more
of the following characteristics: (1) the opinion "probes or tests a particular understanding of democracy by
engaging] with a core issue of democratic legitimacy , democratic accountability, democratic structure,
or democratic viability"; (2) it breaks from the usual logical structure of judicial opinions, perhaps engaging
in storytelling, using poetic language, or developing some other emotionally stirring rhetorical
technique; and (3) it is directed to tasks beyond resolution of a single case and speaks to legal actors
outside the courts. (196) Several scholars have described dissenting opinions by Supreme Court Justices as acts of demosprudence, given
their frequent criticism of highly formalistic approaches to legal analysis that omit relevant social context. (197)

Other scholars have expanded on this definition of demosprudence by focusing on the behavior of judges or the interpretation of current law.
For example, Professor Brian Ray argues that judicial
demosprudence extends to the use of rhetoric in majority
opinions to "invok[e] the tragic consequences of insufficient policies " and to construct narratives that
promote long-term policy deliberation between the political branches and the government. (198) He
contends that this judicial demosprudence is highly valuable to social movement s in countries with relatively young
constitutional cultures, such as South Africa. (199) Professor Justin Long has applied the concept of demosprudence to interactive federalism
between state and federal courts, focusing on state constitutional decisions that expand notions of individual rights and equal protection
beyond those that prevail in the federal courts. (200) Professor Seth Davis offers an expansive reading of the Thirteenth Amendment as a
demosprudential pathway for a movement toward collective self-determination in Black American communities. (201)

Although several scholars locate demosprudence within scholarship on popular constitutionalism and constitutional culture, (202)
demosprudence need not be centrally concerned with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, there are many ways that judges , at multiple levels, can support and enhance the democratic capacity
of the public. Judges might engage in demosprudence simply by acknowledging the world as it is in a
way that members of the public can see and understand, (203) such as by engaging in pathetic, emotion
resonant argumentation and not merely logical argumentation in writings. (204) Judges who write opinions can
give voice to the context of the poverty-related cases before them.

For judges who do not write opinions--as is the case in many state civil and criminal courts--demosprudence could mean interrogating relevant
topics in court so that information appears in trial transcripts. Demosprudence could also mean using the judicial
rulemaking process to establish principles and ethical standards that aim to reduce systematic
socioeconomic bias. Judges can interpret legal doctrine and apply normal rules of court while simultaneously acknowledging that the deeper
solutions to the marginalization and criminalization of the poor are not likely to be found only in courts. Judges who manage courtrooms and
dockets can do so in ways that educate themselves and their staff about the context of poor people's lives, so they are more conscientious
about the stakes and limitations of their decision-making processes. Judges who set rules for the courts can start from the vantage point of
poor people's day-to-day lives, rather than a topdown, status-quo-oriented lens for rules development. What these notions have in common is
a view that judges can ethically act to promote participatory public dialogue even if current legal doctrine or process do not permit direct
intervention. (205)

States lack the infrastructure to build out a regulatory program --- Even with
IMMEDIATE fiat developing a program where there currently is none can take
DECADES
Kihslinger 19 --- Rebecca L. Kihslinger, Senior Science and Policy Analyst, “WOTUS Proposal Poses
Challenge for States “, Environmental Law Institute, February 18, 2019, https://www.eli.org/vibrant-
environment-blog/wotus-proposal-poses-challenge-states

Further, even
where states have permitting programs, loss of federal partners will leave implementation
gaps that will need to be filled by state expenditures of taxpayer funds. For example, the federal
government is key in delineating jurisdictional waters. If the federal government pulls back on this role,
states would be left to fill the gap, which will require additional technical and scientific expertise.

Most of the existing state programs were adopted some decades ago, and it seems unlikely that many
states will move quickly to expand protection to cover resources left unprotected under the proposed rule, at least over the
short term. Establishing new state programs would require large investments in resources and staff .
Minnesota’s relatively robust aquatic resource regulatory programs employ at least 22 people, for example, not a level that could be rapidly
matched elsewhere. Other states,
such as Iowa, have only one or a few staff covering the regulatory program. And,
building programs takes time. In March, California is expected to finalize new procedures “to strengthen
protection of waters of the state that are no longer protected under the Clean Water Act ” and improve
consistency “in requirements for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the state ”, 10 years
after the state began work on the policy. Further, in some states, legal restrictions may impede the adoption of regulations to
expand protection beyond the new federal baseline.
Aff Case Backlines
Inherency
 Ext --- Biden Repeal Coming

Biden attempting to change WOTUS definition now

Northey & Jacobs 21 --- Hannah Northey and Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E News reporters, “Biden admin
to dump Trump rule, boost wetland protections”, June 9 th 2021,
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063734581

The Biden administration today formally announced it would significantly change the definition of which
waterways qualify for federal protections, asking a court to let it take a crack at a controversial Trump-era rule .

EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers asked a federal judge to remand former President Trump's Navigable
Waters Protection Rule, saying that "a broad array of stakeholders" are "seeing destructive impacts"
from it.

At the same time, EPA Administrator Michael Regan

announced his agency would begin a new rulemaking to restore
the pre-2015 definition of what constitutes "waters of the U.S." — or WOTUS.
"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," Regan said in a statement.

Regan said EPA is committed to establishing a durable definition 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."

Biden on his first day in office ordered his administration to review the regulation, which took effect last June and pulled back federal oversight
of at least 51% of wetlands and 18% of streams — many of which had been protected since the Reagan administration (Greenwire, Jan. 23,
2020).

EPA and the Army Corps also laid out guideposts for crafting a new WOTUS definition, including protections consistent with federal law and
based on the latest science and effects of climate change, as well as the need for a rule that can be practicable and can be implemented by
states and tribes.

The final rule will also reflect input from landowners, farmers, states, tribes and local officials, as well as environmental groups and
disadvantaged communities with environmental justice concerns, they said.

EPA is facing several lawsuits stemming from the Trump-era rule, forcing the Biden administration to move more quickly in its Clean Water Act
analysis than on other rules.

Today's announcement was driven by one of those cases, one brought by the Conservation Law Foundation and other environmental groups in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

That case took issue with many aspects of Trump's Navigable Waters Protection Rule, saying that "many streams, wetlands, and other waters
excluded from the Rule's new definition of 'waters of the United States' have been protected by the Clean Water Act for decades."

"The rule is thus a significant and unprecedented rollback of the protections afforded by the statute," the groups wrote.

Specifically, they criticized that the

Trump rule did not cover streams fed by rain or snowfall, and excluded
wetlands, lakes and ponds that did not have a direct connection to other navigable waters via surface flow.

The case also raised many procedural challenges, including alleging that the Trump EPA ignored relevant
scientific analysis.

The Biden administration, in its filing today, said that after reviewing the Trump regulation, it decided to
launch a new rulemaking to "revise or replace" the Trump policy .
Specifically, EPA and the Army Corps highlighted a lack of federal protections in arid states like New Mexico, where, they said, "nearly every one
of over 1,500 streams assessed has been found to be non-jurisdictional." The agencies said they are also aware of 333 projects that would have
required dredge-and-fill Clean Water Act permits before the Navigable Waters Protection Rule but no longer do.
 Ext --- Tied Up In Courts

Biden rule change will be tied up in the courts

Northey & Jacobs 21 --- Hannah Northey and Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E News reporters, “Biden admin
to dump Trump rule, boost wetland protections”, June 9 th 2021,
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063734581

Challenges ahead

Defining what streams, wetlands and other water bodies qualify for the Clean Water Act's permitting
requirements has been one of the most vexing challenges facing EPA and the Army Corps for decades, as well as a
political hot potato that's drawn the ire of industry, ranching and agricultural interests.

Experts have said it could take considerable legal footwork and savvy to replace the rule, especially if
the Supreme Court addresses the reach of the Clean Water Act.

Any new rule is likely to see legal challenges , and the Biden camp would face the same dilemma that has
flummoxed other administrations — how to craft a WOTUS rule that will survive legal challenges
(Greenwire, Aug. 20, 2020).

"The question up to now has not been whether the Biden administration would do something to
redefine waters of the United States but what would they do ," said Kevin Minoli, formerly EPA's acting general counsel
and top career lawyer. "Now, the question becomes, 'Can they write a definition that will last beyond their time in
office?'"

To achieve that legal durability, Minoli said Regan has to find areas of agreement among various factions interested in WOTUS.
Repealing the existing rule, he said, is going to be more difficult because EPA will be starting from scratch as opposed
to having a floor from the last administration.

The issue has reached the Supreme Court on multiple occasions and produced the famously muddled 2006
Rapanos decision.

Agricultural, property rights and other industry groups have continued to press the issue in court, and
some have said they will seek Supreme Court review again as soon as legally feasible (Greenwire, April 28).

Biden changes will lose Court challenges --- Even Roberts is hostile to regulatory rule
changes
Northey 20 --- Hannah Northey, E&E News reporter, “Biden would face slog to ditch Trump's WOTUS”,
Aug 20th 2020, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063712147

If Democrat Joe Biden wants to scrap the Trump administration's definition of which waters qualify for federal
protection, experts say he'll face a heavy legal lift, lengthy rulemaking, and an onslaught of opposition
from industry, ranching and agricultural interests.
Yet sources say the Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule, which has riled both conservatives and environmentalists, could be a top priority should
the former vice president win the White House in November — right after reinstating President Obama's Clean Power Plan and reining in
President Trump's revisions to a rule for National Environmental Policy Act compliance.

"I think there's going to be considerable pressure to deal with the Waters of the U.S. mess," said Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau,
referring to the regulation that defines the scope of the Clean Water Act. "I think what he really has to do is what Trump did, in reverse, and flip
the script."

The Trump administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule took effect in June, pulling back federal
protection for millions of miles of streams and acres of wetlands.

Experts say it would take considerable legal footwork and savvy to replace that rule, especially given that
the Supreme Court is expected to eventually address the reach of the Clean Water Act.

The Biden camp would face the same dilemma that has flummoxed other administrations: how to craft a
WOTUS rule that will survive legal challenges.

That could put the spotlight on Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush. During the court's
last term, Roberts guided the justices away from massive regulatory swings in environmental cases
(Greenwire, July 13).

"I think [Biden is] going to have to figure out a new line that he can draw on federal jurisdiction that will
survive Supreme Court review, and that comes down to Roberts," Parenteau said.
Larry Liebesman, a former Justice Department attorney who now serves as senior adviser for consulting firm Dawson & Associates, agreed that
the fate of any new WOTUS rule could hinge on the Supreme Court and its makeup.
"At the end of the day, this is going to end up back in the lap of the Supreme Court," Liebesman said. "And, as we've seen at times, Roberts has
been inclined to vote against the Trump administration, so you can't really put him strictly in the conservative camp."

Mark Ryan, a former Clean Water Act attorney for EPA's Region 10 office, warned that repealing
the Trump rule and crafting a
substitute is almost certain to draw legal assaults, and that a Biden administration would need to move
forward carefully.

"Everyone seems to think, 'Oh, we can just undo all this Trump stuff .' It's going to be a long haul," Ryan
added. "One lesson to take away from the Trump efforts is they went too fast and they created low-
hanging fruit for people to sue them over because they were so sloppy."
Water Top Level
 Ext --- NWPR Reduces Coverage / Damages Ecosystems

Trump rule devastates water but pulling coverage from wetlands and streams
Wohl 19 --- Tara Lohan interviewing Ellen Wohl, a professor of geosciences at Colorado State
University and an expert in river systems, for “The Ask”, “Clean Water at Risk as Trump Administration
Ignores Science”, March 14, 2019, https://therevelator.org/water-wotus-wohl/

Why are disconnected wetlands and streams that don’t always flow so important ecologically?

For at least two reasons. First, even though surface connectivity is not continuous in time and space, these
portions of a drainage basin can sometimes connect , such as during snowmelt or after rainfall. During
these periods organisms can migrate for breeding or to reach new habitat, and the habitat diversity provided
by ephemeral channels and disconnected wetlands is important to many aquatic and terrestrial
organisms.
Salamanders are one example: Some species of salamanders spend much of their adult life in forests, but rely on ephemeral wetlands for
breeding and nursery habitat.

Second, ephemeral channels and wetlands without surface connectivity can still be connected below
the ground with other portions of the drainage basin. This has a big impact on water quality — underground is
where microbes in the soil work to remove harmful nutrients like nitrates from water that will
eventually return to the surface in perennial rivers.

What does Trump’s proposed rule change get wrong about the science of river ecology?

Pretty much everything. By ignoring the substantial body of scientific literature on headwater streams,
temporary rivers (ephemeral and intermittent) and wetlands without surface connectivity, the proposed rule
change ignores modern scientific understanding of how rivers and river networks function . And by doing so it
will significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act and undermine the intent of the
original law, which is to protect surface water quality in the United States.

Trump rule change ignores connectivity --- triggers devastating ecosystem loss
Sullivan et al 19 --- S. Mazeika P. Sullivan, associate professor, Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, School of
Environment & Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Mark C. Rains, School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, , and
Amanda D. Rodewald, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, “The proposed change to the definition of “waters of the United
States” flouts sound science”, PNAS | June 11, 2019 | vol. 116 | no. 24, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/24/11558.full.pdf

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter, “the agencies”) have issued a proposed rule (1)
that would remove Clean Water Act (CWA) protections from more than half of wetlands and one-fifth of
streams in the United States (2). This move sharply contrasts with reports indicating that US waters remain
threatened by storms, droughts, contaminants, algal blooms, and other stressors. Even the EPA’s National Water
Quality Inventory detected poor conditions in 46% of stream and river miles and 32% of wetlands (3). In short, the proposed rule does
not reflect the best-available science and, if enacted, will damage our nation’s water resources.

Despite the CWA’s mandate “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation’s waters” (4), controversy persists over jurisdiction. For decades, the protected “waters of the United States”
(WOTUS) included traditionally navigable waters (TNWs), such as large rivers, lakes, and territorial seas, as well as waters meaningfully
connected to or affecting the integrity of TNWs. Operationalizing this connection has become a flashpoint for the science and politics of water
protection.

Connectivity among waterbodies was the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s Clean Water Rule
(CWR), which reflected a state-of-the-science synthesis of more than 1,200 scientific publications [known
as the “Connectivity Report” (5)], input from 49 experts, and a rigorous review by a 25-member panel of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB) (6). Since then, scientific evidence supporting the 2015 CWR, and hence contradicting the new proposal, has only accumulated, especially
as related intermittent (i.e., flow seasonally) and ephemeral (i.e., flow periodically, after precipitation events) streams, riparian and floodplain
zones, and non-floodplain wetlands (i.e., geographically isolated with no direct surface water connection to a navigable water) (Fig. 1) (7–9).

The Trump administration’s proposed rule largely ignores or misrepresents several conclusions of the
Connectivity Report and SAB review. In relying more upon case law than science, the proposed rule would remove
protection for millions of stream miles and acres of wetlands that keep waters and watersheds healthy.
Some of our most vulnerable waters will lose protection , including ephemeral streams, non-floodplain wetlands, and some
floodplain wetlands. The proposed rule is inconsistent with the best-available science regarding scale, structural and functional connectivity,
and consideration of multiple dimensions of connectivity.

Delicate Balance 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, nonfloodplain 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)

The proposed rule also misinterprets and contradicts previous recommendations from the EPA’s own
scientists and SAB. The rule is not only inconsistent with the science of the Connectivity Report and the SAB review, but its exclusions are
justified with information from the SAB review that has been misinterpreted or taken out of context. For instance , the proposed rule
justifies the removal of federal protection for ephemeral streams and non-floodplain wetlands by
improperly referencing a conceptual model developed by the SAB. The model in question illustrates how connectivity
gradients can facilitate the evaluation of the downstream impacts of changes to streams and wetlands (Fig. 2). Although the connectivity
gradient does suggest that certain ephemeral streams and non-floodplain wetlands may be comparably less connected to downstream waters
than perennial streams and floodplain wetlands, the SAB affirmed that even low levels of connectivity can be important relative to impacts on
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters. Indeed, the relative lack of connectivity between some wetlands and
downstream waters is inversely related to their contribution to water quality (12). For instance, when non-floodplain wetlands capture water,
materials, and nutrients from stormwater or agricultural runoff, pollution to downstream waters is prevented or reduced. Scientific
advances since the development of this figure bolster the notion of a connectivity gradient, indicating
that having no connectivity is unlikely, and that even habitat in non-floodplain wetlands is important for
downstream waters.
Another shortcoming of the proposed rule is its departure from a critical recommendation from the SAB, which was that connectivity gradients
must be contextualized within broader watershed processes, including the aggregate, collective effects of waterbodies. The cumulative effects
of waterbodies are a particularly important consideration for non-floodplain wetlands, where the relative distance (compared with floodplain
wetlands, for example) from a jurisdictional water may be greater and. thus, the impacts to downstream waters relatively lower. However, the
cumulative effects of aggregated wetlands can strongly influence fluxes or transport of water, materials, and biota to downstream waters (8).
Because of variability in the degree of connectivity between non-floodplain wetlands and downstream waters, the SAB recommended a case-
by-case analysis to determine the degree of connection, which was adopted by the current CWR.

In addition to improperly using the science to justify summarily removing protections for all non-
floodplain wetlands, the agencies go one step further by claiming that removing case-by-case
evaluations of non-floodplain wetlands will help improve the clarity of the rule and ease of implementation.
However, they propose case-by-case judgments in multiple other instances . For instance, the agencies suggest
using a combination of methods to distinguish perennial and intermittent from ephemeral flows as defined by the proposed rule, including field
visits and remote and field-based tools. Similarly, under the proposed rule, ditches that may have been constructed in a tributary would have to
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the proposed rule selectively applies case-by-case consideration to
waterbodies, for which such examination is likely to result in exclusion from CWA protections, and removes such consideration from
waterbodies (i.e., non-floodplain wetlands) where a case-by-case examination may be more likely to afford protection.

Trump rule change will cause severe wetland destruction and water pollution
Sullivan et al 19 --- S. Mazeika P. Sullivan, associate professor, Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, School of
Environment & Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Mark C. Rains, School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, , and
Amanda D. Rodewald, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, “The proposed change to the definition of “waters of the United
States” flouts sound science”, PNAS | June 11, 2019 | vol. 116 | no. 24, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/24/11558.full.pdf

Dire Implications If enacted, the proposed rule will erode protections for millions of miles of ephemeral
and headwater streams (10, 13) and more than 16 million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States,
including many playa lakes, prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva Bays, pocosins, and vernal pools (14). As such, the rule increases
the vulnerability of already sensitive waters that provide critical ecosystem services, such as protecting
water quality, recharging aquifers, transporting organic material, safeguarding habitats for endangered
species, and supporting recreational and commercial endeavors . Severe losses of wetland functions are
likely under the proposed rule, with impacts to wetlands in arid and semi-arid regions particularly high.
For instance, the Cimarron River Watershed in northeastern New Mexico is projected to lose between 18 and 69% of wetland
acres under the proposed rule (15).

Particularly worrisome is that the

proposed rule is likely to facilitate the removal of waters from protection in
the future, given anticipated trends in human activities and climate change. In some areas of the country, perennial streams are
shifting to intermittent and ephemeral streams, presumably as a result of groundwater pumping
accentuated by a changing climate (16). Under the proposed rule, these newly ephemeral streams will
lose protection, setting a dangerous precedent by opening the door for further losses of protection.

Every nation’s citizens need clean water to be healthy and productive—today and into the future. When carefully
considered and integrated, science provides an evidence-based strategy to ensure clean water—as with the
Obama administration’s CWR. However, the current administration’s proposed rule at once contradicts
both the rich body of science about water connectivity and the clearly articulated mandate of CWA. Furthermore, it
lacks the alleged clarity touted by the agencies. The apparent opposition to enacting science-based policies
undermines decades of efforts—and investments by tax-paying Americans— to clean and protect our
nation’s waters.

WOTUS change destroys wetlands --- states are legally blocked from filling in
Sorg 18 --- Lisa Sorg, Environmental Reporter, joined N.C. Policy Watch in July 2016. She covers
environmental issues, “Trump administration proposal likely to have devastating impact on NC
wetlands”, NC Policy Watch, 12/14/2018, http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2018/12/14/trump-
administration-proposal-likely-to-have-devastating-impact-on-nc-wetlands/

Vast expanses would be lost to development; water and carbon pollution to rise

They could be paved, mined, crammed with concrete, filled with pollutants like GenX or coal ash: More than half of
North Carolina’s — and the nation’s — wetlands and streams could be destroyed and their downstream communities —
both human and nonhuman — harmed because of a proposed rollback of a cornerstone of the Clean Water Act.

Changes to the Waters of the US (WOTUS) rule could leave half of North Carolina’s 5.5 million acres of wetlands,
plus innumerable “ephemeral streams” unprotected under federal law.

“This would be a disaster not only because people could put pollution into those streams,” said Geoff Gisler, attorney with the
Southern Environmental Law Center, “but they
could destroy them entirely. It’s catastrophic.”

Under the proposed WOTUS rule, “isolated wetlands,” those that lack a surface “navigable” water connection to protected
sources, such as rivers, streams and other wetlands, would not be protected under the Clean Water Act. “Ephemeral streams,”
those whose flow is often tied to flooding and drought, would also be excluded from protection.
And North Carolina, which under the McCrory administration opposed these federal protections, remains a party to litigation advocating for
their elimination.
Heavy industry, mining, agriculture, highway construction: Discharge from all of these uses could pollute
isolated wetlands and ephemeral streams, and the polluters could do so without obtaining federal permits or
facing legal consequences.
Special business interests, including the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, have long lobbied and sued to prevent the Obama-era
WOTUS rules from going into effect. (Agriculture’s involvement though, is a red herring. Ongoing agricultural uses and even timbering are
specifically exempted from WOTUS rules.)

“This is an existential threat to protections we’ve had for granted for almost 50 years,” Gisler said. “People will notice. It
will show up in dirtier drinking water, where people fish, where our kids play.”

The Trump administration’s curtailment of the WOTUS rules is not just a rebuke to the Obama era, but also an
amputation of a major part of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

Passed by Congress, the CWA protected “navigable waters of the United States,” including their tributaries and wetlands from pollution. By
placing these waters under federal jurisdiction, the CWA ensured that industries or individuals who
planned to discharge pollutants into these waters were , and are, required to obtain a federal permit — an
NPDES — short for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

(An NPDES limits the amount of pollutants that can be discharged to a waterway of the US, and prohibits others. The NPDES system was never
intended to keep our waterways pristine.)

However, Congress only vaguely defined “Waters of the US,” leaving further clarifications in the lap of
the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers. Agriculture and industry interests petitioned both agencies — and sued them — over the
classification of several types of waters, including ephemeral streams and isolated wetlands, as Waters of the US.

The WOTUS issue peaked in 2006, when the US Supreme Court issued a split opinion, 4-1-4, on how federal
agencies should protect the integrity of “traditional navigable waters .” But since the court was split, various groups
have used the diverging opinions to make their legal cases. The Obama administration interpreted the court’s findings more broadly, which
triggered multiple lawsuits. A federal court stayed Obama’s WOTUS rule and it never went into effect
nationwide.

In rolling back the rule, the Trump administration is relying on Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 2006
case: He reined in the federal agencies and more narrowly defined these waters to those that are “relatively permanent” with a “continuous
surface connection” to “relatively permanent waters.”

Trump’s Executive Order directed the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to rewrite the WOTUS rule to match Scalia’s definition.

In his written opinion, Scalia cited the cost of compliance for undoing the rule, potentially millions of dollars costs to industry. To discharge
waste into these waterways would require permits, in some cases, public hearings, and additional expense to comply with the rules — or the
payment of fines in the case of noncompliance. However, downstream communities would ultimately pay the price for a decision based purely
on economics, not science.

Science shows that so-called “geographically isolated wetlands” are not unnecessary appendages to an
ecosystem, but actually serve essential functions for wildlife habitat, pollution filtration and flood
control.

In a 2015 article in the peer-reviewed journal BioScience, the

authors underscored that the term “isolation” may not be
appropriate. Although such a wetland might be separated from other surface waters, “it may still
exchange organisms, water and energy with the surrounding landscape and downstream ecosystems” and
navigable waters. These outliers are actually connected underground via elaborate groundwater
systems. Just because we can’t see the connections doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The vulnerable coastal plain could be particularly devastated by the effects of the proposed rule. Some wetlands
include mountain bogs, for example, but most of them, like the pocosins and Carolina bays, lie in the coastal plain, where they provide vital
flood control and habitats for fisheries. “Some of the biggest implications will be on public safety,” said Heather Clarkson, an outreach
representative with Defenders of Wildlife, who lives in Durham. “Many
wetlands that don’t continuously hold surface
water all year long will be subject to conversion ” — developed or drained for agriculture — if this
WOTUS rule goes into effect.
Each acre of wetlands can hold about one million gallons of water. The EPA even reported that had the natural wetland system been intact
along the Gulf Coast, damage from Hurricane Katrina could have been less severe.

“Theselow-lying areas are Mother Nature’s water tanks during extreme storm events , and if they are
developed or converted to agricultural lands, the water will have nowhere to go,” Clarkson said.

In addition to providing wildlife habitats, wetlands store carbon, a critical need for curbing climate change, which has
contributed to the historic hurricanes and flooding that have imperiled eastern North Carolina. “With potentially half of our wetlands becoming
unprotected,” Rick Savage, president of the Carolina Wetlands Association. “we could be losing a lot of carbon storage that we desperately
need.”

Particularly in the coastal plain, state and independent sampling data shows, waterways are already polluted with fecal coliform, phosphorus,
nitrogen and ammonia from livestock and agricultural operations — the very contaminants that wetlands can help filter. Water treatment
plants would have to contend with these additional pollutants, requiring additional costs for downstream customers.

“This is clearly going in the wrong direction,” Savage said. The rewrite of the WOTUS rules , Savage added, “has the potential
to do a lot of harm on many fronts.”
Nonetheless, in 2015, under Gov. Pat McCrory and DEQ Secretary Donald van der Vaart, North Carolina joined 12 other states in litigation
challenging the Obama administration rules. In effect, North Carolina became complicit in removing protections for isolated wetlands and
ephemeral streams.

In 2017, several media outlets, including Policy Watch, reported on an announcement by the Cooper administration that North Carolina was no
longer involved in the litigation. That’s not entirely true. A court filing from June 2018 shows that North Carolina is still a party to a lawsuit filed
by several states in a federal district court.

At the time, DEQ spokeswoman Megan Thorpe confirmed to Policy Watch that the agency remains a party to that suit. Contacted this week,
Thorpe clarified that DEQ’s “involvement is limited,” and the agency has signed on to only one issue the case: Whether the changes EPA made
between proposed and final rule should have gone back out to public notice and comment.

Gisler called that stance “unacceptable.” “There’s a much better way to deal with public comment then to join a lawsuit supported by heavy
industry and stripping away clean water regulations, he said. “That’s using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.”

Thorpe said DEQ will use the administrative process to ensure that rules intended to protect North Carolina wetlands and streams do just that.”

However, DEQ is hamstrung by the legislature to protect these vulnerable wetlands and streams that are under attack. State
law
prohibits DEQ from enacting regulations that are more stringent than the federal government’s.

Applying the Rapanos model leaves wetlands uncovered --- causes habitat destruction
McElligott 17 --- Thomas P. McElligott, Was a partner in the firm's Energy, Environment & Natural
Resources Practice Group. He had significant experience in all aspects of environmental law, Cynthia A.
Faur, Joseph A. Drazek, “A Different Take On “Draining the Swamp”: President Trump Issues Executive
Order Directing Reconsideration and Narrowing of Waters of United States Rule”, Quarles & Brady,
3/3/2017, https://www.quarles.com/publications/a-different-take-on-draining-the-swamp-president-
trump-issues-executive-order-directing-reconsideration-and-narrowing-of-waters-of-united-states-rule/
The Waters of the United States Rule: Under
the CWA, dredge spoils (rock and sand released by dredging) are
included in the definition of “pollutant” under 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), and a permit must be issued by the Army
Corps of Engineers before dredged or fill material may be discharged into “navigable waters” under Section 404 of the
Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344). The Act defines “navigable waters” to include "the waters of the United States,
including the territorial seas." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). Since its enactment in 1972, the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA have
struggled to come up with an acceptable definition for the term “waters of the United States.”

In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715, which
addressed the limits of the Army Corps’ jurisdiction over wetlands. While five justices agreed that the
underlying Court of Appeals decision should be reversed, they did not agree on the meaning of the term
“waters of the United States.” While Justice Antonin Scalia developed a narrow two-part test for when
wetlands could be considered “waters of the United States” (noted below), Justice Anthony Kennedy advanced a
separate, broader test that looked to whether the wetlands in question had a “significant nexus ” to a
traditional navigable water.

Applying Justice Kennedy’s concurrence from Rapanos as a starting point, in 2015, U.S. EPA (along with the Department of the
Army) issued the WOTUS rule, and defined the term “waters of the United States” to include , among other
things, “wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters” that are “adjacent ” to
traditional navigable waters, as well as waters that are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a
significant nexus to a traditional navigable water. The WOTUS rule established a presumption that any
wetlands located in a 100 year floodplain, or within 4,000 feet of a high tide line or ordinary high water
mark of a traditional navigable waterway, met this “significant nexus” requirement. After it was issued, that rule
was challenged by numerous industry and state petitioners, and has been stayed while the challenges to rule proceed through litigation.

The Executive Order: The Order does three things:

Establishes as policy “that the Nation's navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth,
minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution”;

Directs U.S. EPA and the Department of the Army to reconsider the WOTUS rule and associated guidance in light of this policy, and authorizes
the Attorney General to provide notice of that reconsideration in ongoing court proceedings; and

Orders U.S. EPA and the Department of the Army in that reconsideration to “consider interpreting the
term ‘navigable waters,’ as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin
Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).”
What next? In the near term, the two agencies will need to formally initiate reconsideration of the WOTUS rule, and notify the Attorney General
of that reconsideration. On February 28, 2017, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Acting Army Assistant Secretary Douglas Lamont issued a
document (to be published in the Federal Register) giving notice of intent to “review and rescind or revise” the WOTUS rule.

In addition, the United States Supreme Court had agreed to review a jurisdictional issue in the pending WOTUS litigation. The Department of
Justice will likely request that the pending litigation, including the Supreme Court review, be held in abeyance and the existing stay of the rule
be continued pending reconsideration of the rule.

While that reconsideration is ongoing, it is unclear which test the agencies will apply to ongoing permitting actions. With the WOTUS rule
stayed, the agencies may immediately begin utilizing Justice Scalia’s jurisdictional test from Rapanos, although this may not be implemented in
practice until guidance is issued, and may be challenged by third parties if used to develop an approved jurisdictional determination.

In the longer term, the agencies will need to undertake rulemaking, including public notice and comment, to withdraw and replace the WOTUS
rule. That rulemaking that will most likely be challenged by third party groups through litigation in the federal courts.

If ultimately theagencies adopt Justice Scalia’s two-part test from Rapanos through rulemaking and that rule is upheld by
the courts, the universe of wetlands and water bodies over which the Army Corps of Engineers will assert
jurisdiction will likely be substantially reduced. Justice Scalia identified two findings to be made in order to
consider a wetland as a “water of the United States”: (1) the adjacent channel must contain a “wate[r] of the
United States,” (i. e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters);
and (2) the wetland must have a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine
where the “water” ends and the “wetland” begins. Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 742. Under this test, a wetland separated by a road
or levy from a river or stream would not meet the continuous connection requirement--even if, under the
“substantial nexus” test, the Corps would have considered the wetland to be jurisdictional.
 2AC A2: State Fill-In Solves (Note --- this is not an answer to state
FIAT”

Trump rule reduces coverage by as much as 91% --- States wont and cant sill-in
Northey 21 --- Hannah Northey, E&E News reporter, “Exclusive: Trump rule imperils more than 40,000
waterways”, March 19th 2021, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063727993

More than 70% of U.S. waterways reviewed under a controversial Trump-era rule could be permanently
damaged after they were not afforded federal protection, according to Army Corps of Engineers data
obtained and reviewed by E&E News.

The agency reviewed 55,519 waters and water features since the Navigable Waters Protection Rule took
effect in June under the Trump administration. Of those, more than 40,000 did not qualify for federal protection under
the Clean Water Act.

Such "jurisdictional determinations," good for five years, pave the way for mining companies,
developers and property owners to obtain permits to fill or dredge streams, tributaries, lakes and wetlands, ditches,
swales and stormwater ponds. Wetlands and streams that are not given federal protections can be damaged and
destroyed forever, along with their abilities to sequester carbon and protect downstream water quality.
The internal agency data reviewed by E&E News shines a bright light on the Trump administration's regulatory definition of "waters of the
United States," or WOTUS. While the rule was touted as providing clarity among farmers and industry, the
language has drawn legal
and political challenges as it rolled back protection for millions of acres of wetlands and streams.

While some states may have their own rules to protect wetlands and waterways no longer covered by the Clean Water Act,
many do not, and some state regulators have even been prohibited by their legislatures from enforcing
standards stricter than the federal government's (Greenwire, Jan. 21, 2019).

What's more, an EPA database is fueling concerns that the number of unprotected wetlands may be much
higher.

In a brief filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the
Southern Environmental Law Center
cited an EPA database that shows 91% of waters EPA reviewed under the Navigable Waters Protection
Rule didn't qualify for federal protection.

"We understand that the corps has internal data suggesting that 72% of waters were found to lack
protection, but that data is likely skewed to the extent it includes Rivers and Harbors Act
determinations," said Kelly Moser, a senior attorney at the center and a leader of the group's Clean Water Defense Initiative.

"Under either data set, the blow to streams, wetlands, and other waterways is striking," said Moser. "We
encourage the corps to publicly disclose its data so the full scope of devastation caused by this rule is clear, and urge EPA to promptly restore
Clean Water Act protections given the harm underway."
States will not fill the gap
Keiser 21 --- David A. Keiser, Assistant Professor of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts.
Amherst, et al, “A water rule that turns a blind eye to transboundary pollution”, Science, Vol. 372, Issue
6539, pp. 241-243, April 2021, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6539/241.full

Debates about the decentralization of environmental policy are important and are far from resolved (1, 2). Interregional
spillovers
provide one key justification for centralized regulation: When regulation is decentralized, individual
jurisdictions may not protect downstream or downwind neighbors from their pollution (2, 3). Under the
Trump administration, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) departed from
precedent to support the deregulation of US waterways in the repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR) and
its replacement with the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR). In doing so, they assumed (with little evidence)
that many states would fill gaps in federal oversight . With the Biden administration having signaled its intent to modernize
regulatory review and to review specific deregulatory actions taken by the Trump administration, we describe here how this
environmental federalism approach downplays the importance of cross-state pollution and relies on
flawed methods of benefit-cost analysis that could be used to weaken other statutes.
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.

The agencies' analyses implied that the interstate impacts of the NWPR's changes would be minor. In contrast, economic
theory and
empirical evidence suggest that devolving regulatory authority from the federal government to states
can result in weaker-than-optimal regulation when pollution crosses state boundaries (2). Indeed, the
agencies noted this finding but downplayed its importance (7). Because affected waters are connected to downstream
waters, and because many state boundaries are arbitrary with respect to watershed boundaries , the
narrowing of CWA jurisdiction would likely increase interstate water pollution. The magnitude of such
impacts is critical to assessing the validity of the agencies' federalism arguments, yet they performed no
such analysis. Moreover, the economic analysis was internally inconsistent on this point. The agencies implemented three “case studies”
to examine how the NWPR would affect a range of CWA programs (7). Yet all three case-study watersheds cross multiple state boundaries,
highlighting that such boundaries do not constrain water pollution.

Following directly from the unsupported conclusion that water quality is a local public good, the
agencies implemented a set of
“federalism scenarios.” The agencies argued that if some states were to decide to regulate the waters
over which the federal government abdicates jurisdiction, then estimation of the benefits and costs of
rescinding federal protection should not include these states. The agencies suggested that this
adjustment by some states “would result in no change in compliance costs… and no change in environmental
benefits… suggesting no net impact in the long run” (7). In other words, the agencies assumed that if state
regulations filled the gap left by federal regulations, overall costs and benefits would remain
unchanged in the long run. But the agencies could only speculate about the future actions of states that are neither legally required nor
likely to act—an approach that, to our knowledge, has no precedent in EPA regulatory impact analyses. EPA's own Guidelines for Preparing
Economic Analyses say that only related state rules that are legally required but not yet implemented should be included when estimating
benefits and costs (9). Public comments on the NWPR raised this very issue (10, 11). This EPA guidance (9) is based on the need for a
meaningful counterfactual that is not subject to arbitrary manipulation. In fact, in recent air quality rules under the CAA, EPA noted that
“normal practice is to only include changes…from final regulatory actions in its modeling because, until such rules are finalized, any potential
changes…are speculative” (12).

Excessively Optimistic, or Simply Wrong

If the agencies' basic assumptions about federalism in the NWPR were problematic, how did they apply these assumptions in their economic
analysis? To implement the federalism scenarios in the NWPR, the agencies predicted state responses to the narrowing of federal water quality
jurisdiction, using three indicators: (i) whether a state currently regulates any intrastate waters beyond federal waters as “waters of the state”;
(ii) whether state law restricts regulation of waters outside of federal waters; and (iii) whether a state currently has a dredge-and-fill program
under CWA Section 404, commonly known as the wetlands regulatory program. The agencies then removed groups of states deemed “likely to
act” from their benefit and cost calculations, excluding 23 states that they predicted would fully subsume the federal role in one scenario, and
excluding 31 states in the scenario that was most optimistic about hypothetical future state laws (see the figure).

These predictions are inconsistent with states' prior behavior. States have always been able to enact
water quality protection rules more stringent than those in the CWA; it is unclear why they would do so now when
they have not done so already. One prominent example is 32 states' challenge to the 2015 CWR in court,
arguing that it would impose excessive costs. Inexplicably, the NWPR's economic analysis projected that 14 of these states
would now change their position (13) (see the figure). Another example, from a different context, is states' reaction to a reduction in the CWA's
jurisdiction over wetlands as a result of the Supreme Court's 2001 decision regarding the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County. Almost
20 years later, only
a few states have moved to expand their own jurisdiction over some of the affected waters
(14). These
precedents suggest that the agencies' contention that dozens of states would enact stricter
water quality regulations upon the removal of federal regulation was excessively optimistic, or simply
wrong.

A state-by-state review of relevant legislation, executive orders, and other documents provides additional
support for our argument that the agencies' predictions of state behavior are unsound. Among 31 states that the agencies
deemed likely to regulate newly unprotected wetlands, we identify at least 16 that should not have been included, using the agencies' own
classification criteria [see (8) and supplementary materials]. In most of these cases, the agencies asserted that states may easily enact laws that
exceed the minimum federal standard, but our analysis leads to the opposite conclusion. Many states require special legislative and
administrative approval to pass environmental rules that are more stringent than corresponding federal law. For example, the agencies
identified Indiana as a state that “does not have broad legal limitations” on regulating more stringently than the federal government (6, 7).
Since 2016, however, Indiana has mandated that environmental rules more stringent than federal rules cannot go into effect until the
legislature has had an opportunity to veto the more stringent state rules.

To describe the impact of this problematic speculation about future state laws on the agencies' economic analysis, we must clarify some terms.
Because the NWPR reduces the share of US waters under federal protection, the NWPR's benefits are actually avoided costs of regulation that
would still be in place but for the rule (e.g., avoided compliance costs for regulated entities). Its costs, in contrast, are actually the forgone
benefits from protecting wetlands and streams (e.g., lost wetland acreage) that the CWA no longer covers because of the NWPR. Thus, as a
deregulatory action, the NWPR's net benefits are its avoided costs minus forgone benefits. In addition, because the CWR had already been
repealed, the baseline for the agencies' economic analysis in the NWPR was the definition of WOTUS that predated the CWR [(7), p. xi].

Using data from the economic analysis for the NWPR (7), we calculate the national net benefits (avoided costs minus forgone benefits) of the
rule. When benefits and costs for all states are included, net annual national impacts range from a $310 million loss to a $484 million gain (table
S1). When the agencies zeroed out 31 states in their economic analysis of the NWPR, assuming that these states would adopt protections
equivalent to those being removed, net annual national impacts range from an $83 million loss to a $208 million gain. The overall effect of the
agencies' federalism analysis is to decrease the extent to which the rule could be costly while maintaining an upside estimate that is favorable
to the NWPR.

To further explore the issue, we calculate the net benefits (avoided costs minus forgone benefits) of the NWPR by state (table S2). We find that
nearly half of the forgone national benefits from the agencies' narrowing of the CWA's scope are attributable to excluding a single state:
Florida. Florida's share of the NWPR's national avoided costs, in contrast, is only about 10%. Florida is one of only two states for which the
forgone benefits of the NWPR exceed the avoided costs (for an annual economic loss of more than $45 million) (table S2). Thus, when the
agencies speculated that Florida would step in to regulate where the federal government does not, the result was extremely favorable to the
NWPR. Yet our analysis suggests that the agencies miscategorized Florida as a state that is likely to take over the federal role for the newly
excluded streams and wetlands (see supplementary materials). This would require a reversal of the state's recent stance on these issues, given
that Florida joined 31 other states in litigation against the 2015 CWR.

Productive Policy Tension

The conflicts between EPA's own guidance and its NWPR analysis, between its speculation about state actions under the CWA but not under the
CAA, and between the conclusions of the economic analyses of CWA rules under the Obama and Trump administrations are likely to be legal
hurdles for the staying power of the NWPR. In the US, the Administrative Procedures Act requires a “reasoned explanation” for rulemakings like
the CWR repeal and replacement and prohibits rules that are “arbitrary and capricious.” Failure to meet these requirements has caused federal
courts to reject many Trump administration policies since 2017, including the administration's initial suspension of the CWR (15).

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.

States will not fill in

Bower & McLean 19 --- Phillip Bower, partner in the Madison, Wisconsin, office of Husch Blackwell
LLP, advising clients on environmental issues, including wetland permitting, and Megan McLean, is an
associate at Husch Blackwell LLP in St. Louis who focuses on environmental law., “The proposed WOTUS
rule: How do states regulate nonfederal wetlands?”, American Bar Association,
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2018-
2019/march-april-2019/the-proposed-wotus-rule/

The Trump administration announced its proposed replacement rule defining “waters of the United
States” in December 2018. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) (collectively, the
“agencies”) note that, in accordance with section 101(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the proposed rule would “recognize and
respect the primary responsibilities and rights of States and Tribes to regulate and manage their land and
water resources.” (For additional discussion of the agencies’ treatment of CWA section 101(b) in the context of this rule, see Mark A.
Ryan’s article “The WOTUS Rule Repeal” in the Fall 2018 issue of Natural Resources & Environment.) In fact sheets accompanying the proposal,
the agencies note that “states and tribes have existing regulations and programs that apply to waters
within their borders, whether or not they are considered ‘waters of the United States.’”

Setting aside any questions about the legality of the agencies’ proposal for the time being, the
number of wetlands that fall
outside of federal jurisdiction is expected to increase under the proposed rule. This begs the question :
What are states doing to regulate nonfederal waters, especially nonfederal isolated wetlands?
State programs

In Appendix B of the proposed rule’s Resource and Programmatic Assessment, the agencies indicate less than half the states have formal
isolated, nonfederal wetlands permitting programs designed to protect isolated wetlands from dredge and fill impacts. Even when these
programs exist, they vary widely in scope from state to state. Some states, like Wisconsin and Minnesota, have robust wetlands regulatory
programs. Others have none. Here are a few examples.

Wisconsin’s program

Wisconsin may have one of the most robust nonfederal wetlands regulatory programs in the nation. Of the approximately five million acres of
wetlands in Wisconsin, an estimated 10 to 30 percent are nonfederal wetlands under current rules. In 2001, under the authority of the public
trust doctrine and its broad general police powers, Wisconsin adopted legislation to regulate discharges into nonfederal wetlands after the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision removed these
waters from federal jurisdiction. Wisconsin law requires that a person obtain authorization under a general or individual permit for the
discharge of dredged material or fill material into a wetland unless the discharge is exempt.

Primarily over the last decade, changes were made to the law to make Wisconsin’s nonfederal wetland program less restrictive. New laws have
mandated that the state’s Department of Natural Resources issue general permits for several types of discharges, including discharges for many
purposes that do not affect more than 10,000 square feet of wetlands. New exemptions from permitting that were created in 2018 include
exemptions for nonfederal “artificial wetlands” which did not exist prior to August 1, 1991, for discharges that impact less than one acre of a
nonfederal “urban wetland,” and for discharges that impact less than three acres of a nonfederal “nonurban wetland.” The law now prohibits
local governments from enacting ordinances with respect to these exemptions or the mitigation requirements. The legislature even created a
blanket exemption from wetland permitting for discharges into wetlands in an “electronics and information technology manufacturing zone”
(aka the proposed Foxconn campus in southeastern Wisconsin) if the impacts are compensated at a ratio of 2:1. The state also waived water
quality certification under CWA section 401. Generally, high quality wetlands are still protected, and mitigation is often required even if the
dredge and fill activity is exempt, but the recent trend has been to make it easier to fill a nonfederal wetland in Wisconsin.

Minnesota’s program

What are Wisconsin’s neighbors doing? Minnesota has two major wetland regulatory programs: the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 (WCA) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters Work Permit Program. Between the two programs, nearly all
activities occurring in wetlands in Minnesota are covered by a state or local regulatory authority. The primary requirement of the WCA,
primarily implemented by local governmental authorities, is that “[w]etlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced
by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value under [an approved] replacement plan.” The Public Waters Work Permit
Program regulates activities occurring below the ordinary high-water level in designated public waters. Public waters generally include larger
(10 acres or larger in non-municipal areas and 2.5 acres or larger in municipal areas), seasonally flooded to permanently flooded freshwater
marsh-type wetlands as well as all lakes and streams. Minnesota DNR regulates these waters through public waters work permits.

Many states have limited programs

Despite Minnesota’s relatively far-reaching regulatory requirements, most

states have taken a more laissez-faire approach
to wetlands regulation. The majority of states rely primarily on CWA section 401 to provide input into the
dredge and fill permitting process, but this only applies to waters of the United States and not to
nonfederal waters. For example, Illinois does not have a state wetland program , and most state regulation of
wetlands on private land occurs only through the state’s CWA section 401 authority, although the state does regulate state-funded projects and
activities that impact state wetlands. Nebraska has a voluntary program for nonfederal waters. Dredge and fill activities in waters
of the state, including wetlands, are subject to an anti-degradation clause. So, while the state cannot issue a permit for dredge and fill, it will
send a “letter of opinion” to the applicant stating that an activity might violate state water quality standards, and the state will consult with the
applicant to avoid violation of these standards.

What’s next?
Given that many states do not robustly regulate nonfederal wetlands, and states with programs seem to
be interested in regulating less, any narrowing of the definition of “waters of the United States” could
leave more wetlands susceptible to unregulated dredge and fill activities. In a state like Wisconsin, the current
regulatory scheme will automatically continue to regulate the newly nonfederal wetlands as state
wetlands. However, if the proposed rule becomes final, will more states implement programs to fill the gap?

States cant fill in

Ryan & Southerland 19 --- Mark Ryan served as assistant regional counsel for EPA Region 10 and
special assistant U.S. attorney at the Department of Justice. Ryan was an author of the 2015 Clean Water
Rule. Betsy Southerland is the former director of Science & Technology in the EPA Office of Water.,
“Repealing the Clean Water Rule is not about protecting farmers”, 9/20/19,
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/462325-repealing-the-clean-water-rule-is-not-about-
protecting-farmers

Today, states will find protecting wetlands very challenging because state budgets are very limited, and
only 20 states have some sort of wetlands protection program. Thirty-six states have laws that make it
difficult for them to take actions beyond those required by federal law. Great harm will be done because,
once a stream or wetland has been filled or drained, it is lost forever. The loss of wetlands will harm water quality, while
removing our best defense against flooding.
 2AC A2: Alt Causes

--- Demosprudence is critical to build up water justice to continuing tackling the alt
causes

--- The plan shores up protection --- solving the alt causes --- blocking projects and
activities responsible for the alt causes
Jackson 21 --- Derrick Z. Jackson is a UCS Fellow in climate and energy and the Center for Science and
Democracy, “There’s No Compromising on Science When it Comes to Protecting Water Quality in the
Nation’s Rivers and Streams” Union of Concerned Scientists, May 25 th 2021,
https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/waters-of-the-united-states-science/

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.”

EPA Administrator Regan must follow the science

Under both the second President Bush and President Obama, the EPA said that even streams that flow seasonally
are still critical to our water infrastructure. The EPA under the previous administration chose to overlook
this fact. In the short time between last June and September, Bloomberg Law found that, of 1,085 exemptions sought
by polluting industries and developers to escape federal water regulation for their projects, the Army Corps of Engineers
granted 758, or 70 percent of them. About 200 of the exemptions were granted on the very first day the
rollback took effect, a complete abandonment of the scientific analysis that previously often took up to three years to complete.
--- “Alt causes” are aff arguments --- Of course there are multiple threats to water
resources --- but removing protection ensures those threats succeed in destroying
ecosystems --- A reversal is an essential to return to science and mitigates harms
Buzbee 20 --- William Buzbee, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and one of the
nation’s leading experts in the fields of environmental and administrative law, “The Failings of Trump’s
Navigable Waters Rule Laid Bare”, Our Daily Planet, Aug 14 th 2020,
https://www.ourdailyplanet.com/story/the-failings-of-trumps-navigable-waters-rule-laid-bare/
On Thursday, Science magazine published an article [abstract available, article itself behind paywall] I co-authored with a number of
distinguished environmental science professors from around the country. In the article, we
dissect President Trump’s newly
implemented navigable waters rule and show the remarkable disregard for science that the Trump
administration displayed in its dismantling of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which had protected millions
of miles of rivers and acres of wetlands from polluters.

The article makes clear that the Trump administration’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), which just went into effect in June,
has gutted protections for whole categories of waters despite the Clean Water Act’s express mandate that regulators
protect the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the nation’s waters.

The Trump Administration’s new deregulatory action ignores or downplays what the best science establishes about the connectivity and
functions of waters previously protected. The
Obama-era rule was based heavily on science laid out in an EPA
report, The Connectivity Report, that comprehensively compiled state-of-the-art peer-reviewed science on
types of waters and their roles.

As we explained in detail in the Science article, the Trump administration rejected this science-based approach. Instead, it
explicitly built its rule on a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that advocated a cramped reading of the Clean Water Act by
focusing on permanent and continuous surface water connections and paying little heed to the interconnected nature of waterways and the
important functions of wetlands, tributaries, and ephemeral waterways.

This choice by Trump’s overwhelmingly deregulatory agencies was predictable from a policy point of view
but is surprisingly shaky from a legal perspective. The Scalia opinion’s limitations on protected waters in the 2006 Rapanos case did not garner
majority support, and, indeed, was expressly rejected by a Court majority. Five justices instead called for far more expansive protections
focused on the functions of waters, as explained in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy that four dissenters embraced as appropriate,
although they would have protected even more. For more than a decade after the Rapanos decision, federal regulators and litigators
interpreted statutory, regulatory, and case law as extending protections to all of the waters Justice Kennedy and the four dissenters said are
protected, as well as the far narrower set of waters Scalia’s opinion would protect.

The impact of the Trump rule will be enormous. Our Science article’s key contribution is to document just how enormous,
and to expose just how much actual science the administration ignored in its haste to undo the Obama protections for waterways. Federal law
allows states to extend protections beyond the federal rule, but the anti-regulation mood in some state capitals has led many states to adopt
laws precluding protections that extend beyond those of federal regulations, and other states have historically been more lax in protecting
waterways.

The result is sadly predictable: The

nation’s waters will be degraded, imperiling drinking water quality, harming
ecosystems, and allowing industrial discharges or filling of what are now newly federally unprotected waters. If
unprotected, polluters will no longer need a federal pollution permit to dump their waste into our waterways,
effectively transferring the cost of cleaning up their own pollution to the rest of us , a cost some of us will
pay with our health, and even our lives.
Perhaps most troubling, the NWPR’s approach, like the Scalia language it largely follows, will massively eliminate protections for previously
protected waters in arid regions of the American West and Southwest. Where water is most scarce and valuable for ecosystems and human
uses, federal protections are now weakest. And with
the climate crisis expanding areas of water scarcity, this new
rule will, over time, have even more extensive harmful effects.

In sum, this new Trump rollback is based on unsound, cursory reference to science , built on a legally erroneous
foundation, and will, as our article clarifies and documents, cause massive harms to the nation’s invaluable waters ,
especially where most scarce and important.
Weather
 Ext --- Wetlands Reduce Weather Severity

Wetlands reduce storm severity

England 20 --- Rachel England, journalist and editor who specialises in sustainability and the
environment, “Why are wetlands so important?” One Home, Feb 2020, https://onehome.org.uk/the-
bigger-picture/311-why-are-wetlands-so-important

As the effects of climate change take hold, we will experience more and more extreme weather, but some
types of wetlands can actually help protect us against the impact of these events. Mangrove forests provide
protection and shelter against storm winds and floods, and can disperse tidal surges associated with these
events. According to wetlands.org, a mangrove can reduce the destructive force of a tsunami by up to 90%.
Meanwhile, wetlands in high altitude areas help to promote vegetation growth which lessens soil erosion and buffers water flow – this helps
to reduce the severity of disasters such as landslides, floods and droughts.

Wetlands absorb storms --- reducing damage

Costanza 08 --- Robert Costanza et al, American/Australian ecological economist and Professor of
Public Policy at t, “The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Hurricane Protection”, Ambio Vol. 37, No. 4 (Jun.,
2008), pp. 241-248 (8 pages), https://www.jstor.org/stable/25547893

Globally, since 1900, 2652 windstorms (including tropical

storms, cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, and
winter storms) have been considered disasters . Altogether, they have caused 1.2 million human deaths
and have cost USD 381 billion in property damage (I). Of these, hurricanes, cyclones, and tropical storms have resulted in USD 179
billion in property damage (47% of the total from all windstorms) and the loss of 874 000 human lives (73% of the total from all windstorms).
The impact of cyclones and hurricanes over the last decades has increased, owing to an increase in built infrastructure along the coasts, an
increased frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes (2), and an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential (3). Coastal wetlands
reduce the damaging effects of hurricanes on coastal communities by absorbing storm energy in ways that neither
solid land nor open water can (4). The mechanisms involved include decreasing the area of open waler
(fetch) for wind to form waves, increasing drag on water motion and hence the amplitude of a storm
surge, reducing direct wind effect on the water surface, and directly absorbing wave energy (5, 6). Since
marsh plants hold and accrete sediments (7), often reduce sediment resuspension (8). and consequently maintain
shallow water depths, the presence of vegetation contributes in two ways: first by actually decreasing
surges and waves, and also by maintaining the shallow' depths that have the same effect . While few
experimental studies or modelling efforts have specifically addressed the effect of coastal marshes on storm surges, anecdotal data
accumulated after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 in Louisiana suggested that storm surge was reduced about 4.7 cm km 1 of marsh (3 inches mile 1
of marsh) (9).

Coastal wetlands may also protect coastal communities from other types of damages . For example, there is
evidence that decreasing mangrove area in Thailand has led to larger damages from all coastal natural
disasters, including wind storms, floods, and tsunamis (10). There is also evidence that property damage and loss of
human lives from the 2004 tsunami that hit Southeast Asia was ameliorated by coastal ecosystems (11). While this
relationship has been questioned for tsunamis, which are able to devastate even tall coastal forests (12). the evidence for the role of
coastal wetlands for protection from damages due to hurricanes is more compelling.
Wetlands mitigate the impact of storms
Barbier 13 --- Edward B. Barbier et al, University Distinguished Professor in the Department of
Economics, Colorado State University, “The Value of Wetlands in Protecting Southeast Louisiana from
Hurricane Storm Surges”, March 11, 2013, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058715
Without wetland restoration, Louisiana will likely lose another 4,548 km2 of wetland and other coastal land over the next 50 years [4]. Yet,
halting wetland loss and investing in restoring wetlands is expensive. Recent estimates show that even an investment of $25 billion over 50
years still results in a loss of 585 km2 of wetlands [4]. Our findings, albeit for a single sea to land hurricane transect in southeastern Louisiana
and a limited number of storms, show that such wetland
investments could reduce the future vulnerability of the coast
to periodic hurricane storm surges and decrease the risk of substantial flood damages to residential property.

Coastal wetlands globally are considered important for a wide range of ecosystem services , such as providing
habitats in support of fish and other wildlife, recreation, carbon sequestration, water purification and controlling erosion [6]–[10]. But the
value of temperate wetlands in protecting coastal property from storm surges may prove to be the most
significant benefit, as our case study of southeastern Louisiana shows. Thus, our study confirms what many other global
studies are increasingly finding, which is that the presence of wetlands can substantially reduce
flooding damages from coastal storms [11]–[17].
 A2: Storms Inevitable

Wetlands provide a calculable reduction in the magnitude of storm severity ---

providing protection from the worst impacts
Costanza 08 --- Robert Costanza et al, American/Australian ecological economist and Professor of
Public Policy at t, “The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Hurricane Protection”, Ambio Vol. 37, No. 4 (Jun.,
2008), pp. 241-248 (8 pages), https://www.jstor.org/stable/25547893
The results also allow straightforward assessments of the impacts of changes to wetlands. For example. Louisiana lost an estimated 480 000 ha
of coastal wetlands prior to Katrina (2005) and 20 000 ha during hurricane Katrina itself (6). The value of the lost storm protection
services from these wetlands can be estimated as the average value per hectare in Louisiana (USD 1700 ha-1 yr-1 from Table
3) times the area, yielding approximately USD 816 million yr-1 for services lost from wetlands lost prior to Katrina and an
additional USD 34 million yr 1 for wetlands lost during the storm. Converting this total of USD 850 million yr-1 to present value terms using a 3%
discount rale implies a lost value for just the storm protection service of this natural capital asset of USD 28.3 billion, and (he lost storm
protection value due to wetlands lost during Katrina of USD 1.1 billion.

If the frequency and intensity of hurricanes increases in the future, as some are predicting as a result of climate change,
then the value of coastal wetlands for protection from these storms will also increase. Coastal wetlands
provide "horizontal levees" that are maintained by nature and are far more cost-effective than
constructed levees. The experience of hurricane Katrina provided a tragic example of the costs of allowing these natural capital assets to
degrade. Coastal wetlands also provide a host of other valuable ecosystem services that constructed levees do not. They have been
estimated to provide about USD 11 700 ha"1 yr-* (in 2004 USD) in other ecosystem services (excluding storm protection) (32). and experience
(including the current study) has shown that as we learn more about the functioning of ecological systems and their connections to human
welfare, estimates of their value tend to increase. Investing
in the maintenance and restoration of coastal wetlands is
proving to be an extremely cost-effective strategy for society.

The reduction in property and infrastructure damage is real and calculable

Narayan & Cruz 17 --- Siddharth Narayan is a postdoctoral fellow in the Coastal Flood Risk program at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, and Michael Beck is an adjunct professor at the university, “Wetlands Provide Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Storm Protection”,
Fast Company, 11-02-17, https://www.fastcompany.com/40475618/wetlands-provide-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-in-hurricane-protection

In a new and unique partnership funded by Lloyd’s of London, we worked with colleagues in academia, environmental organizations, and the
insurance industry to calculate
the financial benefits that coastal wetlands provide by reducing storm surge
damages from hurricanes. Our recently published study found that this function is enormously valuable. It offers new evidence
that protecting natural ecosystems is a cost-effective way to reduce risks from coastal storms and
flooding.
THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF FLOOD PROTECTION FROM WETLANDS

Although there is a broad understanding that wetlands can protect coastlines, researchers have not explicitly measured how and where these
benefits translate into dollar values in terms of reduced risks to people and property. To answer this question, our group worked with experts
who understand risk best: insurers and risk modelers.

Using the industry’s storm surge models, we compare d the flooding and property damages that
occurred with wetlands during Hurricane Sandy to the damages that would have occurred if these
wetlands were lost. Then, using high-resolution data on assets in the flooded locations, we measured the property damages for both
simulations. The
difference in damages—with wetlands and without—gave us an estimate of the damages
that were avoided due to the presence of these ecosystems.

Our paper shows that during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, coastal wetlands prevented more than $625 million in direct
property damages by buffering coasts against storm surge. Across 12 coastal states, from Maine to North Carolina,
wetlands and marshes reduced damages by an average of 11%.

These benefits varied widely by location at the local and state level. In
Maryland, wetlands reduced damages by 30%. In
highly urban areas like New York and New Jersey they provided hundreds of millions of dollars in flood
protection.
 Ext --- Extreme Weather --- Ag Turn

Extreme weather turns ag disad

Motha 11 --- Raymond P. Motha United States Department of Agriculture, “Chapter 30: The Impact of
Extr Chapter 30: The Impact of Extreme Weather E eather Events on Agricultur ents on Agriculture in the
United States”, Univ of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2011, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2316&context=usdaarsfacpub

While agriculture in the United States continues to achieve enhanced productivity, it is also experiencing greater variability in
crop yields and associated farm income in recent decades. The increased yield variability is , in part, directly
related to increases in extreme weather events during critical growth phases of crop development. Pests and diseases can
also cause significant crop damage, which is indirectly related to climate conditions. Pest and disease occurrences often
coincide with extreme weather events and with anomalous weather conditions. Agriculture is highly
sensitive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as prolonged drought, floods, severe storms, heat waves, and
untimely freezes. Thus, in the U.S., while agricultural production may benefit from the projected warmer climate in northern crop areas, the
increased weather extremes across all growing areas will likely have an adverse effect on yield potential.

30.2 Weather Disasters and Agricultural Impacts Weather disasters cause billions of dollars of damage and
considerable loss of life in the United States . Every year, droughts, floods, heat waves, severe storms,
wildfires, or other weather disasters caused deaths, destruction, and significant agricultural losses in
various regions across the United States. During the last several decades, there has been an increasing frequency and severity of
extreme weather events (Riebau and Fox 2005). Extreme weather events can have severe detrimental effects on
crop yield, and therefore, agricultural production. Most crops are sensitive to direct effects of high
temperature, decreased precipitation, flooding, and untimely freezes during critical growth phases.
Other effects on crops are indirect, through influences on soil processes, nutrient dynamics, and pest
organisms.
 Ext --- Extreme Weather = Grid Vulnerability

Extreme weather threatens the electrical grid

Mohr & Burke Updated Jan 21 --- HOLBROOK MOHR & GARANCE BURKE Associated Press, “Extreme
weather poses increasing threat to U.S. power grid”, Jan 1 st 2016 Updated Jan 27th 2021,
https://tulsaworld.com/business/extreme-weather-poses-increasing-threat-to-u-s-power-
grid/article_a0191dd9-fa73-5e89-b211-4ffe746388ed.html

Severe weather is the leading cause of major power outages across the United States, according to an
Associated Press analysis of industry data.

About 130,000 Public Service Company of Oklahoma customers experienced power outages at some point during the recent post-Christmas
winter storm, PSO spokesman Stan Whiteford said this week.

The majority of the outages were concentrated in western Oklahoma, the portion of the state hit the hardest by icy conditions. But outages
affected approximately 27,000 across the Tulsa area and rest of the state during the weather event as well.

Oklahomans were affected by 25 reports of power incidents and outages between 2002 and 2013, according to a federal database that tracks
electric disturbance events across the country.

Of the disturbance events listed, the majority were weather-related.

Looking at the data in terms of the number of customers affected, the two most severe were ice storms. The top event was a Jan. 30, 2002,
storm that data says knocked out power to 1,881,134 Oklahoma Gas & Electric customers. An ice storm that hit Tulsa on Dec. 10, 2007, left a
total of 256,663 PSO customers without electricity, data show. Service wasn’t restored for everyone until more than a week later on Dec. 19,
data show.

Of course, weather-related outages aren’t unique to Oklahoma, or its utility providers. The number of weather-related power
outages has climbed over the last decade, with the greatest spikes in 2008 and 2011, according to the AP analysis and
independent studies.

When Hurricane Katrina’s punishing storm surge plowed ashore, it swamped seven of Coast Electric
Power Association’s substations, vital to powering thousands of Mississippi homes and businesses. The facilities
have long since been repaired, but a decade after the storm they remain at the same elevation, and just as
vulnerable to catastrophic hurricanes.

That leaves Coast Electric and other utilities across the country struggling to balance customer costs with
the need for improvements to counter the rising number of violent storms, floods and droughts
threatening the U.S. power grid’s core infrastructure.
Katrina damage: The eye of Katrina ripped through the coastal city of Waveland in late August 2005, leveling neighborhoods, destroying
infrastructure and knocking out power to Coast Electric’s entire coverage area.

Facing sweltering summer heat and $110 million in damage, the small nonprofit cooperative focused on restoring power to customers as
quickly as possible, said vice president of engineering Scott Brown. The old substations that flooded were repaired to pre-storm conditions — at
the time, it would have been impractical to raise them or move them elsewhere.

“We’re only a few feet above sea level right here,” Brown said during a recent visit to a Waveland substation.

Coast Electric was able to make some major improvements post-Katrina; it used a large mound of dirt to elevate a new substation 18 feet
above sea level. But raising the old substations that flooded would cost Coast’s 68,160 customers millions of dollars, Brown said.

Hundreds of companies own and manage the equipment that makes up the U.S. power grid. They range from
large investor-owned companies like New York’s Consolidated Edison to small municipal utilities and cooperatives like Coast Electric, and each
faces a unique set of challenges.
When Hurricane Irene hit the Northeast in 2011, it marked the first time in the history of Con Ed that more
than 200,000 customers lost power from a storm . Superstorm Sandy struck just 14 months later, quickly followed by a
devastating Nor’easter, leaving 1.1 million customers in the dark.

“It
was clear to us that weather patterns were changing fundamentally. Severe weather events were
becoming more frequent and devastating,” Allan Drury, a Con Ed spokesman, said in an email.
Con Ed is spending $1 billion to harden its system. Drury said the utility has been able to afford all the upgrades it wants.

The test will be when the next powerful storm hits.

Expensive outages: There’s no doubt that improvements are costly for utilities and the customers they serve, but so are outages. A 2013 report
by the White House said weather-related blackouts cost the U.S. economy an annual average of $18 billion to $33 billion, when adjusted for
inflation, from 2003 to 2012.

They can also be deadly. The report said 50 deaths in the aftermath of Sandy were attributed to power outages, including senior citizens who
died from hypothermia and others poisoned by carbon monoxide from generators.

There are funds available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help utilities rebuild after catastrophes. The Mississippi
cooperative received about $100 million in FEMA public assistance grants, but the money allowed it only to repair the flooded substations to
pre-storm conditions.

FEMA offered more funds that would have been used to raise the flooded substations, but the co-op did not apply — cost effectiveness
assessments and environmental considerations would have taken too much time, Brown said, and would have delayed getting the lights back
on.

Once the work began, Coast Electric could not change the terms of the grant to improve the sites, Brown said. So the seven substations
swamped by Katrina were built back at the same elevation — at a time when scientists were already warning of rising sea levels and the threat
of more frequent and extreme severe weather.

A study published in the journal Risk Analysis in May found that the U.S. power grid is increasingly
blacking out when hit with severe weather, and lags behind other developed nations in terms of
reliability.

“Ithink it is an open question as to whether utilities are investing enough in the infrastructure needed to
harden the system against storms, and on simple but effective things like tree trimming,” said Roshanak Nateghi, the report’s lead
author and a professor at Purdue University.

Last year, regulators in drought-stricken California ordered the state’s investor-owned utilities to set
priorities for inspecting and removing dead and sick trees near their power lines , warning that “climate change
has facilitated and exacerbated numerous wildfires ” that have damaged and threatened their facilities . Utilities
could ask the California Public Utilities Commission for additional funds to address wildfire threats, regulators said.
 Ext --- Grid Impact --- General

Loss of critical infrastructure causes extinction

Friedemann 16 (Alice Friedemann, transportation expert, founder of EnergySkeptic.com and author
of “When Trucks Stop Running, Energy and the Future of Transportation,” worked at American
Presidential Lines for 22 years, where she developed computer systems to coordinate the transit of
cargo between ships, rail, trucks, and consumers, citing Dr. Peter Vincent Pry. Pry is executive director of
the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional advisory board dedicated to
achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse and other threats. Dr. Pry is also
the director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to
counter weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Pry has served on the staffs of the Congressional Commission
on the Strategic Posture of the United States, the Commission to Assess the Threat to the U.S. from an
EMP Attack, the House Armed Services Committee, as an intelligence officer with the CIA, and as a
verification analyst at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. 1-24-16, accessed 1/1/19
“Electromagnetic pulse threat to infrastructure (U.S. House hearings)” http://energyskeptic.com/2016/the-
scariest-u-s-house-session-ever-electromagnetic-pulse-and-the-fall-of-civilization/)

Modern civilization cannot exist for a protracted period without electricity. Within days of a blackout across
the U.S., a blackout that could encompass the entire planet, emergency generators would run out of fuel,
telecommunications would cease as would transportation due to gridlock, and eventually no fuel. Cities
would have no running water and soon, within a few days, exhaust their food supplies. Police, Fire, Emergency Services
and hospitals cannot long operate in a blackout. Government and Industry also need electricity in order to
operate. The EMP Commission warns that a natural or nuclear EMP event, given current unpreparedness, would likely result in
societal collapse. Terrorists, criminals, and even lone individuals can build a non-nuclear EMP weapon without great trouble or expense,
working from Unclassified designs publicly available on the internet, and using parts available at any electronics store. In 2000, the Terrorism
Panel of the House Armed Services Committee sponsored an experiment, recruiting a small team of amateur electronics enthusiasts to attempt
constructing a radiofrequency weapon, relying only on unclassified design information and parts purchased from Radio Shack. The team, in 1
year, built two radiofrequency weapons of radically different designs. One was designed to fit inside the shipping crate for a Xerox machine, so
it could be delivered to the Pentagon mail room where (in those more unguarded days before 9/11) it could slowly fry the Pentagon’s
computers. The other radiofrequency weapon was designed to fit inside a small Volkswagon bus, so it could be driven down Wall Street and
disrupt computers— and perhaps the National economy. Both designs were demonstrated and tested successfully during a special
Congressional hearing for this purpose at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground. Radiofrequency weapons are not merely a hypothetical
threat. Terrorists, criminals, and disgruntled individuals have used home-made radiofrequency weapons. The U.S. military and foreign militaries
have a wide variety of such weaponry. Moreover, non-nuclear EMP devices that could be used as radiofrequency weapons are publicly
marketed for sale to anyone, usually advertised as ‘‘EMP simulators.’’ For example, one such simulator is advertised for public sale as an ‘‘EMP
Suitcase.’’ This EMP simulator is designed to look like a suitcase, can be carried and operated by one person, and is purpose-built with a high
energy radiofrequency output to destroy electronics. However, it has only a short radius of effect. Nonetheless, a terrorist or deranged
individual who knows what he is doing, who has studied the electric grid for a major metropolitan area, could—armed with the ‘‘EMP
Suitcase’’— black out a major city. A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. An EMP weapon can be used by state actors who wish to level the
battlefield by neutralizing the great technological advantage enjoyed by U.S. military forces. EMP is also the ideal means, the only means,
whereby rogue states or terrorists could use a single nuclear weapon to destroy the United States and prevail in the War on Terrorism or some
other conflict with a single blow. The EMP Commission also warned that states or terrorists could exploit U.S. vulnerability to EMP attack for
coercion or blackmail: ‘‘Therefore, terrorists or state actors that possess relatively unsophisticated missiles armed with nuclear weapons may
well calculate that, instead of destroying a city or military base, they may obtain the greatest political-military utility from one or a few such
weapons by using them—or threatening their use—in an EMP attack.’’ The EMP Commission found that states such as Russia, China, North
Korea, and Iran have incorporated EMP attack into their military doctrines, and openly describe making EMP attacks against the United States.
Indeed, the EMP Commission was established by Congress partly in response to a Russian nuclear EMP threat made to an official Congressional
Delegation on May 2, 1999, in the midst of the Balkans crisis. Vladimir Lukin, head of the Russian delegation and a former Ambassador to the
United States, warned: ‘‘Hypothetically, if Russia really wanted to hurt the United States in retaliation for NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia
could fire an SLBM and detonate a single nuclear warhead at high altitude over the United States. The resulting EMP would massively disrupt
U.S. communications and computer systems, shutting down everything.’’ China’s military doctrine also openly describes EMP attack as the
ultimate asymmetric weapon, as it strikes at the very technology that is the basis of U.S. power. Where EMP is concerned, ‘‘The United States is
more vulnerable to attacks than any other country in the world’’: ‘‘Some people might think that things similar to the ‘Pearl Harbor Incident’ are
unlikely to take place during the information age. Yet it could be regarded as the ‘Pearl Harbor Incident’ of the 21st Century if a surprise attack
is conducted against the enemy’s crucial information systems of command, control, and communications by such means as… electromagnetic
pulse weapons… Even a superpower like the United States, which possesses nuclear missiles and powerful armed forces, cannot guarantee its
immunity…In their own words, a highly computerized open society like the United States is extremely vulnerable to electronic attacks from all
sides. This is because the U.S. economy, from banks to telephone systems and from power plants to iron and steel works, relies entirely on
computer networks… When a country grows increasingly powerful economically and technologically…it will become increasingly dependent on
modern information systems… The United States is more vulnerable to attacks than any other country in the world.’’ Iran—the world’s leading
sponsor of international terrorism—in military writings openly describes EMP as a terrorist weapon, and as the ultimate weapon for prevailing
over the West: ‘‘If the world’s industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults, then
they will disintegrate within a few years… American soldiers would not be able to find food to eat nor would they be able to fire a single shot.’’
The threats are not merely words. The EMP Commission assesses that Russia has, as it openly declares in military writings, probably developed
what Russia describes as a ‘‘Super-EMP’’ nuclear weapon—specifically designed to generate extraordinarily high EMP fields in order to paralyze
even the best protected U.S. strategic and military forces. China probably also has Super-EMP weapons. North Korea too may possess or be
developing a Super-EMP nuclear weapon, as alleged by credible Russian sources to the EMP Commission, and by open-source reporting from
South Korean military intelligence. But any nuclear weapon, even a low-yield first generation device, could suffice to make a catastrophic EMP
attack on the United States. Iran, although it is assessed as not yet having the bomb, is actively testing missile delivery systems and has
practiced launches of its best missile, the Shahab–III, fuzing for high- altitude detonations, in exercises that look suspiciously like training for
making EMP attacks. As noted earlier, Iran has also practiced launching from a ship a Scud, the world’s most common missile—possessed by
over 60 nations, terrorist groups, and private collectors. A Scud might be the ideal choice for a ship-launched EMP attack against the United
States intended to be executed anonymously, to escape any last-gasp U.S. retaliation. Unlike a nuclear weapon detonated in a city, a high-
altitude EMP attack leaves no bomb debris for forensic analysis, no perpetrator ‘‘fingerprints.’’ Under present levels of preparedness,
communications would be severely limited, restricted mainly to those few military communications networks that are hardened against EMP.
Today’s microelectronics are the foundation of our modern civilization, but are over 1 million times more vulnerable to EMP than the far more
primitive and robust electronics of the 1960s, that proved vulnerable during nuclear EMP tests of that era. Tests conducted by the EMP
Commission confirmed empirically the theory that, as modern microelectronics become ever smaller and more efficient, and operate ever
faster on lower voltages, they also become ever more vulnerable, and can be destroyed or disrupted by much lower EMP field strengths.
Microelectronics and electronic systems are everywhere, and run virtually everything in the modern world. All of the civilian critical
infrastructures that sustain the economy of the United States, and the lives of 310 million Americans, depend, directly or indirectly, upon
electricity and electronic systems. Of special concern is the vulnerability to EMP of the Extra-High-Voltage (EHV) transformers, that are
indispensable to the operation of the electric grid. EHV transformers drive electric current over long distances, from the point of generation to
consumers (from the Niagara Falls hydroelectric facility to New York City, for example). The electric grid cannot operate without EHV
transformers—which could be destroyed by an EMP event. The United States no longer manufactures EHV transformers. They must be
manufactured and imported from overseas, from Germany or South Korea, the only two nations in the world that manufacture such
transformers for export. Each EHV transformer must be custom-made for its unique role in the grid. A single EHV transformer typically requires
18 months to manufacture. The loss of large numbers of EHV transformers to an EMP event would plunge the United States into a protracted
blackout lasting years, with perhaps no hope of eventual recovery, as the society and population probably could not survive for even 1 year
without electricity. Another key vulnerability to EMP are Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition systems (SCADAs). SCADAs essentially are
small computers, numbering in the millions and ubiquitous everywhere in the critical infrastructures, that perform jobs previously performed
by hundreds of thousands of human technicians during the 1960s and before, in the era prior to the microelectronics revolution. SCADAs do
things like regulating the flow of electricity into a transformer, controlling the flow of gas through a pipeline, or running traffic control lights.
SCADAs enable a few dozen people to run the critical infrastructures for an entire city, whereas previously hundreds or even thousands of
technicians were necessary. Unfortunately, SCADAs are especially vulnerable to EMP. EHV transformers and SCADAs are the most important
vulnerabilities to EMP, but are by no means the only vulnerabilities. Each of the critical infrastructures has their own unique vulnerabilities to
EMP: The National electric grid, with its transformers and generators and electronic controls and thousands of miles of power lines, is a vast
electronic machine—more vulnerable to EMP than any other critical infrastructure. Yet the electric grid is the most important of
all critical infrastructures, and is in fact the keystone supporting modern civilization, as it powers all the
other critical infrastructures. As of now it is our technological Achilles Heel. The EMP Commission found that, if
the electric grid collapses, so too will collapse all the other critical infrastructures. But, if the electric grid can be
protected and recovered, so too all the other critical infrastructures can also be restored. Transportation is a critical infrastructure
because modern civilization cannot exist without the goods and services moved by road, rail, ship, and air .
Cars, trucks, locomotives, ships, and aircraft all have electronic components, motors, and controls that are potentially vulnerable to EMP. Gas
stations, fuel pipelines, and refineries that make petroleum products depend upon electronic components and cannot operate without
electricity. Given our current state of unpreparedness, in the aftermath of a natural or nuclear EMP event, transportation systems would be
paralyzed. Traffic control systems that avert traffic jams and collisions for road, rail, and air depend upon electronic systems, that the
EMP Commission discovered are especially vulnerable to EMP. Communications is a critical infrastructure because modern economies
and the cohesion and operation of modern societies depend to a degree unprecedented in history on the
rapid movement of information—accomplished today mostly by electronic means. Telephones, cell phones, personal computers,
television, and radio are all directly vulnerable to EMP, and cannot operate without electricity. Satellites that operate at Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO)
for communications, weather, scientific, and military purposes are vulnerable to EMP and to collateral effects from an EMP attack. Within
weeks of an EMP event, the LEO satellites, which comprise most satellites, would probably be inoperable. Banking and finance are
the critical infrastructure that sustain modern economies. Whether it is the stock market, the financial records of a
multinational corporation, or the ATM card of an individual—financial transactions and record keeping all depend now at the macro- and micro-
level upon computers and electronic automated systems. Many of these are directly vulnerable to EMP, and none can operate without
electricity. The EMP Commission found that an EMP event could transform the modern electronic economy into a
feudal economy based on barter. Food has always been vital to every person and every civilization. The
critical infrastructure for producing, delivering, and storing food depends upon a complex web of
technology, including machines for planting and harvesting and packaging, refrigerated vehicles for long-
haul transportation, and temperature-controlled warehouses. Modern technology enables over 98
percent of the U.S. National population to be fed by less than 2 percent of the population. Huge regional warehouses that
resupply supermarkets constitute the National food reserves, enough food to feed the Nation for 30–60 days at normal consumption rates, the
warehoused food preserved by refrigeration and temperature control systems that typically have enough emergency electrical power (diesel or
gas generators) to last only about an average of 3 days. Experience
with storm-induced blackouts proves that when
these big regional food warehouses lose electrical power, most of the food supply will rapidly spoil.
Farmers, less than 2 percent of the population as noted above, cannot feed 310 million Americans if deprived of the
means that currently makes possible this technological miracle. Water too has always been a basic necessity to every
person and civilization, even more crucial than food. The critical infrastructure for purifying and delivering potable water, and for disposing of
and treating waste water, is a vast networked machine powered by electricity that uses electrical pumps, screens, filters, paddles, and sprayers
to purify and deliver drinkable water, and to remove and treat waste water. Much of the machinery in the water infrastructure is directly
vulnerable to EMP. The system cannot operate without vast amounts of electricity supplied by the power grid. A natural or nuclear EMP event
would immediately deprive most of the U.S. National population of running water. Many natural sources of water—lakes, streams, and rivers—
would be dangerously polluted by toxic wastes from sewage, industry, and hospitals that would backflow from or bypass wastewater treatment
plants, that could no longer intake and treat pollutants without electric power. Many natural water sources that would normally be safe to
drink, after an EMP event, would be polluted with human wastes including feces, industrial wastes including arsenic and heavy metals, and
hospital wastes including pathogens. Emergency services such as police, fire, and hospitals are the critical infrastructure that upholds the most
basic functions of government and society—preserving law and order, protecting property and life. Experience from protracted storm-induced
blackouts has shown, for example in the aftermath of Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, that when the lights go out and communications systems
fail and there is no gas for squad cars, fire trucks, and ambulances, the
worst elements of society and the worst human
instincts rapidly takeover. The EMP Commission found that, given our current state of unpreparedness, a natural or
nuclear EMP event could create anarchic conditions that would profoundly challenge the existence of social
order.

Blackouts go nuclear.
Andres 11 Richard Andres and Hanna Breetz, 2011. Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College and a
Senior Fellow and Energy and Environmental Security and Policy Chair in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National
Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University, doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. “Small Nuclear Reactors for Military Installations: Capabilities, Costs, and Technological Implications”,
www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-262.pdf

The DOD interest in small reactors derives largely from problems with base and logistics vulnerability. Over the last few years, the
Services have begun to reexamine virtually every aspect of how they generate and use energy with an eye toward cutting costs,
decreasing carbon emissions, and reducing energy-related vulnerabilities. These actions have resulted in programs that have
significantly reduced DOD energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at domestic bases. Despite strong efforts, however, two
critical security issues have thus far proven resistant to existing solutions: bases’ vulnerability to civilian power outages, and the need to
transport large quantities of fuel via convoys through hostile territory to forward locations. Each of these is explored below. Grid
Vulnerability. DOD is unable to provide its bases with electricity when the civilian electrical grid is offline
for an extended period of time. Currently, domestic military installations receive 99 percent of their electricity from the civilian power
grid. As explained in a recent study from the Defense Science Board: DOD’s key problem with electricity is that critical missions, such as
national strategic awareness and national command authorities, are almost entirely dependent on the
national transmission grid . . . [which] is fragile, vulnerable, near its capacity limit, and outside of DOD control. In most cases,
neither the grid nor on-base backup power provides sufficient reliability to ensure continuity of critical national priority functions and
oversight of strategic missions in the face of a long term (several months) outage.7 The grid’s fragility was demonstrated during the 2003
Northeast blackout in which 50 million people in the United States and Canada lost power, some for up to a week, when one Ohio utility
failed to properly trim trees. The blackout created cascading disruptions in sewage systems, gas station pumping, cellular
communications, border check systems, and so forth, and demonstrated the interdependence of modern infrastructural systems.8 More
recently, awareness has been growing that the grid is also vulnerable to purposive attacks. A report sponsored by the Department of
Homeland Security suggests that a coordinated cyberattack on the grid could result in a third of the country losing power for a period of
weeks or months.9 Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are not well understood. It is not clear, for instance, whether existing terrorist
groups might be able to develop the capability to conduct this type of attack. It is likely, however, that some nation-states either have or
are working on developing the ability to take down the U.S. grid. In the event of a war with one of these states, it is possible, if not likely,
that parts of the civilian grid would cease to function, taking with them military bases located in affected regions. Government and
private organizations are currently working to secure the grid against attacks; however, it is not clear that they will be successful. Most
military bases currently have backup power that allows them to function for a period of hours or, at most, a few days on their own. If
power were not restored after this amount of time, the results could be disastrous. First, military assets taken offline by the crisis would
not be available to help with disaster relief. Second, during an extended blackout, global military operations could be
seriously compromised; this disruption would be particularly serious if the blackout was induced during major combat
operations. During the Cold War, this type of event was far less likely because the United States and Soviet Union shared the common
understanding that blinding an opponent with a grid blackout could escalate to nuclear war . America’s current
opponents, however, may not share this fear or be deterred by this possibility. In 2008, the Defense Science Board stressed that DOD
should mitigate the electrical grid’s vulnerabilities by turning military installations into “islands” of energy self-sufficiency. The
department has made efforts to do so by promoting efficiency programs that lower power consumption on bases and by constructing
renewable power generation facilities on selected bases. Unfortunately, these programs will not come close to reaching the goal of
islanding the vast majority of bases. Even with massive investment in efficiency and renewables, most bases would not be able to
function for more than a few days after the civilian grid went offline Unlike other alternative sources of energy, small reactors have the
potential to solve DOD’s vulnerability to grid outages. Most bases have relatively light power demands when compared to civilian towns
or cities. Small reactors could easily support bases’ power demands separate from the civilian grid during crises. In some cases, the
reactors could be designed to produce enough power not only to supply the base, but also to provide critical services in surrounding
towns during long-term outages. Strategically, islanding bases with small reactors has another benefit. One of the main reasons an enemy
might be willing to risk reprisals by taking down the U.S. grid during a period of military hostilities would be to affect ongoing military
operations. Without the lifeline of intelligence, communication, and logistics provided by U.S. domestic bases, American military
operations would be compromised in almost any conceivable contingency. Making bases more resilient to civilian power outages would
reduce the incentive for an opponent to attack the grid. An opponent might still attempt to take down the grid for the sake of disrupting
civilian systems, but the powerful incentive to do so in order to win an ongoing battle or war would be greatly reduced.

Extinction

Lewis 8 – Marlo Lewis, 6/25/2008. Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute. House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming, http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Statement%2520of%2520Marlo%2520Lewis.pdf

If these somewhat miraculous reductions in carbon intensity do not occur, then the
only way to reach the 70-percent emission
reduction target will be through big increases in energy prices leading to big declines in economic
growth . This is a recipe for stagflation and worse .
In another paper CEI has commissioned, Dr. McKitrick shows what happens to per capita GDP under several climate bills if population growth
and emission intensity decline continue at their historic rates.

Instead of per
capita GDP more than doubling between 2005 and 2060, it falls by half or more. The American dream becomes the
American nightmare.
Does it have to happen that way? No. Technology breakthroughs that dramatically lower the cost of cutting emissions may occur. But it is in the
nature of breakthroughs that they are difficult to plan or even predict. Thus, under these emission reduction mandates, there is
a significant risk of severe economic damage .
So again let me state the obvious: An
economically weakened America would be less able to sustain its defense
commitments, keep the peace, and remain vigorously engaged in the world .

The top agenda item of many global warming activists today is stopping the construction of new coal-fired power
plants. No new coal power plants should be built, we are told, unless they are equipped with carbon capture
and sequestration. But it could take a decade to determine whether carbon capture and storage is economical under a range of emission
reduction scenarios, years to develop the regulatory framework for a carbon capture system, years to overcome NIMBY opposition, and a
decade to build the infrastructure on an industrial scale.10

In the meantime, U.S. electricity demand is growing, and coal is the fuel of choice in many markets. The
EIA forecasts that between 2007 and 2030, coal will provide 67 percent of all new electric generation in the United States, and new coal
generation will constitute 15 percent of all U.S. electric power in 2030.11

Moratoria that effectively ban new coal -based power could create a severe supply-demand imbalance.
This would not only inflate electricity and natural gas costs (demand for coal would be diverted to natural gas as an
electricity fuel), it would also jeopardize electric supply reliability . Indeed, some parts of the country may experience
chronic energy crises characterized by repeated power failures and blackouts.

From a national security standpoint, this poses two main risks. One is that America will increasingly resemble a Third World
country where nothing works very well. We will lose our international prestige and ability to lead by example . The
other risk is that terrorists will view America’s over-stretched, failure-prone electricity grid as a tempting
target . They may calculate: If America’s electric supply system is tottering on the edge , why not give it a few helpful
shoves?

The anti-coal campaign is, of course, not limited to the United States. Global warming activists seek to ban new coal-fired power plants not only
here but also in China, India, and other developing countries. This is essential to their agenda, and for a very simple reason. The emissions from
new coal plants here and elsewhere will swamp all of the emission reductions that Europe, Japan, and Canada might, in theory, achieve under
the U.N. global warming treaty, the Kyoto Protocol.12 Either the global warming movement kills coal, or coal will bury Kyoto.

The campaign to ban new coal worldwide raises additional national security concerns. First, how would a global
moratorium on new coal plants be enforced, and by whom? Presumably this would be accomplished, initially, via trade sanctions. Already
European and U.S. leaders are calling for carbon tariffs to penalize goods from countries like China and India that refuse to limit their
Trade wars are not always resolved peacefully ! In any event, if the United States vigorously
emissions.13 Warning:
presses for a ban on new coal plants around the world, it will continually butt heads with China, India, and
many other developing countries.
We often hear that the world must reduce global emissions 50 percent by 2050 to avert the more dangerous effects of global warming. Those
who say this may not realize the kind of sacrifice they are asking developing countries to make. Almost all the growth in emissions over the next
few decades is expected to occur in developing countries.

Analysis by the Department of Energy shows that even if the industrialized countries somehow go cold turkey by 2050 and achieve zero net
emissions, developing countries would still have to cut their emissions 57 percent below baseline projections to reduce global emissions 50
percent below 2005 levels.

The “energy source” is wood chopped from the forest. The “energy transmission” system is the backs of women and girls, hauling the wood a
U.N.-estimated average of 3 miles each day. The “energy use” system is burning the wood in an open fire indoors for heat and light.

These villagers breathe indoor air that is much dirtier than outdoor air in the world’s most polluted cities. Respiratory disease among this large
segment of humanity is rampant and kills more than a million people a year, most of them women and children. Reliance on traditional biomass
also takes a heavy toll on forests and wildlife habitat.

A coal-fired power plant would improve the lives of those villagers in Kenya in many ways. Women would be freed from backbreaking toil and
could pursue more fulfilling activities. People would be healthier because indoor air quality would improve. Refrigeration would make food
preparation easier and safer. Electric lighting would allow people to read and study at night. Computers and Internet access would follow. The
beautiful forests and the species dependent on them would be saved.
Denying these people—and millions of others like them—access to coal-based power would be a humanitarian disaster .
a crime against humanity . Trapping people in energy poverty will very likely make them
Some might even call it
hungry, desperate, and angry. The potential for conflict within and among countries under a global ban on coal-based
power may be quite large.

Schwartz and Randall warn that abrupt climate change would cause food shortages and destabilize governments . Well, during
the past six months food riots have broken out in more than 30 countries, and in at least one case—Haiti—rioters brought down the
government.15 Big
jumps in the price of staples—corn, wheat, and rice—are pushing millions of people below the
absolute poverty line.16
Today’s food price inflation has several causes including a weak dollar, high oil prices, drought, and surging demand in India and China. But one
factor fueling this crisis is a global warming policy—government subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol production.17 Biofuels provide only
about 1.5 percent of total motor fuel liquids, yet they accounted for almost half the increase in global consumption of major food crops in
2006-07, according to the World Bank.18 More aggressive efforts to replace petroleum with biofuels could literally starve the hungry, creating
chaos and conflict.

Schwartz and Randall warn that abrupt climate change will create millions of environmental refugees fleeing across borders to escape from
hunger and water shortages. Millions of illegal migrants already cross the U.S. southern border from Mexico. Poor Mexicans obtain 40 percent
of their daily calories from tortillas, and the U.S. ethanol program, by inflating the price of corn, contributed to a “tortilla crisis” in Mexico.19
Burning food in gas tanks exacerbates the poverty that is a root cause of illegal migration. Expect an increase in ‘biofuel refugees’ as the
mandates ramp up.

Schwartz and Randall warn that abrupt climate change, by intensifying winter storms and expanding sea ice, could reduce the availability of gas
and oil, leading to conflict over dwindling resources. Well, this implies that non-abrupt climate change, which is far more likely, could make gas
and oil more available by opening up the long-sought Northwest Passage.20

More importantly, since Kyoto-style policies aim to restrict access to fossil fuels, they too have the potential to engender
conflicts over energy . Cap-and-trade programs force participants to compete over slices of a shrinking
pie. That is how cap-and-trade is supposed to work. When it doesn’t work that way—as in phase one of the European Emissions Trading
System—it is because companies and/or governments are cheating.21

Blackouts cause extinction and cause mass crop failures

Hecht 11 – Editor in Chief @ 21st Century Magazine
Laurence, Solar Storm Threatening Power Grids – Yet no Action Taken to Implement Defences,
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Solar-Storm-Threatening-Power-Grids-%E2%80%93-Yet-no-
Action-Taken-to-Implement-Defences.html *Language Modified

A prolonged lack of electricity in any of these areas would reduce the population to Dark Age-like conditions.
Drinking water supply would break down for lack of pumping, and sewage service would cease shortly
thereafter. For lack of refrigeration, the food chain would collapse, and medical supplies would be lost. Fuel
could not be pumped, and thus transportation would break down. Heating and air conditioning systems
would cease functioning. Communication would be [undermined] crippled by the lack of electricity as well as
from the direct damage to satellites and sensitive electronics which a solar storm produces—perhaps no
Internet and no cell phones. Modern life would come to an end, and a population and economic
infrastructure unprepared for a return to pre-electricity conditions could descend into chaos.
Blackouts go nuclear.
Richard Andres and Hanna Breetz, 2011. Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College and a Senior Fellow
and Energy and Environmental Security and Policy Chair in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the
National Defense University, doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Small
Nuclear Reactors for Military Installations: Capabilities, Costs, and Technological Implications”, www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-
262.pdf

The DOD interest in small reactors derives largely from problems with base and logistics vulnerability. Over the last few years, the Services have
begun to reexamine virtually every aspect of how they generate and use energy with an eye toward cutting costs, decreasing carbon emissions,
and reducing energy-related vulnerabilities. These actions have resulted in programs that have significantly reduced DOD energy consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions at domestic bases. Despite strong efforts, however, two critical
security issues have thus far proven
resistant to existing solutions: bases’ vulnerability to civilian power outages, and the need to transport
large quantities of fuel via convoys through hostile territory to forward locations. Each of these is explored below. Grid
Vulnerability. DOD is unable to provide its bases with electricity when the civilian electrical grid is offline for
an extended period of time. Currently, domestic military installations receive 99 percent of their electricity
from the civilian power grid. As explained in a recent study from the Defense Science Board: DOD’s key problem with electricity is
that critical missions, such as national strategic awareness and national command authorities , are almost
entirely dependent on the national transmission grid . . . [which] is fragile, vulnerable, near its capacity
limit, and outside of DOD control . In most cases, neither the grid nor on-base backup power provides
sufficient reliability to ensure continuity of critical national priority functions and oversight of strategic
missions in the face of a long term (several months) outage .7 The grid’s fragility was demonstrated
during the 2003 Northeast blackout in which 50 million people in the United States and Canada lost power, some for up to a week,
when one Ohio utility failed to properly trim trees. The blackout created cascading disruptions in sewage systems, gas station pumping, cellular
communications, border check systems, and so forth, and demonstrated the interdependence of modern infrastructural systems.8 More
recently, awareness has been growing that the grid is also vulnerable to purposive attacks. A report sponsored by the
Department of Homeland Security suggests that a coordinated cyberattack on the grid could result in a third of the country losing power for a
period of weeks or months.9 Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are not well understood. It is not clear, for instance, whether existing
terrorist groups might be able to develop the capability to conduct this type of attack . It is likely, however,
that some nation-states either have or are working on developing the ability to take down the U.S. grid .
In the event of a war with one of these states, it is possible, if not likely, that parts of the civilian grid would cease to
function, taking with them military bases located in affected regions . Government and private organizations are
currently working to secure the grid against attacks; however, it is not clear that they will be successful . Most
military bases currently have backup power that allows them to function for a period of hours or, at most, a few days on their own. If power
were not restored after this amount of time, the results could be disastrous. First, military
assets taken offline by the crisis
would not be available to help with disaster relief . Second, during an extended blackout, global military
operations could be seriously compromised ; this disruption would be particularly serious if the blackout
was induced during major combat operations. During the Cold War, this type of event was far less likely because the United
States and Soviet Union shared the common understanding that blinding an opponent with a grid blackout could escalate
to nuclear war . America’s current opponents, however, may not share this fear or be deterred by this
possibility. In 2008, the Defense Science Board stressed that DOD should mitigate the electrical grid’s vulnerabilities
by turning military installations into “ islands ” of energy self-sufficiency. The department has made efforts to do
so by promoting efficiency programs that lower power consumption on bases and by constructing renewable power
generation facilities on selected bases. Unfortunately, these programs will not come close to reaching the
goal of islanding the vast majority of bases. Even with massive investment in efficiency and renewables,
most bases would not be able to function for more than a few days after the civilian grid went offline Unlike other
alternative sources of energy, small reactors have the potential to solve DOD’s vulnerability to grid
outages. Most bases have relatively light power demands when compared to civilian towns or cities. Small reactors could easily
support bases’ power demands separate from the civilian grid during crises . In some cases, the reactors
could be designed to produce enough power not only to supply the base, but also to provide critical
services in surrounding towns during long-term outages . Strategically, islanding bases with small reactors has another
benefit. One of the main reasons an enemy might be willing to risk reprisals by taking down the U.S. grid
during a period of military hostilities would be to affect ongoing military operations. Without the lifeline
of intelligence, communication, and logistics provided by U.S. domestic bases, American military operations would be
compromised in almost any conceivable contingency. Making bases more resilient to civilian power
outages would reduce the incentive for an opponent to attack the grid . An opponent might still attempt to take down
the grid for the sake of disrupting civilian systems, but the powerful incentive to do so in order to win an ongoing battle
or war would be greatly reduced.
 Ext --- Grid Impacts --- Meltdown

Blackouts causes meltdowns --- impact’s as big as US/Russian nuclear war

Goldes 11 – MA @ Brandeis and San Francisco State
Mark Goldes Former Research Fellow at Brandeis University is Founder of the Aesop Institute. Formerly
Senior Director of the Berlin Corridor control radar in Germanyfor US Air Force SOLAR MEGASTORMS
can GENERATE a GLOBAL NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE http://www.opednews.com/articles/SOLAR-
MEGASTORMS-can-GENER-by-Mark-Goldes-111119-448.html
We face a severe potential emergency. External threats serve to unite. The world faces an unrecognized nuclear peril! Uniting to
confront it can generate the missing popular and government support to generate millions of jobs and revitalize the global economy.

A THREAT GREATER THAN ANY TERROR ATTACK!

A NASA funded study by the National Academy of Sciences was titled Severe Space Weather Events--Understanding Societal and Economic
Impacts. The resulting Report detailed what might happen in the event of a solar megastorm launching a powerful Coronal Mass Ejection (CME)
that strikes our geomagnetic field. The study predicts blackouts that may last for years. As the map above indicates, highly vulnerable
areas include most of the Eastern and Northwestern parts of the nation.

The NOAA estimates each 11 year sunspot cycle is capable of launching 4 "extreme" (X class) CMEs and 100 "severe" CMEs at the earth. More X
class events than were anticipated have occurred in the current cycle. The most dangerous period is the next 5 years. The peak peril is
predicted by some to occur in May, 2013.

So far, neither NASA nor NOAA have publicly acknowledged the mortal threat these events may cause as the result of multiple meltdowns of
nuclear plants worldwide. To date, there is no indication that the White House, Congress, Homeland Security, the Department of Defense
and/or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have adequately prepared to prevent the horrendous effects of such a solar
megastorm.

The recent statement by a NASA scientist that human life would not end as the result of the direct effects of a solar storm during 2012 is
misleading. A solar megastorm that causes widespread meltdowns of numerous nuclear power plants can seriously end
millions, if not hundreds of millions, or even billions,
of lives from radioactivity. This event could very well parallel the
aftermath of a nuclear weapons exchange had there been war between the USA and the USSR -- massive
amounts of radioactivity carried on prevailing winds all over the planet. The issue is not the specific year. This entire 11
year sunspot cycle should be of concern.
 A2: Alt Causes to Grid

Most likely scenario for electrical outage

Allen-Dumas et al 19 --- Melissa R Allen-Dumas, Melissa Allen-Dumas is a Research Scientist in the
Computational Sciences and Engineering Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She holds a PhD
degree in Energy Science and Engineering and a MS degree in Environmental Engineering, Binita KC Colin
I Cunliff, “Extreme Weather and Climate Vulnerabilities of the Electric Grid: A Summary of
Environmental Sensitivity Quantification Methods”, Aug 2019,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f67/Oak%20Ridge%20National%20Laboratory%20EIS
%20Response.pdf

Extreme weather is the leading cause of electric power outage events, especially for the most significant
disruptions[45, 76, 74] (Figure 1). Extreme weather and climate-related threats to electrical grid systems
include but are not limited to: sea level rise and associated coastal flooding, increasing frequency, intensity and duration of
heat waves, changing precipitation patterns, ice storms, lengthening regional droughts and wildfires, and more
instances of flooding and damaging winds from severe storms. Climate change has led to an increase in the frequency and intensity
of extreme weather events, raising concerns about the resilience of the electric grid to present and future
climate and weather hazards. For example, increased severity of extreme weather events wa s the principal
contributor to an observed increase in the duration of U.S. power outages between 2000 and 2012 [56].
 A2: Grid Resilient

Not resilient to extreme weather

MarketScale 21 --- “How Does Weather Affect the Electrical Grid?”, Market Scale, March 22 nd 2021,
https://marketscale.com/industries/building-management/how-does-weather-affect-the-electrical-grid/

Since the 1900s, electricity has become an integral part of our lives, determining our access to warmth, food,
communication, safety, and health. The weather, however, can greatly affect our access to electricity,
especially when we may need it the most. An analysis conducted by Climate Central found that there was a 67%
increase in weather-related power outages since 2000 in the United States, reflecting the inability of the
aging electrical grid to withstand increasingly extreme weather events. Both renewable and non-
renewable energy are vulnerable to effects of the weather. How does it affect energy generation and transmission, and what can
be done to improve it?

According to Climate Central, between 2003 and 2012, 80% of large-scale power outages were caused by severe
weather. Out of these instances, 59% were caused by storms and severe weather such as heavy rains and thunderstorms; 20% by ice storms
and cold weather; 18% by hurricanes and tropical storms; and 3% and 2% by tornadoes, and extreme heat and wildfires respectively. With a
large majority of power outages caused by weather events, it is crucial to create a system that can hold up against them and recover as soon as
possible.

How does weather affect the generation and distribution of electricity?

A majority of power lines in America are above ground making them vulnerable to weather and the
elements. During storms and hurricanes, power line poles are susceptible to breaking and falling due to
strong winds, or having branches and trees fall onto the power lines, disrupting the transmission of power. During
Hurricane Sandy in 2012, 8 million people faced power outages with disruption caused by wind or flood damage, or preemptive shut downs by
power companies to preserve the electrical system. In 2018, 1.7 million
people faced electricity outages caused by
Hurricane Michael. Oftentimes it can take a few days for power to be restored, leaving people and emergency
services vulnerable during these times.
Ice storms can also cause damage to power lines as ice accumulates on them and makes them easier to break. If equipment is not designed to
operate at certain temperatures, energy generation can be impeded. During the unprecedented cold weather that Texas faced, equipment at
powerplants froze as they were not fortified against frigid temperatures, leaving millions without power. Extreme temperatures can also
increase the demand on the electrical grid as people switch on extra heating or air conditioning to cope, putting a lot of pressure on the grid.

Renewable energy sources are not impervious to extreme weather conditions either. Some studies have
shown that the electrical efficiency and power output of solar panels can also be negatively affected by
higher temperatures. Not to mention when there is no sunlight at all for panels to harvest. Wind
turbines can be damaged by winds stronger than what they are designed to handle.
BioD
 Ext --- Wetlands K2 BioD

Wetlands are critical for biodiversity

Chelius 19 --- Ryan Chelius, “Wetland conservation and its impact on biodiversity”, Planet Forward,
March 3rd 2019, https://www.planetforward.org/idea/wetland-conservation-biodiversity

Wetlands are one of the most crucial ecosystems for the biodiversity of plants and animals, as well as,
the overall health of the surrounding environment . Humans rely heavily on wetlands for protection against
coastal storms, water purification, and production of food and water. All across North America, there are various types of wetland habitat. On
the east coast, you can find salt marshes that act as buffer zones from the Atlantic Ocean. In the Great
Plains of North America lies the prairie pothole region which provides some of the most important
wetland nesting habitat for waterfowl. As well as thousands of swamps across the continent which provide vital habitat for
waterfowl, mammals, fish, and other non-game birds.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines a wetland as areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or
near the surface of the soil all year for varying periods of time during the year (epa.gov). Generally, wetlands can be divided into two categories,
coastal/tidal and inland/non-tidal. Both of these wetlands provide vital habitat for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species. Although, over
the last century there has been a significant decline in wetland habitat. This habitat loss can be attributed to many different causes, and as a
result, the biodiversity of these areas has suffered.

Wetlands are the most biodiverse place on Earth

MacBeath 20 --- Topiltzin Contreras MacBeath Topis is a Professor at the Biological Research Center
of the Autonomous University of the State Morelos, in central Mexico, where he is head of the
Conservation Biology work group, et al, “Wetlands: the ultimate biodiversity hotspot”, Jan 2020,
https://www.iucn.org/crossroads-blog/202001/wetlands-ultimate-biodiversity-hotspot

The book Freshwater: The Essence of Life, published in 2010, made the case that “ freshwater
ecosystems are the ultimate
biodiversity hotspot. They contain a greater concentration of life than anywhere else and are seriously
imperiled”. Ten years on, these facts remain true, and this year, World Wetlands Day on February 2 is focused on Wetlands and Biodiversity.
The day highlights the rich diversity of wetlands, while raising awareness about their plight and how we can act to reverse their loss. World
Wetlands Day also marks the signing of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands on February 2, 1971.

Wetlands extend across inland and coastal zones. They include the rivers, lakes, marshes, swamps and other ‘wet lands’ found inland. But the
Ramsar Convention also includes coastal wetlands such as saltwater marshes, estuaries, mangroves, lagoons and coral reefs in its definition.
This is important because inland and coastal wetlands are inextricably linked to each other, and with the terrestrial
landscapes through which they run. It is for this reason that members of the IUCN Species Survival Commission are promoting the concept of
the ‘aquascape’ – a term that highlights the connectivity of fresh, marine and ‘transitional waters’ (those waters between the inland and sea
waters, such as estuaries, lagoons and deltas), as well as the ecological processes that occur across them.

Wetlands are key biodiversity areas

Department of Environment 16 --- Australian Government Dept of Ag, Water, and Environment,
“Wetlands and biodiversity”, 2016,
https://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/factsheet-wetlands-biodiversity

Wetlands are a critical part of our natural environment, and play a key role in supporting Australia’s
biological diversity. Wetlands support waterbird, fish, amphibian, reptile and plant species during
important life stages by providing roosting, nesting and feeding habitat as well as refuge during extreme weather conditions. They
also form corridor or stepping stone habitats that support the migration of species, including waterbirds
and marine mammals.
Wetland values

The biodiversity of Australia’s wetlands is unique, ranging from waterbirds that migrate thousands of kilometres from Russia and China, to rare
plants and animals that have adapted to the highly variable wetting and drying cycles of the Australian landscape.

Biodiversity has environmental and social value. Where wetlands have healthy biodiversity, they provide
essential services to the environment and to our communities – providing and purifying water, acting as
spawning and nursery grounds for fish, providing a refuge for animals in times of drought and providing
recreational, cultural and, in some cases, spiritual benefits.
 Ext --- BioD Impact

Biodiversity solves extinction --- multiple existential scenarios

Helfrich 05 --- L. A. Helfrich, professor and the fisheries extension specialist in the Department of.
Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences at Virginia Tech, R. Neves, J. A. Parkhurst, “Sustaining America's Aquatic
Biodiversity. What is Aquatic Biodiversity; Why Is it Important?”, Published 2005 Environmental Science,
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sustaining-America's-Aquatic-Biodiversity.-What-is-Helfrich-
Neves/27e8212e16c15133f21c53514e217e1dc77f45db
The Value of Biodiversity

Each aquatic species from a tiny bacterium to a blue whale is unique. It is not size, but the genetic composition of plants and animals that
makes all life forms special. Each species has its own inherent genetic library that codes its ability to survive in changing environments. The
huge variety of species and genes represents a living library of options to adapt to change, to develop immunity to disease, and to pass
improved fitness on to future generations.

Sustaining biodiversity is essential to the health of our environment and to the quality of human life. We depend on
many aquatic plants and animals, and their ecological functions, for our survival. For example, we use surface
waters and their inhabitants to help process our waste products. Each day, aquatic organisms (bacteria and fungi) continually
break down harmful toxins and nutrients that we flush into our sewage systems or discard directly into our rivers and streams.

Aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity are sources of medicine, food, energy, shelter, and the raw materials
that we use and need. Although we seldom recognize them, each aquatic species has an important role in making
our lives easier, healthier, and more productive. Every living organism has an important role to play, and many are indispensable.

Our aquatic wildlife are important sources of food, energy, jobs, atmospheric oxygen, buffers against new
diseases, pests, and predators, and protection against food shortages and global climate change.

Extinction.
Nicole Silk, 2004. Managing Director of The Nature Conservancy’s Global Freshwater Team, J.D. from the University of
California, Davis and a B.A. in economics and ecology from the University of California, Santa Cruz. “The Global Challenge of
Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation,” in A Practitioner's Guide to Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation, p. 4.

All terrestrial organisms (plants, animals, etc.) also need freshwater for their survival. River, lake, and wetland
ecosystems support almost all terrestrial animal species, since these species depend on freshwater
ecosystems for water, food, and various aspects of their life cycles. Finally, all freshwater that runs into our rivers,
lakes, and wetlands also eventually ends up in the ocean. There, the endless cycle of life and death in the freshwater world provides a
steady stream of incoming food, sediments, and nutrients to nearshore marine ecosystems . The diversity
of life in the world’s freshwaters, estuaries, and the sea are thus closely linked as well . Given the range
of life dependent upon freshwater ecosystems, it is clear that we can easily lose tremendous
biodiversity by the deterioration of just a few freshwater ecosystems.

Freshwater key to human life and ecosystem resilience

Boltz 15 --- Frederick Boltz, Managing Director Ecosystems The Rockefeller Foundation, and Alex
Martinez, Casey Brown, Johan Rockström, “Healthy freshwater ecosystems: an imperative for human
development and resilience”, in “Water for Development – Charting a Water Wise Path”, 2015,
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015-WWW-report-Chapter-7.pdf

Fresh water is vital to human life and wellbeing. Along with food and shelter, it forms our most basic need. So vital, in fact, that
access to drinking water is commonly considered a fundamental right for all humanity. Healthy, functioning freshwater
ecosystems provide reliable and quality water flows upon which these basic human needs depend.
Energy, food and health – all indispensable to human development – rely on the water services provided
by natural ecosystems. Freshwater ecosystems, such as wetlands and rivers, also provide crucial regulating services, such as water
purification, flood mitigation and the treatment of human and industrial wastes. Now, more than ever, we must incorporate the value of water-
related environmental services in our water management decisions. Eradicating
poverty and hunger among the billions living in
deprivation today and those in the future will depend fundamentally on water security – for both people and
ecosystems.

Water is central to the functioning and resilience of the biosphere. Its availability and variability strongly influences the
diversity and distribution of biomes and habitats that harbour the wealth of plant and animal life on Earth. Water of specific quantity and quality is

required to preserve the state and stability of ecosystems and build their resilience to localised
disturbance and to global change. It mediates the persistence of ecosystem types, their composition and function, and facilitates the migration
of species and habitats as key environmental conditions such as temperature, rainfall, and soil moisture change.
 Ext --- Freshwater BioD --- Disease Impact

Freshwater biodiversity prevents a waterborne pandemic

Dudgeon 05 --- David Dudgeon et al, Department of Ecology & Biodiversity, The University of Hong
Kong, “Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges”, Biol. Rev.
(2006), 81, pp. 163–182, Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2005,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16336747/

Freshwater biodiversity is also of immense direct importance to human health. Although many formerly
devastating infections related to water (e.g. cholera, typhoid fever) are now largely in check, other water-borne
diseases continue to be widely responsible for societal burdens and human misery . This is especially true in the
tropics where waterborne diseases contribute to around 80% of all illnesses. The figures for parasitic infections, which are expressed in terms of
years of life lost to death or disability annually (DALY), speak for themselves (W.H.O., 2004): 46.5 million DALY due to malaria (although recent
estimates of malarial incidence are more than 50% higher: Snow et al., 2005); 5.8 million due to lymphatic filariasis, 1.7 million due to
schistosomiasis (bilharzia), and 0.5 million due to onchocerciasis (river blindness). The
last of these has declined substantially
as a result of research that allowed targeted control of the river-dwelling blackfly (Simuliidae) larvae that
are obligatory hosts of this parasite (Le´veˆque et al., 2003). Nevertheless, outbreaks of water-borne diseases
continue to occur and can be greatly exacerbated by human alteration of hydrological regimes , as well as
increases in the extent of irrigation ditches and channels and hence the availability of habitats for disease organisms and their vectors (e.g. de
Moor, 1994). Habitat degradation, creation of ‘ ruderal’ freshwater habitats, and simplification of natural
species assemblages may foster mass proliferation of insect and mollusc vectors for infectious human
diseases. If so, maintenance of natural freshwater communities and overall system integrity may
contribute substantially to the alleviation of conditions for disease transmission.

diseases cause extinction.

Dhillon 17 --- Ranu Dhillon 17, instructor at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and
Women’s Hospital in Boston. He works on building health systems in developing countries and served as
an advisor to the president of Guinea during the Ebola epidemic instructor at Harvard Medical School
and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He works on building health systems in
developing countries and served as an advisor to the president of Guinea during the Ebola epidemic,
Harvard Business Review, 3-15-17, “The World Is Completely Unprepared for a Global Pandemic”,
https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-world-is-completely-unprepared-for-a-global-pandemic

We fear it is only a matter of time before we face a deadlier and more contagious pathogen, yet the threat
of a deadly pandemic remains dangerously overlooked . Pandemics now occur with greater frequency, due
to factors such as climate change, urbanization, and international travel. Other factors, such as a weak World Health
Organization and potentially massive cuts to funding for U.S. scientific research and foreign aid, including funding for the United
Nations, stand to deepen our vulnerability . We also face the specter of novel and mutated pathogens that

could spread and kill faster than diseases we have seen before . With the advent of genome-editing technologies, bioterrorists
could artificially engineer new plagues, a threat that Ashton Carter, the former U.S. secretary of defense, thinks could rival nuclear weapons in

deadliness. The two of us have advised the president of Guinea on stopping Ebola. In addition, we have worked on ways to contain the spread of Zika and
have informally advised U.S. and international organizations on the matter. Our experiences tell us that the world is unprepared for

these threats. We urgently need to change this trajectory. We can start by learning four lessons from the gaps exposed by the Ebola and Zika pandemics.
Faster Vaccine Development The most effective way to stop pandemics is with vaccines. However, with Ebola there was no vaccine, and only now, years later, has
one proven effective. This has been the case with Zika, too. Though there has been rapid progress in developing and getting a vaccine to market, it is not fast
enough, and Zika has already spread worldwide. Many other diseases do not have vaccines, and developing them takes too long when a pandemic is already under
way. We need faster pipelines, such as the one that the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations is trying to create, to preemptively develop vaccines for
diseases predicted to cause outbreaks in the near future. Poinkt-of-Care Diagnostics Even with such efforts, vaccines will not be ready for many diseases and would
not even be an option for novel or artificially engineered pathogens. With no vaccine for Ebola, our next best strategy was to identify who was infected as quickly as
possible and isolate them before they infected others. Because Ebola’s symptoms were identical to common illnesses like malaria, diagnosis required laboratory
testing that could not be easily scaled. As a result, many patients were only tested after several days of being contagious and infecting others. Some were never
tested at all, and about 40% of patients in Ebola treatment centers did not actually have Ebola. Many dangerous pathogens similarly require laboratory testing that
is difficult to scale. Florida, for example, has not been able to expand testing for Zika, so pregnant women wait weeks to know if their babies might be affected.
What’s needed are point-of-care diagnostics that, like pregnancy tests, can be used by frontline responders or patients themselves to detect infection right away,
where they live. These tests already exist for many diseases, and the technology behind them is well-established. However, the process for their validation is slow
and messy. Point-of-care diagnostics for Ebola, for example, were available but never used because of such bottlenecks. Greater Global Coordination We
need
stronger global coordination. The responsibility for controlling pandemics is fragmented, spread across
too many players with no unifying authority. In Guinea we forged a response out of an amalgam of over 30 organizations, each of which
had its own priorities. In Ebola’s aftermath, there have been calls for a mechanism for responding to pandemics

similar to the advance planning and training that NATO has in place for its numerous members to
respond to military threats in a quick, coordinated fashion . This is the right thinking, but we are far from seeing it happen. The
errors that allowed Ebola to become a crisis replayed with Zika, and the WHO, which should anchor global action, continues to

suffer from a lack of credibility . Stronger Local Health Systems International actors are essential but cannot
parachute into countries and navigate local dynamics quickly enough to contain outbreaks . In Guinea it took
months to establish the ground game needed to stop the pandemic, with Ebola continuing to spread in the meantime. We need to help developing countries
establish health systems that can provide routine care and, when needed, coordinate with international responders to contain new outbreaks. Local health systems
could be established for about half of the $3.6 billion ultimately spent on creating an Ebola response from scratch. Access
to routine care is also
essential for knowing when an outbreak is taking root and establishing trust. For months, Ebola spread before anyone knew it was happening, and then
lingered because communities who had never had basic health care doubted the intentions of foreigners flooding into their villages. The turning point in the
pandemic came when they began to trust what they were hearing about Ebola and understood what they needed to do to halt its spread: identify those exposed
and safely bury the dead. With
Ebola and Zika, we lacked these four things — vaccines, diagnostics, global coordination, and local
health systems — which are still urgently needed . However, prevailing political headwinds in the United States, which has
played a key role in combatting pandemics around the world, threaten to make things worse. The Trump administration is
seeking drastic budget cuts in funding for foreign aid and scientific research. The U.S. State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development may lose
over one-third of their budgets, including half of the funding the U.S. usually provides to the UN. The National Institutes of Health, which has been on the vanguard
of vaccines and diagnostics research, may also face cuts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has been at the forefront of responding to
outbreaks, remains without a director, and, if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, would lose $891 million, 12% of its overall budget, provided to it for immunization
programs, monitoring and responding to outbreaks, and other public health initiatives. Investing
in our ability to prevent and contain
pandemics through revitalized national and international institutions should be our shared goal. However, if U.S. agencies
become less able to respond to pandemics, leading institutions from other nations, such as Institut Pasteur and the National Institute of Health and Medical
Research in France, the Wellcome Trust and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs have done
instrumental research and response work in previous pandemics), would need to step in to fill the void. There is no border wall against disease. Pandemics

are an existential threat on par with climate change and nuclear conflict . We are at a critical crossroads, where we must
either take the steps needed to prepare for this threat or become even more vulnerable. It is only a matter of time before we are hit by a deadlier, more contagious
pandemic. Will we be ready?
 A2: Alt Cause --- Other Countries

US is key
Helfrich 05 --- L. A. Helfrich, professor and the fisheries extension specialist in the Department of.
Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences at Virginia Tech, R. Neves, J. A. Parkhurst, “Sustaining America's Aquatic
Biodiversity. What is Aquatic Biodiversity; Why Is it Important?”, Published 2005 Environmental Science,
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sustaining-America's-Aquatic-Biodiversity.-What-is-Helfrich-
Neves/27e8212e16c15133f21c53514e217e1dc77f45db
Although most public attention is directed toward tropical rain forests in South and Central America, the
United States is a world
center for freshwater biodiversity. The United States has a rich diversity of fish, mussels, crayfish, snails, salamanders, frogs,
and toads. In fact, one of the richest diversities of aquatic animals in the world can be found in our own
backyard.

The United States ranks first worldwide in the number of species of freshwater mussels, crayfish, snails, and many
aquatic insects (mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, and damselflies). We rank seventh in our diversity of fishes, most of which are found in our
Southeastern rivers and streams. However, we share a common theme with our tropical rain forest counterparts—an alarming vulnerability to
development, habitat loss, and species declines.
Carbon
 Ext --- Wetlands = Carbon Sequestration

Wetlands are critical carbon sinks --- destruction causes accelerated climate change
Kenyon 17 --- Kenyon College, “Wetlands play vital role in carbon storage, study finds” Phys.org, Feb
2017, https://phys.org/news/2017-02-wetlands-vital-role-carbon-storage.html

The study, the first conducted using soil samples from wetlands on a national scale, sheds light on the important
role that wetlands play in storing carbon in soil, keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The study was
authored by Kenyon College Professor of Biology Siobhan Fennessy and Amanda Nahlik, a post-doctoral fellow at Kenyon who is now a research
ecologist at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and was published in the December 2016 issue of Nature
Communications.

Fennessy and Nahlik drew upon data from the USEPA's 2011 National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA), which
collected carbon concentration data from soil pits at nearly a thousand wetland sites across the
conterminous U.S. Their work, coupled with a new version of the NWCA using data from 2016, could help researchers better track trends
in carbon retention rates of wetlands.

"The 2011 NWCA marks the first time in the U.S. that there's been a measurement at the national scale
of the amount of carbon held in different wetland types and different regions of the U.S.," Fennessy said.

Fennessy and Nahlik found that wetlands

in the conterminous U.S. store a total of 11.52 petagrams of carbon—
roughly equivalent to four years of annual carbon emissions by the nation. Freshwater inland wetlands store
nearly 10 times more carbon than tidal saltwater sites on a national basis due to the sheer extent of
freshwater inland wetlands on the landscape, the study found.

"There'smore carbon held in the soils of the Earth than there is in the atmosphere, and wetlands hold a
hugely disproportionate amount of that carbon," Fennessy said. Despite only occupying between 5 and 8
percent of the earth's land surface , wetlands hold between 20 and 30 percent of its estimated global soil
carbon.

Partly due to their cooler temperatures, the Upper Midwest and the Eastern Mountains have wetlands that are especially adept at
storing carbon, accounting for nearly half the wetland carbon stocks in the U.S. But nearly 90 percent of the wetlands that were in the
Midwest at the time of European settlement, Fennessy says, have been lost, mainly due to agricultural development. When wetlands
are developed, their retention of carbon is disturbed, and the carbon cycles back into the atmosphere.

The data collected by Fennessy and Nahlik show that levels

of carbon retention are significantly lower in wetlands with
the greatest human activity compared to site with lesser amounts of human activity. Their study does not determine causality,
but it does illustrate the need to protect wetlands from disturbances in order to avoid releasing carbon into
the atmosphere, accelerating climate change.
 A2: Sequestration Irrel W/O Mitigation

It’s try-or-die for natural sequestration --- Only chance to mitigate emissions
Sturm 19 --- Melanie Sturm is a Program Director, Forests & Wildlife at Natural Resources Defense
Council, “Nature Is an Asset in the Fight Against Climate Change”, Sept 24 th 2019,
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/melanie-sturm/nature-asset-fight-against-climate-change

In Fall 2018, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicated that in order to avoid the worst-case
climate change scenarios, we must take aggressive action against climate change and limit warming to less than 1.5
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Around the same time, the Fourth National Climate Assessment documented the litany of suffering
that is already occurring due to climate change and described the havoc future climate change will cause. A third report from the National
Academy of Sciences suggested that limiting
future emissions alone is insufficient to curb climate change; rather
“negative” fossil fuel emissions, which actually remove existing carbon from the atmosphere, are
essential to avoid a climate catastrophe. These reports underscore the critical role nature can play in
“decarbonization”—or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce the extent of climate
change.

Natural climate solutions, or ecosystems-based carbon dioxide removal, utilize natural landscapes to absorb and store
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Natural climate solutions include protecting and restoring forests and
wetlands, altering farming practices, planting vegetation in areas prone to soil erosion, and changing the way in which grazing lands are
managed, among other activities. Knowing how to implement these landscape changes is not the challenge; they can be put into place
immediately at relatively low cost. The biggest barriers are political will and funding. But if those barriers are overcome, natural climate
solutions offer a profound opportunity to mitigate climate change when implemented alongside technological
solutions and reduced reliance on fossil fuels by increasing energy efficiency and investing in clean energy.

Nature serves an array of vital functions for people , some of which simply cannot be quantified or enumerated. In addition
to the carbon sequestration benefits, natural climate solutions also offer many social and environmental co-benefits, including but not limited
to increased biodiversity, flood buffering, improved water quality, and nutrient cycling. Nature is already doing a lot of climate-mitigation work
for us. About half of CO2 emissions in a year are absorbed by the world’s oceans, soils, and vegetation. The oceans alone have absorbed about
one-third of anthropogenic emissions (that’s 38 trillion metric tons (MT) of carbon over time).

But we haven’t yet harnessed natural climate solutions in a deliberate and systematic way. Doing so could yield enormous paybacks. One study
estimates the total absorption capacity of natural climate solutions in the U.S. is 40-60 billion MT CO2 over
the next 50 years, which is significant given that the U.S. currently emits 6 billion MT CO2 per year. Another study
found that the maximum potential of natural climate solutions in the U.S. is 1.2 billion (+/- 0.9 to 1.6 billion) MT CO2 per year. That’s 21% of net
annual emissions in the country. Both results
demonstrate that natural climate solutions could counteract a
notable portion of U.S. carbon emissions.

Based on these estimates, natural

climate solutions can deliver over one-third of the climate mitigation
required through 2030 to keep warming to below 2°C. To see the greatest benefit, both ecosystem protection and
restoration, not one or the other, must be pursued immediately. Restoration of 350 million hectares of degraded land between now and 2030
could generate $9 trillion in ecosystem services and take an additional 13-26 billion MT of greenhouse gases (GHG) out of the atmosphere (note
this is all GHGs, not just carbon). Forests offer the greatest opportunity to capture and store carbon followed by wetlands, croplands, and
grass/shrublands. The enormous potential for forests to sequester carbon is a function of the amount of land area that is and could be forested.

Momentum for commitments has increased

Pike 20 [Lili Pike, Vox Freelancer, 12-16-2020 https://www.vox.com/22175698/climate-change-treaty-
trump-china-eu-uk-paris-agreement-biden]
A series of announcements over the weekend at a United Nations climate summit has bolstered hope that global
emissions may still fall in line with the goals of the Paris agreement, heading off the more severe effects of climate
change. These new pledges come in a year that was bound to be a significant test for the global agreement, even before the Trump
administration's withdrawal from it and the global spread of Covid-19.

First, let’s rewind. Five years ago, 195 countries came together to forge the Paris accord after decades of failed attempts to
comprehensively address climate change. The countries — including the US — collectively agreed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in line with holding average global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius (with an aim of 1.5 degrees) to keep climate change
in check.

But even with that goal established, whether countries voluntarily pursued it in earnest was always a
gamble. The nonbinding agreement is structured so that countries themselves determine how fast to cut their emissions; there is no top-
down enforcement of benchmarks for each country. The idea is that transparency will boost action: Countries submit their own pledges called
nationally determined contributions (NDCs) every five years, and these plans are supposed to be increasingly ambitious, with the hope that
they become strong enough to hold warming below 2 degrees.

Unfortunately, when Paris was adopted in 2015, the first round of pledges missed the mark . Climate Action Tracker
estimated that the pledges would lead to 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming — to say nothing of what countries would actually manage to achieve.
Which means a lot has been riding on the next round of pledges in 2020.
Obviously, this hasn’t been the 2020 that anyone had planned. Although all countries are supposed to submit new targets by the end of the
month, many won’t file their plans until next year, ahead of the next major United Nations climate negotiations that were delayed due to the
pandemic.

So far, only 22 countries have updated their NDCs, while 125 countries have pledged that they intend to improve their
targets, according to Climate Watch.

But major
new climate commitments from the European Union and the United Kingdom, among others, at last
weekend’s virtual Climate Ambition Summit — held to mark the fifth anniversary of the Paris agreement — have increased the
momentum heading into the new year. Chinese President Xi Jinping also announced updated NDC targets, which are a step
forward, but not as ambitious as climate advocates had hoped.

“We are now seeing that countries are in fact ramping up ambition over time , and they are doing this despite
some incredible hurdles that have been thrown up over the last few years, including the obviation of leadership
from the US for a critical period of time,” said Taryn Fransen, a senior fellow in international climate governance at the World Resources
Institute.

Paris solves mitigation now

Gazdar 20 --- Shazneen Cyrus Gazdar. programme Manager, Climate Change and Renewable Energy,
Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, “Are we on track to meet Paris Agreement target of
1.5°C warming towards 2100?”, 11 December 2020, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-
change/are-we-on-track-to-meet-paris-agreement-target-of-1-5-c-warming-towards-2100--74605
Where we stand

A flurry of net-zero targets, however, has been shared — 127 countries have submitted their ambitions and,
dare I say it, the climate community has actually made strong strides. What is required at this point is for
enhanced NDCs to set forth the strong strategies in working towards Net Zero ambition by mid-century
at the very latest, at the country level .
It is hoped that a number of countries will include their revised NDCs on the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement, enhancing on their short
term actions towards achieving Net Zero emissions.
What is clear is that theParis Agreement is driving climate action in 2020. On the eve of its five-year anniversary, a survey
by the Climate Action Tracker assessments shows that the temperature estimates for end-of-century warming have
been falling for both the targets and real-world emissions projections. The net-zero declarations have
brought the global warming projections from 3.9°C down to a range of an optimistic 2.1°C in 2100 with all eyes
on the 2030 target.
 Ext --- Runaway Warming

Destruction of wetlands releases a “carbon bomb” --- triggers runaway warming

Zabarenko 08 --- Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters, “Wetlands could unleash
"carbon bomb"” July 2008, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-wetlands/wetlands-could-
unleash-carbon-bomb-idUSN1745905120080720

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The world’s wetlands,

threatened by development, dehydration and climate change, could
release a planet-warming “carbon bomb” if they are destroyed , ecological scientists said on Sunday.

Wetlands contain 771 billion tons of greenhouse gases, one-fifth of all the carbon on Earth and about the
same amount of carbon as is now in the atmosphere , the scientists said before an international conference linking
wetlands and global warming.

If all the wetlands on the planet released the carbon they hold, it would contribute powerfully to the
climate-warming greenhouse effect, said Paulo Teixeira, coordinator of the Pantanal Regional Environment Program in Brazil.

“We could call it the carbon bomb,” Teixeira said by telephone from Cuiaba, Brazil, site of the conference. “It’s a very tricky
situation.”
Some 700 scientists from 28 nations are meeting this week at the INTECOL International Wetlands Conference at the edge of Brazil’s vast
Pantanal wetland to look for ways to protect these endangered areas.

Wetlands are not just swamps: they also include marshes, peat bogs, river deltas, mangroves, tundra,
lagoons and river flood plains.

Together they account for 6 percent of Earth’s land surface and store 20 percent of its carbon. They also
produce 25 percent of the world’s food, purify water, recharge aquifers and act as buffers against violent coastal storms.

Historically, wetlands have been regarded as an impediment to civilization. About 60 percent of wetlands worldwide have been destroyed in
the past century, mostly due to draining for agriculture. Pollution, dams, canals, groundwater pumping, urban development and peat extraction
add to the destruction.

Wetland destruction releases tons of C02

Ramsar 18 --- Ramsar Convention Secretariat, an intergovernmental treaty that provides the global
framework for the conservation and wise use of wetlands, “Wetland Restoration for Climate Change
Resilience”, Oct 20th 2018,
https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/bn10_restoration_climate_change_e.pdf

Carbon emissions through wetland drainage and degradation

Peatland losses Drained or damaged wetlands are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions . Human
disturbance, particularly drainage, releases carbon in CO2, leading in years to the loss of carbon that
accumulated over centuries or millennia. Current rates of release are equivalent to nearly 6% of global human CO2 emissions
(Joosten et al. 2016). In the tropics, forested peat domes, where peat accumulates into thick, dome-shaped expanses, have been subject to
clearing and agriculture, with many deforested for paper production, then drained and replanted with palm oil plantations. This liberates
large quantities of carbon and makes them vulnerable to wildfires that , once started, can burn for years
(Figure 3; Bell, 2016). Recent peat fires in Indonesia made it the third largest emitter of CO2 globally, behind China and the United States (Biello,
2009). Approximately 65 million ha (or 15%) of the world’s peatlands have been drained due to agriculture, grazing, peat mining and bioenergy
production (Biello, 2009). The
total CO2 emissions from drained peatlands, in combination with releases from
peat fires (mainly in Southeast Asia, Russia and Canada), are estimated at over 3 Gt of CO2 per year (Biello, 2009).
Coastal wetland losses Drainage or conversion of coastal wetlands is widespread, particularly for agricultural use. Between 1970 and 2015, 35%
of the total global area of mangroves was cleared and drained (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 2018). Aquaculture is a driver of wetland loss,
as mangrove forests are converted to shrimp ponds that subsequently become emitters of CO2. Shrimp ponds in Southeast Asia, for example,
release an estimated 5.8 to 14 million tonnes CO2 per year, which is comparable to the greenhouse gas emissions from the conversion of
forested peatlands in Indonesia (Sidik &Lovelock, 2013). In total, emissions from mangrove conversion account for nearly
one fifth of the total global emissions from deforestation, resulting in damages costing between USD 6 billion and USD 42 billion
annually (UNEP, 2014).

Destroying wetlands releases gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere --- causing
catastrophic warming
Mongabay 08 --- “Destruction of wetlands worsens global warming”, Mongabay News, July 2008,
Destruction of wetlands worsens global warming

Destruction of wetland ecosystems will generate massive greenhouse gas emissions in coming years, warn
experts convening at an international wetlands conference in Brazil.

While they cover only 6 percent of the world’s surface, wetlands — marshes, peat bogs, swamps, river deltas,
mangroves, tundra, lagoons and river floodplains — are estimated to hold 771 gigatons of greenhouse gases , or 10-20
percent of the globe’s terrestrial carbon. Beyond carbon storage, wetlands provide a range of environmental services, including water filtration
and storage, erosion control, a buffer against flooding, nutrient recycling, biodiversity maintenance, and a nursery for fisheries. But drainage
and destruction of these ecosystems is responsible for large amounts of carbon emissions (40 tons of carbon
per hectare per year for drained tropical swamp forests) as well as degradation of the other services they provide.

“Too often in the past, people have unwittingly considered wetlands to be problems in need of a solution,” said UN Under Secretary-General
Konrad Osterwalder, a conference organizer. “Yet wetlands
are essential to the planet’s health — and with hindsight, the
problems in reality have turned out to be the draining of wetlands and other ‘solutions’ we humans devised.”
 Ext --- Warming Impacts

Warming causes extinction

Naomi Klein 14, award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, former Miliband Fellow at the London
School of Economics, member of the board of directors of 350.org, This Changes Everything: Capitalism
vs. the Climate, pp. 12-14

In a 2012 report, the World Bank laid out the gamble implied by that target. “Asglobal warming approaches and exceeds 2-
degrees Celsius, there is a risk of triggering nonlinear tipping elements. Examples include the disintegration of
the West Antarctic ice sheet leading to more rapid sea-level rise, or large-scale Amazon dieback drastically affecting
ecosystems, rivers, agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods . This would further add to 21st-century global
warming and impact entire continents.” In other words, once we allow temperatures to climb past a certain point, where the mercury stops is
not in our control.¶ But the bigger problem—and the reason Copenhagen caused such great despair—is that because governments did not
agree to binding targets, they are free to pretty much ignore their commitments. Which is precisely what is happening. Indeed, emissions are
rising so rapidly that unless something radical changes within our economic structure, 2 degrees now looks like a utopian dream. And it’s not
just environmentalists who are raising the alarm. The World Bank also warned when it released its report that “ we’re
on track to a 4-C
warmer world [by century’s end] marked by extreme heat waves, declining global food stocks, loss of
ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.” And the report cautioned that, “there is also no
certainty that adaptation to a 4-C world is possible.” Kevin Anderson, former director (now deputy director) of the Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change, which has quickly established itself as one of the U.K’s premier climate research institutions, is even blunter; he says
4 degrees Celsius warming—7.2 degrees Fahrenheit—is “incompatible with an organized, equitable, and
civilized global community.”¶ We don’t know exactly what a 4 degree Celsius world would look like, but even the best-case scenario is
likely to be calamitous. Four degrees of warming could raise global sea levels by 1 or possibly even 2 meters by
2100 (and would lock in at least a few additional meters over future centuries). This would drown some island nations such as the Maldives
and Tuvalu, and inundate many coastal areas from Ecuador and Brazil to the Netherlands to much of California and the northeastern United
States as well as huge swaths of South and Southeast Asia. Major cities likely in jeopardy include Boston, New York, greater Los Angeles,
Vancouver, London, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Shanghai.¶ Meanwhile, brutal heat waves that can kill tens of thousands of
people, even in wealthy countries, would become entirely unremarkable summer events on every continent but
Antarctica. The heat would also cause staple crops to suffer dramatic yield losses across the globe (it is
possible that Indian wheat and U.S. could plummet by as much as 60 percent), this at a time when demand will be surging due to
population growth and a growing demand for meat . And since crops will be facing not just heat stress but also extreme
events such as wide-ranging droughts, flooding, or pest outbreaks, the losses could easily turn out to be more severe than
the models have predicted. When you add ruinous hurricanes, raging wildfires, fisheries collapses,
widespread disruptions to water supplies, extinctions, and globe-trotting diseases to the mix, it indeed
becomes difficult to imagine that a peaceful, ordered society could be sustained (that is, where such a thing exists
in the first place).¶ And keep in mind that these are the optimistic scenarios in which warming is more or less stabilized at 4 degrees Celsius and
does not trigger tipping points beyond which runaway warming would occur. Based on the latest modeling, it is becoming safer to assume that
4 degrees could bring about a number of extremely dangerous feedback loops —an Arctic that is regularly ice-free
in September, for instance, or, according to one recent study, global vegetation that is too saturated to act as a reliable
“sink”, leading to more carbon being emitted rather than stored. Once this happens, any hope of predicting impacts pretty much goes out the
window. And this process may be starting sooner than anyone predicted. In May 2014, NASA and the University of California, Irvine scientists
revealed that glacier melt in a section of West Antarctica roughly the size of France now “appears unstoppable.” This likely spells down for the
entire West Antarctic ice sheet, which according to lead study author Eric Rignot “comes with a sea level rise between three and five metres.
Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.” The disintegration, however, could unfold over centuries and there is still time for
emission reductions to slow down the process and prevent the worst. ¶ Much more frightening than any of this is the fact that plenty
of
mainstream analysts think that on our current emissions trajectory, we are headed for even more than 4 degrees
of warming. In 2011, the usually staid International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a report predicting that we are actually on track
for 6 degrees Celsius—10.8 degrees Fahrenheit—of warming. And as the IEA’s chief economist put it: “Everybody, even the school
children, knows that this will have catastrophic implications for all of us.” (The evidence indicates that 6 degrees of
warming is likely to set in motion several major tipping points —not only slower ones such as the aforementioned
breakdown of the West Antarctic ice sheet, but possibly more abrupt ones, like massive releases of methane from Arctic
permafrost.) The accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers as also published a report warning businesses that we are headed for “4-C , or
even 6-C” of warming.¶ These various projections are the equivalent of every alarm in your house going off simultaneously. And then every
alarm on your street going off as well, one by one by one. They mean, quite simply, that climate change has become an
existential crisis for the human species. The only historical precedent for a crisis of this depth and scale was the Cold War fear
that we were headed toward nuclear holocaust, which would have made much of the planet uninhabitable. But that was (and remains) a
threat; a slim possibility, should geopolitics spiral out of control. The vast majority of nuclear scientists never told us that we were almost
certainly going to put our civilization in peril if we kept going about our daily lives as usual, doing exactly what we were already going, which is
what climate scientists have been telling us for years. ¶ As the Ohio State University climatologist Lonnie G. Thompson, a world-renowned
specialist on glacier melt, explained in 2010, “Climatologists, like other scientists, tend
to be a stolid group. We are not
given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field
than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. When then are climatologists speaking out about the
dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear
and present danger to civilization.”

Warming causes extinction---experts agree

Griffin 15 - emeritus professor of philosophy of religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont
Graduate University, Co-Director of the Center for Process Studies

(David Ray, “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?”, p142-143, Clarity Press)
Although the idea of extinction was mentioned a few times above, the issue deserves a section to itself. Indeed, even if it seldom makes the
evening news, extinction
is one of the major stories of our time, because we are in the midst of one of the
six mass extinctions since the emergence of life on our planet . The previous five mass extinctions were: • The extinction
at the end of the Ordovician Period (referred to as “the end-Ordovician extinction”), which occurred about 440 mya (million years ago);• The
end-Devonian extinction, which occurred some 370 mya; • The end-Permian extinction, which was the worst of the
extinctions thus far, occurred about 245 mya, having evidently been triggered by a massive lava flow in Siberia that
increased global temperatures by 6 ̊C, which melted frozen methane deposits, which in turn raised the temperature even
further. This “Great Dying,” as it is called, evidently caused about 95 percent of the planet’s complex organisms to go
extinct – a catastrophe so great that “[it] took about 50 million years for life again to develop the diversity that it
had prior to the event.”29• The end-Triassic extinction, which occurred some 210 mya (shortly after mammals and dinosaurs had
evolved), and came about when “an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused acidification of the oceans and global warming” (which is believed to
have been caused by volcanoes).30• The end-Cretaceous extinction, which occurred about 65 mya, eliminated (among other animals) the last
of the dinosaurs. Whereas all of those extinctions were caused by various types of natural causes, the
sixth mass extinction, which
may prove to be the worst ever , is unique in being caused by human beings . It began about 100,000 years ago,
when humans began spreading from Africa to the rest of the world. The extinction speeded up qualitatively after agriculture began in the
Holocene epoch, and even more after the industrial revolution.31 In fact, human
beings, who now emit about 100 times more
CO2 than volcanoes, are evidently extinguishing species – according to a 2010 article in a special issue on biological
diversity published by the Royal Society – at a rate that “ far exceeds anything in the fossil
record .”32Another article in the same issue, written by Jeremy Jackson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography ,
discussed extinction caused by ocean acidification . Explaining that “massive influxes of carbon at the end of the
Paleocene caused intense global warming, ocean acidification, mass extinction throughout the deep sea
and the worldwide disappearance of coral reefs ,” Jackson said that unless there is immediate and decisive
conservation action , “another great mass extinction affecting all ocean ecosystems and comparable to
the upheavals of the geological past appears inevitable.”33At the end of her 2014 book, The Sixth Extinction, Elizabeth
Kolbert asked, “In an extinction event of our own making, what happens to us?” Many people seem to think that we self-named Homo
sapiens are so wise and powerful that nothing could drive us to extinction. However, she points out, “When a mass extinction occurs, it takes
famous anthropologist Richard Leakey , she added, warned that “Homo
out the weak and also lays low the strong.” The
sapiens might not only be the agents of the sixth extinction, but also risks being one of its victims .”34
There are now some scientists who believe that human extinction , or at least near extinction, will happen in the
near future . Kevin Anderson , director of England’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change , said in 2009 that if the
global temperature rises by 4 C̊ , about 90 percent of the Earth ’s people will die - although human extinction will
not be total, because “a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive.”35
Anderson’s view is considered overly optimistic by others , such as atmospheric and marine scientist Ira Leifer of the
University of California Santa Barbara. Asking what portion of the population would be able to adapt to a global temperature
increase of 4 ̊C, Leifer said he believed that it would be “just a few thousand people [seeking refuge] in the Arctic or Antarctica.”36 Even Leifer’s
view is too optimistic for other scientists, such as Australianmicrobiologist Frank Fenner - who had announced the eradication of
smallpox to the World Health Assembly in 1980. In 2010, Fenner, the author of 22 books and hundreds of scientific articles, said: “ Homo
sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years .”37 Some scientists who expect an imminent
extinction of the human race regard methane emissions from thawing permafrost as the most likely
cause. A good introduction to the thinking of some scientists about the danger of extinction from methane is provided by a 2013 video called
“Mass Extinction: Let’s Not,” which was narrated and co-authored by Thom Hartmann.38 Given the seriousness of the danger from methane,
the present book might better have been subtitled, “Can Civilization Survive the CO2-CH4 Crisis?” Probably the scientist who has written the
Guy R. McPherson , professor emeritus of
most about the demise of the human race within the next several decades is
evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona . In various articles, at a blog called “Nature Bats Last,” and in a 2013 book
entitled Going Dark, McPherson has presented an array of scenarios through which humanity could become extinct, one of which is due to
methane emissions from thawing permafrost.39 The prediction of human extinction through methane emissions has
been central to the thinking of retired Earth-systems scientist Malcolm Light. In 2012, Light wrote that the process of significant
methane release, which began in 2010, “will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into
the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century .” From Light’s
point of view, the only hope for human survival is a massive reduction in CO2 emissions combined with the
immediate use of geoengineering “as a cooling method in the Arctic to counteract the effects of the methane buildup.”40

Yep---we’re toast
McPherson 14 {Guy, Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
(Arizona), M.S. and Ph.D. Range Science (Texas Tech), B.S. Forest Resources (Idaho), Former professor
and researcher at University of California-Berkeley Department of Environmental Science, Texas A & M
University Range Science Department, and University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, “Climate Change
and Human Extinction – A Personal Perspective,” Peak Moment, 2/23, http://peakmoment.tv/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/pm262-Guy-McPherson.pdf} **Note – JD = Janaia Donaldson who is the
interviewer

JD: I see you as an independent scientist at this point, not being beholden to a university, to an organization, to
money, to government. You've taken on a rather daunting, Paul Revere-like calling to bring together the data on climate chaos that we aren’t seeing or
that’s hidden away from the mainstream. Tell us what most of us don’t get to see . GM: Well, I was twenty years in active service at the
University of Arizona. I left about five years ago. And subsequently that has liberated me to pursue information in ways in which I didn't have time or cultural
incentive to pursue when I was in active service. There’s
a lot of self-censorship that goes on in this society and it happens in
universities too—imagine that! Of course, I didn’t have time, interest, or inclination to pursue the kinds of information I’ve been pursuing since then. It was in
2002 that I
was editing a book with a colleague on climate change, and I reached the conclusion that we were
headed for human extinction by 2030 or so. There was no good reason for that. We certainly didn’t have the data, the models or information.
I suppose it was largely intuitive, I guess. Then a year or so later I discovered the concept of global peak oil and I realized that it's a Hail Mary pass. This set of living
arrangements might go away in time to prevent our own demise in the near term. Well, that was a long time ago. Civilization not been terminated, has not

ended. It keeps going, and going and going. Now we've triggered 30 self-reinforcing feedback loops, positive
feedbacks. Informed analysis of one of those indicates that we're looking at a 4°C rise above the beginning of
industrial revolution by 2030, and 10°C by 2040. That's just one – that’s methane from the Arctic Ocean. There

are 29 others. And you multiply those together – and they're multiplicative, not additive – and it looks like we might
indeed not have long as a species on this planet. JD: That's what stunned me. Near-term human, and not just human extinction. It’s
inconceivable. It’s unthinkable. And we’ll later talk about how does one respond with that from the inside. You do long presentations and you also have an
evergreen document where you’re keeping track of studies and data. I noticed that a year ago you had 15 or 16 [feedback loops] on that list. And just in this one
The first self-reinforcing
year there are more factors, so that it seems to be going exponential with more and more data coming in. GM: That’s right.

feedback loop reported in the mainstream scientific community was methane leaking out of the Arctic Ocean in March 2010 as
reported in Science. That was the only self-reinforcing feedback reported in 2010. In 2011 there were 4 more.
2012, there were 6 more. 2013, 16 more. So far here on February 23, 2014, we know about one additional one and
we know a lot more about those earlier ones. Science is starting to catch up with reality. We're starting to accrue

evidence about each one of those self-reinforcing feedback loops . You're right, a year ago there were a dozen or so. I delivered
a presentation outside of Amsterdam in early August of last year, less than 6 months ago, we were at 19. Now we're at 30 . JD:
Which is inconceivable! GM: Geologically things are playing out in real time at this point. JD: Can you give our viewers some highlights of what you're presenting so
that they can get a sense of the data? GM: We know it is 40 years from cause to effect – 40 years from greenhouse gas emissions until
temperature rise. So that the temperature rise we're seeing today is a result of emissions in 1974. There
are a couple things that are
important about that. We are not going to slow down this train. The emissions from the last
40 years have not caught up to us. In fact, we've emitted more greenhouse gas emissions in the last 29 years than
in the previous 236 years combined. Those 29 years aren't even baked in yet – they’re baked into the cake, but they are

unaccounted for at the level of temperature. Another facet is that emissions from 40 years ago are being exhibited with
temperature rise today. I don't know about you, but I don't feel particularly guilty for things I was doing 40 years ago when I was 13 years old. I didn't
know, and almost no individuals in this society knew, where we were headed 40 years ago and thought relevant action would have something to do with
terminating industrial civilization. JD: I think there's also a lot of unintended consequences. We don’t know. We're clever apes
and like to experiment and so that oozing black stuff that came out of the ground, what might it do? And here we are! GM: Yeah it's incredibly attractive. Going after
the technology, burning all those fossil fuels, makes life wonderful in the short term, for us individuals. JD: So
we've got the temperature lag
going to accumulate and hit us increasingly every year and there are other feedback loops as well. What I
think you said here is that we are on course to be at a higher number of degrees C warming planetarily even by 2030 or 2040.

GM: Yes, based on a single feedback – that of methane release from the Arctic. And methane is coming out of the

Antarctic. It's being released from the permafrost, or the permamelt as we should properly call it. Just that one source, methane from the Arctic,

from the sea floor in the Arctic, leads us to 4°C, a temperature beyond which humans have never existed on the

planet. By 2030. JD: 4°C doesn't sound like a lot. It’s the difference between Alaska and L.A. But humans have never existed on that hot a planet? GM: We
haven't existed above 3.5°C above baseline (the beginning of the industrial revolution). Why? Because all sorts of weird things start

happening when you heat up the temperature to a certain amount. When we came out of the ice age, out of the
Pleistocene into the Holocene, the temperature warmed a couple degrees C. That temperature rise, which subsequently stabilized, probably

accounts for our ability to develop civilizations . Civilizations arose several places around the globe at around the same time, a few
thousand years ago, probably because the temperature became stable and warm enough to grow grains. That’s a hallmark of civilization, the ability to grow grains
and to store them. Therefore to control the food and get you through the hard winters and so on .
So if civilization was locked in – and I’m not sure
it was but it’s been locked in now for a few thousand years – then
industrial civilization was just one step further , one more step
towards that convenience of having stuff we like. So, here we are, sort of unwilling participants in this system that takes us

to the abyss. And almost nobody knows we're even headed for the abyss. JD: I want to go back to your saying that a lot
of things can happen if we get beyond 3.5°C, like… GM: We're already seeing it. At 0.85°C above baseline temperature, w e’re already

seeing the polar vortex. The UN advisory group on greenhouse gases warned us about exceeding 1°C in 1990. They said that’s truly dire and
catastrophic. James Hansen has joined that party just within the last couple of weeks. He switched from 2°C being truly
catastrophic to 1°C as going to do serious damage. I think we're already done. If 1°C was the target, then 0.85°C is close enough that it's
taken us over the cliff. What kinds of things do we see from that? We see high temperatures locally that are sufficient to cause

proteins to denature and therefore kill plants. JD: There goes agriculture. GM: Yes, bingo! In addition, you see
temperature swings that are so severe . Here’s an example: I lived in Tucson for more than 24 years. Two of the last four winters have been so
cold that 80- to 100-yearold citrus trees died in Tucson , Arizona. Because the jet stream is meandering far greater

than it used to be because the temperature gradient has broken down between the Arctic and the Amazon, the equator. So now the jet stream that used to
blow across Canada and the northern United States with these cold fronts, and they'd sweep across the country in four or five days and be done with it. Now

we have the jet stream meandering, this huge amplitude and dragging cold, cold temperatures down from the Arctic to Mexico
City and destroying all the vegetable production for winter vegetables as far south as Mexico City. So those are
the kinds of things that are going to lead to our extinction as a species: these extreme
temperature events including high temperatures that denature proteins, and temperature extremes
including cold temperatures that kill land plants . In addition we're acidifying the ocean to such an extent that
we're killing the phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are the base of the marine food web. Without
phytoplankton, without significant numbers of phytoplankton, we don't get any food from the ocean . We might have jellyfish, a few.
JD: So what I hear you saying is that what's going to lead to the extinction of humans primarily is the destabilization

of environmental factors for food growing . GM: That's going to be a really, really big one. Now where I live in the Southwestern
interior of a large continent in the Northern Hemisphere, the most rapid place to warm up , probably what will
happen is that temperatures will rise to 130° or 135° Fahrenheit one of these days. Not that great a difference over the historical record. That

will denature the proteins in all the plants. So all the plants will die. Then the winds will start blowing and
we'll have the Dust Bowl that never ends. So me and my neighbors, everybody who lives there, will literally choke
to death. If they don't die from the food, they'll die from the inability to breathe. There were thousands
of people who died in the Dust Bowl of the '30s because they were breathing in more solid matter than air. JD: Is there anything else on the

story of the factors leading towards extinction that you want to share here? GM: There are a couple of things that I think are pretty important. There’s this

contrarian view that the temperature has stabilized within last 15, now 16, years. That 1998 was the hottest
global temperature year. That’s based on land surface records. But as it turns out a paper from about a year ago points out

in Geophysical Research that heat actually accelerated but has just been hidden in the oceans . The oceans

account for over two-thirds of the surface area of the planet. We just have our thermometers on land so we've missed this. JD:

So the oceans are soaking it up. Getting more acidified. And, who knows what else . GM: And getting a lot hotter in

addition to being more acidified. That releases methane, for example, from the Arctic Ocean. A couple weeks ago we could see methane

concentrations in the atmosphere concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere [shows diagram on computer]. This a lot of methane. At the beginning of

the industrial revolution we experienced about 700 parts per billion methane in the atmosphere. We're now
routinely at over 2000 parts per billion . That’s global average. A couple days ago we were at about 2400 parts
per billion in some recording stations. JD: Is that about changing the atmospheric composition, or is it just about the heating, or...? GM:
That’s a result of heating, releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is more than 100 times
more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the short term, in less than twenty years. So every part
per billion of methane is a really big deal . That leads to acceleration. These selfreinforcing feedback
loops – they self-reinforce! It’s warmer, the more the methane emerges . The more the methane emerges, it gets warmer.
It gets warmer, the more methane comes out. JD: Runaway, and non-linear. It’s a complex system with all kinds of things

tying together, but it's on runaway. GM: That's right. This runaway event is the sort of thing that James Hansen
worried about in his book, Storms of My Grandchildren, and didn't think it would happen in the near term. But that book came out long before we knew
about these 30 self-reinforcing feedback loops and we had evidence that we'd triggered them. The acceleration is astonishing. JD: I've been keeping
an eye on this since 1990 and McKibben's The End of Nature, and in the last two to three years it feels exponential to me. GM: I update regularly an essay on my
website, Nature Bats Last, the "Climate Update and Summary" essay. I updated it again this morning. I have to update it every few days because the information
keeps pouring in. I ran across two more journal articles in the last few days. And it’s never any good news. JD: Tell
us about this piece. [shows chart on
computer] GM: Planetary scientists for a long time assumed and reported that the Earth was in the middle of the habitable

zone for a star the size of our sun. It turns out (a paper in Astrophysical Journal last year in March) points out actually the Earth
is on the inner edge of the habitable zone . Which indicates that if we change the atmosphere ever so slightly, we
could push ourselves out of that habitable zone towards Venus.

Tons of scenarios
Weart 15 {Spencer R., former Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of
Physics, B.A. in Physics (Cornell), Ph.D. in Physics and Astrophysics (Colorado – Boulder), physics
professor specializing in atmosphere, the sun, and space-based instruments (Caltech), widely published
and cited author on the history of climate change and the associated science, “The Discovery of Global
Warming: The Impacts of Climate Change,” American Institute of Physics, February,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm}
There was an even more sobering way to frame climate change — as a security threat. For half a century, forward-looking military officers had
considered with increasing concern what global warming might mean in their area of responsibility. They would surely be called upon, for
example, if weather disasters multiplied. In 2003, defense intellectuals in the Pentagon commissioned a report on "An Abrupt
Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security." As reported in a leak to the press, the authors warned
of a risk that "mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.... abrupt climate

change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to
defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies." The authors concluded that "the threat to global
stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism." The report was strikingly similar to the CIA report prepared three decades before (see above).
Again the specific "worst-case" scenario, an abrupt change in ocean circulation, was something scientists considered extremely unlikely. By
now, however, impact studies had sketched out a range of more plausible scenarios that looked bad enough . If
you thought like a military officer, used to considering worst cases, the IPCC's approach — concentrating on what everyone could agree
was likely, while ignoring less likely but still possible scenarios — was not "conservative" at all, but irresponsible.
Through the early 2000s, social scientists and historians vigorously debated whether climate change really could provoke civil unrest and
warfare. A 2013 review of many papers concluded that strong departures from normal climate conditions
(droughts, heat waves, etc.) indeed
brought conflict, both domestic and international. Many well-informed military
officers and other national security experts, along with many political leaders and a majority of the world’s public, now believed
that the possible impacts of global warming ranked among the most dangerous long-term risks that

civilization faced.(21*) What do we know about the impacts of global warming? A large body of scientific studies,
exhaustively reviewed, has produced a long list of possibilities . Nobody can say that any of the items on the list are certain
to happen. But the world's climate experts almost all agree that the impacts listed below are more likely than not to
happen. For some items, the probabilities range up to almost certain. Consequences will vary by region; some places will at
first be little affected, except indirectly, while other places will be affected much worse than the average. The following are the likely
consequences of warming by two or three degrees Celsius — that is, what we may expect if humanity manages to begin restraining its
emissions soon, so that greenhouse gases do not rise beyond twice the pre-industrial level. Without strong action the doubling will come well
before the end of this century, bringing the planet to temperatures not seen since the spread of agriculture. By
2007, many of the
predicted changes were observed to be actually happening. For details see reports referenced in this footnote: (22) * Most
places will continue to get warmer, especially at night and in winter. The temperature change will benefit some regions while harming
others — for example, patterns of tourism will shift. The warmer winters will improve health and agriculture in some areas,
but globally, mortality will rise and food supplies will be endangered due to more frequent and extreme
summer heat waves and other effects. Regions not directly harmed will suffer indirectly from higher food prices
and a press of refugees from afflicted regions. * Sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries. The last time the
planet was 3°C warmer than now, the sea level was at least 6 meters (20 feet) higher.(23) That submerged
coastlines where many millions of people now live, including cities from New York to Shanghai. The rise will probably be so
gradual that later generations can simply abandon their parents' homes, but a ruinously swift rise cannot be entirely ruled
out. Meanwhile storm surges will cause emergencies. * Weather patterns will keep changing toward an
intensified water cycle with stronger floods and droughts. Most regions now subject to droughts will probably get
drier (because of warmth as well as less precipitation), and most wet regions will get wetter. Extreme weather events will
become more frequent and worse. In particular, storms with more intense rainfall are liable to bring worse floods. Some places
will get more snowstorms, but most mountain glaciers and winter snowpack will shrink, jeopardizing important water supply systems. Each of
these things has already begun to happen in some regions.(24) * Ecosystems will be stressed, although some managed
agricultural and forestry systems might benefit in the first decades of warming. Uncounted valuable species, especially in
the Arctic, mountain areas, and tropical seas, must shift their ranges. Many that cannot will face extinction.
A variety of pests and tropical diseases are expected to spread to warmed regions. These problems have already been
observed in numerous places. * Increased carbon dioxide levels will affect biological systems independent of
climate change. Some crops will be fertilized, as will some invasive weeds (the balance of benefit vs. harm is
uncertain). The oceans will continue to become markedly more acidic, gravely endangering coral reefs, and probably
harming fisheries and other marine life. * There will be significant unforeseen impacts. Most of these will probably be
harmful, since human and natural systems are well adapted to the present climate. The climate system and ecosystems are
complex and only partly understood, so there is a chance that the impacts will not be as bad as predicted. There is a similar chance of impacts
grievously worse than predicted. If the CO2 level keeps rising to well beyond twice the pre-industrial level along with a rise of other

greenhouse gases, as must inevitably happen if we do not take strong action soon, the results will
certainly be worse. Under a "business as usual" scenario, calculations give even odds that global temperature
will rise 5°C or more by the end of the century — causing a radical reorganization and impoverishment of many of
the ecosystems that sustain our civilization.(25) All this is projected to happen to people who are now alive. What of the
more distant future ? If emissions continue to rise for a century — whether because we fail to rein them in, or because
we set off an unstoppable feedback loop in which the warming itself causes ever more greenhouse gases to be evaporated into
the air — then the gases will reach a level that the Earth has not seen since tens of millions of years ago. The
consequences will take several centuries to be fully realized, as the Earth settles into its new state. It is probable that, as in
the distant geological eras with high CO2, sea levels will be many tens of meters higher and the average global
temperature will soar far above the present value: a planet grossly unlike the one to which the human species is
adapted.

Warming leads to extinction---it’s a conflict-multiplier and defense doesn’t assume

non-linearity
Kareiva 18, Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute
of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment &
Sustainability at UCLA, et al. (Peter, “Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back,”
Futures, 102)
In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, biodiversity, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution) are unlikely to be associated with existential risks. They all correspond

climate change, global freshwater cycle, and

to a degraded environment, but in our assessment do not represent existential risks. However, the three remaining boundaries (

ocean acidification) do pose existential risks. This is because of intrinsic positive feedback loops, substantial lag times
between system change and experiencing the consequences of that change, and the fact these different boundaries interact with one another in

ways that yield surprises. In addition, climate, freshwater, and ocean acidification are all directly connected to
the provision of food and water, and shortages of food and water can create conflict and social unrest. Climate change has a long
history of disrupting civilizations and sometimes precipitating the collapse of cultures or mass emigrations (McMichael, 2017). For example, the 12th century drought in the North American Southwest is held responsible for the
collapse of the Anasazi pueblo culture. More recently, the infamous potato famine of 1846–1849 and the large migration of Irish to the U.S. can be traced to a combination of factors, one of which was climate. Specifically, 1846
was an unusually warm and moist year in Ireland, providing the climatic conditions favorable to the fungus that caused the potato blight. As is so often the case, poor government had a role as well—as the British government

Climate change intersects with freshwater

forbade the import of grains from outside Britain (imports that could have helped to redress the ravaged potato yields).

resources because it is expected to exacerbate drought and water scarcity, as well as flooding. Climate change can even impair water
quality because it is associated with heavy rains that overwhelm sewage treatment facilities, or because it results in higher concentrations of pollutants in groundwater as a result of enhanced evaporation and reduced groundwater

recharge. Ample clean water is not a luxury—it is essential for human survival. Consequently, cities, regions and nations that lack clean freshwater are vulnerable to social
disruption and disease. Finally, ocean acidification is linked to climate change because it is driven by CO2 emissions just as global warming is. With close to 20% of the world’s protein coming from oceans (FAO, 2016), the potential
for severe impacts due to acidification is obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more insidious, is the interaction between climate change and the loss of oyster and coral reefs due to acidification. Acidification is known to interfere

Climate change also increases storm frequency and severity. Coral reefs and oyster
with oyster reef building and coral reefs.

reefs provide protection from storm surge because they reduce wave energy (Spalding et al., 2014). If these reefs are
lost due to acidification at the same time as storms become more severe and sea level rises , coastal
communities will be exposed to unprecedented storm surge —and may be ravaged by recurrent storms . A
key feature of the risk associated with climate change is that mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are not the variables of interest. Rather it is extreme episodic events that place nations and entire regions of the
world at risk. These extreme events are by definition “rare” (once every hundred years), and changes in their likelihood are challenging to detect because of their rarity, but are exactly the manifestations of climate change that we

Society will have a hard time responding to shorter intervals between rare
must get better at anticipating (Diffenbaugh et al., 2017).

extreme events because in the lifespan of an individual human, a person might experience as few as two or three extreme events. How likely is it that you would notice a change in the interval between events
that are separated by decades, especially given that the interval is not regular but varies stochastically? A concrete example of this dilemma can be found in the past and expected future changes in storm-related flooding of New

every 25
York City. The highly disruptive flooding of New York City associated with Hurricane Sandy represented a flood height that occurred once every 500 years in the 18th century, and that occurs now once

years, but is expected to occur once every 5 years by 2050 (Garner et al., 2017). This change in frequency of extreme floods has profound implications for the
measures New York City should take to protect its infrastructure and its population, yet because of the stochastic nature of such events, this shift in flood frequency is an elevated risk that will go unnoticed by most people. 4. The

Humans are remarkably ingenious, and have

combination of positive feedback loops and societal inertia is fertile ground for global environmental catastrophes

adapted to crises throughout their history. Our doom has been repeatedly predicted, only to be averted by innovation (Ridley, 2011). However, the many
stories of human ingenuity successfully addressing existential risks such as global famine or extreme air pollution represent
environmental challenges that are largely linear, have immediate consequences, and operate without
positive feedbacks. For example, the fact that food is in short supply does not increase the rate at which humans consume food—thereby increasing the shortage. Similarly, massive air pollution episodes such
as the London fog of 1952 that killed 12,000 people did not make future air pollution events more likely. In fact it was just the opposite—the London fog sent such a clear message that Britain quickly enacted pollution control
measures (Stradling, 2016). Food shortages, air pollution, water pollution, etc. send immediate signals to society of harm, which then trigger a negative feedback of society seeking to reduce the harm. In contrast, today’s great
environmental crisis of climate change may cause some harm but there are generally long time delays between rising CO2 concentrations and damage to humans. The consequence of these delays are an absence of urgency; thus

unlike past
although 70% of Americans believe global warming is happening, only 40% think it will harm them (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/). Secondly,

environmental challenges, the Earth’s climate system is rife with positive feedback loops . In particular,
as CO2 increases and the climate warms, that very warming can cause more CO2 release which further
increases global warming, and then more CO2, and so on . Table 2 summarizes the best documented positive feedback loops for the Earth’s climate system. These
feedbacks can be neatly categorized into carbon cycle, biogeochemical, biogeophysical, cloud, ice-albedo, and water vapor feedbacks. As important as it is to understand these feedbacks individually, it is even more essential to
study the interactive nature of these feedbacks. Modeling studies show that when interactions among feedback loops are included, uncertainty increases dramatically and there is a heightened potential for perturbations to be
magnified (e.g., Cox, Betts, Jones, Spall, & Totterdell, 2000; Hajima, Tachiiri, Ito, & Kawamiya, 2014; Knutti & Rugenstein, 2015; Rosenfeld, Sherwood, Wood, & Donner, 2014). This produces a wide range of future scenarios. Positive
feedbacks in the carbon cycle involves the enhancement of future carbon contributions to the atmosphere due to some initial increase in atmospheric CO2. This happens because as CO2 accumulates, it reduces the efficiency in
which oceans and terrestrial ecosystems sequester carbon, which in return feeds back to exacerbate climate change (Friedlingstein et al., 2001). Warming can also increase the rate at which organic matter decays and carbon is
released into the atmosphere, thereby causing more warming (Melillo et al., 2017). Increases in food shortages and lack of water is also of major concern when biogeophysical feedback mechanisms perpetuate drought conditions.
The underlying mechanism here is that losses in vegetation increases the surface albedo, which suppresses rainfall, and thus enhances future vegetation loss and more suppression of rainfall—thereby initiating or prolonging a
drought (Chamey, Stone, & Quirk, 1975). To top it off, overgrazing depletes the soil, leading to augmented vegetation loss (Anderies, Janssen, & Walker, 2002). Climate change often also increases the risk of forest fires, as a result

The expectation is that forest fires will become more frequent and severe
of higher temperatures and persistent drought conditions.

with climate warming and drought (Scholze, Knorr, Arnell, & Prentice, 2006), a trend for which we have already seen evidence (Allen et al., 2010). Tragically, the increased severity and risk
of Southern California wildfires recently predicted by climate scientists (Jin et al., 2015), was realized in December 2017, with the largest fire in the history of California (the “Thomas fire” that burned 282,000 acres,

This catastrophic fire embodies the sorts of positive feedbacks

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/27/16822180/thomas-fire-california-largest-wildfire).

and interacting factors that could catch humanity off-guard and produce a true apocalyptic event. Record-
breaking rains produced an extraordinary flush of new vegetation, that then dried out as record heat waves and dry conditions took hold, coupled with stronger than normal winds, and ignition. Of course the record-fire released
CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to future warming. Out of all types of feedbacks, water vapor and the ice-albedo feedbacks are the most clearly understood mechanisms. Losses in reflective snow and ice cover drive
up surface temperatures, leading to even more melting of snow and ice cover—this is known as the ice-albedo feedback (Curry, Schramm, & Ebert, 1995). As snow and ice continue to melt at a more rapid pace, millions of people
may be displaced by flooding risks as a consequence of sea level rise near coastal communities (Biermann & Boas, 2010; Myers, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2011). The water vapor feedback operates when warmer atmospheric conditions
strengthen the saturation vapor pressure, which creates a warming effect given water vapor’s strong greenhouse gas properties (Manabe & Wetherald, 1967). Global warming tends to increase cloud formation because warmer
temperatures lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere, and warmer temperature also allows the atmosphere to hold more water. The key question is whether this increase in clouds associated with global warming
will result in a positive feedback loop (more warming) or a negative feedback loop (less warming). For decades, scientists have sought to answer this question and understand the net role clouds play in future climate projections
(Schneider et al., 2017). Clouds are complex because they both have a cooling (reflecting incoming solar radiation) and warming (absorbing incoming solar radiation) effect (Lashof, DeAngelo, Saleska, & Harte, 1997). The type of
cloud, altitude, and optical properties combine to determine how these countervailing effects balance out. Although still under debate, it appears that in most circumstances the cloud feedback is likely positive (Boucher et al.,
2013). For example, models and observations show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations reduces the low-level cloud fraction in the Northeast Pacific at decadal time scales. This then has a positive feedback effect and

The key lesson from the long list of potentially

enhances climate warming since less solar radiation is reflected by the atmosphere (Clement, Burgman, & Norris, 2009).

positive feedbacks and their interactions is that runaway climate change, and runaway perturbations
have to be taken as a serious possibility . Table 2 is just a snapshot of the type of feedbacks that have been identified (see Supplementary material for a more thorough explanation of
positive feedback loops). However, this list is not exhaustive and the possibility of undiscovered positive feedbacks portends

even greater existential risks. The many environmental crises humankind has previously averted (famine, ozone depletion, London fog, water pollution, etc.) were averted because of political will
based on solid scientific understanding. We cannot count on complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change.
Warming causes extinction from oxygen, disease, ice melt, and cognitive failure.
McKibben ’19 [Bill; April 9; Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Rolling Stone, “This Is How Human Extinction Could Play Out,”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bill-mckibben-falter-climate-change-817310/]

Oh, it could get very bad.

In 2015, a study in the Journal of Mathematical Biology pointed out that if

the world’s oceans kept warming, by 2100 they
might become hot enough to “stop oxygen production by phyto-plankton by disrupting the process of
photosynthesis.” Given that two-thirds of the Earth’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton, that would
“likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”
A year later, above the Arctic Circle, in Siberia, a heat wave thawed a reindeer carcass that had been trapped in the permafrost. The exposed
body released anthrax into nearby water and soil, infecting two thousand reindeer grazing nearby, and they in turn infected some humans; a
twelve-year-old boy died. As it turns out, permafrost is a “very good preserver of microbes and viruses, because it is cold,
there is no oxygen, and it is dark” — scientists have managed to revive an eight-million-year-old bacterium they found beneath the surface of
a glacier. Researchers believe there are fragments of the Spanish flu virus, smallpox, and bubonic plague buried in Siberia
and Alaska.

Or consider this: as ice sheets melt, they take weight off land, and that can trigger earthquakes — seismic activity
is already increasing in Greenland and Alaska. Meanwhile, the added weight of the new seawater starts to bend the Earth’s crust. “That will give
you a massive increase in volcanic activity. It’ll activate faults to create earthquakes, submarine landslides, tsunamis, the whole lot,” explained
the director of University College London’s Hazard Centre. Such a landslide happened in Scandinavia about eight thousand years ago, as the
last Ice Age retreated and a Kentucky-size section of Norway’s continental shelf gave way, “plummeting down to the abyssal plain and creating
a series of titanic waves that roared forth with a vengeance,” wiping all signs of life from coastal Norway to Greenland and “drowning the
Wales-sized landmass that once connected Britain to the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.” When the waves hit the Shetlands, they were
sixty-five feet high.

There’s even this: if we keep raising carbon dioxide levels, we may not be able to think straight
anymore. At a thousand parts per million (which is within the realm of possibility for 2100), human cognitive ability falls 21
percent. “The largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage, and Strategy,” a Harvard study reported, which is too bad, as
those skills are what we seem to need most.

Defense is wrong -- it’s existential.

Ng ’19 [Yew-Kwang; May 2019; Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technology University, Fellow of
the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and Member of the Advisory Board at the Global Priorities
Institute at Oxford University, Ph.D. in Economics from Sydney University; Global Policy, “Keynote:
Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism,” vol. 10, no. 2, p. 258-266;
RP]

Catastrophic climate change

Though by no means certain, CCC causing global extinction is possible due to interrelated factors of non‐
linearity, cascading effects, positive feedbacks, multiplicative factors, critical thresholds and tipping
points (e.g. Barnosky and Hadly, 2016; Belaia et al., 2017; Buldyrev et al., 2010; Grainger, 2017; Hansen and Sato, 2012; IPCC 2014; Kareiva
and Carranza, 2018; Osmond and Klausmeier, 2017; Rothman, 2017; Schuur et al., 2015; Sims and Finnoff, 2016; Van Aalst, 2006).7
A possibly imminent tipping point could be in the form of ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that] could cause a
rapid sea level rise’ (Baum et al., 2011, p. 399). There are many avenues for positive feedback in global warming,
including:

 the replacement of an ice sea by a liquid ocean surface from melting reduces the reflection and increases
the absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming;
 the drying of forests from warming increases forest fires and the release of more carbon; and
 higher ocean temperatures may lead to the release of methane trapped under the ocean floor, producing
runaway global warming.
Though there are also avenues for negative feedback, the scientific consensus is for an overall net positive feedback (Roe and Baker, 2007).
Thus, the Global Challenges Foundation (2017, p. 25) concludes, ‘The world is currently completely unprepared to envisage,
and even less deal with, the consequences of CCC’.

The threat of sea‐level rising from global warming is well known, but there are also other likely and more
imminent threats to the survivability of mankind and other living things. For example, Sherwood and Huber (2010)
emphasize the adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress from high environmental wet‐bulb
temperature. They show that ‘even modest global warming could … expose large fractions of the [world]
population to unprecedented heat stress’ p. 9552 and that with substantial global warming, ‘the area of land
rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level’ p. 9555, making extinction much
more likely and the relatively moderate damages estimated by most integrated assessment models unreliably low.

While imminent extinction is very unlikely and may not come for a long time even under business as usual, the main point is that we cannot
rule it out. Annan and Hargreaves (2011, pp. 434–435) may be right that there is ‘an upper 95 per cent probability limit for S [temperature
increase] … to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C’. However, probabilities of 5 per cent, 0.5 per cent , 0.05 per cent or
even 0.005 per cent of excessive warming and the resulting extinction probabilities cannot be ruled out
and are unacceptable. Even if there is only a 1 per cent probability that there is a time bomb in the
airplane, you probably want to change your flight. Extinction of the whole world is more important to
avoid by literally a trillion times.
 A2: Wetlands Contribute Carbon

Overwhelming studies support that wetlands are a carbon sink --- ignore outliers
Were 19 --- David Were et al, currently works with Department of Environmental Management,
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. He is a PhD fellow in Water Mangement, with specialization in
Aquatic Ecosystem Management at the World Bank's ACEWM. His PhD research project is "Carbon
storage and fluxes in tropical freshwater wetlands: Implications for climate change mitigation.", “Carbon
Sequestration by Wetlands: A Critical Review of Enhancement Measures for Climate Change Mitigation”,
Earth Systems and Environment · April 2019,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332623431_Carbon_Sequestration_by_Wetlands_A_Critical
_Review_of_Enhancement_Measures_for_Climate_Change_Mitigation

Many studies have recommended protection of natural wetlands as a vital measure to enhance CS (Villa
and Bernal 2017; Yu et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2015). These studies demonstrate that functioning of natural wetlands , especially
CS is highly sensitive to land use change. In this regard, wetland protection refers to safeguarding natural
wetlands against human disturbances that can alter vegetation, hydrological and soil regimes. An earlier study by Gorham (1991)
showed that only northern high altitude CSW = CI − CO. (1) and tropical wetland peat contain over 600 Pg C, more than two-
thirds that stored in the atmosphere (Moomaw et al. 2018) and twice the storage of world’s forest biomass
(Bonn et al. 2016). Howe et al. (2009) compared C stocks in natural and disturbed Australian wetlands and showed that natural wetlands stored
between 15 and 50% more C than their disturbed counterparts. Nahlik and Fennessy (2016) also carried out a comprehensive assessment of CS
potential of US wetlands for the top 120 cm soil horizon. The authors observed significantly high C stocks in natural wetlands (2.25 ± 0.28 Pg C)
in only 5.5 × 106 ha compared to that in disturbed wetlands (1.63 ± 0.33 Pg C), despite covering a larger area (7.0× 106 ha). Villa and Bernal
(2017) showed that natural wetlands globallystore about 400 Pg C in the top 1 m of soil, higher than any biome.
The implication and justification for protection of natural wetlands, therefore, is that their conversion
significantly contributes to atmospheric C pool compared to other ecosystems . This has already been
confirmed in China by Zhang et al. (2015) who showed that compared to other natural ecosystems , wetland
conversion caused the highest C loss (113 Tg) from 1995 and 2010.

Wetlands are net carbon sinks --- best science

Mitsch 11 --- William J. Mitsch et al, Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Science at The
Ohio State University, “Wetlands, carbon, and climate change”, Landscape Ecol, Dec 2011,
https://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/Wetlands,+carbon,
+and+climate+change.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1365471-0

We have shown here that 1. Most wetlands are net carbon sinks and not radiative sources of climate change,
even when methane emissions are considered, when taking into account the decay of methane in the
atmosphere.

2. The
world’s wetlands are significant sinks of carbon on the order of 830 Tg/year, equaling or surpassing previous
estimations.

3. Becausewetlands provide many ecosystem services in addition to carbon sequestration , it is

shortsighted to suggest that wetlands should not be created or restored because of GHG emissions. If
we consider the savings that wetlands give us from fossil fuel consumption for the ecosystem services
of water quality improvement, flood mitigation, and coastal and storm protection (for coastal wetlands), their
service as carbon sinks is even more impressive that without considering these savings

Our study assumed your data

Mitsch 11 --- William J. Mitsch et al, Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Science at The
Ohio State University, “Wetlands, carbon, and climate change”, Landscape Ecol, Dec 2011,
https://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/Wetlands,+carbon,
+and+climate+change.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1365471-0

A study of North American carbon fluxes proposed that wetlands probably do not have either a net radiative
balance or forcing on climate significantly different from zero because of a general balance between carbon
sequestration and methane emissions, but ‘‘large CH4 emissions from conterminous US wetlands suggest
that creating and restoring wetlands may increase net radiative forcing…’’ (Bridgham et al. 2006).

Here we present original results on the balance between soil carbon sequestration and methane emissions from seven temperate
and tropical wetlands and develop a dynamic model simulating the net radiative forcing and carbon
exchange of these wetlands with the atmosphere, assuming the GWP of 25 on methane as a model assumption. The model is then
applied to 14 more wetlands from tropical, temperate, and boreal regions to evaluate the net radiative
forcing and carbon exchange for a wide variety of sites. We estimating the net carbon retention by
wetlands on a global scale from these studies and from recent estimates of the global extent of wetlands
 Warming Impact --- Outweighs Nuclear War

Only extinction risk

End Times 6 – New York End Times, Non-Partisan News Filter Monitoring World Events Pertaining to
Extinction, “The Extinction Scale”, 10-16, http://newyorkendtimes.com/extinctionscale.asp

We rate Global Climate Change as a greater threat for human extinction in this century. Most scientists
forecast disruptions and dislocations, if current trends persist. The extinction danger is more likely if we
alter an environmental process that causes harmful effects and leads to conditions that make the planet
uninhabitable to humans. Considering that there is so much that is unknown about global systems, we
consider climate change to be the greatest danger to human extinction. However, there is no evidence
of imminent danger. Nuclear war at some point in this century might happen. It is unlikely to cause
human extinction though. While several countries have nuclear weapons, there are few with the
firepower to annihilate the world. For those nations it would be suicidal to exercise that option. The
pattern is that the more destructive technology a nation has, the more it tends towards rational
behavior. Sophisticated precision weapons then become better tactical options. The bigger danger
comes from nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists with the help of a rogue state, such as North
Korea. The size of such an explosion would not be sufficient to threaten humanity as a whole. Instead it
could trigger a major war or even world war. Under this scenario human extinction would only be
possible if other threats were present, such as disease and climate change. We monitor war separately.
However we also need to incorporate the dangers here.

Makes every impact and nuclear war inevitable

Scheffran 16 – Jürgen Scheffran, Professor at the Institute for Geography at the University of
Hamburg and head of the Research Group Climate Change and Security in the CliSAP Cluster of
Excellence and the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, et al., April 2016, “The Climate-
Nuclear Nexus: Exploring the linkages between climate change and nuclear threats,”
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/file/2016/01/WFC_2015_The_Climate-Nuclear_Nexus.pdf

Climate change and nuclear weapons represent two key threats of our time. Climate
change endangers ecosystems and
social systems all over the world . The degradation of natural resources, the decline of water and food supplies,
forced migration, and more frequent and intense disasters will greatly affect population clusters, big and small.
Climate-related shocks will add stress to the world’s existing conflicts and act as a “threat multiplier ” in
already fragile regions. This could contribute to a decline of international stability and trigger hostility
between people and nations . Meanwhile, the 15,500 nuclear weapons that remain in the arsenals of only a few states possess
the destructive force to destroy life on Earth as we know multiple times over. With nuclear deterrence strategies still in place,
and hundreds of weapons on ‘hair trigger alert’, the risks of nuclear war caused by accident,
miscalculation or intent remain plentiful and imminent .
Despite growing recognition that climate change and nuclear weapons pose critical security risks, the linkages between both threats are largely
ignored. However, nuclear and climate risks interfere with each other in a mutually enforcing way.
Conflicts induced by climate change could contribute to global insecurity , which, in turn, could enhance the
chance of a nuclear weapon being used , could create more fertile breeding grounds for terrorism ,
including nuclear terrorism , and could feed the ambitions among some states to acquire nuclear arms .
Furthermore, as evidenced by a series of incidents in recent years, extreme weather events, environmental degradation and major seismic
events can directly impact the safety and security of nuclear installations. Moreover, a nuclear
war could lead to a rapid and
prolonged drop in average global temperatures and significantly disrupt the global climate for years to
come, which would have disastrous implications for agriculture, threatening the food supply for most of the world . Finally,
climate change, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy pose threats of intergenerational harm, as evidenced by the transgenerational effects of
nuclear testing and nuclear power accidents and the lasting impacts on the climate, environment and public health by carbon emissions.
 Warming Impacts --- Turns Disease

Warming massively turns disease

Wu 16 - State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, College of Global Change and Earth System
Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

(Xiaoxu; Yongmei Lu Department of Geography, Texas State University; Sen Zhou Center for Earth
System Sciences, Tsinghua University Beijing; “Impact of climate change on human infectious diseases:
Empirical evidence and human adaptation”, January 2016,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015300489, Science Direct vol 86)

Climate changes include alternations in one or more climate variables including temperature, precipitation, wind, and
sunshine. These changes may impact the survival, reproduction, or distribution of disease pathogens and
hosts, as well as the availability and means of their transmission environment . The health effects of such impacts tend
to reveal as shifts in the geographic and seasonal patterns of human infectious diseases, and as changes in their outbreak frequency and severity. Abundant

literature addresses the factorial and potential impacts of climate change on many types of infectious
diseases, including vectorborne, water-borne, air-borne, and food-borne diseases . This section of the paper provides
a systematic literature survey on the influences of changes in climate variables on the three aspects of disease — pathogen, host, and transmission. Pathogen refers
to a wide range of disease agents, including virus, bacterium, parasite germ, and fungi. The impact of climate change on pathogens can
be direct, through influencing the survival, reproduction, and life cycle of pathogens, or indirect, through
influencing the habitat, environment, or competitors of pathogens . As a result, not only the quantity but also the
geographic and seasonal distributions of pathogens may change. Temperature may affect disease through impacting the life
cycle of pathogens. First, a pathogen needs a certain temperature range to survive and develop. For example, the two thresholds, maximum

temperature of 22–23 °C for mosquito development and minimum temperature of 25–26 °C for Japanese Encephalitis Virus (JEV)
transmission, play key roles in the ecology of JEV (Mellor and Leake, 2000; Tian et al., 2015a). Excessive heat can increase the

mortality rates for some pathogens (Gerba, 1999; Kuhn et al., 2005). The development of malaria parasite (Plasmodium falciparum and
Plasmodium vivax) ceases when temperature exceeds 33°–39 °C (Patz et al., 1996). Second, rising temperature can influence the reproduction and extrinsic
incubation period (EIP) of pathogens (Harvell et al., 2002). For example, the EIP for P. falciparum reduces from 26 days at 20 °C to 13 days at 25 °C (Bunyavanich et
al., 2003). On the contrary, lower ambient temperature is likely to lengthen EIP, which may in turn decrease the transmission of diseases such as dengue because
fewer mosquitoes can live long enough. Third, extended
periods of hot weather can raise the average temperature of
water bodies and food environment, which may provide an agreeable environment for microorganism
reproduction cycles and algal blooms. For example, Vibrio spp. bacteria, native to the Baltic and the North Sea, showed an increased growth
rate during the hot summers in 2006 (Frank et al., 2006). Salmonellas is a food-borne disease; the reproduction of the bacteria increases as temperature rises in that
range between 7 °C and 37 °C (IWGCCH, 2010). Lastly, rising temperature may limit the proliferation of a pathogen through favoring its competitors. For example,
Campylobacter spp., the bacteria of food-borne disease Campylobacter, was found to be more concentrated in surface water at low temperature and during winter
(Jones, 2001); it is believed that warmer temperature supports other bacteria to out-compete Campylobacter spp. and that ultraviolet light prohibits the survival of
Campylobacter (Obiri-Danso et al., 2001). Climate change may cause shifts in precipitation, which affects the
dissemination of water-borne pathogens. Rainfall plays an important role in the development of water-
borne disease pathogens. Rainy season is related to the increase of fecal pathogens as heavy rain may stir up
sediments in water, leading to the accumulation of fecal microorganisms (Jofre et al., 2010). However, unusual precipitation after a long

drought can result in an increase of pathogens, causing a disease outbreak (Wilby et al., 2005). Droughts/low rainfall
lead to low river flows, causing the concentration of effluent water-borne pathogens (Hofstra, 2011; Semenza and Menne, 2009). Humidity change also

impacts the pathogens of infectious diseases. The pathogens of air-borne infectious disease such as
influenza tend to be responsive to humidity condition. For example, absolute humidity and temperature were found to affect
influenza virus transmission and survival (Shaman and Kohn, 2009; Xu et al., 2014). Lowen et al. (2007) proposed that cold temperature and low relative humidity
are favorable to the spread of influenza virus. Humidity change also affects the viruses of water-borne diseases. For example, the survival of water-borne viruses
near water surface is limited due to the drying effect of surface water (Gerba, 1999). Lastly, virus of vector-borne diseases may be impacted by humidity change.
Humidity was found to affect malarial parasite development in Anopheline mosquito (Patz et al., 2003). Thu. et al. (1998) found
that the temperature and humidity during rainy season in Yangon and Singapore favor dengue virus propagation
in mosquitos, contributing to the outbreaks of dengue hemorrhagic fever in these regions. Sunshine is one more important climate
variable that may affect the pathogens of infectious diseases. For example, sunshine hours and temperature act synergistically

during cholera periods to create a favorable condition for the multiplication of Vibrio cholerae in aquatic
environments (Islam et al., 2009). Wind is a key factor affecting the pathogens of air-borne diseases. Literature suggested a

positive correlation between dust particle association/attachment and virus survival/transporting (Chen et
al., 2010; Chung and Sobsey, 1993). It has been reported that the presence of desert dust in the atmosphere during Asian dust storms (ADSs)

is associated with increased concentration of cultivable bacteria , cultivable fungi, and fungal spores (Griffin, 2007; Schlesinger
et al., 2006). Chen et al. (2010) found that the concentration of influenza A virus was significantly higher during the ADS days than normal days.

Studies further suggested that the viruses of infectious diseases be transported across ocean by dust particles (Chung and

Sobsey, 1993; Cox, 1995; Griffin, 2007), which may facilitate the transmission of viruses between distant hosts . 3.2.
Climate change and vectors/hosts Hosts refer to living animals or plants on or in which disease pathogens reside. Vectors are intermediate hosts and they carry and
transmit pathogen to living organisms which become hosts. This review focuses on animal hosts, especially insects. The
geographical locations and
population changes of insect vectors are closely associated with the patterns and changes of climate . Thus,
climate change may cause changes in range, period, and intensity of infectious diseases through its impacts on disease vectors. Temperature affects the spatial–
temporal distribution of disease vectors. As
temperature continues to rise, the insects in low-latitude regions may find
new habitats in mid- or high-latitude regions and in areas of high altitude, leading to geographical
expansion or shift of diseases. Recent studies have found that some vector-borne human infectious diseases, including malaria , African
trypanosomiasis, Lyme disease, tick-borne encephalitis , yellow fever , plague , and dengue have distributed to a
wider range (e.g. Harvell et al., 2002). Most of these diseases have extended into areas of higher latitude,
following the habitat expansion of mosquitoes, ticks, and midge vectors . In China, as the winter temperature continues to
rise, Oncomelania hupensis, the intermediate host of Schistosoma japonicum, extended its geographic distribution into new areas including northern China (Zhou et
al., 2010). However, temperature change may as well restrict the distribution of disease vectors. For example, Aedes aegypti is the mosquito host for yellow fever
and dengue fever viruses (Epstein, 2001a). Laboratory experiments found that A. aegypti larvae perish when the water temperature surpasses 34 °C; the adults start
to die when the air temperature is above 40 °C (Christophers, 1960). As global warming continues, the disease hosts such as A. aegypti may disappear from some
regions where temperature rises beyond their thresholds. Similarly, since the Anopheles-borne falciparum malaria mostly exists when temperature is above 16 °C
(Beck-Johnson et al., 2013; Martens et al., 1997), a temperature dropping to below this threshold will benefit malaria control. Disease
vectors/hosts
may survive climate change by taking shield in small-scaled environment where ambient temperature
change does not prevail. For example, A. aegypti mosquito was found to hide from the high summer temperature of 40 °C in Jalore Town of Rajasthan,
India by using household pitchers or cement water tanks underground (Tyagi and Hiriyan, 2004). Similarly, field observations have
recorded viable A. aegypti larvae in ice-encrusted water (Christophers, 1960). Historical record reported the presence of A. aegypti in Memphis, USA where the
winter temperature normally falls below 0 °C (Reiter, 2001). Changes
in precipitation may impact disease vectors/hosts as
well. Many vector-borne infectious diseases are found to be positively associated with rainfall . Larval
development of some mosquito vectors accelerates with increased rain and rising temperature (Hoshen
and Morse, 2004). Adult Anopheline, vector of malaria, reproduce in small natural ponds of clean water; droughts may limit the quantity and quality of breeding
sites for these mosquitoes, resulting in reduction in vector population and disease transmission (Gage et al., 2008). The cocoliztli outbreaks in Mexico proved that
rainfall can affect the outbreaks of rodent-borne diseases through its impact on rodent population (Zell, 2004). However, rainfall is not always agreeable for vectors.
Excessive precipitation may have catastrophic impacts on mosquito population because strong rain may sweep away their breeding sites (Kuhn et al., 2005). On the
contrary, drought in wet regions may decrease flow velocity in brooks and provide mosquitoes with more
pools of stagnant water as breeding places (Kovats et al., 2003). The primary carrier of West Nile virus is a type of mosquito
named Culex, which usually breeds underground in the nasty water pools in city drains and catch basins. Drought allows

for rotten organic materials to accumulate in those pools, forming favorite condition for Culex; heavy precipitation would
wash the drains and water down the pools (Epstein, 2001b), limiting the spread of West Nile virus. Many disease hosts tend to respond strongly to humidity change.
Relative humidity affects malaria transmission through impacting the activity and survival of mosquitoes . If
the mean monthly relative humidity is under 60%, the lifespan of malaria vector mosquito becomes too short to incur malaria transmission (Pampana, 1969).
When wet and warm weather is intersected by dry-spells, the mosquito vectors carrying West Nile virus
and Lyme disease may move into non-traditional areas such as Canada and Scandinavia (Senior, 2008). Low
humidity can negatively affect the adult survival of A. aegypti, therefore reduce dengue disease transmission (Christophers, 1960). Generally speaking, low humidity,
especially when coupled with high temperature, forms unfavorable condition for ticks and fleas (e.g. grasslands or forestlands), limiting the spread of the related
infectious diseases (Gage and Kosoy, 2005). Wind has dual effects on disease vectors/hosts. Wind may affect the malaria cycle both negatively and positively.
Strong wind can reduce the biting opportunities for mosquitoes, but can extend their flight distance. During a monsoon season, wind is able
to change the spatial distribution of mosquitoes (Reid, 2000). Sunshine can affect a disease host through the synergistic function. A time series analysis of cholera
cases in Matlab, Bangladesh suggested that increased temperature and prolonged sunshine are positively related to the monthly cholera occurrences (Islam et al.,
2009). Specifically, high
temperature and medium sunshine hours together form the most agreeable condition
for cholera outbreak . Relatively low temperature may still support cholera vector if long-hour sunshine is available. 3.3. Climate change and disease
transmission Depending on the transmission route, disease transmission can be direct or indirect. Direct transmission refers to the transmission of a disease from
one person to another through droplet contact, direct physical contact, indirect physical contact, air-borne transmission, or fecal– oral transmission. Indirect
transmission refers to the transmission of a disease to humans via another organism, a vector, or an intermediate host. Many studies have proved that climate
variables and weather conditions may affect disease transmission, despite some uncertainty about the specific mechanisms. Rather than focusing on the disease
transmission mechanisms, this section discusses the impacts that climate change may impose on the spreading of human infectious diseases. This impact can be
direct as changes in climate condition may alter disease transmission by directly influencing the viability of pathogens. It can be indirect if a change in the
transmission routes resulted from the responding behaviors of humans and vectors/hosts to climate change. Temperature change alone, or
together with other variable changes such as rainfall, may alter the transmission of diseases. Studies have
reported an association between interannual variability in temperature and malaria transmission in the
African highlands (Bouma, 2003). In the highlands of Kenya, hospital admissions for malaria have been associated with rainfall and high maximum
temperature during the preceding 3–4 months (Githeko and Ndegwa, 2001). Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome incidence closely correlates with
meteorological factors that include temperature, rainfall, and humidity (Xiao et al., 2014). Wind and dust storms affect the transmission of infectious diseases.
Wind can act as a transportation means for pathogen and virus of airborne diseases. Pathogens can
spread from endemic regions to other regions through interregional dust storms . Human influenza virus
could be transported from Asia to the Americas in winter months by prevailing wind over the Pacific
(Hamnett et al., 1999). Chen et al. (2010) found that avian influenza outbreaks tend to occur in downwind regions of ADS (e.g. Japan and South Korean) during the
dust storm season. Climate
change can affect the transmission of infectious diseases through altering the
contact patterns of human–pathogen, human– vector, or human–host. An analysis of the de-trended time-series malaria
data in Madagascar found that the cross-year variation in malaria prevalence can mostly be explained by the minimum temperature at the start of the transmission
season, corresponding to the months when the human–vector contact is the greatest (Bouma, 2003). Evidences showed that diseases
transmitted by
rodents sometimes increase during heavy rainfall and flooding events because of altered patterns of
human–pathogen–rodent contact. For example, during hazard periods deer mice may enter human dwellings searching for food and thereby
transmit hantavirus to humans, leading to hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) cases (Engelthaler et al., 1999). There have been reports on flood-associated
outbreaks of leptospirosis (Weil's diseases) in Central and South America and South Asia (Ahern et al., 2005; Confalonieri, 2003; Ko et al., 1999). The risk factors for
leptospirosis for peri-urban population in low-income countries include flooding of open sewers and streets (Sarkar et al., 2002). Climate
variation plays
an important role in shaping the patterns of human and other host activities and behaviors, such as
seasonal occupation, migration, winter–summer lifestyles, and physical exercises (Viboud et al., 2004); these in
turn can significantly influence the patterns of disease transmission (Kuhn et al., 2005). The seasonal prevalence patterns of
influenza infection in Europe are believed to be related to people spending longer hours indoor during winter (Halstead, 1996; Lofgren et al., 2007). It was shown
that within each wild fowl migratory flyway, the timing of H5N1 outbreaks and viral migrations is closely associated (Tian et al., 2015c). Live poultry markets
particularly in the holiday season serve as sources of human infected avian influenza and interacting with migratory birds may also contribute to the transmission of
the virus (Zhang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). The
elevated morbidity of gastroenteritis in temperate developed
countries during summer months could be related to increased picnics and other outside-cooked meals
(Altekruse et al., 1998). The re-emergence of kala-azar (visceral leishmaniasis) in the cities of the semi-arid northeastern region in Brazil in the early 1980s and 1990s
was caused by the rural–urban migration of the subsistence farmers (Kuhn et al., 2005). A global cross-sectional study of diarrhea incidences in children under 5
found a negative association between rainfall and diarrhea rates, pointing to increased using of unprotected water sources and reduced hygiene practices when
water is scarce (Lloyd et al., 2007). With
global warming, water scarcity will become a broader and more severe
issue, which may lead to more diarrhea cases worldwide (Lloyd et al., 2007). Climate change can harm human
immunity and susceptibility to disease, thereby affecting disease transmission. It may lead to ecosystem degradation,
which will possibly bring pressure on agricultural productivity, causing issues such as crop failure, malnutrition, starvation, increased

population displacement, and resource conflict . These pressures can contribute to increased human
susceptibility to infectious diseases. The early malaria-predicting models in the 1920s found that when food was short, the rising wheat price
coupled with crop failure and malnutritioncauses harm to human immunity (Hay et al., 2002). Water-borne diseases may become

prevalent in some regions if climate change continues to cause shortage of clean surface water (CDC, 2010).
The territorial expansion of the risk for malaria and other tropical diseases has a great potential to reach southern Europe (Semenza and Menne, 2009).
Warming turns disease
EHP 7 – Environmental Health Perspectives, “Driven to Extremes: Health Effects of Climate Change”,
115(4), April, Jstor

In many regions, it is already raining less often but harder. According to The Physical Science Basis,
trends from 1900 to 2005 show significantly increased precipitation in many regions, including eastern
parts of North and South America. More intense and longer droughts have occurred over wider areas
worldwide since the 1970s, especially in the tropics and sub- tropics. Sea surfaces have become warmer,
and wind patterns have changed. There is also more evaporation from the ocean. These processes alter
precipitation patterns on land, bringing more moisture to some areas and diminishing it in others. A long
drought followed by an intense downpour is a recipe for multiple disease outbreaks, says Paul R.
Epstein, a physician and associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at
Harvard Medical School. Epstein is a reviewer for the forthcoming IPCC Working Group II report. During
droughts, water availability is diminished, and water quality is often degraded, for example as people
share water with livestock. Then heavy down- pours can cause sewers to overflow, and rain runoff
washes microbes off farms, lawns, and streets into drinking water supplies. A number of studies have
shown a correlation between heavy downpours and outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as
cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis, and cyclo- sporidiosis, according to Climate Change Futures: Health,
Ecological and Economic Dimensions, a November 2005 report that Epstein co-edited. A drought
followed by flooding also encourages rodent and rodent-borne disease outbreaks as rodent populations
boom in the wake of replenished water supplies. Rising temperatures and extreme weather could also
affect the breeding and spread of ticks that carry Lyme disease, according to Climate Change Futures.
Perhaps most widely documented is the association between intense flooding and explosion of
mosquito populations, creating outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases in humans.
 Warming Impacts --- Turns Economy

Warming collapses the economy and competitiveness

Podesta 7 (John, President and CEO – Center for American Progress, “Global Warming's Toll on the
Economy”, 9-17, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/podesta_nast.html)
Global warming, if not reversed, will consume our national resources and threaten the well-being of future generations, and volatile energy
prices and more extreme weather will devastate our economy. The urgency of this issue demands a president and a Congress willing to make climate
challenge a centerpiece not only of their energy policy but also of their economic program, to produce broad-based growth and sustain American economic leadership in the 21st century.  

Society faces mounting physical risks, and businesses face grave financial risks if they fail to adapt to a changing policy climate because of the rapidly
changing physical climate.  The challenge we face is nothing short of transforming our economy from a high-carbon model—which is putting both our economy and planet at risk—to a low-
carbon model that can create new markets and a healthier environment.  The scale of this undertaking is immense and its potential enormous, but time is working against us. We need to move
quickly on this. Now, let me emphasize that global warming is emphatically not a partisan issue, and we must never let it become one. It is instead engaging people across the political
spectrum, Republicans and Democrats, religious and secular, young and old—perhaps like no other issue we face today.  Global warming cuts across old lines of division, and, if we are smart
about it, can get us focused on investing in solutions.  But although this issue has galvanized many and policies in response to this threat are increasingly inevitable, we still have a lot of work
ahead of us.  The United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change brought together the largest collection of scientists ever assembled to study global warming, its impacts, and
mitigation measures necessary to stop it.  In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC determined that if the world reduces emissions of heat trapping gases down to between 50 percent and 85
percent of 2000 levels by 2050, we have a good probability of limiting the temperature increase to about two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, meaning we would likely prevent the
occurrence of the worst impacts of global warming. In other words, efforts to reduce global warming pollution must begin now so that we can meet the reduction goal in 2050.   So if we
continue to invest in technologies that do not reflect this reduction imperative, it will be nearly impossible to curb the effects of global warming in what could truly be called a global
catastrophe.  The environmental and social consequences of global warming will be many, but the most relevant to our discussion today are the major impacts it will have on our economy, on
investment, and what we should expect from the regulatory climate. Those are the three issues I’d like to focus on today. In the United States, the potential economic impacts on regional

economic development are many. Droughts and loss of soil moisture from a warming climate are predicted to cause a lowering of water
tables, with potentially devastating economic impacts to agricultural communities throughout the Great Plains.   Direct impacts from
global warming on regional economies will also include a serious blow to the timber industry from increased prevalence of pests like the southern pine beetle,
slower growth rates for trees, and more frequent wildfires.  This would mean a decrease in revenue for producers of $1 billion to $2 billion per year.  For resource-dependent states and
industries, whether you are calculating expected agricultural yields or changes in hydroelectric energy production from melting snow pack, global warming has real consequences for

businesses and investors.  Additionally, states face substantial risk from

policy increasing regulation of carbon
the , particularly where dominant
industries are tied to energy generation and use.  Coal producing states and those with larger shares of coal-based electricity, for example, have a strong interest in ensuring a rapid shift to
technologies capable of capturing and storing carbon, to ensure a place for coal in a carbon-constrained world.  Across our industrial heartland, the regional economy will depend on the ability
of manufacturing firms to successfully anticipate global market demands and regulatory mandates for automobiles that use less gas, or run on entirely new forms of energy.   Companies that
fail to respond to this changing policy landscape will face increasing liability for climate impacts, while those that embrace new technology can capture new and vibrant markets.    Although
there are no federal mandates to cap greenhouse gas emissions today, the wheels have been set in motion toward a low-carbon economy through private sector and city and state
government action. The business community and state and local government officials are already seizing the opportunity for change and are making investments in clean technology that curb
our dependence on fossil fuels. Capitalizing on renewable energy by investing in renewable energy technologies is no longer just about doing the right thing; it’s about making money, creating
jobs, and remaining competitive in the world economy.  And the potential to effect change is enormous with each year bringing an ever-higher plateau of success and growth for clean energy.
According to the research and publishing firm Clean Edge, in 2006 we saw a tripling of venture investments in energy technology bringing that figure to $2.4 billion.   We also saw the annual
revenue for solar power, wind power, biofuels and fuel cells ramped up from $40 billion in 2005 to $55.4 billion in 2006—that’s a nearly 40 percent increase in one year.   Projections are that
the annual revenues for these four technologies will quadruple within a decade to more than $226.5 billion.   Business has recognized that efficiency, sustainability and profits are all
intertwined and we have seen their leadership on this issue. For example, more than two dozen CEOs of major companies like General Electric, Duke Energy, Alcoa, and DuPont together with a
few  environmental groups, under the umbrella of the United States Climate Action Partnership, issued a call for a far-reaching, mandatory program to cut greenhouse gas emissions 60
percent to 80 percent below current levels by 2050.  States have also been on the front lines on this issue—recognizing the enormous potential of investing in clean energy; with even fossil
fuel producing states such as Texas, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania investing in renewable energy.  Currently: 29 states have completed comprehensive Climate Action Plans, Half of all states
and the District of Columbia require that electric utilities generate specified amounts of electricity from renewable energy sources, And 17 states have greenhouse gas emissions reductions
targets.  Next month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will likely sue the Environmental Protection Agency for moving too slowly on a request to allow California to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions from automobiles.  Already fourteen states have lined up to adopt this standard once the EPA grants its federal preemption waiver request.  And just last Wednesday, a federal judge
ruled that the state of Vermont can require a 30 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles—dealing a huge blow to car manufacturers. When it comes to action on climate
and clean energy, state leaders from both parties are already setting the national agenda. Nonetheless, I believe that in the fight against global warming our capacity to realize the full potential
of a clean alternative future depends on smart and aggressive federal policy. For years there has been legitimate debate over how to manage carbon emissions, but a consensus has emerged
that business needs the certainty of a coherent and binding national policy.  The current policy framework, which has centered on voluntary emission reductions, is not giving the private sector
the tools it needs and is leaving valuable energy savings on the table. Changes on Capitol Hill, however, have brought a new consensus that has leaders on both sides of the aisle calling for
new, clearer rules.  When Nancy Pelosi took the helm in Congress as Speaker of the House, one of her first actions was to create the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming.  And members of this Congress have introduced climate change-related legislation at a faster pace than any previous Congress.  But this is not merely a difference stemming
from a change in party last November.  There is something deeper going on.  The conversation has shifted and the public and the business community are looking for answers.  This Congress
has also responded to the looming threat of global warming by passing comprehensive energy legislation that includes policies to reduce global warming pollution from major sources, as well
as to reduce oil use, increase energy efficiency, and spur clean alternative energy technologies. The current Senate energy bill includes a 35 mile per gallon fuel economy standard by 2020,
which would remove 206 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2020 or the equivalent of removing 32 million cars off the road. The House energy bill includes a renewable electricity
standard that requires utilities to provide 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020 which would reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 180 million metric tons per
year by 2030 or the equivalent to taking more than 29 million cars off the road. The Senate-House Conference to settle the differences between these bills will likely take place in the fall.   If the
final legislation contains the best provisions of both bills, it could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put forth a major down payment on reductions necessary to slow and later
halt global warming.  Additionally, members of Congress have introduced 10 market-based climate change bills to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  This market-based approach has the

we
potential to turn pollution reduction into marketable assets.  The different bills have a varying allowance allocations and reduction targets but the message Congress is sending is clear:

need to take steps to sharply reduce our dependence on oil, cut our emissions, and enhance the competitiveness of our economy. This is a major
shift: this year, for the first time ever, there will be serious federal debate on legislative proposals that could specifically address global warming pollution.   This represents a change that it is
not likely to be undone in future elections. It is safe to bet that despite whoever controls Congress or becomes the next president, we will have some sort of regulatory scheme within the next
few years.  Businesses, investors, and policymakers that fail to recognize this shifting dynamic face real risks as the energy market changes. If history is any guide, the transition to a low-carbon
economy will create many new opportunities in the form of emerging markets and turn a problem into a profit-making opportunity.  Take carbon trading for example.  The supply of carbon
credits comes largely from two regulatory frameworks—the European Emissions Trading Scheme and the Clean Development Mechanism set up under the Kyoto Protocol.   Carbon emission
 With global warming
markets around the globe have expanded rapidly, with $30.4 billion allowances traded last year and estimated to grow to $100 billion by 2010.  

emerging as the single most important financial risk of our time, we need policies to properly address it and in the current
political climate the forecast seems promising.  As a matter of financial prudence and sound policy, treasurers can play a powerful role by calling on the federal government to pass laws that
effectively cap carbon emissions.  This would reduce overall risk to investors, including to those funds and pensioners for which you have responsibility. 
 Warming Impacts --- Turns Hegemony

Warming collapses hegemony

Magnuson 8 – Stew Magnuson, Managing Editor at the National Defense Magazine, “Climate Change
Fears Spill Over To The Defense Community”, National Defense, August,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/August/Climate.htm
Shifting weather patterns may cause severe droughts, devastating storms, coastal flooding and erosion. Nations may wage war over water as rivers dry up.¶ Tropical
diseases may spread to temperate climates. Widespread population displacements due to these factors may make for an increasingly volatile
world, the thinking goes.¶ Developed nations such as the United States and those in Europe may be able to withstand these calamities. But less stable, underdeveloped countries would have a more difficult time coping.¶ The
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security may be forced to deal with the climate change’s indirect consequences, the reports said. Droughts, famine and displaced populations may put pressure on the domestic front.

The Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection may face a wave of so-called “climate migrants” coming from stricken nations.¶ The Defense Department
may be called to provide disaster relief following extreme weather events such as hurricanes. Societies in turmoil are also fertile breeding grounds for extremist or separatists groups. Ground forces may be ordered to resolve
conflicts, the reports noted. ¶ The Defense Department “needs to integrate the national security consequences of climate change into national security and national defense strategies,” said Sherri Goodman, the former deputy
undersecretary of defense for environmental security and an analyst who spearheaded a CNA Corp. report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.”¶ The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently chimed

climate change will have

in on the debate when it summarized a national intelligence assessment addressing the security implications of global climate change out to the year 2030.¶ “We judge global

wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years,” said Thomas Fingar, the DNI’s deputy director and chairman of the national intelligence
council.¶ There will be winners and losers as the planet’s climate evolves, Fingar noted. There may be unintended benefits such as longer growing seasons in the north and new shipping routes in the Arctic. “Nevertheless, many

regional states important to the United States will be negatively impacted,” he said. Fingar would not name specific countries, although the classified version of the
report did drill down into individual nations, he said.¶ R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, is among those who believe that the climate is changing, and that there may be short- or long-term consequences for the defense
community. “We may find that our armed forces are being called up increasingly to a fair number of missions,” he told National Defense.¶ Woolsey contributed a chapter to the “Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and
National Security Implications of Global Climate Change,” a joint report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security. ¶ Woolsey’s predictions about the possible effects of global
warming are more conservative than some of those put forth in the contentious debate.¶ He likens the placement of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to that of a two-pack-a-day smoker. No one can say for certain that he will
get cancer by age 55, but there is a risk. “I think we’re increasing the risk of things like ice sheet melting by putting so much carbon into the atmosphere,” he said. Some climate change phenomena could be attributable to natural
cycles, he said. And no one will ever be able to prove that one particular hurricane is the direct result of a warming planet, he added.¶ Woolsey is as concerned about energy security as he is about climate change. For him, and
many others, the two topics go hand in hand. The United States is overly dependant on foreign oil from unstable regions such as the Persian Gulf.¶ “Oil presents a panoply of opportunities for and encouragement of mass
terrorism,” he wrote in the report.¶ He recalled sparring with a skeptical Republican congressman in a Capitol Hill hearing, who believed that global warming is a myth. After explaining that many of the actions the nation should
take to reduce its dependence on foreign oil would also reduce greenhouse gases, the lawmaker conceded the point. ¶ “Do them for that reason, you don’t need to do them for reasons of climate change,” he said.¶ Too often in
Congress, Woolsey said, lawmakers are not looking at the bigger picture and are just trying to score “debating points.”¶ Woolsey’s assertion seemed to be proven at a joint House hearing. Fingar presented the summary of the
national intelligence estimate on climate change, but had little time to discuss the report’s salient points.¶ The debate quickly split down party lines with Republicans attacking the methodology of the report, and mocking climate
scientists in the 1970s who were predicting “global cooling.” Democrats praised the report and repeated predictions that a changing planet may indeed bring on unrest, mass migration, and wipe out coastal communities. They
were more interested in using the predictions to back-up their calls for reductions in greenhouse gases. ¶ Republicans and Democrats could only agree on one point: that the report should be declassified; Democrats, because it
would give more details on specific countries at risk, and Republicans, because they believed the full report would expose weaknesses in its arguments.¶ Although the estimate was the result of a congressional mandate, DNI
leadership felt it was appropriate to study the possible consequences of climate change, Fingar noted.¶ The DNI, despite one Republican lawmaker’s assertion that the study distracted the agency from immediate threats such as
terrorism, will do three follow-on national intelligence estimates. One will be an analysis of the possible consequences of “mitigation” strategies that could be implemented to reduce greenhouse gasses, Fingar said. Misguided

An economically weakened America would be less able to sustain its

energy policies may also weaken national security, climate change skeptics have pointed out.¶ “

defense commitments, keep the peace and remain vigorously engaged in the world ,” said Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute at the House hearing.
 Warming Impact --- A2: Warming Slow / Adaptable

Doesn’t assume our scenario of sudden carbon bomb from wetland destruction

Adaptation fails
JRC 16 Joint Research Centre is the European Commission's science and knowledge service which
employs scientists to carry out research in order to provide independent scientific advice and support to
EU policy. August 11, 2016 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160811101332.htm

Global change will strike the oldest and most complex ecosystems of the world hardest, regardless of their
past stability. This alarming finding is reported in a JRC-led article published in Nature Communications. The authors hypothesized that invasive
species, the warming climate and environmental degradation have altered natural habitats so deeply that
species adaptation to historical conditions may not be helpful under these new circumstances. Interestingly,
the authors found independent support for this hypothesis from both computer simulations and real-world data. Starting
from a single ancestor digital organism, the authors let artificial life communities evolve for hundreds of thousands of generations under different, stable
environmental settings. These simulated communities included both free-living and 'parasite' digital organisms that helped researchers investigate how biodiversity
and ecological networks develop over time, under different environmental conditions. Over several generations, both hosts and parasites diversified, and their
interactions became more complex. The authors then investigated how these communities would respond to different scenarios of biodiversity loss. They

found that when species become extinct in a sequence consistent with their degree of adaptation to the
'natural' environmental conditions within which they had evolved, their extinction has only a limited
effect on the overall diversity of the community. Any deviation from this pattern however, may trigger extinction
cascades, eventually leading to the collapse of the entire network. The tendency of consuming species to
rely and specialise (develop in a way most suited to the environment) on dependable resources has enabled the evolution of
complex systems. This basic mechanism may have doomed many species to extinction -- the authors demonstrate
it by comparing the results of their artificial life simulations with several empirical host-parasite networks of different animal groups. Resources that had been
largely available in the past are now becoming increasingly scarce, putting at risk the species that rely on them.

Causes extinction--no adaptation

Keith Dear 10, Duke research professor, Global Health and Environmental Health, 5-25-2010, “Climate
change: Heat, health, and longer horizons,” PNAS, 107.21,
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9483.full#corresp-1

Within the more usual time horizon, spanning only decades of climate change, there has been discussion
about the possibilities of physiological acclimatization in response to future increased exposures to
extreme heat (6). Further, that discussion has often been predicated on the likely future increases in climatic and weather variability that are anticipated to
accompany climate change. Sherwood and Huber (1), however, focus particularly on the prospect and

consequence of substantial changes in mean temperature conditions over several centuries along with
accompanying changes in the distribution of maximum temperatures . Even if variability changes little, a
higher mean temperature implies more frequent exceeding of physiologically tolerable thermal limits.
For mean temperature increases of 4–6 °C or more, it is implausible that human biology, as currently
constituted, could adapt physiologically. It is instructive, therefore, that the authors (1) remind us of
the time frame of biological evolutionary processes. As they point out, the fossil record shows that the
evolutionary changes evoked by the slow fluctuating processes of global cooling over the past 65 million
years have typically yielded increases in warm-blooded mammalian body size, thereby reducing heat
dissipation to the external environment. Thus, we human mammals cannot expect to undergo any
useful heritable biological adaptation during the evolutionary nanosecond of just the next several
centuries. The genus Homo has a particularly high rate of biological evolution, in part because of behavioral drive (7), and this is well-illustrated by the
emergence and spread of the lactase allele within the last 10,000 years in response to the novel inclusion of dairy foods in the human diet (8). Indeed, the rate of
genetic evolution in humans has been extraordinarily rapid over this time (9). Admittedly, we are in unknown territory here, given that the unprecedented size of
today's human population has grown from millions to billions within the historical, not the geological, past. A larger
gene pool allows more rapid
response to environmental changes, as does an increase in interbreeding between regional genetic
strains. Furthermore, “a population that suddenly increases in size has the potential for rapid adaptive
change” (9). Even so, biological evolutionary adaptation to a warmer climate would seem likely to
require scores or even hundreds of generations, not just several hundred of years. Also, the authors
(1) note that a much hotter world would not only be less tolerable and less livable but would be a world
wherein economic productivity would fall, both because of the disrupted production processes in nature
(agriculture, forests, and fisheries) on which we depend and the impaired work capacity under
overheated conditions (10). There has been negligible recognition of this latter category of impact in the
climate-change science literature. Indeed, major international bodies such as the World Bank and the
United Nations Development Program have yet to adequately acknowledge this basic consequence of
climate change and impaired work capacity, and they do not include it in their projections and plans
for social and economic development.

Warming is too fast

Spratt 11 [David, climate policy analyst and cofounder of Carbon Equity, which advocates personal
carbon allowances as the most fair and equitable means of rapidly reducing carbon emissions “4
degrees hotter: an adaptation trap?” http://www.climatecodered.org/2011/02/4-degrees-hotter-
adaptation-trap.html]

In his 2010 book, “Requiem for a Species”, Clive Hamilton lays bare the trap of the “adaptation myth”: The
new understanding of
the climate system and the likely influences of tipping points induced by human intervention also forces
us to reconsider one of the other foundations of international negotiations and national climate
strategies, the belief in the ability to adapt. From the outset of the global warming debate some have argued that as
much emphasis should be placed on adapting to climate change as on mitigating it. As the setting and
meeting of targets appears more difficult, more people began talking about the need to adapt.
Underlying the discussion is an unspoken belief that one way or another we (in rich countries) will be able to
adapt in a way that broadly preserves our way of life because global warming will change things slowly,
predictably and manageably. Wealthy countries can easily afford to build flood defences to shield roads and shopping centres from
storm surges, and we can ‘climate proof’ homes against the effects of frequent heatwaves. Yet if our belief in our ability to stabilise the Earth’s
climate is misconceived then so is our belief in our ability to adapt easily to climate change. If
instead of a smooth transition to a
new, albeit less pleasant, climate warming sets off a runaway process, adaptation will be a never-ending
labour. The adaptation trap finds voice in those sceptics and delayers such as Roger Pielke Jr and Bjorn Lomborg, who insist that it is cheaper
and more effective to adapt to global warming than to fight it. Pielke calls for “rejecting bad policy arguments when offered in the way of
substitutes for adaptation, like the tired old view that today’s disaster losses are somehow a justification for changes to energy policies”.
Events such as New Orleans after cyclone Katrina should disavow the notion that adaptation (rebuilding the city) is more economical that
mitigation (strengthening the storm defences before the event). And it won’t take too long to figure out that building a new energy system is
cheaper than constantly rebuilding lives and buildings and infrastructure and agriculture when “1-in-a-100 year” extreme heatwaves, droughts,
fires, floods and cyclones become regular events on the hotter planet calendar. It
is clear that our collective survival depends
on the most radical mitigation effort we can imagine. Climate change is already dangerous, it is no
longer a future-tense proposition. The hour is late. James Hansen, in a new paper, says that “…goals of
limiting human-made warming to 2C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.” At just 0.8C
warming so far, he says we have little or no “cushion” left to avoid dangerous climate change. Restoring
a safe climate means the world very quickly building a zero-emissions economy without fossil fuels, and
reducing the current level of greenhouse gases. It is a vast undertaking akin to a post-war reconstruction, but we have
the technologies and the economic capacity. What we presently lack is an honest conversation about where we are headed,
and the political will to build the solutions that are already available to us. Our time is better spent working out how to make
the impossible happen, rather than living the delusion that reasonable adaptation is possible to a 4-
degree warmer world.

No adaption
Reilly 14 ---- John, Co-Director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Senior Lecturer at the Sloan School of
Management (MIT), BS in economics and political science (Wisconsin-Madison), MS and a PhD in
economics (Penn), “Why We Can’t Just Adapt to Climate Change,” MIT Technology Review, 4/3,
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526116/why-we-cant-just-adapt-to-climate-change/

What the report does provide is some documentation of adaptation in action—what different regions, cities, sectors, and
groups are doing to adapt—concluding that there is a growing body of experience from which to learn. However, perhaps the greatest truth in

the report is in the following statement : “Adaptation is place and context specific, with no single
approach for reducing risks appropriate across all settings (high confidence). Effective risk reduction and adaptation
strategies consider the dynamics of vulnerability and exposure and their linkages with socioeconomic processes,

sustainable development, and climate change.” Hence, while it’s possible to learn from others’ adaptation
experiences, in the end, the specifics of climate change in my place, given my circumstances, and the socio-

economic environment in which I live will present me with very different climate outcomes and
opportunities to adapt than you will have where you live. This fact alone raises the cost of adaptation, because to some
degree each recipe needs to be invented anew. What worked in the past likely won’t work in the future —or at

least, not as well. And we need to process a lot of highly uncertain climate projections in developing the new

recipe.
Hypoxia
 Ext --- Wetlands Prevent Algae Blooms

Wetlands are a key filter for nutrients that trigger toxic algae blooms
DuBach 19 --- Jared DuBach, Voice Correspondent, “Trump repeals Clean Water Act waterway
definitions”, McDonough County Voice, Sep 17, 2019,
https://www.mcdonoughvoice.com/news/20190917/trump-repeals-clean-water-act-waterway-
definitions

An April article published by Popular Science states that the

changes – at the time only proposed and not enacted – would lift federal
protections for sources of drinking water for 117 million people – or one in three – living in the lower 48 states. As much as
70 percent of rivers and streams and half of the nation’s wetlands could be affected.

A point underscored by the publication and experienced by many this spring, is that easing of regulations could
lead to damage to wetlands habitats. Wetlands help mitigate floods by acting as a buffer that keeps water
from going into at-capacity streams. Wetlands also filter pollutants such as phosphorus and nitrogen that trigger
toxic algae blooms. The Illinois EPA has already issued notices of toxic blue-green algae blooms this
year.
 Ext --- Hypoxia Impacts

Extinction
Sean Fleming, 8/29/2019 (Senior Writer, World Economic Forum, “Here are 5 reasons why the ocean
is so important,” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/here-are-5-reasons-why-the-ocean-is-so-
important/, Retrieved 6/8/2021)

Unless you’ve been making a superhuman effort to avoid the news recently, you’ll know that the ocean is vital to life on Earth. But
why, exactly, is this the case? Here are five reasons why we need to safeguard its future . 1. It helps us breathe
Phytoplankton – tiny plant-like organisms that live in the sea – are responsible for at least 50% of the oxygen on
Earth. Just like land-based plants, they contain chlorophyll to capture sunlight and use photosynthesis to convert it into the energy they need,
producing oxygen as a byproduct. They also consume carbon dioxide, transferring about 10 gigatonnes of carbon
from the atmosphere deep into the ocean each year. 2. It helps regulate the climate The ocean absorbs
huge amounts of heat from the sun. “More than 90% of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has
occurred in the ocean,” according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That heat tends to be at its most intense nearer
the equator, with the water nearest the surface warming the most. Sea currents then transport that heat around the world; north and south,
towards the poles. As some of the sea water evaporates it becomes denser and heavier, due to its relatively higher salt content. That causes it
to sink, taking some of the warm water deeper. From the surface to the depths, sea temperatures are rising. Image: NOAA Some currents
are directly responsible for specific climatic effects . One example is the Gulf Stream, which takes warmer water from the Gulf
of Mexico across the Atlantic to Europe. If the Gulf Stream were disrupted, much of the western part of Europe – including the UK, Ireland and
France – could become colder. 3. It’s an important source of food Fish is on the menu for billions of people
around the world every day. It accounts for almost 16% of all animal protein consumed globally. Of course, there’s more to seafood
than fish, crustacea and other edible creatures. A range of algae and sea plants are also commonly used in cooking. The UN Food and
Agriculture Organization lists sodium, calcium, magnesium, and iodine among some of the important nutrients in seaweed. Iodine deficiency
has been identified as the “most prevalent and easily preventable” cause of impaired cognitive development in children. Pressure on resources
and the environment have led to calls for food production and for people’s diets to change. A cow, for example, produces 2.8kg of greenhouse
gas per kilo of live body weight and needs 10kg of feed for every kilo it weighs. Plus, to get just one gram of protein from cattle, you need 112
litres of water. The oceans, if properly managed and maintained, could form an important part of a more
sustainable approach to feeding the planet’s growing human population. 4. Its biodiversity is incredible
It’s not just a source of food. The ocean is also home to an abundance of life . While estimates on the number of species that
live in the sea exist, no one knows with absolute certainty what that number is. According to the US National Library of Medicine’s National
Institutes of Health, “91% of species in the ocean still await description.” That’s due in no small part to the vastness of the oceans, which cover
around 70% of the planet’s surface and are up to 11,000 metres deep. The
number of yet-to-be-discovered creatures living
in the sea could easily run into the millions . One example of how mysterious the deep oceans can be is the coelacanth. Found in
fossils and believed to be extinct, a living coelacanth was pulled out of the ocean in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. This fascinating deep-
water creature could yield invaluable insights into how marine animals were able to adapt to life on land, as the way they move their fins
resembles the way many four-legged creatures walk. 5. It
creates millions of jobs By 2030, ocean-based industries will
employ more than 40 million people worldwide , an OECD report estimates. The biggest share of those jobs is likely to be in
the fisheries sector, followed by tourism. The economic health of maritime industries is fundamentally linked to the
overall health of the oceans, of course. The ocean economy is of particular importance in developing countries, which are home to
most of the 3 billion people who rely on the sea for their livelihoods. Challenges like climate change, pollution and a simple lack of awareness of
sustainable ocean stewardship techniques continue to put maritime resources at risk. That will limit the potential socioeconomic benefits those
resources represent for future generations, as well as stifling people’s earning abilities in the present. It
regulates rainfall and
droughts, holds 97% of our planet’s water, and absorbs CO2, helping keep the carbon cycle in balance.
From food to jobs, it’s a lifeline for billions of people, too. But the ocean is also a beautiful natural environment with an
invaluable recreational role to play. And with research showing a connection between spending time in the natural world and lowering your
stress levels, that might be something else worth holding on to.
Fishing
 Ext --- NWPR Endangers Fish

Trump WOTUS rule devastates multiple fish species and fisheries---states can’t solve
Winters 19 – American Fisheries Society Policy Director Drue Banta Winters, Proposed Changes to
Waters of the U.S. Rule Could Strain Fisheries and Wildlife, Fisheries | Vol. 44 • No. 1 • January 2019,
DOI: 10.1002/fsh.10207

On the heels of the mid-term elections, the Trump Administration released a long-expected new rule to replace the 2015
Waters of the U.S. Rule (WOTUS), a regulation that clarified which waters were subject to the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The
new rule rolls back the protections put into place under the WOTUS rule for a majority of the nation’s
streams and wetlands, including headwater streams and millions of acres of seasonal wetlands that
provide valuable habitat for many species of fish . AFS strongly supports the 2015 WOTUS rule, the
science that went into its development, and the protections that it provides for headwater streams and
hydrologically connected wetlands for their importance to fish . The extent of federal jurisdiction upstream of traditional
navigable waters has been at issue for a long time. Under the Clean Water Act, a party must seek a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to dredge or fill into “waters of the United States.” Activities that might need a permit include fill for land development,
water resource projects such as dams and levees, infrastructure development such as highways and airports and mining projects; but the
extent of federal jurisdiction was unclear. As a result, the Corps of Engineers made case-by-case jurisdictional determinations that varied widely
across the country leading to much regulatory uncertainty, extra costs, and delays. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 did little to clarify
the situation, essentially punting it back to Congress to clear up the rule. However, a legislative fix was not in the cards. Environmental interests
attempted to pass a bill in Congress that would have provided protection for waters that were hydrologically connected but not necessarily
navigable in their own right. Big agriculture, oil, and real estate developers took control of the dialogue and soundly defeated the bill. Their
message: the rule was so broad that puddles and birdbaths in backyards of private landowners would be subject to a permit. With two
branches of government failing to clear up the confusion, that left the President to use administrative rulemaking to clarify federal jurisdiction.
Despite the fact that both industry and environmentalists were seeking a fix, the Obama administration’s WOTUS rule was decried as executive
overreach. Lawsuits challenging the rule were filed in federal courts almost immediately and upon taking office, President Trump issued an
executive order to repeal and replace the WOTUS rule with a narrower rule consistent with Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion in Rapanos v.
United States. The
2015 WOTUS rule is based on Justice Kennedy’s competing opinion from the same case
that calls for jurisdiction over waters that have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters . This brings us to the
present moment. In an effort to provide scientific weight behind the Society’s position on the importance of Clean Water Act protections for
waters with a significant nexus to navigable waterways, AFS convened a group of scientists to synthesize the scientific evidence that
demonstrated the importance of headwaters and hydrologically connected wetlands to fish. Based on the evidence, it is clear
that a narrower rule could have far-reaching implications for fish, wildlife, and their habitat. Headwater
streams are key to sustainability of fish stocks in both upstream and downstream waters. Species that
are already in trouble will be harder to recover and more species will be at risk of becoming imperiled.
Loss of protections for these waters will have grave ecological consequences for fish and fisheries. The
economic, social, and cultural consequences of fewer protections for these waters cannot be
overstated. The science will inform AFS’ regulatory comments to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the proposed new rule.
In addition, and perhaps more importantly, AFS will share this information more broadly to help drive the larger civic conversation. Many
organizations are working toward the same goal of protecting headwater streams and it is important for our members to work in concert with
them to advocate for broader protections for headwaters than what is provided for in this new rule. Further into the future, this information
will be used for Congressional outreach to help lawmakers better understand the implications of the new rule for fish and fisheries. As always,
there is a role for AFS members to help inform policy-makers of the implications for fish. First, comment on the new rule individually and as AFS
Chapters specifically citing case studies from your region that demonstrates how fish could be negatively impacted by the new rule. Use all of
the communication channels at your disposal to communicate this information more broadly. Finally, share the science with state policymakers
and advocate for protections for these waters on a local level. State
agencies will be left with the role of protecting
waters that are not subject to federal jurisdiction . Many agencies have neither the funding, nor the legal
and regulatory framework in place, to oversee robust protection of these very important waters that
help maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.
 Ext --- Fish K2 Rural Economies

Inland fisheries are key to the economy

ASA 19 --- American Sportfishing Association, “New Report Highlights Recreational Fishing’s Broad
Economic and Conservation Impact”, 2019, https://asafishing.org/reports/new-report-highlights-
recreational-fishings-broad-economic-and-conservation-impact/

For millions of Americans, recreational

fishing is more than just a pleasant getaway; it’s a way of life. As an industry, it
provides a living for countless other people in businesses ranging from fishing tackle and boating manufacturing to travel and
hospitality to publications, magazines and much more.

Based on numbers in the new 2018 Sportfishing in America: An Economic Force for Conservation the number of anglers
increased 8.0 percent since the 2011 report and fishing equipment sales grew more than 21 percent. When anglers’ expenditures
exchange hands, their dollars have a significant impact on our nation’s economy. This fishing statistics report is
produced for the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), the industry’s trade association, by Southwick Associates.

Sportfishing in America: An Economic Force for Conservation highlights how recreational fishing not only endures as an activity that permeates
all social and economic aspects of Americans’ lives, but also plays a significant role in the country’s most successful fisheries conservation
efforts.

According to the new study, America’sanglers are estimated to spend $49.8 billion per year in retail sales associated
with their sport. With a total annual economic impact of $125 billion, fishing supports more than 800,000
jobs and generates $38 billion in wages and $16 billion in federal, state and local taxes.

Substantially more than any other groups, anglers support the nation’s conservation efforts through the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund Program. The excise tax on fishing gear and motorboat fuel channeled more than $600
million of anglers’ dollars to state fish and wildlife conservation and recreation programs in 2016.

“Sportfishing has a significant impact on this nation’s economy,” said ASA President Glenn Hughes. “Just by enjoying a day
on the water, men, women and children across the United States pump billions of dollars into this country’s economy . In
many ways, America’s anglers are the nation’s most powerful force for conserving our nation’s fisheries and waters,
investing more than $1 billion dollars in fisheries management and conservation through taxes on fishing equipment and state fishing license
sales.”

“Recreational fishing provides numerous benefits to the overall well-being of the U.S.,” said ASA Conservation
Director Mike Leonard. “Policies that support healthy fisheries and angler access are critical to supporting jobs and
businesses throughout the country.”
The new analysis is based on data from the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, conducted every five
years on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies by the Census Bureau and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In addition, this year, the outdoor recreation industry was included for the first time in the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ (BEA) U.S. GDP
calculations. The BEA’s report, issued in February 2018, found that the outdoor recreation sector makes up two percent of U.S. GDP and
accounts for $673 billion in annual gross domestic output.

This impact exceeds that of key U.S. industries such as farming and computer manufacturing. In addition,
BEA found the outdoor recreation economy grew by 3.8 percent in 2016, exceeding the 2.8 percent growth of the overall U.S. economy during
the same period.
Fishing is essential to rural economies
Gillespie 18 --- Nathaniel Gillespie et al, US Forest Service Fisheries Staff, “Socioeconomic benefits of
recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing associated with national forests”, FisheriesVolume 43,
Issue 9 p. 432-439, June 2018, https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsh.10127

The socioeconomic benefits of recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing associated with the U.S. Forest
Service are substantial and are expected to increase over time. Recreational fishing on national forests and
grasslands generate over $2.2. Billion annually through fishing equipment, boats, travel, outfitter and
guiding, fuel and licenses which in turn provide critical funding for fisheries habitat management and
conservation by federal and state agencies. The sustainable nature of recreational fishing by the public
complements the agency’s multiple use mandate to conserve fish and aquatic resources, which include a
high percentage of the nation’s threatened, endangered and sensitive fish and aquatic species. National Forests in
the Pacific Northwest, West and, in particular Alaska, support significant commercial and subsistence salmon fisheries. A growing
restoration economy associated with fisheries habitat and watershed restoration contributes to local
economies. While more difficult to quantify, fishing provides important social and cultural benefits to the public nationwide, including
connecting the public to the outdoors and to public lands. Managing fisheries habitat and watershed health amid competing demands for
water, natural resources and outdoor recreation will continue to challenge the Forest Service and its partners into the future.

Introduction The Forest Service has a history of protecting water and managing resources dating to the Agency’s inception (Shively et al. this
issue). In 1897, the U.S. Congress sought to create, protect, and care for the Nation’s forest reserves by passing the Organic Administration Act,
and in 1905 established the Forest Service via the Transfer Act. Forest reserves were created “to improve and protect the forest within the
reservation, or for securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of
citizens of the United States.” Since its inception, the Forest Service has sought to balance the delivery of drinking water from the National
Forest System, which provides about 20 percent of all fresh water in the U.S., with the provision of sustainable timber, fish and wildlife, oil
and gas, mining, and grazing activities as well as an immense and growing outdoor recreation industry. The Forest Service is
charged with sustainably managing these multiple resources and uses, while protecting these diverse habitats, which contain some of the
Nation’s healthiest, intact aquatic ecosystems (Roper et al. this issue). The
management and protection of healthy aquatic
habitat, coupled with clean and abundant water resources, and publicly accessibility to more than 220,000 miles of
fishable rivers and streams and 10 million acres of lakes, form the foundation for socioeconomic benefits through
recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing.

Recreational Fishing on National Forest System lands Recreational

fishing is one of the most popular outdoor activities
in the United States (USDA 2012, Cordell 2012) and national forests & grasslands play a major role in meeting this demand (ASA 2007).
Fishing provides food, relaxation and quality time with friends and family, and provides physical and mental health benefits (Louv 2005) (see
Figure 1). The purchase of licenses, tackle and boat fuel as part of recreating outdoors through fishing and boating are critical for state and
federal conservation work, contributing
the largest source of funding for habitat enhancement and protection
and management of fishing habitat (RMSA 2012).
About 13 percent of the adult US population goes fishing each year (USFWS 2012). The higher percentage may be due to the fact that not all
who consider themselves anglers participate every year. Although many other activities compete for people’s time, anglers generally prefer
outdoor to indoor activities (RMSA 2012). In an extensive study using multiple data sources, Pergams and Zaradic (2008) found that after 50
years of steady increases in people using public lands for outdoor recreation, per capita visits to US public lands has declined since 1987,
including freshwater fishing. Villamagna et al. (2014) reported that between 2006 and 2011 participation in freshwater fishing
nation-wide increased by 8 percent, while the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USWFS) reports an 11 percent increase for the same
period. (USFWS 2012). Figure 2 displays the general trends for fishing participation (rate, total participants, total number of days) relative to
hunting and wildlife viewing since 1991. The data indicate an 8% increase in angling participation since 2011, from 33.1 million anglers to 35.8
million in 2016. The greatest increases in participation—10%—were seen in the Great Lakes area (USFWS 2012).
While fishing participation trends and projections cited above are national and unrestricted to public lands, we expect recreation angling on
public lands including national forests and grasslands to generally follow the same patterns. Participation in recreational fishing varies
geographically by population density, socioeconomic status, gender, race, personal values, and cultural preferences (Bowker et al. 2012). As
these factors change, along with population growth, future fishing participation is expected to change as well. Both nationally and regionally,
the fishing participation rate is projected to decline in the future, however, the total number of participants and annual angling days are
expected to increase (USFS 2016). Figure 3 displays projected fishing participation relative to hunting and wildlife viewing out to the year 2060.

Economic expenditures for recreational angling and related activities on National Forest System waters are
significant. Americans spent more than $41 billion on fishing-related equipment, licenses, transportation and other services
in 2011 (USFWS 2012). Total expenditures by anglers nationwide rose 2% from 2011 to 2016, from $45 billion to $46.1 billion.
In 2011, 33.1 million people at least 16 years old fished, and they spent $41.8 billion on fishing activities. As might be expected, the USFWS
2011 survey found there was a considerable overlap between recreational anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers. In 2011, 69 percent of
hunters fished, and 28 percent of anglers hunted. In addition, 51 percent of anglers and 57 percent of hunters, while 29 percent of all wildlife
watchers reported hunting and/or fishing during the year (USFWS 2012). A focused 2007 study by the American Sportfishing Association
reported that anglers annually spend $592 million within 50 miles of Forest Service lands, and these expenditures support 14,500 jobs (ASA
2007). This economic contribution study was based on US Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring
data collected between 2000 and 2003. By including expenditures made in-state on angling activities, economic contributions by
people fishing on Forest Service lands increase to $2.2 billion per year, and support 57,700 jobs (ASA
2007).

White (2017) summarized over 52 years of literature on the net economic value of outdoor recreation on public lands and provided a net
willingness to pay or consumer surplus for recreational activities at the national level. Government benefit cost guidelines (U.S. Water
Resources Council 1983) define economic value as visitors’ net willingness to pay or consumer surplus (Freeman 1993). White (2017) calculated
a mean of $75.34 consumer surplus per person per day for fishing, nationwide, from 1958 to 2015. The value of “economic benefit” for
recreational fishing on NFS land was estimated at $1.35 billion (Rosenberger et al. 2017)

Many famous, highly-sought after fisheries are located on NFS lands and support robust recreational sportfishing and guide and outfitter
economies. The agency issues thousands of special use permits annually to guides and outfitters who fish on national forests and grasslands
(NRM 2016). It is widely recognized that the Forest Service is home to 60 percent of the Columbia Basin salmon habitat for example, as well as
thousands of miles of “blue ribbon” or other specially designated trout waters (TRCP 2017). In Southeast Alaska, world-class ocean, estuarine
and freshwater fisheries support a destination sports Fishing and charter industry, where 2 of every 3 fish harvested are salmon. The salmon
fishery supported an estimated total of $358.7 million in Southeast Alaska sports fishing revenues in 2007 (TWC Economics 2010).

In addition to direct economic benefits to local communities, recreational fishing provides a variety of personal benefits as well as support for
the agency and public lands. Because environmentally responsible behavior results from direct contact with the environment (Hungerford and
Volk 1990), and it is argued that people must be exposed to natural areas as children if they are to value and care about them as adults (Duda
et al. 1998; Louv 2005).

Commercial Fisheries Benefits While most efforts to define fisheries resource outputs from NFS lands have focused on “indirect” outputs and
values such as sportfish guiding, license fees, and other recreation associated activities, the Tongass National Forest in the Alaska Region
provides an accountable, direct example of commercial fisheries outputs associated with the production and harvest of wild Pacific Salmon
(Figure 4). The Tongass National Forest is charged to protect, maintain, and restore (as needed) the 15,764 miles of streams and rivers
supporting and producing wild salmon, as well as 207,000 acres of lakes and ponds. The Tongass National Forest, nearly 17 million acres in size
and Glacier Bay National Park (3.2 million acres) account for the majority of Southeast Alaska’s 22.5 million acres.

The State manages fish and game populations and in Alaska, the Commercial Fisheries Division of the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is
charged with the responsibility of managing the State’s annual harvest of salmon. Various policies and directives (State Sustainable Salmon Act,
US-Canada Treaty, etc.) require that the state protect the wild stocks, acknowledged as the backbone of the industry. Specific ADF&G fisheries
studies, required to monitor and manage those stocks, have established the general percentages of the hatchery fish versus wild fish
components for each of the five species and their contributions to the annual Southeast Alaska commercial salmon harvest (TWC Economics
2010). Figure 5 illustrates that of 11 State Commercial Salmon Harvest Management Areas, Southeast Alaska produced on average from 1994
to 2015 nearly 34% of Alaska’s total harvest (60.1 of 177.9 million salmon), worth an annual ex-vessel value (paid to the fishermen) of $108.9
million dollars from 2010 to 2014 (NPAFC 2016).

The Tongass anchors a substantial and increasingly valuable proportion of the commercial salmon economy in Alaska. Using the ADF&G study
percentage figures for wild versus hatchery fish, direct outputs for both harvest numbers and dollar values associated with the commercial
harvest of wild salmon produced from the Tongass can be calculated and established. For the period 1994 to 2015, the Forest produced on
average about 49 million wild salmon annually, with an average direct value of $100 million dollars was paid to fishermen (ex-vessel) between
the years of 2010 – 2014. The Tongass provides 28% of the state’s annual average harvest of 177.9 million salmon (and 79% of the Southeast
Alaska harvest). Alaska’s salmon harvest is annually over 90% of the entire Northeast Pacific salmon harvest (NPAFC 2016). This equates to
nearly 25% of the Northeast Pacific harvest being wild fish produced from the Tongass National Forest. As for in-direct outputs associated with
salmon in Southeast Alaska, the commercial salmon fishery supports 1 in 10 jobs (totaling over 4,500), both in direct fishing and in processing of
salmon (TWC Economics 2010).
Inland freshwater fisheries are key to the economy
Hughes 15 --- Robert M. Hughes, Amnis Opes Institute and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Oregon State University, “Recreational fisheries in the USA: economics, management strategies, and
ecological threats’, Fisheries Science volume 81, pages1–9 (2015)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12562-014-0815-x

Recreational fishing is an economically and culturally important activity in the USA (Table 1). Based on national
census data, an estimated 33 million anglers in 2011 participated in over 443,000 fishing trips and generated over
$40 billion in retail sales. Because of economic multiplier effects, these expenditures produced an
estimated $115 billion economic impact and over 800,000 jobs. Based on marine survey data, an estimated 12 million
marine anglers took about 85,000 fishing trips in 2012 and spent nearly $31 billion, which had an $82 billion economic impact and provided
500,000 jobs. Although there are more freshwater anglers , marine anglers have a relatively greater economic impact because of
the need for larger and more expensive gear and boats. In northern latitude USA states where recreational fishing is economically important,
14–43 % of the population fishes, producing 10,000–38,000 jobs and a $1.1–4.3 billion economic impact (Table 2). In
two river basins in
Idaho and Wyoming with high-quality catch-and-release trout fisheries, 341–851 jobs and $12–29
million in county income were created (https://henrysfork.org/files/Completed%20Research
%20Projects/Economic_Value_of_Recreational_to_Communities-Loomis.pdf). Although this paper focuses on recreational fisheries, it is useful
to compare them with the USA commercial seafood fisheries (including harvesting, processing, distributing, and sales); in 2012, that
industry provided 1.3 million jobs and a $239 billion economic impact (NMFS Web:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/documents/feus/2012/FEUS2012_NationalOverview.pdf, accessed June 2014).
 A2: Rural Economies Tanked

Rural economies recovering now

Hildreth 21 --- Matthew Hildreth Executive Director at RuralOrganizing.org, MA Univ of Iowa, May 26 th
2021,
https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/american-rescue-plan-could-lift-small-towns-rural-areas

While much has been reported about the American Rescue Plan providing needed relief to pandemic-battered cities, less has
been written about the potential historic economic boost this policy could have on small towns and rural communities .

Not only does the legislation

distribute $4 billion to support the food supply chain, $3 billion to support economic
development initiatives, and $9 billion to assist rural health care providers, it also provides $140 million to support
households residing in USDA-subsidized rural properties or who participate in USDA direct mortgage programs. On top of that, the American
Rescue Plan assigns $5 billion to farmers of color and allocates $750 million to support the Indian Housing and Indian Community Development
block grant programs.

President Barack Obama's rural recovery after the Great Recession lagged behind urban areas as employment
rates largely plateaued in non-metro counties , unlike their metro counterparts. And President Donald Trump's rural
recovery programs in response to his failed "trade war" and the outbreak of COVID-19 weren't any
better. His administration focused almost exclusively on narrow relief for agriculture producers, which make up less than 10% of the rural
workforce.

For decades, Republican proposals for rural prosperity focused almost exclusively on agricultural producers, despite the fact that over 90% of
the rural workforce is employed outside the agricultural industry and the rise of multinational monopolies within the agricultural sector means
more taxpayer dollars earmarked for rural communities go to big agriculture companies and wealthy investors who own farms in rural America
but don't live there.

And while the CARES Act was helpful, Republican lawmakers insisted the funds specifically not go to state and local governments, which meant
long-struggling rural communities with smaller tax bases were unable to meet the pandemic's crushing demands on public services.

The American Rescue Plan, passed by Congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Joe Biden, takes a new
approach to economic recovery in small towns and rural communities. Democrats are trusting local governments and
local people to solve local problems and understand the richness and diversity of small towns and rural communities.

The American Rescue Plan was designed to ensure federal dollars designated for rural America stay in rural
America by requiring locally controlled projects and businesses to get the money first.
But with $1.9 trillion at stake, implementation of the rescue plan won't be easy. Corporate lobbyists are already trying to extract these funds
from small businesses, local farms, small-scale processing facilities, and rural restaurants. Corporate influence over legislation implementation
is a challenge for every new policy, but a lack of rural voices at decision-making tables creates additional challenges.

Rural people will tell you that the lowest resourced communities are the least likely to have the resources to leverage federal dollars. Smaller
communities often don't have the internal capacity to develop comprehensive economic development strategies required from federal
programs to access their funds.

That's why the Administration must ensure that the most distressed rural communities receive technical assistance and investments to support
local staff, knowledge, and organizations, empowering them to benefit from the recovery funds and build capacity locally to ensure they can
sustain these programs and funds well into the future.

Rural leaders also know that their communities face structural disadvantages when it comes to applying for federal programs — especially
federal loan funds paid for by a smaller population base. Almost 95% of the federal money regularly reserved for rural areas are loans, and rural
places often lose out when competing against larger towns because of a bias towards scale.

To ensure successful implementation of this legislation, the Administration must listen to rural voices and prioritize non-matching grant funds
and forgivable loans for locally owned and controlled projects and businesses in distressed rural areas.
The passage of the American Recovery Plan demonstrates that economic recovery in rural America in
the wake of the COVID pandemic is a top priority for this Congress and Administration . If they can pass the
American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan — and capitalize on these vital investments from the American Rescue Plan, they could
finally start to shift the political fault lines in America.
 Ext --- Rural K2 Overall

Rural economy is key to overall economic resilience

Ajilore & Willingham 20 --- Olugbenga Ajilore, is a senior economist at the Center for American
Progress, and Zoe Willingham , research associate for Economic Policy at the Center, “The Path to Rural
Resilience in America”, September 21, 2020,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2020/09/21/490411/path-rural-resilience-
america/

The current economic crisis in the United States requires a renewed commitment to investing in rural
communities in order to ensure that they have a prominent place in this country’s future. Given the changing
nature of the rural economy, the lack of upward mobility in many rural communities, and the persistent gap in unemployment and poverty
rates between metro and nonmetro counties, the United States needs to overhaul its current approach to rural development and create a new
framework that builds resilient rural communities. This new framework must call for a complete change in mindset about what constitutes rural
America, the assets within these diverse communities, and the struggles they face. Rethinking rural development policy will also require
investing in these communities from the bottom up instead of the top down, empowering them to identify and leverage their existing assets
and knowledge and to promote homegrown economic opportunities.

As news outlets heralded record sustained economic growth in the United States following the Great Recession,
many Americans still struggled to see evidence of this recovery in their own communities. In fact, though metropolitan
areas rebounded, nonmetropolitan counties had yet to achieve pre-2008 levels of employment when the COVID-19 crisis hit the world
economy. While some of the gap in employment is related to shrinking and aging rural populations, the gap in unemployment rates has
continued to widen over recent years.1

The onset of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic crisis further exposed the vulnerability of rural
communities. COVID-19 hit rural America hard for a variety of reasons—including the closure of rural hospitals in recent years; deep
poverty; and the failure to protect vulnerable food-chain workers from infection, to name just a few examples.2 Moreover, rural communities
often struggle with accessing federal resources. This phenomenon was evident in the coronavirus pandemic response, which gave states
discretion for how they would aid their rural communities while metro areas received direct aid.3 Meanwhile, rural businesses have
encountered difficulties accessing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, in part because of the failure of the Small Business Administration
to provide guidance requiring banks to prioritize businesses in underserved and rural areas as the PPP proscribes in its text.4

While rural areas may lag the nation in population growth and productivity, these metrics do not
capture the full picture.5 Decades of measuring economic value through gross domestic product (GDP) and conflating growth with the
stock market have encouraged the corporate extraction of wealth out of rural areas.6 This mindset has hollowed out rural communities and
institutions while enriching shareholders.

Draining rural areas of their resources and wealth, however, has made the overall economy less resilient. In
mid-August, the rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in rural counties exceeded that of metropolitan counties,
particularly in areas key to food supply, such as meatpacking plants in Iowa and Missouri as well as other Midwestern states.
These outbreaks have disrupted supply chains across the country and overburdened rural hospitals.7 As the
pandemic has shown, this country’s economy cannot withstand external shocks until it ensures that all
communities have access to the same services and opportunities.
 Ext --- US K2 Global Recovery

US Recovery key to global recovery

Fairless 21 --- Tom Fairless, writes about the European Central Bank from The Wall Street Journal's
Frankfurt office, “U.S. Set to Power Global Economic Recovery From Covid-19”, March 7, 2021,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-set-to-power-global-economic-recovery-from-covid-19-11615129203

The U.S. could help drive a powerful global economic recovery this year, as it plays a more central role in the
comeback than after the financial crisis, reflecting the unusual nature of the Covid-19 shock and the flexibility of the American economy.

The world economy is likely to grow by around 6% this year, according to Oxford Economics, the fastest rate in
almost half a century, as vaccine campaigns allow pandemic restrictions to be lifted and businesses to snap back.

For the first time since 2005, the

U.S. is expected this year to make a bigger contribution to global growth than
China, said the research firm. After the 2008 financial crisis, the global economic recovery was powered by
China, as the U.S. experienced the weakest revival since the Great Depression.

Since the U.S. economy is about one-third larger than China’s, its contribution to global growth will be larger
than China’s if, as expected, both grow roughly at the same rate this year.

“The U.S. is going to play the role of the global locomotive again in 2021,” said Catherine Mann, global chief
economist at Citibank. She added though that the international situation would temper the country’s economic growth.
 Ext --- American Model

American democratic model checks multiple scenarios for extinction

Kasparov ‘17
Garry, Chair for the Human Rights Foundation. 2013 recipient of The Morris B. Abram Human Rights Award, UN Watch's annual
human-rights prize. The organization praised him as "not only one of the world’s smartest men" but "also among its bravest.
Kasparov is a Former Central committee member of Komsomol and 1991 recipient of the Keeper of the Flame award from the
Center for Security Policy for "propagation of democracy and the respect for individual rights throughout the world".
“Democracy and Human Rights: The Case for U.S. Leadership,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues, 2/16, Modified for language that
may offend - https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021617_Kasparov_%20Testimony.pdf

The Soviet Union was an existential threat, and this focused the attention of the world, and the American people. There existential
threat today is not found on a map, but it is very real. The forces of the past are making steady progress against the modern world
order. Terrorist movements in the Middle East, extremist parties across Europe, a paranoid tyrant in North Korea threatening
nuclear blackmail (bribery), and, at the center of the web, an aggressive KGB dictator in Russia. They all want to turn the
world back to a dark past because their survival is threatened by the values of the free world , epitomized by the
United States. And they are thriving as the U.S. has retreated. The global freedom index has declined for ten consecutive years. No one like
to talk about the United States as a global policeman, but this is what happens when there is no cop on the beat.

American leadership begins at home, right here. America cannot lead the world on democracy and human rights if there is no unity on the
meaning and importance of these things. Leadership is required to make that case clearly and powerfully. Right now, Americans are engaged in
politics at a level not seen in decades. It is an opportunity for them to rediscover that making America great begins with believing America can
be great.

The Cold War was won on American values that were shared by both parties and nearly every American. Institutions that were created by a
Democrat, Truman, were triumphant forty years later thanks to the courage of a Republican, Reagan. This bipartisan consistency created the
decades of strategic stability that is the great strength of democracies. Strong institutions that outlast politicians allow for long-range planning.
In contrast, dictators can operate only tactically, not strategically, because they are not constrained by the balance of powers, but cannot afford
to think beyond their own survival. This is why a
dictator like Putin has an advantage in chaos, the ability to move
quickly. This can only be met by strategy, by long-term goals that are based on shared values, not on polls and cable
news.

The fear of making things worse has paralyzed [prevented] the United States from trying to make things better. There will always be setbacks,
but the United States cannot quit. The spread of democracyis the only proven remedy for nearly every crisis that
plagues the world today. War, famine, poverty, terrorism–all are generated and exacerbated by
authoritarian regimes. A policy of America First inevitably puts American security last.

Successful model checks escalating WMD wars.

Tammen ‘17
et al; Dr. Ron Tammen (Ph.D. 1975, University of Michigan) is Professor of Political Science and former Director of the Mark O.
Hatfield School of Government at Portland State. In previous positions he served as Associate Dean and Chair of the
Department of National Strategy at the National War College. Dr. Tammen specializes in world politics, with particular
reference to power relationships among the great powers, present and future. “Foundations of Power Transition Theory” –
Oxford Research Encyclopedias - Publication Date: Oct 2017 - #CutWithRJ -
http://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-296
Figure 12 shows, consistent with the results in Figure 11, that that a total nuclear war remains a likely prospect at parity among dissatisfied
parties. More disturbing is the revelation in Kang and Kugler’s recent work that if or when unexposed terrorists acquire such weapons they
would use them against far stronger defenders. Note further that deterrence is only stable among nuclear nations like North Korea and the
United States, where exposure to nuclear devastation is assured for one side only. Power Transition provides a consistent perspective on all
levels of nuclear involvement and suggests strongly that the use
of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) cannot be dismissed
simply because of the severe anticipated consequences. Kang and Kugler also show the solution is not, as many in Balance
of Power advocate, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but rather that nuclear arsenals should be reduced, and eliminated regionally to limit
the risk of nuclear war. A nuclear free world is not feasible unless all are satisfied. Further, the value or threat generated by nuclear
proliferation hinges on satisfaction with the status quo, trust and exposure. Nuclear proliferation to satisfied states (for example, to
France and the United Kingdom), does not increase the probability of nuclear war. But, proliferation to states that either are
dissatisfied or could move in that direction (for example, North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan), is a global threat. At some point,
parity combined with dissatisfaction can trigger the use of nuclear weapons. For terrorists, there is no credible threat of
retaliation because such groups are not exposed to retaliation, and there is no geographic home base to target. Nuclear weapons fit the
terrorist’s predisposition to utilize force multipliers, given their lack of standing armies and conventional power.

The Costs of War—the Phoenix Factor

Power Transition is concerned with the costs of war for two reasons. First, there is the empirical question represented by the fact that sometimes states fight all-out wars separated by only a
few years, as in the case of World War II rapidly following upon World War I. This suggests a recovery or rebound effect at work. Second, the duration of waging war is generally shorter than
the recovery period from such conflicts. While war is studied in great detail, the recovery period is less often explored, even though the aftermath of war has far more important impact on the
future of a society.

Kugler (1993) and Organski and Kugler (1977, 1980) show that the most developed nations recover, like a “Phoenix” rising from its own ashes, following major wars. They regain their overall
population, productivity, and power within one generation of waging even the most severe wars. Populations are severely depleted by war in the short term, but postwar baby booms manage
to replace the lost generation. Yet, the composition of the population is dramatically altered generating lasting variability in cohorts that subsequently affect education, employment, and
retirement patterns (Frumkin, 1951; Kugler & Kugler, 2010; Kugler, Tammen, & Thomas, 2011).

World Wars among the great powers generate patterns, as shown first in Figure 13. The economic performance of active belligerents does not differ much from that of non-belligerents. In the
short term, there is a clear difference between winning and losing, but within one generation that difference disappears and patterns of pre-war performance reappear. Consistent with
Solow’s (1960) neo-classic model of growth, nations devastated by war recover because war resets the conditions for a more effective utilization of cheap labor given existing technology even
with minimal investment.

This optimistic view of conflict suggests that such disasters only affect one generation. This surprisingly rapid recovery from even the worst wars (the trajectories graphed in Figure 14 are
based on the empirical experience of belligerents in World War II—the most destructive war in human memory) explains why wars among great powers for control of the international system
can follow each other even in close temporal proximity.

This optimistic view of recovery has been challenged by analysis of war consequences in less and least developed societies, where the costs of war persist and in many cases lead to a poverty
trap that devastates societies long after the end of a conflict. This restatement of war costs is based on the overlapping generations (OLG) perspective advanced by Samuelson (1958),
developed by Lucas (1975), and extended into the political arena by Feng, Kugler, and Zak (2000). The new argument by Kugler et al., 2013 here is straightforward and incorporates, in part, the
early Solow (1960) results.

Consistent with the Solow perspective, the OLG approach shows that relatively affluent nations will recover rapidly from the ravages of war (or natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis,
or floods) because capital losses will accelerate the rate of growth of such societies. The elements that contribute here include technological level, human capital, foreign and domestic
investment, and the political capacity of the government. A key point is that foreign aid is not the key to recovery—rather, the prewar performance and structures of a society determine the
path of recovery to a large extent. Japan, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union recovered following each of the World Wars (Arbetman, 1996; Kugler & Arbetman, 1987; Organski & Kugler,
1977; Organski & Kugler, 1980). So did South Korea and Vietnam following severe regional wars.

The Phoenix factor pattern is not universal. Two additional outcomes emerge (see Figure 15):

Kugler, Kang, Kugler, Arbetman, and Thomas (2013) report that developed societies recover economically within a generation from severe conflicts, but developing societies frequently do not.
The more developed societies recover partially, while the least developed suffer further losses and retrenchment long after the conflict is over. In other words, economic recovery is a
conditional, rather than universal, phenomenon.

Tadeusz Kugler et al., 2013 show the negative side of nonrecovery takes place when a less or least developed society is so devastated by war that if falls into the poverty trap. Instead of
recovering after the conflict these societies continue their descent into poverty as population growth exceeds the growth rate of productivity. Each successive generation in this environment is
poorer than the previous one. Extreme examples are found in Afghanistan, Angola Cambodia, Liberia, or Rwanda. This analysis also shows that foreign aid only marginally advances recovery
among the developed societies and is even detrimental for the lead advanced societies (Fisunoglu, 2014; Kang et al., 2017; Kugler et al., 2013). Note that these changes are not driven by
culture. Starting from a very similar base, North and South Korea show very different patterns of recovery following their conflict in 1950. Both nations recovered population losses quickly, but
only South Korea recovered pre-war productivity and joined the developed societies; while North Korea still lingers in dire poverty.

Monetary Implications

Power Transition arguments provide insights beyond conflict and cooperation. One of the key elements that allow a dominant nation to affect international interactions is control over the
global currency. Britain was powerful not only because its navy ruled the sea-lanes, but also because the British pound remained the preferred international currency until the end of World
War II. The Bretton Woods System, created in 1944, ushered in a system of monetary management that established new rules for commercial and financial relations among the world’s major
industrial states.

That negotiated new order was intended to govern monetary relations among all nations. Not surprisingly, however, the dollar emerged as the global currency used in most international
transactions among non-communist states. The dollar replaced the pound because America’s economy was strong enough that it could exercise the discipline necessary to retain the dollar as
the global anchor currency (with an ounce of gold set at a value of $35), providing a firm foundation for the fixed exchange rate regime central to Bretton Woods.

The United States was the least damaged global economy, and thus it was the initial primary contributor to the World Bank tasked with reconstructing devastated European economies. The
dollar’s overtaking of the pound in international importance coincided with American ascension to the summit of the international power pyramid. Now the emergence of the euro within the
European Union provides a potential competitor, along with limited scope for the British pound, which still remains in use particularly among commonwealth countries.
Power Transition posits that the dominant nation will seek to control the international norms securing monetary and trade transactions internationally. Therefore, it is anticipated that, with
the rise of China, the dollar will have to share preeminence with other currencies. This is precisely what Mundell (1961) argued after tracing the evolution of international currency after
Bretton Woods. He concluded that there will be a movement away from the dollar as the most commonly used form of international currency beyond 2020, just prior to the anticipated power
transition. The dollar will have to share its place of dominance with two other currencies (Figure 16).

In this new world, the dollar remains a major currency along with the euro and China’s RMB. This representation has a very close connection to the anticipated power transitions in the global
system. As China rises, both the dollar and euro areas are likely to shrink, and a mixed currency based on these three main currencies could replace the single dollar system now in place
(Mundell, 2009). A challenge for monetary control of the international system is coming—the remaining question is whether it will be competitive (dollar replaces pound), cooperative (euro
and dollar and RMB base) or confrontational (dollar limits RMB and euro or vice versa). Current development in the European Union suggests the competition may be limited to the dollar and
RMB.

Power Transition and Democratic Peace

Power Transition can help us understand other areas of IR theory, in particular the
widely accepted empirical finding—the
democratic peace. The democratic peace refers to the observation that no two democracies have ever waged a
war with each other. Less extreme presentations of the democratic peace contend only that militarized
conflict among democracies is very rare . Regardless of which version of the democratic peace we accept, Power Transition
theory can help understand why democracies live at peace with each other.

The empirical evidence in support of all democratic peace claims cover the years from 1816 to the
present (the limits within which extensive, systematic data about international relations are available). During that time period,
the international system’s dominant power was first Britain (until 1945) and then the United States. Both
of these dominant powers have been liberal democracies. Power Transition contends that the dominant power creates the set of
rules and norms to govern the international system reflected by the status quo. Thus, for the past two centuries, the
rules of the international system have been written by democratic dominant powers.

Dominant powers select rules and create and enforce norms that they prefer. They externalize governance
characteristics that have been useful to them domestically. Thus, democratic dominant powers have created international
political organizations based on voting and consensus. They have built alliance networks that are explicitly defensive in nature. And when it
comes to international economic interactions, they have favored solutions that leave a lot of power over outcomes in the hands of lightly
regulated markets. The United Kingdom and the United States have institutionalized a status quo with these
characteristics because voting, defensive military postures, and market exchanges “work” for them. They have prospered under these
rules and so have externalized them.

But just as the United Kingdom and the United States benefit from such interactions, so too have other liberal democracies. Thus, democracies
other than the United States and the United Kingdom benefit from the international status quo and want to see it maintained. Like the United
States and the United Kingdom, they are satisfied with the international status quo. Satisfied states do not fight with each
other, and thus Power Transition theory explains the democratic peace by identifying it as a subset of the peace shared among satisfied
states.

An empirical test of this claim was reported by Lemke

and Reed (1996). They analyzed statistically the competing
explanatory power of joint democracy and joint status quo satisfaction on the probability of wars and
militarized disputes among pairs of states across the entire international system over the past two centuries. They found that joint
satisfaction is an empirically more potent predictor of peace than is joint democracy. That is, a dyad (pair of states) composed of satisfied states
(as indicated by the alliance similarity measure described above) is less likely to experience militarized conflict than is a dyad composed of two
democracies. This
study supports the observation that the democratic peace is a subset of the Power Transition satisfied peace
characterized by high trust and cooperation.

Democracy is a conflict filter – caps escalation of all wars.

Albright 17 [Madeline Albright, currently a professor of International Relations at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service,
PhD from Columbia University, former US Secretary of State, Mehdi Jomaa is a Tunisian engineer and was the acting Prime Minister of Tunisia
from 29 January 2014 to 6 February 2015 September 17 https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/fp_20170912_liberal_democracy__peace_security.pdf]
Given these trends, the Community of Democracies has a new imperative: to demonstrate to itself and to the world that the core values
of democracy
and human rights are not only goods in and of themselves, but also the most promising path to peace and security in an

increasingly turbulent world. The report we present here to their representatives and to all engaged citizens from civil society, parliaments,
businesses, and youth seeks to show that the norms and practices of liberal democracy and human rights do in fact lead to better

security outcomes over time and across multiple dimensions.

Based on a year-long research project gathering the empirical evidence on the relationship between democracy and security, and
on accumulated experience with combating the scourge of extremist violence and terrorism, we can say with confidence that liberal

democracy, when allowed to consolidate and flourish, is the best path toward achieving domestic and
international peace and security. A series of policy briefs covering a range of security-related issues from civil war to digital technology were
commissioned by the Community of Democracies’ Permanent Secretariat and prepared by the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Program and the Institute for
Security Studies.1 This
research, which was complemented by consultations with policymakers, academic experts,
and civil society during workshops held in India, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Poland, Sweden, and the
United States, examines these linkages in substantial detail .

The evidence affirms the standard observation that democracies do not go to war against one another. But
the data also prove that democracies are less likely to spawn internal armed conflicts or experience deadly

terrorism because they channel dissent through nonviolent means and manage violence through respect for
the rule of law and human rights. Authoritarian and failed states, on the other hand, are more likely to experience intra and interstate conflict, generate
refugees, hinder women’s equality, and harbor violent extremists.

The research also shows that states at intermediate stages of democratization—hybrid regimes with mixed features of democracy and
autocracy, elite-driven patronage systems, and/or weak institutions— are generally the most
vulnerable to insecurity, whether from violent
crime, terrorism, or entrenched poverty. These are states where there is both weak institutional capacity and weak political

legitimacy, which together contribute to a breakdown in the social contract between citizens and the government.
This report argues that to foster domestic and international security , and to address the underlying drivers of violent extremism, this

social contract must be repaired. It is essential, therefore, to adopt strategies to institutionalize democratic

governance, inclusive politics, and human rights in fragile states. Civil society—as independent participants, monitors, and critics of our
democratic institutions—are also critical ingredients to any strategy for peace.
 Ext --- Traditional Economic Impacts

Economic decline causes great power war

Ord ‘20
Toby Ord is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, where his work is focused on
existential risk. Toby founded Giving What We Can, an international society whose members pledge to donate at least 10% of
their income to effective charities, and is a key figure in the effective altruism movement, which promotes using reason and
evidence to help the lives of others as much as possible. Ord holds a B.Phil., and a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford - From
the book: The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity - From PART THREE: THE PATH FORWARD, chapter 6. “The
Risk Landscape” – published March 2020 - available via google books.

While I've presented this analysis in terms of which risks should get the highest priority , these exact same principles
can be applied to prioritizing between different risk factors or security factors. And they can help prioritize between different ways of protecting
our potential over the long term, such as promoting norms, working within existing institutions or establishing new ones. Best of all, these
principles can be used to set priorities between these areas as well as within them, since all are measured in the common unit of total
existential risk reduction.

In the course of this book, we have considered a wide variety of approaches to reducing existential risk.
The most obvious has been direct work on a particular risk, such as nuclear war or engineered pandemics. But
there were also more indirect approaches: work on risk factors such as great-power war; or on securitv factors such as
a new international institution tasked with reducing existential risk. Perhaps one could act at an even more indirect level.
Arguably risk would be lower in a period of stable economic growth than in a period with the turmoil caused
by deep recessions. And it may be lower if citizens were better educated and better informed.

Decline causes war

Pamlin and Armstrong 15 – Dennis Pamlin, Executive Project Manager, Global Challenges
Foundation, Stuart Armstrong, James Martin Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford
Martin School & Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, 2015 (“Global Challenges: 12 Risks that
Threaten Human Civilization,” Global Challenges Foundation, February 2015,
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/HON301/12-Risks-with-infinite-impact-full-report-1.pdf)

Often economic collapse is accompanied by social chaos, civil unrest and sometimes a breakdown of law and
order. Societal collapse usually refers to the fall or disintegration of human societies , often along with their life
support systems. It broadly includes both quite abrupt societal failures typified by collapses, and more
extended gradual declines of superpowers. Here only the former is included.

The world economic and political system is made up of many actors with many objectives and many links between
them. Such intricate, interconnected systems are subject to unexpected system-wide failures due to the
structure of the network311 – even if each component of the network is reliable. This gives rise to
systemic risk: systemic risk occurs when parts that individually may function well become vulnerable when
connected as a system to a self-reinforcing joint risk that can spread from part to part (contagion), potentially
affecting the entire system and possibly spilling over to related outside systems.312 Such effects have
been observed in such diverse areas as ecology,313 finance314 and critical infrastructure315 (such as
power grids). They are characterised by the possibility that a small internal or external disruption could
cause a highly non-linear effect,316 including a cascading failure that infects the whole system,317 as in the
2008-2009 financial crisis.

The possibility of collapse becomes more acute when several independent networks depend on each other, as is
increasingly the case (water supply, transport, fuel and power stations are strongly coupled, for
instance).318 This dependence links social and technological systems as well.319

This trend is likely to be intensified by continuing globalisation,320 while global governance and regulatory
mechanisms seem inadequate to address the issue.321 This is possibly because the tension between
resilience and efficiency322 can even exacerbate the problem.323

Many triggers could start such a failure cascade, such as the infrastructure damage wrought by a coronal
mass ejection,324 an ongoing cyber conflict, or a milder form of some of the risks presented in the rest
of the paper. Indeed the main risk factor with global systems collapse is as something which may
exacerbate some of the other risks in this paper, or as a trigger. But a simple global systems collapse still
poses risks on its own. The productivity of modern societies is largely dependent on the careful matching of
different types of capital325 (social, technological, natural...) with each other. If this matching is disrupted,
this could trigger a “social collapse” far out of proportion to the initial disruption.326 States and institutions have
collapsed in the past for seemingly minor systemic reasons .327 And institutional collapses can create knock-on
effects, such as the descent of formerly prosperous states to much more impoverished and destabilising entities .328
Such processes could trigger damage on a large scale if they weaken global political and economic systems to such
an extent that secondary effects (such as conflict or starvation) could cause great death and suffering.
 Impact --- Econ --- loose nukes
Economic decline causes nuclear war – loose nukes
Mann ’14 (Eric Mann is a special agent with a United States federal agency, with significant domestic
and international counterintelligence and counter-terrorism experience. Worked as a special assistant
for a U.S. Senator and served as a presidential appointee for the U.S. Congress. He is currently
responsible for an internal security and vulnerability assessment program. Bachelors @ University of
South Carolina, Graduate degree in Homeland Security @ Georgetown. “AUSTERITY, ECONOMIC
DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF WAR: A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May 2014,
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf)

The conclusions reached in this thesis demonstrate how economicconsiderations within states can figure prominently
into the calculus for future conflicts. The findings also suggest that security issues with economic or financial
underpinnings will transcend classical determinants of war and conflict, and change the manner by
which rival states engage in hostile acts toward one another . The research shows that security concerns
emanating from economic uncertainty and the inherent vulnerabilities within global financial markets
will present new challenges for national security , and provide developing states new asymmetric options
for balancing against stronger states.¶ The security areas, identified in the proceeding chapters, are likely to mature
into global security threats in the immediate future. As the case study on South Korea suggest, the overlapping
security issues associated with economic decline and reduced military spending by the United States will
affect allied confidence in America’s security guarantees . The study shows that this outcome could cause
regional instability or realignments of strategic partnerships in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications
for U.S. national security. Rival states and non-state groups may also become emboldened to challenge
America’s status in the unipolar international system.¶ The potential risks associated with stolen or loose WMD,
resulting from poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security. The case study on Pakistan, Syria and
North Korea show how financial constraints affect weapons security making weapons vulnerable to theft, and
how financial factors can influence WMD proliferation by contributing to the motivating factors behind a trusted insider’s
decision to sell weapons technology. The inherent vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide
terrorists’ organizations and other non-state groups, who object to the current international system or distribution of
power, with opportunities to disrupt global finance and perhaps weaken America’s status. A more ominous
threat originates from states intent on increasing diversification of foreign currency holdings, establishing alternatives to the dollar for
international trade, or engaging financial warfare against the United States.
 Impact --- Econ --- studies
There’s robust empirical support for our impact
Howell 13 (Patrick, B.A. from Emory University. “Economic Crises and the Initiation of Militarized
Disputes,” A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts, 2013,
https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/howell_patrick_d_201305_ma.pdf)

The findings are clear: economic crises are an important trigger for shifts in a state’s rate of dispute
initiation. By using a large sample of states over a period of 185 years, this conclusion then can also be taken
as generalizable to the entire population of states in the international system. In addition to providing support for
issue crossover and the influence economic troubles can play on foreign policy decisions, the findings here also support the

methodological rationale for using economic crises as explicit, observable events, instead of as trends
in other variables (e.g. GDP growth). Of course, this is not to say that all work on this topic is final. There exist a number of areas where this research
agenda can be improved upon and/or extended to in order to provide a more holistic account of where and how economic crises exactly apply political pressure on
leaders. First, the study of diversionary war exists in both quantitative tests and in more fine toothed
examinations of actual cases (Levy and Vakili 1992; Fravel 2010). Exploring the internal processes within states in such a fashion can also produce a
deeper understanding of the exact causal mechanisms through which prospect theory operates. Aggregation and levels of analysis become a basic concern with
applying prospect theory outside of the laboratory and to states and governments. After all, “prospect theory is developed as a theory of individual decision making,
the question is whether it is applicable to collective decision making” (Vis 2011, 337). Here a unitary actor assumption is made from the outset, but it is also possible
that the observed effect is driven instead by individual decision-makers themselves (for example, Fuhrmann and Early 2008,
who keep the level of analysis only on President Bush). A deeper case study of a few select cases with an eye towards process might reveal whether the increase in
conflict initiation is due to a single policy entrepreneur or leader, or if it is the result of collective behavior (as perhaps even aides, legislators, and bureaucrats seek
to compensate for the detrimental effects that accompany an economic crisis separately or in concert). Examination of specific cases might also provide a more
accurate picture for policymakers of the strategy that can accompany an economic crisis and inducement of diversionary tendencies in another state. Smith

(Smith 1998) hypothesizes diversionary actions as a strategic game, and finds that potential target states should then adopt a policy of strategic

avoidance – disengaging from any scenario that might make them a target from a diversionary conflict initiated by an opposing state in dire straits. This
question of strategic avoidance occurs most often in the study of the United States (Fordham 2005; Meernik 2005), with evidence that other states
avoid and/or initiate fewer disputes with the United States when the American economy is performing poorly. The empirical test here using a proportionbased
dependent variable might already be capturing some degree of a strategic avoidance effect, in that some of the variation in the proportion of initiation could be
because the rate of other states initiating disputes on the crisis-stricken state is decreasing. If
strategic avoidance is occurring, it actually
increases the strength of aspects of the diversionary war literature (in that other states are actually
behaving according to expectations of diversionary actions), but much more work and nuance would be needed to separate
where then the logic in strategic avoiders is originating. The final implication of the findings to be discussed here is the role

of institutions in this analysis. As stated above, the institutional controls that were included in the estimation
demonstrated null effects on the overall rate of militarized dispute initiation. This finding is interesting considering the
enshrined role that institutions and regime types tend to play within scholarly work on diversionary war. Similar to the mixed results of GDP indicators, mixed and
contradictory results can be found throughout the body of work on diversionary war: some
find that the diversionary effects exist mainly
in democratic settings (Gelpi 1997; Davies 2002; Brul´e and Williams 2009), while others find that diversionary effects occur
in autocratic settings (Miller 1999; Lai and Slater 2005; Pickering and Kisangani 2010). One method of reconciling the conflicting
conclusions of whether democratic or autocratic leaders are more likely to engage in diversionary
behavior is in direct tests comparing the two regime types. Typically, these comparisons have either found the two regime types
differ in the targets that are selected by each (Bueno De Mesquita and Siverson 1995), or have found some fault with the way that the regime types themselves are
defined, due to differing incentives for differing subtypes of regimes (Pickering and Kisangani 2005). In order to examine the difference between democracies and
autocracies, I split the sample from Model 2 into either of the regime types, using a score of 6 in the Polity2 measure as a cut-point. Splitting
the sample
has the effect of interacting regime type with all independent variables, giving regime specific effects not
only for economic crises, but also all control variables .1 The results of this regime split can be found in Table 2. As can be seen here,
the effect of economic crises is positive and significant in both institutional settings. Comparing the coefficients for
economic crisis in Table 2 with those of the original Model 2, the likely explanation for why the institutional variables in the original model did not have an impact
on crisis initiation is because all democracies
and autocracies possess relatively similar incentives for increasing crisis
initiation following economic crises, so any variation across institutions was only averaged out . However, the
results presented in Table 2 also provide support for a difference existing in the process of how diversionary conflict might occur in either regime type, due to the
differences in control variable significance. This lends some credence to the separation of democracies and autocracies for study of diversionary war, but provides
no evidence that the effect should only exist in one or the other. The
similarity in the main independent variable of economic
crises, though, furthers the assertion that the effect of economic crises increasing dispute initiation can be
viewed as a general behavior of all states in the international system. Conclusions Altogether, there can be said
to be a robust, positive relationship between the occurrence of economic crises and the rate of dispute
initiation by states. This effect is especially strong and demonstrable when time ordering is preserved by
examining how crises in the previous year affect states in their current year . These findings can also be said to have a
relatively high degree of substantive import as well. As Figure 1 showed, the occurrence of each subsequent economic crisis increases the chances of a state
initiating disputes by almost 3%. The nearly 20 percentage point increase in dispute initiation across the range of the
lagged economic crisis variable also represents a substantial impact, especially considering the rare
event nature of militarized disputes to begin with. This generalizable finding can have far-reaching impact to both the study of
diversionary war in academia, as well as directly for policymakers. In academe settings, there is good evidence to support the use of

acute economic crises over those variables based on the slowershifting trends of GDP or public opinion
measurements. Economic crises act as an explicit trigger that can mark a leader’s shift into a losses
frame and engage in riskier behavior consistent with both prospect theory and diversionary war
hypotheses. Meanwhile, applying this observed effect to the real world would seem to indicate that if a state goes through an economic crisis, other states
should have increased wariness in their dealings with the crisis-stricken state and/or be more prepared for the possibility of a new dispute emerging in the wake of
such an event.

Stats go Neg---growth solves war

- GPI = global peace index
- GCI = global competitive index

Dinov and Ho 13 – Associate Professor of Statistics at UCLA, PhD, Mathematics, Florida State
University MS, Statistics, Florida State University; MA in finance and statistics from USC

(Ivo, “An Empirical Study on Economic Prosperity and Peace”, Spring 2013,
http://www.socr.ucla.edu/docs/KaManHo_UCLA_USJ_paper_2013_text.pdf, UCLA)

Moreover, the data of GPI was expanded to additional new countries in a more rapid pace than the data of
GCI each year. As a result, the number of missing values for GCI increased every year. In 20 11, there were 25 "new" countries that had their GPI
score available, but not the corresponding GCI scores. The median of GPI scores (154 countries) was
1.92 while within the 25 "new" countries, 22 had their GPI scores larger than the overall median of 1.92.
The average GPI score indicated that these missing values of GCI might not be at random. The newly investigated countries tended to be less peaceful

and had missing values on GCI. A missing value on GCI reflected that the country was paid less attention
to in terms of competiveness. With these missing values on GCI, the Discrimination Analysis between
GCI and GPI could not be performed and the positive relationship between economic prosperity and
peacefulness was underestimated: if there were less missing values on GCI, the statistical evidences of
the finding of the significant positive association between economic prosperity and peace would be
even stronger. THE INTEGRATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION ANALYSIS AND THE LOG-LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL CONNECTED THE TWO APPROACHES In Table 5, the first column displayed the colored labels
produced by the Discrimination Analysis while the second column displayed the residuals £ produced by the Log-Linear Regression Model of all the observations (without missing values in any variables) in the year 2010. In the
second column, the residuals £ were ranked in descending order in terms of absolute values. Interesting patterns can be discovered in the observation of the two columns of 92 observations: since the residuals £ were ranked in the
table, the "location" of a country (top or bottom in Table 5) indicated some information about the group that the particular country belonged to. Let observation No.23 (Syria) be the 25th percentile, observation No.46 (Austria) be
the 50th percentile, and observation No.69 (Belgium) be the 75th percentile. All the "red" countries located at the bottom of the table above 7th percentile. Twelve out of thirteen (92.31 %) The Discrimination Analysis was
presented to complement the Log-Linear Model because of the limitation of the regression function. Inserting a regression to the data means that the connection between a particular explanatory variable and the response variable
is represented by one single coefficient. However, that coefficient represents the overall trend of the data but is not necessarily representative of an individual country's data. This limitation of a regression in investigating the
relationship between the explanatory variables and the response variable of an individual country gives incentives to further examine correlations for individual countries. For instance, for the 2010 data of North America, the range
of the correlation between the variable GPI and GCI was -0.94 to 0.96, while the range of the correlation between GPI and exports was -0.59 to 0.95. Suppose the coefficient of GCI were 0.01 (the average of -0.94 and 0.96), then
the coefficient 0.01 would be representative of the overall trend, i.e. when the coefficient for individual countries between GPI and GCI was close to 0.01. However, for countries with extreme values of coefficient (close to either
-0.94 or 0.96), the value 0.01 could not be considered representative in helping to explain the relationship between GPI and GCI. Many more inconsistent relationships between variables could be found and these details given by
the study of correlations suggested that a different model other than the Log-Linear Regression Model is necessary. Robert Solow's article "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth" is known as the cornerstone of the
modem Neoclassical Growth Model in which economic growth is separated into technical progress, capital, and labor (Solow, 1956). In his calculation, four-fifths of the growth in the United States output was derived by technical
progress (Solow, 1956). Understanding that labor, capital, and technical process are the ingredients that generate economic growth helps to explain why the between economic prosperity and peace in the Log-Linear Model was
0.55. Under the assumption of the Neoclassical Growth Model, economic growth is driven by technology, capital, and labor, but not exogenous factors such as history, policy, and social structure that could ultimately shape the
condition of peacefulness (Harberger, 2005). However, the purpose of the present study is not to argue that peace should be a new variable to be added to the Neoclassical Growth Model. Instead, it is to enhance the
understanding about the interaction between economic prosperity and peace and to state a challenge to the assumptions of the Neoclassical Growth Model. In addition, the original Neoclassical Growth Theory assumed that
capital was subject to diminishing returns in a closed economy. Diminishing returns implies that marginal or per-unit output of production decreases as the amount of production increases. A closed economy is a self-sufficient
system without international trade or external assistance. A model capturing economic growth in a closed economy may not be sufficient for discussion of the present empirical study because in real life international trade is a
significant component in the world economy. Therefore, it was necessary to take Lucas (1988) and Romer's (1991) expansion with international trade into consideration. Economic prosperity in this study was captured by the
variables trade, GCI, and exportslimports as a percentage of GDP. The selection of these variables in the two approaches was justified by Lucas's finding of the positive association between exports and economic development
(Lucas, 1988). The variables in the LogLinear Model were representative of the endogenous factors including labor, wage rate of labor, capital, technology, and international trade in an open economy. The underlying justification
was that large amounts of exports and imports entailed correspondingly large amounts of labor, capital, and technology as long as international trade, an indicator that the Log-Linear Model was a good candidate to represent
elementary components of the Neoclassical Growth Model, was present. The interaction between the explanatory variables and the response variable GPI provided helpful insights into the interaction between economic prosperity

The Log-Linear Model presented an overall statistically significant trend between economic
and peace.

prosperity and peace. The Discrimination Analysis presented a further investigation between economic prosperity and peace by dividing countries into four types. The results of the "yellow" and the
"green" countries complemented the finding in the Log-Linear Model such that economic prosperity and peacefulness have a positive association, or alternatively a negative correlation between GPI and GCI. In addition, the
discussions of the "red" and the "blue" countries revealed that each set of countries shared some characteristics, for instance the "red" countries tended to involve in certain armed conflicts. In this approach, the classification
method, without intentionally maximizing the success rate in the analysis, fitted the evidence of similar characteristics between countries that fell into the same group. Shared characteristics, such as engagements in conflicts, could
be found by further investigation among different groups of countries implied that these countries truly belonged to the same group. For example, based on the numerical values of GCI and GPI, France and the United States in
2011 were classified to be "red" countries, both of which were simultaneously involved in the armed conflict in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this classification exposed that the overall trend of the Log-Linear Model could be
interpreted as four distinct groups. The four groups, i.e. four performance groups distinguished by colors, demonstrated how economic prosperity and peace interacted with each other at a certain level of competitiveness and

In the integration part, the "red" and the "green" countries had a tendency to have smaller values
peacefulness.

of residuals £ compared to other countries, which implied that the statistically significant variables GCI,
military, and trade explained a larger proportion of peace within the "red" and the "green" countries. A
small residual in a regression indicated that the geometric distance between the point of the observation and the fitting straight line of the linear model. One common characteristic of the "red" and the "green" countries was that

These more competitive

they were more competitive relative to other countries with a GCI > 4.72, meaning that these economies are prosperous or would potentially become prosperous.

economies were equipped with sufficient labor, capital, technology, population, and other endogenous
elements that determined economic growth according to the mechanisms of the Neoclassical Modem Growth Model. In the present study, these endogenous elements were
represented by the variables GCI, exports, imports, and population. To compare, correlating with larger residuals £ within the "blue" countries, the endogenous forces of the growth theory explained the smaller proportion of
peacefulness. In other words, the exogenous forces such as history, policy, and other factors beyond the endogenous mechanisms of economic development played a larger role in explaining peacefulness for the "blue" countries.

When the endogenous forces (for example trading and competitiveness) of the growth mechanism were
more active, they contributed more in terms of explaining economic prosperity ; when they were less active, the exogenous forces
entered the fray and played a more important role in explaining economic prosperity. If the exogenous forces serve as criteria that enable growth, then there should not be any discernible differences of residuals among different
types of countries. Table 5 compared the color labels produced by the Discrimination Analysis and the residuals produced by the Log-Linear Model. The four colors were classified according to GCI and GPI, which reflected both

The result of the integration of the two approaches

endogenous and exogenous forces. On the other hand, the residuals overwhelmingly reflected exogenous forces.

showed that less competitive countries were usually attached to larger residuals. The difference in
magnitude of the residuals implied that the exogenous forces ' potentially present a mechanical impact
on economic prosperity. The integration result stated a fair challenge to the model Neoclassical Growth
Theory's assumption that the exogenous forces do not have any mechanical impact on growth . The different
residuals among various types of countries were not produced by luck because observations were classified according to the variables GCI and GPI in magnitude instead of any random classification rules. In conclusion, this study

peacefulness, as a condition shaped by exogenous factors, interacted with economic

explored the relationship that

growth or prosperity-there was a clear association between economic prosperity and peacefulness .
Peaceful countries participated more in trading activities and achieved greater economic prosperity. The
endogenous forces including trading and competitiveness explained the larger proportion of peace in more competitive economies, while the proportion became smaller in less competitive economies. This result challenges the
Neoclassical Modern Growth Theory's assumption that exogenous forces do not have any mechanical impact on growth. Moreover, this study paved the way for future research on the interactions between economic prosperity
and peace and the interplay between the endogenous and exogenous factors of economic growth.
 Impact --- Econ --- zero sum perception
Current power shifts make escalatory responses to economic shocks likely
Robert Greenhill 15, Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, 1/20/15, “Is
the world zero-sum or win-win?,” https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/01/win-win-world/

Zero-sum thinking is back in vogue . After a geopolitically challenging year, relationships between great powers are
increasingly cast in stark “if they win, we lose” terms.

This has been seen most recently in the stand-off between Russia and NATO over Ukraine. However, in 2011 the journalist Gideon Rachman
had already observed three sources
of increased zero-sum thinking: slower economic growth; growing rivalry between
the United States and rising powers, in particular China; and the clash of national interests in the search for solutions to global
challenges such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and failed states. He concluded: “A win-win world has been replaced by a zero-sum
world”.

Is this true? Has the world become zero-sum?

Economics was one area where zero-sum concepts were historically well entrenched . For centuries
mercantilists believed that wealth was found in zero-sum holdings of land and gold. Yet, by the 19th century, the concept of comparative
advantage supported a growing belief in free trade, later reinforced by the disastrous experience with protectionism during the 1930s.

Prosperity: a win-win game?

This belief has been questioned by some due

to the rise of Japan in the 1980s, of Germany in the 1990s, and of China and other
emerging economies since the turn of the century . However, the evidence shows that economic integration continues to
provide benefits that are broadly shared across nations. Over the last 20 years, all G7 economies increased their per capita income. Almost
three-quarters of the increase in each country was due to a common improvement in prosperity. Only 27% was due to a change in the relative
prosperity of the countries.

Globally, the positive impact of the freer flow of goods and services is being augmented by the fast flow of ideas and innovation. Growing global economies of scale, particularly in ICT and
mobile, are allowing companies to make massive investments in new products and services that benefit consumers around the world. This is particularly true in online products and services
where the cost of serving incremental customers on a global basis is close to zero.

In education, the positive-sum opportunities are accelerating. Ubiquitous mobile access allows knowledge from any corner of the earth to be shared instantly around the world. Wikipedia has
transformed how we search for and share knowledge. Less than 15 years after its creation, this collaborative organisation has assembled 34 million articles, equivalent to 15,000 volumes of
the Encylopedia Brittanica. Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs), such as the World Economic Forum’s Forum Academy are allowing world-class education to be shared at a scale and with a
global scope unimaginable a few years ago.

Facing global challenges together

Perhaps the most striking possibilities of a positive-sum world are in health. The recent Ebola outbreak has reminded us all how globally vulnerable we are to infectious diseases. Improvements
in public health systems in developing countries reduce the risk for all health systems around the world. Innovations that provide high quality, low cost health in developing countries — such
as inexpensive portable diagnostic equipment and the use of smart phones to deliver health services — are also improving health services in developed countries. As emerging economies face
the same challenges of chronic diseases and aging populations as advanced economies, they may well develop some of the key technical and service model breakthroughs that help all nations
address these growing concerns.

Economic growth, education, and health — the three key drivers of the Human Development Index (HDI) — are all positive sum. Therefore, it is not surprising that the world’s HDI performance
has improved every single year since its inception in 1990. During that time, global life expectancy has improved by six years, extreme poverty has dropped by half, 6 million fewer children are
dying before the age of five. Across the world income levels have risen while globally inequality (as measured by the global Gini coefficient) has dropped.

When others benefit, we benefit too

There are huge challenges today: slow growth; youth unemployment, environmental concerns; millions living in extreme poverty; extremist movements expanding their hold in fragile states.
However, the actions to resolve all these issues are positive sum, not zero sum. When others benefit, we benefit too.

the zero-sum mindset persists amongst many theorists and leaders. The danger is that zero-sum
Unfortunately,
thinking can lead to outcomes that are worse than zero sum . In most dynamic systems, the opposite of positive sum is
not zero sum, it is negative sum. One of the causes of WWI was that its protagonists saw power and prosperity in zero-sum terms. The result
was tragically negative sum. Every major participant in 1914 came out diminished: the Czar killed, the Kaiser overthrown, France with millions
dead, the UK heavily indebted.
The great challenges today, from territorial rivalry to climate change, must be resolved in a constructively positive-sum fashion or they could
become catastrophically negative sum. Zero-sum
approaches will not lead to stable or positive outcomes. Given the
dynamics of global challenges, working collaboratively is not naïve: it is necessary.
 Impact --- Econ --- AT: no diversion
Diversionary theory’s true
Rothkopf 9 – David Rothkopf, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3-
11, 2009, “Security and the Financial Crisis,” Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee,
CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis

--Destabilizing Bilateral or Regional Effects of the Crisis: The weakening of states can produce instability
that spills across borders or can produce social pressures that increase migration and create associated
tensions along borders. The rise of opposition groups can create an opportunity for like-minded
neighbors to support their activities and thus cause rifts and potential conflicts to spread. Political and
economic weakness in nations can be seen by opportunistic neighbors (some wishing to produce
distractions from their own crises) as an invitation to intervene in their neighbors politics or even to step
in and take control of neighboring territories or to seek to use force to resolve in their favor long-
simmering disputes. In the same vein, old animosities may be inflamed by the crisis either because they
produce tensions that play into the origins of old rivalries or because political leaders seek to play on
those rivalries to produce a distraction from their inability to manage the economic crisis . Need may
enhance tensions and produce conflicts over shared or disputed resources. A desire to preserve national
resources, jobs, or capital may produce reactive economic, border or other policies that can increase
tension with neighbors. This can include both trade and capital markets protectionism (in traditional and
new forms see below), closed or more tightly monitored borders, more disputes on cross-border issues
and thus both an increase in tensions and a decreased ability to effectively cooperate with neighbors on
issues of common concern.

Best studies confirm

Pickering 9 – Department of Political Science at Kansas State, citing the International
Military Intervention dataset (Jeffrey and Emizet, British Journal of Political Science, 39:483-
515, “The Dividends of Diversion”, ProQuest)
In this article, we contend that the Argentinian use of diversionary force was an anomaly in 1982, but the British diversion was not.
Contrary to common normative assumptions, leaders in mature, established democracies are more
prone to use foreign military force for domestic political gain than even the most contemptible autocrats. This
argument seems paradoxical, because policy makers in established democracies have presumably not only accepted norms which
emphasize negotiation, compromise and the value of human life, they operate within systems designed to check their own authority.
We maintain that it is thesevery checks which often compel decision makers in mature democracies to divert.
Institutional and partisan restraints prevent them from implementing effective domestic policy when
their electoral prospects dim, forcing them to at least consider diversionary force. Leaders in the most liberal
states in the international system may consequently, and seemingly illogically, fall into an illiberal pattern of using foreign military
force to solve domestic problems. We have followed our own earlier extension of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and his associates’
institutional approach, rational choice literature on voting and research on democratic audience costs to develop the three major
components of our argument.7 We define ‘audience costs’ as the penalty that leaders incur for failing to keep commitments or for
initiating disastrous policies.8 Following Michael Doyle’s conceptualization, we define mature democracies as countries with
sovereignty, market and private economies, judicial rights and representative political institutions.9 The institutional approach
highlights the institutional barriers that leaders in mature democracies encounter when they try to find domestic solutions to certain
domestic problems. The rational choice literature on voting demonstrates how difficult it is for leaders in mature democracies to
regain popular support when the country has experienced domestic economic difficulties. Even domestic policy which successfully
resolves economic problems and increases growth often does little to boost the political executive’s popular support and may even
Since the voting
have the seemingly contradictory effect of reducing the leader’s standing in public opinion polls further.10
public is not inclined to reward successful economic policy, embattled leaders in mature democracies
may turn to foreign policy to regain their political credibility and to improve their chances of retaining office. The decision
to use diversionary force is made easier when leaders are confident that the military operation will be both a military success and
provide the domestic political boost they are seeking. Recent
research on audience costs suggests that military
missions launched by leaders in mature democracies have a high probability of achieving both of these
outcomes. Of course, a good deal of institutional variation exists among countries typically labelled ‘mature democracies’. The final
component of our theory refines our earlier approach further by developing hypotheses on the impact that institutional differences
have on mature democracies’ diversionary proclivities. To determine whether the leaders of mature democracies, and especially
certain types of mature democracies, are more likely both to use diversionary force and to reap political rewards from doing so than
other leaders, we test the reciprocal relationships which exist between the use of foreign military force and the domestic political and
economic variables which may cause it. Our study is certainly not the first to analyse mature democracies’ propensity to use
diversionary military force. A number of studies have been undertaken on the subject with, to date, mixed results.11 Our
analysis is, however, the first to separate out and test the diversionary behaviour of several distinct types of established
democracies and to determine whether diversionary force by these actors ‘works’ by producing domestic political and economic
benefits for leaders. To our knowledge, it is also the
first to develop an integrated, multi-layer theory that
attempts to bring greater clarity to the seemingly illogical phenomenon of democratic diversion.
 Impact --- Econ --- AT: resiliency
Small shocks can derail the economy
Irwin 16 – Neil Irwin, Senior Economic Correspondent at The New York Times, Former Washington Post
Columnist and Economics Editor of Wonkblog, “Will the Next President Face a Recession? Don’t Assume
So”, New York Times, 10-27, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/upshot/will-the-next-president-face-
a-recession-dont-assume-so.html

There is a decent argument that the United States economy is more susceptible to recession now than it
has been for most of the last several decades, for two reasons.

First, growth has been around 2 percent a year, below the 3 to 4 percent that was commonplace in the
second half of the 20th century. That means there is less of a growth cushion. It takes a smaller
negative shock to pull the economy into contraction territory.

Second, the Fed may find itself with less room to reduce the damage of the next downturn. In modern
recessions, the central bank has cut rates by an average of 5.5 percent, according to research by the Fed
economist David Reifschneider. With rates below 0.5 percent and on track to rise very slowly, any small
shock in the next few years could cause major economic damage, especially if the Fed’s less
conventional monetary policy tools either go unused or don’t prove effective.

Econ’s fragile
Hansen, 16 – Steven Hansen, international business and industrial consultant, 3-26-2016, “The
Economy Keeps Stumbling Along”, Seeking Alpha, http://seekingalpha.com/article/3961069-economy-
keeps-stumbling-along

Once a month, I assemble an economic forecast based on analysis of various data points which have led
the economy. Historically, most of the time the economy trends up or trends down - but recently the
economy simply has been frozen with little change in the rate of growth. My view of the economy is at
Main Street level - not necessarily GDP. My position is that GDP has disconnected from the real
economy. A thinking person might say that GDP never projected the real economy - and it was never
more obvious with the current situation where rate of change of growth slowed to a crawl. The jumping
around of GDP in a flat economy is noticeable. We will be releasing our economic forecast next week -
and conditions have been flat (near the zero growth line) for three months. All indicators I view outside
the elements of our forecast are mixed and confused. Nothing is strong. One of my favorite indicators to
understand if the rate of economic growth is accelerating or decelerating is the relationship between
the year-over-year growth rate of non-farm private employment and the year-over-year real growth
rate of retail sales. This index is currently showing no growth differential. When retail sales grow faster
than the rate of employment gains (above zero on the below graph) - the rate of growth of the economy
is usually accelerating.
It’s not resilient
Rockefeller 16 – Barbara Rockefeller, Rockefeller Treasury Services, Inc., “The Fed Should Not Have
Raised Rates”, FX Street, 2-4, http://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/strategic-currency-
briefing/2016/02/04/
We were not the only person appalled by the press reports on negative yields. Not only Europe, but now Japan! There is simply no way for negative yields to build
anything. It takes a return on capital to get capital working. Negative yields are always and everywhere a Bad Thing. Underling the dollar’s crash yesterday is the
sneaking suspicion the Fed has it all wrong and the US will get negative rates, too. The Fed should not have raised rates in December. It was either too late or too
early, but whichever, wrong. The economy is not resilient, let alone robust, and the Fed is over-optimistic about
everything.

Given this gloomy stance by a large group, NY Fed Pres Dudley was the trigger. The Dudley comments were emailed far and wide and made the front page of the FT
today. Remember, Dudley is the guy who was worried about liquidity once rates began to go up, and devised a special repo facility to grease the skids. Yesterday he
said in an interview with Market News that global turmoil may be a roadblock that inspires a further surge in the dollar, and if it continues, would have “significant
consequences back to the US.”

He also said “One thing I think we can say with more confidence is that financial conditions are considerably tighter than they were at the time of the December
meeting. So if those financial conditions were to remain in place by the time we get to the March meeting we would have to take that into consideration in terms of
that monetary policy decision.”

Two things: we have a Fed talking about the dollar, and not just any Fed—the head of the New York Fed. As we know from long experience—and Dudley should
know, too—any mention of the dollar by a Fed official is always toxic. Secondly, how can anything be much changed in a little over two months? The one big thing
that has occurred since the Fed hike is the China equity market meltdown the first week of January. Again, this gives the impression that when China sneezes, the
US catches cold.

The FT goes on to say the primary deduction from the Dudley comments is no more rate hikes this year. Fed funds futures “indicate that there is now about a 60 per
cent chance that the Fed stays its hand for the rest of 2016, and only a 7 per cent chance that the US central bank tightens policy just twice this year, according to
Bloomberg data.”

Oh, please. Talk about an overreaction! The FT itself provides a short rebuttal. The same day as Dudley spoke, “This year would mark the seventh consecutive year
of expansion in the US economy, a trend that would continue through at least 2017, according to forecasts from Economic Advisory Committee of the American
Bankers Association on Wednesday.

“Nevertheless, the outside risks of a recession are growing, forecasters have warned. There was a one-in-five chance of
recession in the next 12 months, according to a survey of 51 economists by the Financial Times conducted in the days after the Fed’s January meeting. In the FT’s
December survey, economists had put the odds of a US recession at 15 per cent during the next two years.”

Global economy’s no longer resilient---rapid change in financial architecture makes

shocks to the system highly destabilizing
Walter Russell Mead 14, Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College; Editor-at-Large of
The American Interest magazine, 11/13/14, “The Risk of Nation-State Conflict,” http://www.the-american-
interest.com/2014/11/16/the-risk-of-nation-state-conflict/

Finally, one should note that international economic policy has been one of America’s best tools in
ensuring the development of a peaceful and stable international order. However, the same rapid change
that destabilizes international politics has made and will make the task of international economic
management significantly more challenging. It is not only that the international economy is developing
both financial and trade linkages that challenge the ability of policy makers to develop effective policies
to stabilize the international financial and economic systems. It is also the case that technological
advances are steadily transforming financial markets, speeding up the pace of trading, allowing for the
development of increasingly complex financial instruments and trading strategies that collectively
produce new kinds of risk that both market participants and regulators struggle to understand.
Economic theory and economic policy tools are likely to lag behind the new economic realities that will
be created in the coming years and decades; this will be an added factor that tends to destabilize
international politics.
 Impact --- Econ --- at: u.s. not key
The U.S is key to the global economy
Stocker et al 17 (Marc, works in the Global Macro-Economics team at the World Bank Development Prospects Group.
His previous experience includes working as an Economist in the European Central Bank, IHS Global Insights as well as the Free
University of Brussels; Franziska Ohnsorge; Franziska Ohnsorge is Lead Economist in the World Bank Development Prospects
Group. Previously, she worked at the International Monetary Fund and the Office of the Chief Economist of the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development. She is lead author of the World Bank flagship report, Global Economic Prospects. Her
research has covered fiscal and financial sector policy, savings and consumption, capital flows, trade and commodity-related
issues in emerging market and developing countries. She has co-authored a number of policy-oriented papers and academic
papers on these topics. She holds a PhD in Economics from University of Toronto; Csilla Lakatos; Csilla Lakatos is Economist in
the Development Prospects Group (DECPG). She specializes in applied policy analysis using computable general equilibrium
models. Prior to joining the World Bank she worked for the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission in
Brussels and the US International Trade Commission in Washington DC. She holds a PhD from Purdue University in West
Lafayette, IN; M. Ayhan Kose; M. Ayhan Kose is Director of the World Bank Development Prospects Group. He is also a
Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Research Fellow at the Center for Economic Policy Research
(CEPR). He was previously Assistant to the Director of the Research Department and Deputy Chief of the Multilateral
Surveillance Division in the International Monetary Fund. “This is how important the US is to the global economy”3-2-17
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/this-is-how-important-the-us-is-to-the-global-economy; published 3-2-17)

Because of its size and interconnectedness, developments in the US economy are bound to have
important effects around the world. The US has the world’s single largest economy , accounting for
almost a quarter of global GDP (at market exchange rates), one-fifth of global FDI, and more than a third of stock market capitalisation. It is the
most important export destination for one-fifth of countries around the world. The US dollar is the most widely used currency in global trade and financial
transactions, and changes in US monetary policy and investor sentiment play a major role in driving global financing conditions (World Bank 2016). At the same
time, the global economy is important for the US as well. Affiliates of US multinationals operating abroad, and affiliates of foreign companies located in the US
account for a large share of US output, employment, cross-border trade and financial flows, and stock market capitalisation. Recent studies have examined the
importance of global growth for the US economy (Shambaugh 2016), the global impact of changes in US monetary policy (Rey 2013), or the global effect of changing
US trade policies (Furman et al. 2017, Crowley et al. 2017). It is likely that there will be shifts in US growth, monetary and fiscal policies, as well as uncertainty in US
financial markets. What will be the global spillovers? Our recent work (Kose et al. 2017) attempts to answer these questions: How synchronised are US and global
business cycles?How large are global spillovers from US growth and policy shocks?How important is the global economy for the US?How synchronised are US and
global business cycles? Business cycles in the US, other advanced economies (AEs), and emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) have been highly
synchronous (Figure 1.A). This partly reflects the strength of global trade and financial linkages of the US economy with the rest of the world, but also that global
shocks drive common cyclical fluctuations. This was particularly the case at the time of the 2008-09 Global Crisis. It is not a new phenomenon, however. Although
the four recessions the global economy experienced since 1960 (1975, 1982, 1991, and 2009) were driven by many problems in many places, they all overlapped
with severe recessions in the US (Kose and Terrones 2015). Other countries tend to be in the same business cycle phase as the
US roughly 80% of the time (Figure 1.B). The degree of synchronisation with US financial cycles is slightly
lower, but still significant – credit, housing, and equity price cycles are in the same phase about 60% of
the time. Although it is difficult to establish empirically whether the US economy leads business and financial cycle turning points in other economies, recent
research indicates that the US appears to influence the timing and duration of recessions in many major economies (Francis et al. 2015). A surge in US

growth – whether due to expansionary fiscal policies or other reasons – could provide a significant
boost to the global economy. Shocks to the US economy transmit to the rest of the world through three main channels. An acceleration
in US activity can lift growth in trading partners directly through an increase in import demand, and
indirectly by strengthening productivity spillovers embedded in trade. Financial market developments in the US may have
even wider global implications. US bond and equity markets are the largest and most liquid in the world and the US dollar is the currency mostly widely used in
trade and financial transactions. This makes US monetary policy and investor confidence important drivers of global financial conditions (Arteta et al. 2015,
IMF2015). Given
its role in global commodity markets (the US is both the world’s largest gas and oil
consumer and producer), changes in US growth prospects can affect global commodity prices. This affects
activity, fiscal and balance of payment developments in commodity exporters. Estimates indicate that a percentage-point increase in US growth could boost growth
in advanced economies by 0.8 of a percentage point, and in emerging market and developing economies by 0.6 of a percentage point after one year (Figure 2.A).
Investment could respond even more strongly. A boost to investment could come for instance from fiscal stimulus measures – but the effect would largely depend
on the circumstances of the implementation of these measures, including the amount of remaining economic slack, the response of monetary policy, and the
adjustment of household and business expectations to the prospect of higher deficit and debt levels. A faster tightening of US monetary policy than previously
expected could, for instance, lead to sudden increases in borrowing costs, currency pressures, financial market volatility, and capital outflows for more vulnerable
emerging market and developing economies. Even in the absence of actual policy changes, heightened uncertainty
driven by financial market volatility or ambiguity about the direction and scope of US policies could
discourage investment both in the US and in the rest of the world . Empirical estimates suggest that a sustained 10% increase
in US stock market volatility (specifically, the VIX) could, after one year, reduce investment growth in the US by about 0.6 of a percentage point, in other advanced
economies by around 0.5 of a percentage point, and in emerging market and developing economies by 0.6 of a percentage point (Figure 2.B).

Other countries can’t fill in

Irwin 16 – Neil Irwin, Senior Economic Correspondent at The New York Times, Formerly a Washington
Post Columnist and the Economics Editor of Wonkblog, “Foreign Crises Test America's Resilience”,
International New York Times, 1-6, Lexis
Seven days in, 2016 is shaping up to be a chaotic year in global economics and geopolitics, with profound challenges nearly everywhere. Except, for now at least, in the world's largest

economy. The American economy is acting as a steadying force in a volatile world.

A giant question for 2016 - not just for Americans but for people across the globe who benefit from having one of the
world's major economic engines revving while others sputter - is how resilient the United States will prove to
be.

in an interconnected global economy, troubles in one place can spread easily, whether through
On one hand,

financial markets, the banking system or trade linkages. Just Thursday the World Bank downgraded its forecast of 2016 global growth, which implies less
demand for American products around the world - and fewer jobs for American workers.

On the other hand, in the past, the United States has shown an uncanny tendency to benefit economically from tumult abroad.

''The United States may not have incredibly robust economic growth and has plenty of problems you can point to,'' said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a geopolitical
consultancy. ''But from a stability perspective, when things are more unstable, the United States in some ways gets stronger,'' as both people and investment dollars gravitate to the nation's
relative stability.

The truth is, not one of the problems that have flared across financial news tickers so far in 2016 is completely new or surprising. Rather, they are continuations of trends that were well
established in 2015.

And as disturbing as it may be to see tensions rise, conflict in the Middle East is not exactly new. Usually the way those tensions ripple through the global economy is by driving the cost of oil
up; instead, the opposite is happening.

Oil prices fell to $37 a barrel from around $53 a barrel over the course of last year and are now under $34. The Shanghai composite index fell sharply, starting in June of last year, and even
after steep declines in the opening days of 2016 is above its late-August level (though it is anybody's guess how much it would have fallen, absent a string of government interventions to try to
stanch the declines).

Economic growth has been slowing not just in China but across many emerging markets, including Brazil and Nigeria,
for two years now. Europe and Japan are growing only barely , and even formerly hot advanced economies like Canada are suffering from the commodity
glut.

Against that gloomy backdrop, the consensus economic forecasts for the United States - the International Monetary Fund
forecasts 2.8 percent growth in 2016 - look pretty terrific. The American stock market indexes, despite the global sell-off and major hits to oil companies'

earnings, remain above their September levels.

But there are two basic questions about the notion that the United States can serve as an island of economic and political stability in a
messy world.
 Impact --- Econ --- at: clary
Clary relies on “rare events regression”, which biases against wars
Allison 12 (Paul, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania where he teaches
graduate courses in methods and statistics, “Logistic Regression for Rare Events”,
http://statisticalhorizons.com/logistic-regression-for-rare-events)
Prompted by a 2001 article by King and Zeng, many researchers worry about whether they can legitimately use conventional logistic regression
for data in which events are rare. Although
King and Zeng accurately described the problem and proposed an
appropriate solution, there are still a lot of misconceptions about this issue.

The problem is not specifically the rarity of events, but rather the possibility of a small number of cases on
the rarer of the two outcomes. If you have a sample size of 1000 but only 20 events, you have a
problem. If you have a sample size of 10,000 with 200 events, you may be OK. If your sample has
100,000 cases with 2000 events, you’re golden.
There’s nothing wrong with the logistic model in such cases. The problem is that maximum likelihood estimation of the logistic model is well-
known to suffer from small-sample bias. And the degree of bias is strongly dependent on the number of cases in the less frequent of the two
categories. So even with a sample size of 100,000, if there are only 20 events in the sample, you may have
substantial bias.

Comprehensive analysis including Rare Events Regression, finds econ decline increases
the worst conflicts
Tir 10 (Jaroslav, PhD, Professor of Political Science at University of Colorado at Boulder, “Territorial
Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 2,
April 2010, pp. 413–425)
Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity variable but only weak support via the economic growth variable. These
results suggest that embattled leaders are much more likely to respond with territorial diversions to
direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general background conditions such as
economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the economy would take a more
concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal
territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when
they are the most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule
and by more systemic problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming economy).

Next, I conduct a series of follow-up tests suggested by an anonymous Reviewer; results based on the reanalysis of Model 1 are
presented in the online appendix. Evaluating the implication that territorial diversions are indeed more likely to
result from diversionary conditions than nonterritorial diversions , I set up a multinomial logit model that contrasts
the initiation of territorial MIDs versus nonterritorial MIDs (base outcome). The results show a positive and statistically significant coefficient for
the government unpopularity variable (first column of Table 3), meaning that higher levels of government unpopularity are more likely to
produce territorial rather than nonterritorial MIDs. Further
checks include performing rare events logit (King and Zeng
2001) and population-averaged logit analyses to verify whether the rare events nature of the
dependent variable or cross-sectional characteristics of the data alter the findings, respectively. The
findings for the two independent variables remain unchanged (see Table 3, columns two and three). Finally, protesting
behavior in more populous countries could be considered more ‘‘normal’’ and less threatening to the government, potentially lowering the
incentive to divert. Dividing the government unpopularity variable by the log of country’s population (from the Correlates of War National
Capabilities data set, Singer 1987) reveals that the population size-standardized government unpopularity variable remains positive and
significant; see Table 3, final column.
Concerning the control variables, the effects of power and distance are consistent with expectations and across the Models in Table 1.
Democracy, alliance ties, and trade coefficients have mostly the expected dampening influence on territorial conflict initiation; but only trade
exhibits a significant impact and only when the dependent variable is the fatal territorial MID (i.e., in Models 3–4). 16 These results are
somewhat surprising, but the reader is reminded that the effects of alliance are highly contested (see Maoz 2000), while the impact of trade has
not been established in the domain of territorial conflict. Similarly, recent research shows that the democratic
peace weakens
considerably in the context of territorial conflict (James, Park, and Choi 2006) and that the democratic peace
may be epiphenomenal to territorial peace (Gibler 2007). 17 Importantly, the control variable results imply
that some of the related interests (e.g., security, regime ties) may indeed be subordinated to the territorial
diversion impetus.

Revisiting the link between regime type and diversion, some scholars argue that democratic leaders
have a greater motivation—due to the need for popular support—for diversion (e.g., Gelpi 1997; Russett 1990; Smith 1996).
Yet, others (e.g., Downs and Rocke 1994; Miller 1995; Pickering and Kisangani 2005) assert that authoritarian leaders need
popular support in order to appear legitimate. Because they cannot derive legitimacy from democratic institutions and
elections, they look to diversions to help them achieve this goal. Autocrats can also divert with greater impunity due to the lack of institutional
checks and balances. In follow-up tests available from the online appendix, Table 4, I restrict the set of initiator countries in Model 1 to
democracies only, autocracies only, all nondemocracies, and all nonautocracies. That the
findings hold suggests that both
democratic and autocratic leaders value territorial diversions. Nevertheless, resolving the broader debate is beyond
the scope of this study.

The main variable he investigates is public support which does not matter
Abulof 13 (Uriel, Princeton University and Tel-Aviv University, “Nuclear Diversion Theory and
Legitimacy Crisis: The Case of Iran” Politics & Policy, Volume 41, No. 5 (2013): 690-722.)
At the heart of the presumed linkage between patriotism and support for leadership lies the identification of the flag with its current carrier and the belief that
rallying around the former bestows public support upon the latter—as if by ousting the flag carrier, the flag will inevitably fall, and with it the nation as a whole.
Note again, however, that what matters is not whether patriotism —even if engendered by nuclear diversion—would confer public
support on the leadership; in fact, the linkage between the two is far from self-evident , as Churchill’s loss
of the 1945 U.K. election half-anecdotally suggests . What matters is that this linkage is strongly believed
(we are surprised by Churchill’s domestic defeat in the aftermath of defeating the Nazis) and that leaders might act upon this belief, even

if it is largely wishful thinking.

 Impact --- Econ --- at: drezner
Drezner’s only talking about the ’08 crisis and says no war because multilateral
governance worked---this one would be far worse because of magnitude---and he
concludes Neg---resiliency will collapse
Drezner 14 – Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance
during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164

IX. Conclusion

When the subprime mortgage crisis began, there were rampant fears that global economic governance
was too dysfunctional and unprepared to cope with a severe crisis. The Great Recession then
exacerbated those fears. A review of policy outcomes, outputs, and processes shows a different picture.
Global trade and investment levels have recovered from the plunge that occurred in late 2008. A
mélange of international coordination mechanisms facilitated the provision of key policy outputs from
2008 onward. Existing global governance structures, particularly in finance, have been revamped to
accommodate shifts in the distribution of power. The evidence suggests that multilateral institutions
adapted and responded to the 2008 financial crisis in a robust fashion. They passed the stress test —
global economic governance has been good enough. The picture presented here is at odds with
prevailing conventional wisdom on this subject.

This does not guarantee that global economic governance will continue to function effectively going
forward. It is worth remembering that there were genuine efforts to provide global public goods in 1929
as well, but they eventually fizzled. The failure of the major economies to assist the Austrian
government after the CreditAnstalt bank failed in 1931 led to a cascade of bank failures across Europe
and the United States. The collapse of the 1933 London conference guaranteed an ongoing absence of
policy coordination for the next several years. The start of the Great Depression was bad, but
international policy coordination failures made it worse. Such a scenario could play out again.

He’s wrong
Cohen 15 – Benjamin J. Cohen, Louis G. Lancaster Professor of International Political Economy at the
University of California, Santa Barbara, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 13, Issue 2, June 2015, Review
“The System Worked: How the World Stopped Another Great Depression”, pp. 586-587

The second question is handled similarly. Drezner acknowledges that the policies hastily enacted to
combat the crisis were anything but optimal. By that measure, our governing institutions might be
expected to deserve a failing grade. But that, he asserts, is an “absurd standard to apply. ... The question
is not whether global governance has been flawless but whether it has been good enough” (p. 15). In
effect, therefore, any minimal amount of achievement should be regarded a success. On this view, a
grade of D is as good as an A. They all “work.”

In fact, a realistic grade would be closer to D than A. Yes, as Drezner demonstrates, powerful interests
went to work to maintain the openness of the trading system. Yes, the United States turned out to have
the power to exercise a degree of leadership. And yes, there was no serious challenge to prevailing
neoliberal norms. But on balance, protectionist measures did proliferate, mainly in the form of “behind-
the-border” nontariff barriers. Many governments, most notably the authorities in Berlin, stubbornly
resisted American calls for greater stimulus. And some less market-friendly ideas did begin to gain
legitimacy, such as a newfound respect for capital controls. If the system “worked,” it did so barely
enough to pass. It seems almost unseemly to boast about what is at best a gentleman’s C.
 Ext --- Retrenchment Impacts

Retrenchment causes great power wars and economic collapse

Daalder & Kagan 16 --- Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan, U.S. ambassador to NATO from 2009 to 2013,
is president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post, “The U.S. can’t afford to end its global leadership
role”, April 22, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-cant-afford-to-end-its-global-
leadership-role/2016/04/22/da297be0-062a-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html?
noredirect=on&utm_term=.586a2714c747 (BJN)

The economic, political and security strategy that the United States has pursued for more than seven
decades, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, is today widely questioned by large
segments of the American public and is under attack by leading political candidates in both parties . Many
Americans no longer seem to value the liberal international order that the United States created after World War II and sustained throughout
the Cold War and beyond. Or perhaps they take it for granted and have lost sight of the essential role the United States plays in supporting the
international environment from which they benefit greatly. The
unprecedented prosperity made possible by free and
open markets and thriving international trade; the spread of democracy; and the avoidance of major
conflict among great powers: All these remarkable accomplishments have depended on sustained U.S.
engagement around the world. Yet politicians in both parties dangle before the public the vision of an America freed from the
burdens of leadership. What these politicians don’t say, perhaps because they don’t understand it themselves, is that the price of ending our
engagement would far outweigh its costs. The international order created by the United States today faces
challenges greater than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Rising authoritarian powers in Asia
and Europe threaten to undermine the security structures that have kept the peace since World War II.
Russia invaded Ukraine and has seized some of its territory. In East Asia , an increasingly aggressive China
seeks to control the sea lanes through which a large share of global commerce flows. In the Middle East ,
Iran pursues hegemony by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and the bloody tyranny in Syria. The Islamic
State controls more territory than any terrorist group in history, brutally imposing its extreme vision of
Islam and striking at targets throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. None of these threats
will simply go away. Nor will the United States be spared if the international order collapses , as it did
twice in the 20th century. In the 21st century, oceans provide no security. Nor do walls along borders. Nor would cutting off the
United States from the international economy by trashing trade agreements and erecting barriers to commerce. Instead of following
the irresponsible counsel of demagogues, we need to restore a bipartisan foreign policy consensus
around renewing U.S. global leadership. Despite predictions of a “post-American world,” U.S. capacities
remain considerable. The U.S. economy remains the most dynamic in the world. The widely touted “rise of the rest” — the idea that
the United States was being overtaken by the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China — has proved to be a myth. The dollar remains the
world’s reserve currency, and people across the globe seek U.S. investment and entrepreneurial skills to help their flagging economies. U.S.
institutions of higher learning remain the world’s best and attract students from every corner of the globe. The political values that the United
States stands for remain potent forces for change. Even at a time of resurgent autocracy, popular demands for greater freedom can be heard in
Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere, and those peoples look to the United States for support, both moral and material. And
our strategic
position remains strong. The United States has more than 50 allies and partners around the world.
Russia and China between them have no more than a handful. The task ahead is to play on these strengths and provide
the kind of leadership that many around the world seek and that the American public can support. For the past two years, under the auspices of
the World Economic Forum, we have worked with a diverse, bipartisan group of Americans and representatives from other countries to put
together the broad outlines of a strategy for renewed U.S. leadership. There is nothing magical about our proposals. The
strategies to
sustain the present international order are much the same as the strategies that created it. But they
need to be adapted and updated to meet new challenges and take advantage of new opportunities. For
instance, one prime task today is to strengthen the international economy, from which the American
people derive so many benefits. This means passing trade agreements that strengthen ties between the
United States and the vast economies of East Asia and Europe. Contrary to what demagogues in both parties claim,
ordinary Americans stand to gain significantly from the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership. According to the Peterson Institute for
International Economics, the agreement will increase annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion. The United States also needs to
work to reform existing international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, so that rising economic powers such as China feel a
greater stake in them, while also working with new institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to ensure that they reinforce
rather than undermine liberal economic norms. The revolution in energy, which has made the United States one of the world’s leading
suppliers, offers another powerful advantage. With the right mix of policies, the United States could help allies in Europe and Asia diversify their
sources of supply and thus reduce their vulnerability to Russian manipulation. Nations such as Russia and Iran that rely heavily on hydrocarbon
exports would be weakened, as would the OPEC oil cartel. The overall result would be a relative increase in our power and ability to sustain the
order. The world has come to recognize that education, creativity and innovation are key to prosperity, and most see the United States as a
leader in these areas. Other nations want access to the American market, American finance and American innovation. Businesspeople around
the world seek to build up their own Silicon Valleys and other U.S.-style centers of entrepreneurship. The U.S. government can do a better job
of working with the private sector in collaborating with developing countries. And Americans need to be more, not less, welcoming to
immigrants. Students studying at our world-class universities, entrepreneurs innovating in our high-tech incubators and immigrants searching
for new opportunities for their families strengthen the United States and show the world the opportunities offered by democracy. Finally,
the United States needs to do more to reassure allies that it will be there to back them up if they face
aggression. Would-be adversaries need to know that they would do better by integrating themselves
into the present international order than by trying to undermine it. Accomplishing this, however, requires ending
budget sequestration and increasing spending on defense and on all the other tools of international affairs. This investment would be more
than paid for by the global security it would provide. All these efforts are interrelated, and, indeed, a key task for responsible political leaders
will be to show how the pieces fit together: how trade enhances security, how military power undergirds prosperity and how providing access
to American education strengthens the forces dedicated to a more open and freer world. Above all, Americans need to be reminded what is at
stake. Manymillions around the world have benefited from an international order that has raised
standards of living, opened political systems and preserved the general peace. But no nation and no
people have benefited more than Americans. And no nation has a greater role to play in preserving this
system for future generations.

Every global hotpot goes nuclear and it triggers their impact by collapsing the
economy
Brands 15 – Hal Brands, PhD in International Relations, Faculty at the Sanford School of Public Policy
at Duke University and the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, “Fools
Rush Out? The Flawed Logic of Offshore Balancing”, Washington Quarterly, p. 7-28

The fundamental reason is that both U.S. influence and international stability are thoroughly interwoven with a
robust U.S. forward presence. Regarding influence, the protection that Washington has afforded its allies has
equally afforded the United States great sway over those allies’ policies .43 During the Cold War and after,
for instance, the United States has used the influence provided by its security posture to veto allies’ pursuit of
nuclear weapons, to obtain more advantageous terms in financial and trade agreements , and even to affect
the composition of allied nations’ governments.44 More broadly, it has used its alliances as vehicles for shaping political, security, and
economic agendas in key regions and bilateral relationships, thus giving the United States an outsized voice on a range of important issues. To
be clear, this influence has never been as pervasive as U.S. officials might like, or as some observers might imagine. But by any reasonable
standard of comparison, it has nonetheless been remarkable. One
can tell a similar story about the relative stability of
the post-war order. As even some leading offshore balancers have acknowledged, the lack of conflict in regions like
Europe in recent decades is not something that has occurred naturally . It has occurred because the
“American pacifier” has suppressed precisely the dynamics that previously fostered geopolitical turmoil.
That pacifier has limited arms races and security competitions by providing the protection that allows
other countries to under-build their militaries. It has soothed historical rivalries by affording a climate of
security in which powerful countries like Germany and Japan could be revived economically and
reintegrated into thriving and fairly cooperative regional orders. It has induced caution in the behavior
of allies and adversaries alike, deterring aggression and dissuading other destabilizing behavior . As John
Mearsheimer has noted, the United States “effectively acts as a night watchman,” lending order to an otherwise disorderly and anarchical
environment.45 Whatwould happen if Washington backed away from this role? The most logical answer is that both
U.S. influence and global stability would suffer. With respect to influence, the United States would effectively
be surrendering the most powerful bargaining chip it has traditionally wielded in dealing with friends
and allies, and jeopardizing the position of leadership it has used to shape bilateral and regional agendas
for decades. The consequences would seem no less damaging where stability is concerned . As offshore
balancers have argued, it may be that U.S. retrenchment would force local powers to spend more on defense, while perhaps assuaging certain
points of friction with countries that feel threatened or encircled by U.S. presence. But it equally stands to reason that removing
the
American pacifier would liberate the more destabilizing influences that U.S. policy had previously stifled.
Long-dormant security competitions might reawaken as countries armed themselves more vigorously ;
historical antagonisms between old rivals might reemerge in the absence of a robust U.S. presence and
the reassurance it provides. Moreover, countries that seek to revise existing regional orders in their favor —
think Russia in Europe, or China in Asia—might indeed applaud U.S. retrenchment, but they might just as plausibly feel
empowered to more assertively press their interests. If the United States has been a kind of Leviathan in key regions,
Mearsheimer acknowledges, then “take away that Leviathan and there is likely to be big trouble .”46 Scanning the global
horizon today, one can easily see where such trouble might arise. In Europe, a revisionist Russia is already
destabilizing its neighbors and contesting the post-Cold War settlement in the region. In the Gulf and
broader Middle East, the threat of Iranian ascendancy has stoked region-wide tensions manifesting in
proxy wars and hints of an incipient arms race, even as that region also contends with a severe threat to
its stability in the form of the Islamic State. In East Asia, a rising China is challenging the regional status
quo in numerous ways, sounding alarms among its neighbors—many of whom also have historical
grievances against each other. In these circumstances, removing the American pacifier would likely yield not
low-cost stability, but increased conflict and upheaval. That conflict and upheaval , in turn, would be quite
damaging to U.S. interests even if it did not result in the nightmare scenario of a hostile power dominating a key region. It is hard
to imagine, for instance, that increased instability and acrimony would produce the robust multilateral
cooperation necessary to deal with transnational threats from pandemics to piracy. More problematic
still might be the economic consequences. As scholars like Michael Mandelbaum have argued, the enormous progress
toward global prosperity and integration that has occurred since World War II (and now the Cold War) has
come in the climate of relative stability and security provided largely by the United States.47 One simply
cannot confidently predict that this progress would endure amid escalating geopolitical competition in
regions of enormous importance to the world economy . Perhaps the greatest risk that a strategy of
offshore balancing would run, of course, is that a key region might not be able to maintain its own balance
following U.S. retrenchment. That prospect might have seemed far-fetched in the early post-Cold War era, and it remains unlikely in
the immediate future. But in East Asia particularly, the rise and growing assertiveness of China has highlighted
the medium- to long-term danger that a hostile power could in fact gain regional primacy. If China’s
economy continues to grow rapidly, and if Beijing continues to increase military spending by 10 percent or more each year, then
its neighbors will ultimately face grave challenges in containing Chinese power even if they join forces in
that endeavor. This possibility, ironically, is one to which leading advocates of retrenchment have been attuned. “The United States will
have to play a key role in countering China,” Mearshimer writes, “because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.”48
If this is true, however, then offshore balancing becomes a dangerous and potentially self-defeating strategy . As
mentioned above, it could lead countries like Japan and South Korea to seek nuclear weapons, thereby stoking
arms races and elevating regional tensions. Alternatively, and perhaps more worryingly, it might encourage the
scenario that offshore balancers seek to avoid, by easing China’s ascent to regional hegemony. As Robert
Gilpin has written, “Retrenchment by its very nature is an indication of relative weakness and declining
power, and thus retrenchment can have a deteriorating effect on relations with allies and rivals .”49 In
East Asia today, U.S. allies rely on U.S. reassurance to navigate increasingly fraught relationships with a
more assertive China precisely because they understand that they will have great trouble balancing
Beijing on their own. A significant U.S. retrenchment might therefore tempt these countries to acquiesce to, or bandwagon with, a rising
China if they felt that prospects for successful resistance were diminishing as the United States retreated.50 In the same vein, retrenchment
would compromise alliance relationships, basing agreements, and other assets that might help Washington check Chinese power in the first
place—and that would allow the United States to surge additional forces into theater in a crisis. In sum, if one expects that Asian countries will
be unable to counter China themselves, then reducing U.S. influence and leverage in the region is a curious policy. Offshore balancing might
promise to preserve a stable and advantageous environment while reducing U.S. burdens. But upon closer analysis, the probable outcomes of
the strategy seem more perilous and destabilizing than its proponents acknowledge.

Decline emboldens China, Russia, and Iran---causes counter-balancing and transition

wars
Twining, 17 - director of the Asia Program at The German Marshall Fund of the United States, based in
Washington, DC, MPhil & PhD degrees from Oxford University (Daniel, "Abandoning the Liberal
International Order for a Spheres-of-Influence World is a Trap for America…," Medium, 3-21-2017,
https://medium.com/out-of-order/abandoning-the-liberal-international-order-for-a-spheres-of-
influence-world-is-a-trap-for-america-7bfcdbb83df4)

The liberal world order is under assault. Polls suggest an American ambivalence about upholding the rules-based global system.
Populists are besieging governing elites in the West while Russia works strategically to destabilize European and American governments
through propaganda and proxies. A rising China wants to create a global system that is not U.S.-centric , one in
which smaller powers defer to bigger ones and norms of democracy and rule of law do not prevail. Meanwhile, the U.S. alliance
system looks adrift while competitors in China and Russia appear to be on the march. If it holds, this trend could produce a
spheres-of-influence world — which many, including the current presidents of the United States, China, and Russia, find
intuitively attractive. But were such an order to replace one based on global integration and American leadership in the geopolitical
cockpits of Europe and Asia, it would only engender insecurity and conflict. In a spheres-of-influence world ,
great powers order their regions. The United States would go back to a “Monroe Doctrine” version of grand strategy; Russia
would dominate the former Soviet space; China would govern East Asia, and India South Asia. The problem
with this kind of order, however, is several-fold. Too many spheres overlap in ways that would generate conflict rather
than clean lines of responsibility . Japan would oppose Chinese suzerainty in East Asia, including by
developing nuclear weapons; India and China would compete vigorously in Southeast Asia; Russia and
China would contest the resources and loyalties of Central Asia; Europe and Russia would clash over
primacy of Central and Eastern Europe . The Middle East would be an even more likely arena for hot war
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Turkey would contest regions also claimed by Russia, Europe, and
possibly China. Russia, like the Soviet Empire before it, would keep pushing west until it met enough hard power to
stop it. A spheres of influence world would also sharpen great power competition outside of each region.
Regional hegemony is a springboard for global contestation. China would be more likely to challenge the
United States out-of-area if it had subdued strategic competition in its own region. Russia, like the Soviet Empire
before it, would keep pushing west until it met enough hard power to stop it . (The fact that Russian troops marched
through Paris during the Napoleonic Wars demonstrates that the limits of Russian power need not be confined to the former Warsaw Pact).
American leaders have long understood that a “Fortress America” approach is a source of national insecurity. Franklin Roosevelt made this case
in a series of “fireside chats” in the run-up to America’s participation in World War II — even before the advent of the far more sophisticated
power-projection technologies that exist today. Roosevelt and his generals well understood that the United States could not be safe if hostile
powers controlled Europe and Asia, despite the wide oceans separating North America from both theaters. A spheres-of-influence
world would also crack up the integrated global economy that underlies the miracle in human welfare that has lifted billions
out of poverty in past decades. It would replicate the exclusive economic blocs of the 1930s, including an East
Asia “co-prosperity sphere,” seeding conflict and undercutting prosperity. A real-world and real-time example of what
happens when American power retreats in an effort to encourage regional powers to solve their own problems is the mess in Syria. It has
produced the greatest refugee crisis since 1945 — a stain on the consciousness of human civilization — and has led many to conclude that the
Middle Eastern order of states dating to the end of World War 1 is collapsing. President Obama pursued an express policy of retracting
American military power from the Middle East, including withdrawing all troops from Iraq and refusing to intervene militarily when President
Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, despite a red-line injunction from the United States not to do so. Obama and his White
House political advisors believed that American withdrawal from the Arab Middle East (if not from the ironclad U.S. commitment to Israel)
would lead a new balance of power to form, one policed by regional powers rather than by America. This flawed, amoral, and un-
strategic approach has led to a series of hot wars — in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen — the collapse of Arab allies’
confidence in the United States as an ally , as well as an intensified cold war with Iran. Despite the
international agreement freezing Iran’s nuclear program, Iran’s support for terrorism and hostile insurgencies
targeting American allies across its region actually intensified during this period. A spheres-of-influence
world leaves weaker states to become the victims of stronger or more aggressive ones, and it seeds insecurity
by removing the reassuring variable of American military guarantees and presence This experience underlines a
core problem with a spheres-of-influence world. It leaves weaker states to become the victims of stronger or more aggressive ones, and
it seeds insecurity by removing the reassuring variable of American military guarantees and presence. It emboldens American
adversaries and leads American allies to take self-help measures that themselves may undercut
American security interests. A spheres-of-influence world would also produce contestation of the open
global commons that are the basis for the unprecedented prosperity produced by the liberal international economic
order. Should the Indian and Pacific Oceans, or the Arctic and Mediterranean Seas, become arenas of great-
power conflict (like the South China Sea already has thanks to China’s militarization and unilateral assertion of sovereignty over it) as
leading states seek to incorporate them into their privileged zones of control , economic globalization
would collapse, harming the economies of every major power. The United States, because of its sheer power and
resource base as well as its relative geographical isolation, might do OK in a spheres-of-influence world. Most of America’s friends
and allies would not. Their weakening and insecurity would in turn render the United States weaker and
more insecure — since U.S. allies are force-multipliers for American hard and soft power , and since norms like
freedom of the global commons are in fact underwritten by that power. More broadly, such a transition would
also likely lead to the kind of hot wars that reorder the international balance of power, including by
incentivizing aggressive states to push out and assert regional dominion , knowing that America does
not have the will or interest to oppose them . The fact that U.S. competitors such as Russia, China, and Iran — 
all of whom want to weaken the American-led world order — would welcome a spheres-of-influence world is another
reason for Americans to oppose it. It would also be ironic if the United States were to back away from its historic commitment to
shaping a world that is an idealized vision of America itself — one ruled by laws, norms, institutions, markets, and peaceful settlement of
disputes.

Global nuclear war

Khalilzad 16 – Zalmay Khalilzad, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, counselor at the CSIS,
3/23/16, “4 Lessons about America's Role in the World,” http://nationalinterest.org/feature/4-lessons-
about-americas-role-the-world-15574?page=show

Ultimately, however, we concluded that the

United States has a strong interest in precluding the emergence of
another bipolar world—as in the Cold War—or a world of many great powers, as existed before the two world wars.
Multipolarity led to two world wars and bipolarity resulted in a protracted worldwide struggle with the risk
of nuclear annihilation. To avoid a return such circumstances, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney ultimately agreed that
our objective must be to prevent a hostile power to dominate a “critical region ,” which would give it the
resources, industrial capabilities and population to pose a global challenge . This insight has guided U.S. defense policy throughout the
post–Cold War era.

Giving major powers the green light to establish spheres of influence would produce a multipolar world
and risk the return of war between the major powers. Without a stabilizing U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf and U.S.
relationships with Jordan and the Gulf States, Iran could shut down oil shipments in its supposed sphere of influence. A similar scenario in fact
played out during the 1987 “tanker war” of the Iran-Iraq war, which eventually escalated into a direct military conflict between the United
States and Iran. Iran’s nuclear program makes these scenarios even more dangerous.

The United States can manage the rise and resurgence of great powers like China, Russia and Iran at an
acceptable cost without ceding entire spheres of influence. The key is to focus on normalizing the geopolitics of the
Middle East, Europe and the Asia-Pacific, which the United States can do by strengthening its transatlantic and transpacific alliances and
adapting them to the new, dangerous circumstances on the horizon. The
United States should promote a balance of power in
key regions while seeking opportunities to reconcile differences among major actors.
 Retrenchment Impact --- Economy Impact Add-On

Wright says retrenchment collapses the economy --- that’s extinction

Mann 14 – Eric Mann is a special agent with a United States federal agency, with significant domestic
and international counterintelligence and counter-terrorism experience. Worked as a special assistant
for a U.S. Senator and served as a presidential appointee for the U.S. Congress. He is currently
responsible for an internal security and vulnerability assessment program. Bachelors @ University of
South Carolina, Graduate degree in Homeland Security @ Georgetown. “AUSTERITY, ECONOMIC
DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF WAR: A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May 2014,
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf

The conclusions reached in this thesis demonstrate how economic

considerations within states can figure prominently into
the calculus for future conflicts. The findings also suggest that security issues with economic or financial
underpinnings will transcend classical determinants of war and conflict, and change the manner by
which rival states engage in hostile acts toward one another . The research shows that security concerns
emanating from economic uncertainty and the inherent vulnerabilities within global financial markets
will present new challenges for national security , and provide developing states new asymmetric options
for balancing against stronger states.¶ The security areas, identified in the proceeding chapters, are likely to mature
into global security threats in the immediate future. As the case study on South Korea suggest, the overlapping security
issues associated with economic decline and reduced military spending by the United States will affect
allied confidence in America’s security guarantees. The study shows that this outcome could cause regional
instability or realignments of strategic partnerships in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications for U.S.
national security. Rival states and non-state groups may also become emboldened to challenge
America’s status in the unipolar international system.¶ The potential risks associated with stolen or loose WMD,
resulting from poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security. The case study on Pakistan, Syria and North
Korea show how financial constraints affect weapons security making weapons vulnerable to theft, and how

financial factors can influence WMD proliferation by contributing to the motivating factors behind a trusted insider’s decision to sell
weapons technology. The inherent vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide terrorists’

organizations and other non-state groups, who object to the current international system or distribution of power, with
opportunities to disrupt global finance and perhaps weaken America’s status.
 Retrenchment Impact --- Russia Impact Add-On

Wright says retrenchment triggers Russia adventurism --- that’s extinction

Dury 17 --- Colin Drury journalist for VICE, citing Ian Shield, associate lecturer in international relations
at Anglia Ruskin University, Vladimir Zhirinovsky who is a Russian lawmaker, Keri Giles, associate fellow
with the UK foreign-policy think tank Chatham House, “What Would Happen if Russia and Europe Went
to War?,” VICE, 2017 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4xe5a3/what-would-happen-if-russia-and-
europe-went-to-war (BJN)
But peace is not inevitable. If you think Europe can't descend into a bar fight like drunks at closing time again, know you're not the first to
believe it. Some people dreamed something similar during the Concert of Europe—a system put in place to uphold the balance of power in the
mid-19th century—and again in the four decades of calm that followed the 1870–71 Franco-Prussian conflict. The second period ended with
WWI. So they misjudged that. Could we also have misjudged the proximity of mass conflict in the 21st century? Some say so. Security experts
are increasingly investigating scenarios where a stronger Russia on one side and Europe's NATO allies on the other go from diplomatic tensions
to full on slapping each other. This, they stress, is unlikely. But if global events have taught us anything, it's that unlikely doesn't mean
impossible. In fact, the above could happen in three simple steps. One: Donald Trump makes good on his hints and pulls the US out of NATO.
Two: An emboldened Vladimir Putin
decides to help himself to the Baltic states —Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia—he has long
believed should be part of Russia. Three: Given these states have been NATO members since 2004, the rest
of the alliance—the UK, Germany, France, and others—go to their aid . The result? "Hiroshimas and
Nagasakis everywhere," reckoned the Russian lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky when discussing the possibility last year. So that's not
ideal. But could Russia and Europe really go to war? And if they did, how would that work out? Be warned: As Keir Giles, associate fellow with
the UK foreign-policy think tank Chatham House, that is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization based in London tells me, "There's not
much good news." WATCH: The Special Ops Olympics—War Games 1. Tensions Rise Tensions
between Russia and Europe are
always high. Even so, the present unease is ominous. On one hand, Russia has been holding major nuclear
drills for 40 million citizens, sending submarines into the territorial waters of other nations and running
mock bombing missions on the edge of British airspace . Forcibly annexing part of another country, This
behavior isn't generally viewed as good neighborliness , either. Yet NATO isn't entirely averse to mucking things up. The
alliance has almost 10,000 troops in countries that border Russia, while a two-week war game featuring thousands of personnel and 50 aircrafts
is being held in Scotland right now. The enemy state in such rehearsals is often given a somewhat unambiguous name: the Reds. 2. The Flash
Point It's not wildly anti-Russian to say the current administration favors the countries that border the Baltic Sea—Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania. Putin believes these former Soviet states should never have become independent: Each has a large Russian population and
strategically excellent sea ports. He's certainly not keen on them being NATO members and sees the alliance—not without rationale—as
encircling Russia. "If you compress a spring," he warned in 2014, "eventually it will snap back." With America gone, that snap back could happen
instantly. "They would move on the Baltic states more or less immediately," says Giles, who is also director of the Conflict Studies Research
Center in Oxfordshire. "Putin believes Russian security requires the Baltic states under its domain. But you need to look further. It's hard to put
a definitive border on how far ambitious Russians think the frontier should expand. But certainly you're looking
at Poland and Finland too." 3. Internet Down! Shots Fired! Photo by Sean MacEntee via Flickr In 2015, a study by research institute the
RAND Corporation concluded it would take just 60 hours for Russia to overrun Lithuania , Latvia, and Estonia. Giles,
however, believes the signs would be there sometime in advance. "There would be a noticeable rise in Russian diplomacy
and media focusing on issues that could give rationale for an armed intervention," he says. On some
pretense, such as a peacekeeping mission, thousands of troops would gather on the border . In the days
before any invasion or attack, the target's internet would be shut down or disrupted by specialist telecommunications soldiers.
Power supplies would fail, and ATMs would stop functioning . Cellphones and TV signals would be jammed. Perhaps most ominously,
personalized texts would be sent direct to opposition officials, soldiers, and citizens, creating confusion
and panic. In some cases, these texts would appear to come from someone already in the recipient's phone book. "In the right circumstances,
this could be enough," says Giles. "Russia doesn't need to roll tanks across a border. They can stage an attack without a military presence.
Misinformation and civil disorder could lead to regime change with a client government of Moscow
taking charge. That would meet Russia's security and economic objectives." And if no such regime change happened? Think hybrid
warfare: all the above combined with the sudden movement of troops into the country. "We don't know how exactly an occupation would look,
but Russia
does practice this scenario," says Giles. "What we do know is it would be over pretty swiftly." 4. NATO: Fight or Fall
Once diplomacy fails, the hard fact is that a US-less NATO almost certainly doesn't have the firepower to
win a war with Russia. We'll ignore nuclear weapons for now and keep things conventional. Russia has more men (the reserves alone
are 2.5 million strong) and hardware. As a single country, its chain of command is better streamlined. Soldiers are battle-hardened from Ukraine
and Syria. After a decade of $40 billion-a-year military upgrades, its weaponry—such as the Pantsir-S1, a tank that can literally destroy cruise
missiles—is superior too. It's also possible some NATO members would withdraw —in particular Turkey, given the warm
relationship between President Putin and President Recep Erdoğan. That's 600,000 men—the second-biggest contingent after the US—gone.
The result would be the last of NATO facing an existential decision: Fight and probably lose, or, in this
scenario, cut the Baltic states loose. Or, as Ian Shield, associate lecturer in international relations at Anglia Ruskin University, puts
it: "The choice would be between reneging on the treaty—which would certainly lead to the disintegration of NATO and probably, by extension,
the whole European order—or participating in a cataclysmic war extending up to nuclear weapons." Rock and a hard place, basically. 5. War on
the Ground Ballistic short range missiles. Photo via Wikimedia Let's carry on gaming, though, and say NATO engages Russia. How does that go?
Not well for either side, says Shields: "On any battlefield, there would be annihilation—although these wouldn't be battlefields like
we have previously known. Missiles and artillery have far greater range and precision, meaning enemy posts,
infrastructure, armories, and even entire towns could be destroyed from within home territory. What
you have is fewer individual battles but far greater destruction . If neither side backed down, entire swathes of
Europe—it's impossible to know where—would be reduced to rubble. The death tolls would be unimaginable."
Britain wouldn't be safe; the English Channel has become a hopelessly outdated moat. "Russian aircrafts wouldn't need to even enter
British airspace," says Shields. "They could land precision strikes from well outside." Both sides would wrestle for control of the
seas around Scandinavia. Cyber attacks, meanwhile, could shut down transport infrastructure, hospitals,
media, and utilities. Russia's main advantage amid the carnage would be two-fold. First, because it has more weaponry and men, it can,
essentially, keep blasting away longer. Second, its sheer landmass means it could better absorb the devastation: NATO could wipe out
every single structure hundreds of miles into its adversary's territory, and Moscow wouldn't even be
scratched. 6. Going Nuclear As any history student knows, it doesn't matter if you have 7,000 nuclear weapons (Russia) or 200 (Britain and
France); their cataclysmic qualities level things up. The thought goes that the pressing of the red button means MAD: mutually assured
destruction. If one side starts throwing warheads about, the other responds in kind . Both adversaries are wiped out.
Right? Wrong. "What Russia has in its arsenal that the West doesn't is tactical nuclear weapons," explains Giles. "These are not big city-leveling
nukes, but ones that can destroy battlefields or neighborhoods. The West had these weapons but got rid of them. So its only response to a
tactical nuclear strike would be a full nuclear attack. Which is self-defeating because it would also ensure their own destruction. The West is
missing several rungs on the escalation ladder that Russia has built into its strategy." Nonetheless, once
things go nuclear, it all
becomes unpredictable: cities wiped out, millions dead. At this point, even the most advanced
strategists tend to stop plotting possible paths . 7. But Cheer Up If the US leaving NATO is a gateway to
Armageddon, the good news is it seems increasingly unlikely. Trump probably won't ditch the alliance . That's because it
doesn't only keep the US secure; it's also politically and economically advantageous. It gives Washington
influence in Europe and protects a vast and prosperous continent that—and this is important—spends
much of its wealth with American companies . That said, maybe it's still worth remembering peace here
really does hang by threads. Maybe go out and play more.
 Retrenchment Impact --- China Impact Add-On

Wright says retrenchment causes China to invade neighbors --- that’s extinction
Adams 14 – Shar Adams, Reporter for the Epoch Times, Citing Desmond Ball, Professor in the Strategic
and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, “Asian Cold War: Escalating Conflict in
North-East Asia Bigger Threat Than War on Terror”, Epoch Times, 10-13,
http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/1014683-asian-cold-war-escalating-conflict-in-north-east-asia-bigger-
threat-than-war-on-terror/

The world may be focused on the “war on terror”, but the arms build up in North-East Asia poses a far greater threat to
global stability , says Professor Desmond Ball, a senior defence and security expert at the Australian National University (ANU). A former
head of ANU’s Strategic & Defence Studies Centre, Professor Ball is no lightweight when it comes to security concerns. It is Professor Ball’s
expertise in c ommand and c ontrol systems, particularly in relation to nuclear war, that underlies his concerns about
North-East Asia. “North-East Asia has now become the most disturbing part of the globe ,” Prof Ball told Epoch
Times in an exclusive interview. China, Japan and South Korea – countries that are “ economic engines of the
global economy ” – are embroiled in an arms race of unprecedented proportions , punctuated by “very
dangerous military activities”, he says. Unlike the arms race seen during the Cold War, however, there are
no mechanisms in place to constrain the military escalation in Asia. “Indeed, the escalation dynamic
could move very rapidly and strongly to large scale conflict , including nuclear conflict ,” said Prof Ball. “It is
happening as we watch.” Arms Race Military spending in Asia has grown steadily over the last decade .
According to a 2013 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute report, China is now the world’s second largest military spender behind
the United States, spending an estimated $188 billion in 2013. Japan and South Korea are also among the world’s top 10 military spenders.
When North Korea and Taiwan are included, North-East Asian countries constitute around 85 per cent of military
spending in Asia. But what is more disturbing, Prof Ball says, is the motivation for the acquisitions. “The primary reason now for
the acquisitions, whether they are air warfare destroyers, missiles or defense submarines, is simply to match what the other
[countries] are getting,” he said. While he believes it is likely that Japan would have embarked on military modernisation, he says it is
China’s military provocation of countries across Asia that is fuelling the build-up. Since China lay claim to all of the South China Sea, it has

escalated territorial disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia. What started with skirmishes between
locals and Chinese fishing boats or navy vessels has now become territorial grabs – island building on contested
rocky outcrops. In a sign of things to come, the South China Morning Post reported in June: “China is looking to expand its biggest installation in
the Spratly Islands into a fully formed artificial island, complete with airstrip and sea port, to better project its military strength in the South
China Sea.” According to Filipino media, the artificial island falls within the Philippines’ 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Prof Ball says China’s
behaviour in the South China Sea is provocative, but “in the scale of what we are talking about, that is nothing” compared with conflicts in
North-East Asia, where China and Japan are contesting claims over the Tokyo-controlled Senkaku Islands (claimed as

the Diaoyus by China). Of the Senkakus conflict, Prof Ball says: “We are talking about actual footsteps towards nuclear
war – submarines and missiles.” Chinese and Japanese activity in the Senkakus region has escalated to the point where sometimes there
are “at least 40 aircraft jostling” over the contested area , he said. Alarm bells were set off near the Senkakus in January
last year when a Chinese military vessel trained its fire-control radar on a Japanese naval destroyer. The incident spurred the Japanese Defense
Ministry to go public about that event and reveal another incident from a few days prior, when a Chinese frigate directed fire-control radar at a
Japanese military helicopter. Fire-control radars are not like surveillance or early warning radars – they have one purpose and that is to lock
onto a target in order to fire a missile. “Someone does that to us, we fire back,” Prof Ball said. Counter Measures Needed Prof Ball is recognised
for encouraging openness and transparency, and for his advocacy of multilateral institutions. He has been called one of the region’s “most
energetic and activist leaders in establishing forums for security dialogue and measures for building confidence”. In his experience visiting China
over the years, however, Prof Ball says gaining open dialogue and transparency with Chinese military leaders is difficult .
He recounted a private meeting with a Chinese admiral shortly after the fire-control radar incident. Prof Ball had seen direct evidence of the
encounter – “tapes of the radar frequencies, the pulse rates and the pulse repetition frequencies” – and wanted to know what had happened
on the Chinese side and why it took place. “In a private meeting, I asked the admiral why … and he denied it to my face,” Prof Ball said. The
Chinese admiral would not even concede that an incident had happened. “I don’t see the point of this sort of dialogue,” he added. With so
many players in the region and few barriers against conflict escalation , the North-East Asian nuclear
arms race is now far more complex and dangerous than the Cold War, he says. In the Cold War, there
were mechanisms at each level of potential confrontation, including a direct hotline between the US and Soviet
leaders. “Once things get serious here, [there is] nothing to slow things down . On the contrary, you have all

the incentives to go first ,” he said.

Demosprudence Backlines
 Overview

Court rulings are critical to empower social movements --- When they act
demosprudentialy it DIRECTLY engage with the people and builds intellectual capital
and raise social consciousness --- The Equal Pay Movement supports our claims ---
Ginsburg’s ruling fulfilled the standards of a demosprudential decision --- it spoke
directly to the failures of democratic institutions and challenged the people to fight for
change --- it accomplished major legislative victories --- That’s GUINIER and Ray

The opportunity is ripe for the Water movement --- Our MCCRORY & RAYMOND
evidence says a Court decision the emphasizes the inequalities in the Trump WOTUS
rule change will be a catalyst for participatory democracy. That type of political
engagement is critical to the success of movements fighting for a human right to water
--- that’s FRANCIS & FIRESTONE

The impact is water justice --- At least 45 million people are denied access to clean
water by their government --- it is a form of structural violence --- the impact itself is
incalculable because the lack of water access piles on harms --- The framework for
impacts should be positive peace --- utilitarian arguments to “vote neg to protect
growth” is akin to the cost-cutting measure taken by the Michigan government that
resulted in polluted water in Flint --- It is a moral imperative to reject this calculation.
Moury 17 --- Rachel Anne Moury, Director of Donor Relations at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey
Medical Center/Penn State College of Medicine, Comment on the article “U02: Flint Water Crisis: A
Calamity of Epic Proportions”, Penn State Liberal Arts Online, February 26, 2017,
https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/24/u02-flint-water-crisis-a-calamity-of-epic-proportions/

The decision makers may have justified their actions from a utilitarian consequentialist perspective of
saving tax-payers money, but in the end, they reduced people to dollars and cents and caused more
harm to the very people they supposedly set out to help (Bonde et al., 2013). Furthermore, the government officials neglected
their obligation to treat, test, and honestly report the safety of the water. Treating the pipes and testing the water was ethically
obligatory, because without doing so, it caused widespread illness for people who were already vulnerable and even caused several deaths
(Bonde et al., 2013). If
those making the decisions in Flint deemed the majority-minority population to not be
worthy of the same rights as a majority white population, then the claim that this criminal breach of
ethics was racially motivated would have merit (Martinez, 2016). At the very least, it deserves serious consideration.
 Ext --- Moral Imperative

The fight for clean water is a moral imperative --- the impact affects millions of people
daily
McGraw 19 --- George McGraw is the founder and executive director of clean water advocacy
organization, “Americans left behind in the global fight for clean water”, March 2019,
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/435225-americans-left-behind-in-the-global-flight-for-
clean-water

Indeed, the
global community has made great strides toward universalizing access to safe, clean water as a
basic human right. In the quarter-century before 2015, some 2.6 billion people gained access to improved drinking water. From Suriname
to Swaziland, even the least developed countries are advancing toward the UN Sustainable Development Goal of providing access to clean
water for everyone on the planet by 2030.

But as other countries celebrate, few of us are paying attention to the worsening water situation here at
home. While the theme of World Water Day 2019 is “Leave No One Behind,” sadly, too many Americans
have been just that — left behind — when it comes to accessing safe water.

Millions of Americans still don’t have running water or a working toilet

Some 1.6 million people in the U.S. still lack basic plumbing at home. That’s equal to the populations of Atlanta, Boston, and Washington, D.C.
combined. Most Americans have no idea, because this longstanding water crisis affects low-income people and communities of color whose
problems are often hidden from view in places like Native American reservations, Appalachia, and the colonias along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Today, African-Americans are more than twice as likely to live in homes with substandard plumbing than
whites. In Sandbranch, Texas, a few miles outside Dallas, the majority-black community doesn’t have a public
water system. The hundred-or-so residents survive on bottled water delivered by a local church . They’re
stuck, because selling their houses won’t generate enough money to move.

On the Navajo Nation, where an estimated 40 percent of the 170,000 inhabitants must haul all their
water, it’s common for Navajo families to drive 50 miles to buy drinking water. Some resort to livestock troughs or
ponds they know will make them sick. Most Navajo get by on fewer than five gallons of water per day , while the
typical American consumes about 100.
Decades of under-investment in water infrastructure has led to widespread contamination

In the four years since the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, sparked national outrage, lead-tainted water has been discovered in Chicago,
Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. In Milwaukee, 8.6 percent of all children show evidence of lead poisoning . Recent
analysis found that more than 2,000 water systems in all 50 states have lead levels exceeding federal limits
(currently 15 parts-per-billion, but health officials warn that no amount is safe). Collectively, these systems serve 6 million
people.
The problem can often be traced to lead service lines, some over a century old, which connect individual homes and buildings to municipal
water mains. As they age these pipes are prone to leeching lead, leakage, chemical infiltration and bacterial growth. The American Society of
Civil Engineers awarded the U.S. drinking water system with a “D” grade. Raising it from a “D” to an “A” won’t be cheap. We’re so far behind
that the American Water Works Association estimates the cost at roughly $1 trillion over the next 25 years.

We’re rolling back the environmental safeguards that protect our drinking water
Just last month the Senate confirmed a new EPA chief, former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler. His appointment is likely to intensify the current
administration’s assault on the Clean Water Act, the landmark 1972 federal law protecting our water resources, starting by weakening
regulations governing coal-ash. Coal-ash is the highly toxic residue from coal-burning power plants. There are more than 1,000 coal-ash pits
across the country, each of them laden with heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury and chromium-6.

At the time when a Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Americans worry “a great deal” about the safety of their drinking water, the
EPA is
also backing off an Obama-era rule that extends federal protection to water sources such as wetlands and
major river tributaries. Environmentalists argue that the reversal is a gift to real-estate developers and
industrial polluters and will jeopardize water quality for over 100 million Americans.

Adding insult to injury, the EPA is shuttering critical departments, such as its Environmental Justice Office, which
protects those citizens most vulnerable to contamination, including low-income communities, African-
Americans and indigenous people.

This World Water Day, as the world chants “Leave No One Behind,” the
U.S. may be the only nation — developed or developing —
where the water-access gap is widening. Add to that the uncertainty of climate change and the increasing
unaffordability of water services in places such as Newark and Detroit, which has resulted in tens of thousands of
service shut-offs, and our situation seems especially dire.

For Americans, World

Water Day isn’t a day for celebration — it’s a day for action. We must start fighting for
access to safe, clean drinking water as if our lives depend on it — because they do . We can start by
demanding that our public institutions, including the EPA, protect us. And we can elevate the stories of low-
income Americans and communities of color in their fight for water equity.
 Ext --- What Makes A Ruling Demosprudential

FYI --- What are the characteristics of a demosprudential ruling?

Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles

Guinier identifies three key characteristics of demosprudential opinions. The first is thematic: they
must substantively "engage[] with a core issue of democratic legitimacy , democratic accountability, democratic structure
or democratic viability." (29)

Style and rhetoric are equally important. A demosprudential opinion either tells a "good 'public story' built on shared
experiences or common concerns" or is "organized around values critique or actions" (30) The opinion also is "delivered in a
dramatic tone" or "expressed poetically." (31) Key here is the opinion's ability to speak in terms that a lay audience
understands and to avoid the typical language of legal argument.

Finally a demosprudential opinion "speaks to non-judicial actors , whether legislators, local thought leaders, or ordinary
people .... " In doing so, the opinion "provides a powerful pedagogical opportunity to open up space for
public deliberation and engagement." (32)
 Ext --- Water Justice Good

Water justice movements increase political engagement and public participation ---
reducing socioeconomic and political inequalities
Meshel 18 --- Tamar Meshel, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law,
“ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES: THE HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER”, WASH. J. ENVTL. L.
& POL’Y [Vol. 8:2 2018], https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3074867

The significance of the human right to water goes beyond its legal and policy benefits and extends to its
“symbolic power as a tool for raising community consciousness” that can empower communities to
demand equal rights to water and sanitation.188 Quite apart from the formal acknowledgement of the human right to water
by domestic or international authorities, the concept itself can serve to empower impacted residents to “ assert
themselves in the water policymaking arena and to influence decisions about water resources and
water services that impact their community. ” 189 Engagement and involvement of affected vulnerable
communities could assist to overcome the socioeconomic and political barriers discussed above that
communities face in the U.S. and elsewhere and that result in water injustice. Such positive changes could be
facilitated by promoting public participation from the ground up, in addition to incorporating it formally in
governmental decision-making processes. Public participation could be encouraged, for instance, by educating and
engaging with local affected communities and connecting between different communities with shared
or similar interests.190 Moreover, the notion of a human right to water could facilitate “public participation by all
relevant stakeholders,” some of whom are currently excluded from decision-making processes, such as
low-income renters who are not entitled to voting rights in some districts and residents of “unincorporated communities in which no formal
municipal governments exists.” 191
 A2: The Plan Isnt Demosprudential / Sounds Pretty Legalese To Me…

Our MCCRORY & RAYMOND evidence says it is demosprudential --- it calls out the
government for an anti-democratic process of rule change, violating the safety of
millions, and puts the burden on the government to do better --- that’s all three
criteria outlined by GUINIER and Ray
 A2: What Makes Demosprudential Different?

Demosprudential decisions are distinct --- they directly engage with the population in
ways previous court rulings did not
Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles

Demosprudence is distinct from other forms of legally-influenced social change because of the link
demosprudence creates between cultural and legal change. Tortes contrasts demosprudential
lawyering with cause lawyering and argues that demosprudence's link to culture emphasizes the
democratization of the legal process itself, rather than focusing on particular clients or causes: "Cause
lawyering may try to shift the rules, which ultimately may change the culture, but the problem with cause lawyering
is that decisions about which rules are being shifted and how those rule shifts are being enforced is
ultimately made by elites." (23)

Torres points to Brown v. Board of Education (24) as an example where cause lawyering resulted in legal
change that failed to produce real social change. In his view, "the meaning of Brown was found in the
capacity for individuals to exit rather than in a more profound redistribution of resources for
communities." (25) The lesson he draws from that experience "is the need to link culture shifting with democratic
accountability that gives poor people and communities of color (not just individual people of color) voice,
choice and power." (26)

In a series of recent articles, Guinier focuses on dissents, and oral dissents in particular, as one form of demosprudence. Guinier describes " the
foundational hypothesis of demosprudence [as] that the wisdom of the people should inform the
lawmaking enterprise in a democracy." (27) By drawing on this collective wisdom, a court "gains a new
source of democratic authority when its members engage ordinary people in a productive dialogue
about the potential role of 'We the People' in lawmaking ." (28)
 A2: That Sounds Pretty Activist

Happens all the time --- our evidence points out Scalia, Ginsburg, etc

Demoprudential decisions are not activists --- they hold anti-democratic policies
accountability and keep the conservative majority in check
GUINIER 09 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “BEYOND
LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 89:539 2009],
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf

Considerations of demosprudence, however, are not invitations for judicial activism. There is a
difference between a self-effacing judicial philosophy powered by democratic empathy, on the one hand, and a
self-aggrandizing philosophy of judicial lawmaking that pre-empts the legislative or popular will. The
former links the Court’s authority to its democratic accountability; the latter is a form of juridification.

President Obama, as well as his advisors, recognize this distinction.131 Indeed, when
the bugaboo of judicial activism was leveled
during the campaign,132 Obama’s advisors acted quickly to disaggregate a philosophy based on
competence, empathy and democratic accountability from one based on judicial presumption. 133 They
summoned Ledbetter as an example of the role that judicial biography and temperament already play in judicial preemption on the right, not the left.134

Demosprudential dissenters actually have an even stronger defense to charges of judicial activism. They
will “avoid the problem of judicial activism . . . because they are not using ‘the law’ in Professor Robert Cover’s
‘jurispathic’ sense, in order to kill alternative and inventive meanings, developed by citizens themselves, in favor
of one restrictive mandate.”135 Having a constituency of accountability to whom a Justice speaks in dissent is quite
different than over-reaching, backed by the coercive power of the state, to overrule established precedent as a
member of the Court majority. As dissenters on a conservative Court, liberal Justices will not, by themselves, make law. Nor will they, by
themselves, make politics.

Instead, demosprudential dissenters invite the people, not their judicial colleagues, to become activists in
service of democracy. They attempt to provide an important check on the power of the Court majority,
by inviting the people themselves to play a more active role in the interpretation of the law. A
demosprudential dissenter can also bring greater transparency to the lawmaking process, providing openness that heightens public regard for
the legal process and the Court as an institution. By themselves, demosprudential dissents are neither necessary nor sufficient to propel social
change. But, as with Justice Ginsburg’s oral dissent in Ledbetter, their voices in dissent can help frame a culturally resonant and democratically
potent narrative of change.136

The neg interpretation of judge behavior is divorced from reality of judicial decisions
Bell et al 20 --- Monica Bell, Associate Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Stephanie Garlock, J.D.
candidate at Yale Law School Alexander Nabavi-Noori, J.D. candidate, Yale. Law School “Toward a
Demosprudence of Poverty”, 69 Duke L.J. 1473 (2019-2020), https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/duklr69&div=43&id=&page=
Some would reject the idea that judges should take demosprudential approaches to their work. Critics
might argue that judging is an act of detachment and formal independence from the concerns of regular
people--a job that should rigorously avoid normative visions of justice that do not emanate directly from
current law or doctrine. (272) Professor Terry Maroney has helpfully referred to this idea as "the cultural script
of judicial dispassion": a deep-rooted and resilient Western notion that judging , properly done, is as
insulated from human life and emotion as possible . (273)

This vision of judging, however, is at best quixotic. It relies upon assumptions about judging that ignore the
ineluctable interplay between law, legal interpretation, and cultural change . (274) It also fails to represent
the actual daily labor of judging, especially in the trial courts where poverty criminalization is most consistent and apparent. It
omits the mundane difficulty of judging. It overlooks the emotional labor associated with issuing binding decisions
on important matters affecting real people . (275) Only in the rarest of circumstances is judging a purely theoretical exercise--
and, arguably, judging should never be thought of as detached from human wisdom or experience. (276) Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit argues that, although empathy "should play no role in a judge's determination of what the law is," empathy and
even emotion are nonetheless "essential ... in the real-world, day-to-day administration of justice." (277) Recognition of the human condition,
including by acknowledging evidence of the multifaceted relationship between poverty and legal marginalization, is not only permissible but
also necessary to good judging--assuming that democracy enhancement and truth telling are goals of the judicial process. (278)

Courts enhance legitimacy by acting demosprudentially --- Calling on action from

political actors
Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles C.
Legitimacy and Positivity Theory

Gibson's positivity theory suggests that a demosprudential

approach may be a mechanism for developing
legitimacy not only for the Court but for the new constitutional order more generally. By issuing demosprudential
opinions, particularly opinions that involve weak-form mechanisms that require a political response, the
Court is actively managing a process of exposure both to the Court itself and, more importantly, to the
constitutional principles that the Court is expected to defend . Viewed this way, the Court's demosprudential
opinions and weak-form remedies are an extension of this insight and are attempts to establish the
legitimacy of the constitution itself rather than just the court. By issuing decisions that directly call on
the political branches to take constitutionally responsible actions and to establish processes for bringing
citizens directly into policy-making processes with constitutional dimensions, the Court is creating a set of
mechanisms for the kind of exposure that Gibson describes.
 A2: Why Do A Lot of Your Cards Say “Dissent”?

You can have demoprudential opinions and concurrences too --- its just we see them
more often with dissents
Guinier 07 --- Lani Guinier , Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “THE SUPREME
COURT 2007 TERM FOREWORD: DEMOSPRUDENCE THROUGH DISSENT”, Harvard Law Review 2007,
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/foreword.pdf

Although this opinion is not a blueprint — even if there could be one — for a demosprudential decision, Justice
Stevens’s concurrence is highly demosprudential. It contains all three characteristics of a
demosprudential opinion: an issue of democracy is at the core of the conflict (Justice Stevens particularly
notes the current absence of real, democratic deliberation over the continued use of the death penalty ,
and the deference instead to habit);304 his style is accessible and his position clear; and he intentionally frames his
view as one that respects the Court’s precedents as a matter of formal law but cannot abide the Court’s
conclusions without inviting a larger conversation about matters of morality and justice. His opinion
combines all three qualities: the substantive, the stylistic, and the invitational. Even though the issue of lethal
injection or the death penalty might not be inherently about democracy in the electoral sense of the word, Justice Stevens’s
concurrence makes democracy central . He does this by concurring in the result, which makes it all the clearer that he does not
think the ultimate solution will be found in the Court — he does not even bother to dispute the holding or the reasoning on these facts. But he
wants the public conversation about the deeper issue to take place, and he gets the ball rolling with some factors that merit consideration.
Although Justice Stevens did not appeal to the public by name, he did appeal
to state legislatures, Congress, and the Court.
His concurrence probably gave death-row prisoners and death penalty abolitionists hope .305 He also
advised states to reconsider the specific lethal method at issue. Such a broad invocation has serious
potential to involve the public at large.
 2AC A2: Courts Don’t Create Change

Demosprudential decisions create change by stimulating social movements

Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles

Understood in Teles's terms, ademosprudential opinion can either directly stimulate social movement activity in a
similar--although much more limited--way as an idea proposed by an intellectual entrepreneur. Or, as is more likely the case, the opinion
can serve as raw material for the work of intellectual entrepreneurs within a movement. Rosenberg
correctly notes that the question whether judicial opinions have such effects is ultimately an empirical one. But McCann's work is evidence that
court judgments do provide raw material for social movements. And Guinier and others have
documented similar anecdotal evidence of a connection between the dissenting opinions of conservative Supreme Court
justices, in particular those of Justice Antonin Scalia, and the conservative legal movement that is Teles's focus. In her article,
Guinier cites Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (181) as having demosprudential characteristics in its
focus on the broader social context of the decision and his warning to "conservatives that, if they did not
act, the Court would sanction gay marriage next." (182) This warning did not go unheeded, and
conservative activists used Scalia's dissent as a tool to mobilize opposition immediately following the decision.
(183) Martha Minow made a similar connection in an essay commenting on Reva Siegel's notion of democratic constitutionalism:

Maybe the most specific legal residue from the clash of social movements are the explicit efforts by Justice Scalia to encourage mass
mobilization against gay rights. His may not be the first judicial opinion to become a fund-raising letter, but [his] dissent in Lawrence v. Texas
was ready for photocopying the day it was released. (184)

Siegel herself has analyzed the relationship between the gun-rights movement and the language of judicial opinions in a recent article
discussing the Supreme Court's decision in
District of Columbia v. Heller, (185) where a five-member majority held that
the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms against federal gun control regulations. (186) Siegel
argues that the majority opinion in Heller is an example of democratic constitutionalism because the
majority opinion was the culmination of social and cultural changes influenced by the gun-rights
movement and its connection to the emergence of the conservative legal movement described by Teles. (187) The article is rich with
examples of the interplay of ideas between courts and social movements. Early in the article she cites an online editorial by a member of the
Cato Institute who attributes the result in Heller directly to activism by his own publication and "the other pillars of the conservative and
libertarian movements." (188) The author goes on to highlight the fact that the language of both the majority and the dissent featured an
originalist approach that his group and others had "worked for decades to make sure ... was a respectable mode of constitutional
interpretation...." (189)

These examples show that at least some members of social movements pay close attention to courts and
the language of court decisions. These examples also support the claim that individuals within those movements
may be influenced by the language of a particular court opinion (or series of opinions)--opinions that
themselves reflect the same social and political trends that gave rise to that movement. Those
intellectual entrepreneurs could then translate and incorporate that language into a broader theoretical
framework and then work through a range of channels to promote changes in the broader social and
political context that ultimately result in legal change. In his recent book describing seminal dissenting opinions by the
Supreme Court, Mark Tushnet posits just such a role for dissents:
Demosprudence inspires social movements --- creates change
GUINIER 09 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “BEYOND
LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 89:539 2009],
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf

Supreme Court Justices can play a democracy-enhancing role by expanding the audience for their
opinions to include those unlearned in the law. Of the current Justices, Justice Antonin Scalia has a particular knack
for attracting and holding the attention of a nonlegal audience. His dissents are “deliberate exercises in advocacy” that
“chart new paths for changing the law.”45 Just as Justice Ginsburg welcomed women’s rights activists into the public
sphere in response to the Court majority’s decision in Ledbetter , Justice Scalia’s dissents are often in
conversation with a conservative constituency of accountability .46 By writing dissents like these, both Justices have
acknowledged that their audience is not just their colleagues or the litigants in the cases before them. Both exemplify the potential
power of demosprudential dissents when the dissenter is aligned with a social movement or constituency
that “mobilizes to change the meaning of the Constitution over time.”47 Thus, Justice Ginsburg speaks in her
“clearest voice” when she addresses issues of gender equality.48 Similarly, Justice Scalia effectively uses his originalist
jurisprudence as “a language that a political movement can both understand and rally around.” 49 Both
Justices Ginsburg and Scalia are at their best as demosprudential dissenters when they encourage a “social movement to fight on.”50

Robert Post,
writing in this symposium, reads my argument exactly right: “[C]ourts do not end democratic
debate about the meaning of rights and the law; they are participants within that debate .”51 As Post explains, I argue
that the “meaning of constitutional principles are forged within the cauldron of political debate ,” a debate
in which judges are often important, though not necessarily central, actors.52 Law and politics are in continuous dialogue, and the goal of a
demosprudential dissenter is to ensure that the views of a judicial majority do not preempt political dialogue. When Justice Ginsburg spoke in a
voice more conversational than technical, she did more than declare her disagreement with the majority’s holding. By
vigorously
speaking out during the opinion announcement, she also appealed to citizens in terms that laypersons
could understand and to Congress directly.53 This is demosprudence.

Robert Post eloquently summarizes and contextualizes the argument I make about demosprudence. He also corrects the
misunderstanding of the law/politics divide that beats at the heart of Gerald Rosenberg’s criticisms of that
argument.54 Post neatly restates my premise: “Law inspires and provokes the claims of politically engaged agents,
as it simultaneously emerges from these claims.”55
In his companion essay, Professor Rosenberg polices the law/politics distinction to create a false binary. Rosenberg dismisses the possibility of
an ongoing and recursive conversation between law and politics that may produce changes in the law and eventually in our “constitutional
culture,” meaning changes in the popular as well as elite understanding of what the law' means. Constitutional culture is the fish tank in which
the beliefs and actions of judicial as well as nonjudicial participants swim. It is the “dynamic sociopolitical environment” in which ideas about
legal meanings circulate, ferment, compete and ultimately surface in formal venues such as legal advocacy or legislative actions.56 As political
scientist Daniel HoSang explains, the
goal of demosprudence is “to open up analytic and political possibility to
build and sustain more dynamic and politically potent relationships between [legal elites] and aggrieved
communities.”57
Professor Rosenberg’s critique of demosprudence rests on several misunderstandings of my work and that of other legal scholars.58 First,
Professor Rosenberg wrongly assumes that my claims are descriptive rather than aspirational.59 Second, Professor Rosenberg’s concern about
my “Courtcentric” analysis overlooks the occasion for my argument;60 that is, the traditions associated with the Supreme Court foreword
published every year in the November issue of the Harvard Law Review. Third, he orients his entire critique around polling data and other social
science research to trivialize the relationship of narrative to culture, to exaggerate the predictive capacity of a data-driven approach to quantify
causation and to preempt other useful analytic approaches.61

First, my foreword posits that judges can play a demosprudential role and that oral dissents are one potential vehicle for allowing
them to do so 62 While it is true that oral dissents currently face obstacles to their demosprudential efficacy, those obstacles need not be
insurmountable. Moreover, Rosenberg’s critique arguably makes my point. He is saying “people don’t pay attention,”63
while I am saying “yes, they can!” Indeed, they might pay more attention if Justices took the time to talk
to them.64 He characterizes the past; I aim to sketch out the contours of a different future. Rosenberg is absolutely right that one next step
might be to deploy the tools of social science to explore the extent to which this claim has been realized.65 But the foreword is suggestive, not
predictive. Justices
of the Supreme Court can be demosprudential when they use their opinions to engage
nonlegal actors in the process of making and interpreting law over time . They have democratically-
based reasons to seek to inspire a mobilized constituency ; it is not that they invariably will cause a social movement to
emerge.

Similarly, the idea that Court opinions do not invariably inspire social movements does not mean they
cannot have this effect. Nor do I argue that oral dissents are the only, or even the single most important, communication tool at the Court’s
disposal. When the Supreme Court announced Brown v. Board of Education66 in 1954, there were no dissents.
Moreover, the orality of the opinion announcement was not a central feature of the event. No one heard the voice of Earl Warren reading his
decision on the radio. Nevertheless, the
decision had a powerful effect, in part because it was purposely drafted to
speak to “the people.”67 Justice Warren consciously intended that the Brown opinion should be short and
readable by the lay public.68 In his work, Professor Rosenberg focuses on the white backlash the Brown decision inspired.69 But a
demosprudential analysis also focuses on the frontlash, the way that Brown helped inspire the civil
rights movement. Brown’s accessibility and forcefulness helped inspire a social movement that in turn
gave the opinion its legs.70
In 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery. She was arrested. Four days later, when she was formally arraigned
and convicted, a one-day bus boycott by the black citizens of Montgomery was unexpectedly, amazingly, successful.71 Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. delivered a sermon that evening before a mass meeting of 5000 people gathered at and around Holt Street Baptist Church.72 He prepared
his audience to take the bold step of continuing the boycott indefinitely. He did so by brilliantly fusing two great texts: the Supreme Court’s
pronouncement a year earlier in Brown and the Bible.73 Dr. King roused the crowd at that first mass meeting in Montgomery with a spirited
refrain: “If we are wrong - the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong God Almighty was wrong.”74

In the foreword, I argue that Dr. King was a classic example of a “role-literate participant.”75 His theological and strategic acumen enabled him
to invoke Brown as “authorization” and “legitimation” to sustain the actions that 50,000 blacks in Montgomery, Alabama would take for over
thirteen months when they refused to ride the city’s buses.76 But as Robert Post rightly points out, the word “authorize” meant something
more like embolden or encourage.77

My point is that Brown

shows judicial actors can inspire or provoke “mass conversation.” It is when the legal
constitution is narrated through the experience of ordinary people in conversation with each other that
legal interpretation becomes sustainable as a culture shift.78 And if a majority opinion can rouse, so too can a dissenting
one. Thus, demosprudence through dissent emphasizes the use of narrative techniques and a clear appeal to
shared values that make the legal claims transparent and accessible.

demosprudential decisions inspire social movements

Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles
Although Guinier does not discuss redemptive constitutionalism as an element of demosprudence, her emphasis on the important role that
rhetoric and pedagogy play in demosprudential practice is linked to Balkin's recognition that redemptive constitutionalism views the
constitution as providing "a grammar and vocabulary, a set of basic principles and textual commitments, and a practice of constitutional
argument in which people reason about their rights." (62) In the same way, demosprudential
opinions "enable[] a popular
audience to convert its anger into critique and constructive involvement ...." (63) They do this in part by
speaking in a language that is accessible to the public and by using metaphors and imagery designed to
inspire political and social action. (64)

Demosprudence is also a redemptive mechanism. Redemptive constitutionalism sees the Constitution

"as aspiring to greater justice and moral legitimacy" and as containing "language that can be adapted to
changing times and circumstances" to achieve those ends . (65) Demosprudence is a judicial practice that
translates those constitutional principles and that language into a public appeal to develop those
principles. Redemption "demand[s] the continual improvement of our institutions" to better reflect the
Constitution's principles, (66) and demosprudence "teach[es] the public to identify with the constitutional
values at stake and invite them to speak back in a voice that is all their own ." (67) Further, demosprudence
"tracks the view that the call for a more perfect union in the Constitution's preamble 'initiated a project to make
the Constitution a means for its own transcendence .'" (68)

Demosprudence helps social movements

Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles

Demosprudence picks up, in effect, where Epp's analysis leaves off and considers first how courts themselves can
recognize the part that they play in this broader process and second how courts could play a more direct role in
developing the support structure for democratic constitutional development . Like the support-structure
explanation, demosprudence begins with the assumption that meaningful legal change depends on, and
derives legitimacy from, social mobilization and the corresponding integration of multiple constituencies into the constitutional
development process. (82) As Epp emphasizes "in order to sustain a rights revolution, judicial support is necessary--although it is not sufficient."
(83) Demosprudence
offers an account of the judicial role that recognizes its dependence on social
movements and seeks to maximize its ability to support those movements.

Anticipating Gerald Rosenberg's critique that judicial opinions make very little impact on the public, Guinier
acknowledges that demosprudence's focus on courts may "overestimate the power and authority of the Supreme Court." (84) And in her
response to Rosenberg, she makes the point directly, emphasizing that "it was never my intent to suggest that the Court should be central to
any social movement." (85) But she goes on to hypothesize three ways in which demosprudential dissents "can
play an
educative role, leading to more informed and engaged citizenry ": (1) they can draw attention to the
connection between formal opinion and informal activity; (2) they "simultaneously broaden and limit the
authoritative role that Justices play"; and (3) they "make the formal process of lawmaking more
transparent and thus more democratically accountable." (86)

In the end, Guinier's claims for the role of demosprudence dovetail nicely with Epp's understanding of the role that courts
have played in the past to support social movements to accomplish legal change . As Guinier puts it "members of the
Court can catalyze change when they help craft or expand the narrative space in which mobilized
constituencies navigate the currents of democracy ." (87) But she agrees that "the Court rarely functions as the central
power source for fundamental structural change." (88) What demosprudence in particular--and the progressive constitutional
project described by Balkin more generally--adds to Epp's explanation is a set of ideas for reconceiving the role of courts
that both acknowledges the limited role courts play but also exploits the possibilities inherent in
recognizing a reciprocal relationship between courts and society.
In this respect, both projects are also focused on the problem of the supposed countermajoritarian difficulty
posed by judicial review and the possibilities for democratizating it . Epp focuses on evidence that legal changes, which
on the surface appear to be court-created, are in fact the result of democratic developments:

If the rights revolution developed out of the growth of a broad support structure in civil society, if
rights litigation commonly
reflects a significant degree of organized collective action, and if judicially declared rights remain dead
letters unless they gain the backing of a broad support structure, then the rights revolution was not
undemocratic or antidemocratic, even in the processes that created it . (89)

Guinier extends this insight and hypothesizes ways in which courts

can self-consciously embrace this reciprocal
relationship and further democratize the process of constitutional development . (90)
 2AC A2: Movements Don’t Need The Court

Demosprudential decisions tap into the collective consciousness and triggers change
--- arguments that movements don’t need the court ignore its potential
Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles

While Tushnet's description supports the basic claim of demosprudence that court opinions can influence
social change--it nonetheless offers a far more tentative and indirect understanding of the causal
relationship than the one Guinier describes . This suggests that both Rosenberg and Guinier may have overstated their cases to
some extent. Rosenberg is wrong that the language of court opinions inevitably has little or no effect on
social movements. But Guinier's description of the ways in which oral dissents could influence social movements implies
an overly direct causal relationship between the two. Instead, demosprudential opinions can work in two
ways that fit Tushnet's hypothesis. First, they can give support to organizations working for legal change by
encouraging such organizations, in Epp's words, to "play for rules" rather than victory in a single case by
working for political as well as legal change . (191) McCann concludes that "successful legal advocacy seemed
most important in altering expectations of potential activists that already apparent injustices might be
successfully challenged at a particular point in time." (192) A demosprudential dissent could provide similar encouragement to activists
within a movement that success over time is possible. As Guinier describes it, "[i]n demosprudential terms, the dissent might have aimed to
embolden a set of role-literate actors to engage with, and potentially influence over time, the Court majority's view of constitutional law." (193)

Second, where courts adopt the arguments of social movements --even in dissent--they help translate
political debates into legal, and specifically constitutional, arguments . Minow describes this process of
constitutionalization of social movement claims, noting that "a specifically legal constitutional culture emerges not only
as competing groups internalize counterarguments, but also as the Supreme Court echoes debates
between mobilized social movements." (194) McCann similarly credits legal mobilization within the pay
equity movement with this kind of effect: "[A]ctivists appropriated the language of rights to interpret, or
to 'name,' a long-experienced injustice in new, more compelling and sensible terms." (195) He concludes in
language similar to Guinier's that "[i]n this way, the inchoate legal consciousness shared by many similarly
situated citizens was collectively tapped, expanded, and focused on specific demands for legal
change." (196)
Rosenberg clearly is correct to caution against an over-emphasis on the role of courts in this process. And, as he notes, McCann is also careful
not to overstate the role of courts and legal mobilization more generally. But Rosenberg's
argument that such groups do not
need the Supreme Court to support their efforts ignores the potential contributions of a
demosprudential approach that a more textured understanding of the factors that support sustained
social movements reveals. (197)

The important point is that the

Court's decisions contribute to the overall environment in which these
individuals and groups decide to act. Rosenberg is plainly correct that attributing a direct causal effect to any Court judgment is
difficult, and his critique of Guinier's version of demosprudence hits home on this point. But Guinier acknowledges this difficulty directly in the
Foreword, noting generally that "[d]emosprudence through dissent may overestimate the power and authority of the Supreme Court" and that
"it may fail to calculate the chances that a dissent is simply ineffectual." (198) Guinier also acknowledges that "[d]emosprudential dissents are
admittedly a limited means of institutionalizing dissent within the democratic process, albeit with as yet untapped potential for enhancing our
democratic system." (199) The irony is that Rosenberg's objection that Guinier--and the legal academy generally--overemphasizes the role of
courts, is also the basic concern of demosprudence: the need for courts to acknowledge more explicitly and self-consciously the necessary and
inevitable connection between constitutional change and social movements. The affinities between Guinier's description of demosprudence
and McCann's and Teles's studies illustrate that, far from departing from well-established social and political science understandings of the
dependent and highly variable relationship between courts and social movements, demosprudence read broadly is closely aligned with that
understanding and seeks to have courts acknowledge and engage more directly with the complexities inherent in it.

It’s not our argument that movements NEED the court --- but it recognizes the role the
Court plays in influencing movements --- to reject the premise is ahistorical
GUINIER 09 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “BEYOND
LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 89:539 2009],
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf

Although demosprudence through dissent is prescriptive rather than descriptive, it

was never my intent to suggest that the
Court should be central to any social movement . Like Justice Ginsburg, I am not a proponent of juridification
(the substitution of law for politics).79 In Justice Ginsburg’s words, “[t]he Constitution does not belong to the Supreme Court.”80
At the same time, I recognize that the Court has been deeply influential, albeit unintentionally at times, in
some very important social movements. Studying the 1960s student movement in Atlanta, Tomiko Brown-Nagin argues that the
lunch counter sit-ins were, in fact, a reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision – not because of what the Supreme Court said, but because of
what it did not say.81 The Court initially raised, then dashed expectations. It was the disappointment with “all deliberate speed” – the legal
system’s failure to live up to the promise of the Court’s initial ruling – that inspired students to take to the streets and initiate some of the bold
protest demonstrations at lunch counters and in streets in the 1960s.82 Brown-Nagin
emphasizes the multiple ways in
which courts, lawyers and social movement actors are engaged in a dialogic and recursive discourse .83
 2AC A2: Governments Won’t Listen

That’s not a reason to reject social movements --- multiple avenues to create change
when governments are unresponsive
FRANCIS & FIRESTONE 11 --- ROSE FRANCIS, staff attorney for the Community Water Center and
graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. in 2005, & LAUREL FIRESTONE, Co-Executive Director and
cofounder of the Community Water Center as well as a member of the Tulare County Water
Commission. She graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. in 2004, “IMPLEMENTING THE HUMAN
RIGHT TO WATER IN CALIFORNIA’S CENTRAL VALLEY: BUILDING A DEMOCRATIC VOICE THROUGH
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN WATER POLICY DECISION MAKING”, WILLAMETTE LAW REVIEW [47:495
2011],
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/pages/57/attachments/original/13943
94957/CWC-Law-Review-Article-on-Implementing-Human-Right-to-Water-in-CA.pdf?1394394957

Few would, and few do, contest the assertion that, at least in theory, public participation in governmental
decision making is a good thing. In fact, quite the opposite–many social justice activists and scholars tout
community participation as a vehicle for resolving environmental injustice .126 The most challenging
criticism leveled, however, is that even where governmental decision makers open up spaces for dialogue
with members of the public, they don’t actually listen.127 This is a valid concern. Too frequently, for example,
agency bureaucrats hold a public hearing in the middle of the weekday in the state capitol, hundreds of miles from impacted communities. This
may fulfill minimum legal requirements for public participation,128 but, in reality, inputs from the members of the public who do manage to
attend are not incorporated into the final agency decision. The hearing amounts to a mere formality, a checked box, in the larger process of
developing a predetermined policy outcome.129

This raises the issue of influence, or what Professor Alice Kaswan calls “political justice,” which is to be
distinguished from procedural justice (the foregoing hearing):

[T]he goal is not just about having fair procedures . . . . It’s also about being heard. It’s about a
community having the political power to influence the decisions in which they’re participating. It’s about the
institutions which are listening—really listening and paying attention to those concerns. . . . I like to think of [procedural justice] as going even
further, to a deeper-seeded, more substantive political justice.130

Some social justice scholars argue that institutionalized participatory structures , like the public hearing, are
restrictive, exclusionary, elitist, and hollow, and simply cannot facilitate the kind of political justice to
which Professor Kaswan refers.131 They advocate instead for grassroots social movements to engage with
decision makers on their own terms in “popular spaces” of alternative civic engagement .132 A classic example
might be a march or a protest outside the public building where a critical decision is being made.

CWC believes that, at least in the context of Central Valley politics, both forms of participation are strategically
necessary in order to achieve real influence.133 Therefore, on the one hand, we persistently advocate for
adjustments and improvements to “provided” participatory structures.134 For example, CWC strives to make
public meetings more accessible to the working poor and non-English speaking communities by pressuring
hosting agencies to move the venues closer to impacted communities, schedule meetings in the evenings, and provide translation services.
We also help transport low-income community members to venues when necessary and publicize these
types of participatory opportunities in advance, such as by distributing flyers within impacted communities. These efforts
are geared toward both supporting and improving existing participatory structures, which we believe
are crucial venues for ensuring sustained influence on decisions affecting drinking water.
At the same time, when we perceive that community members’ voices are being disregarded in a decision
that directly affects them, and that their message is not being “really listen[ed]” to in conventional participatory structures, we may opt to
engage with decision makers on our own terms.135 For example, we may assist impacted community residents, or even the
AGUA coalition, to conduct a joint protest and press conference outside the relevant agency’s headquarters. This alternative participatory
strategy can have transformative effects not just on the target audience, but on the participants themselves, awakening in them a
consciousness of their own strength and political influence and culturing a sense of entitlement to justice— and fulfilled human rights— that
may not have been previously instilled.136

When we choose this strategy, however, we are careful to articulate trenchant demands and recommendations
and to direct this message to a specific individual or set of individuals with real power to grant that which
we seek, such as the state governor or the members of a regulatory agency’s governing board. In choosing alternative means of
engagement, we are mindful that the purpose is quite literally to force the decision maker and any opposing
stakeholders to understand that they must negotiate with us —the Central Valley water justice movement—in order to
move forward with their policy or program effectively.137 To do so, we must demonstrate to the target audience that
concessions in our favor are absolutely necessary—both to protect the human rights of farm laborers and other disadvantaged Central Valley
residents and to promote the long-term health of the regional economy138—and that the changes we seek will not unreasonably burden other
stakeholders. This informs both the content and the packaging of our message and our advocacy.

That does not mean, however, that we shy away from saying the things that opposing interests do not want to hear.139 Just
because we
frequently utilize state-supported participatory structures and processes—and in either case attempt to
speak in a language that public officials can understand —does not alter the fact that the substance of
what we’re pushing for challenges the status quo and threatens entrenched political interests .
Successful implementation of the human right to water necessitates fundamental change in long-
entrenched power structures here in the Central Valley, and this is not always welcome information to those who currently benefit
from the existing political and economic system.140
 2AC A2: People Don’t Hear Court Opinions

This is written 12 years ago the tech is there now

GUINIER 09 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “BEYOND
LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 89:539 2009],
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf

Rosenberg’s technical claim dismisses the form of oral dissents because they are not readily available .109
Yet the technology that presently limits the reach of dissenting opinions does not tell us what the future
holds regarding wider dissemination of the ideas and values of Justices who dissent.110 Justice Ginsburg already makes copies of her oral
dissents available to the press, and Justice Scalia is a recognizable face on television and in the media. Fueled by video or simultaneous audio
transmission, more people might actually read or hear the opinions, especially the oral dissents,111 which are usually quite short. The
technology of dissemination, like the technological framing of the story, is certainly relevant to who hears the story
and who understands it. The inherent limitations on the current forms of outreach of demosprudential
dissents, as well as the lack of public awareness of the majority’s holdings, is incontrovertible. That oral
dissents are not widely disseminated, however, does not establish their uselessness were more people to
hear them.112
 2AC A2: Util

Utilitarianism is a poor framework.

It re-enacts sacrifice of indigenous peoples to save populations holding more socio-
economic privilege. It ensures a violent present – and should be rejected in favor of
ethical approaches.
Santos 3 (Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of
Coimbra, “Collective Suicide?” Bad Subjects, Iss.63, April 2003,
https://bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos)KMM
According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save
humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the
need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over
which it is supposed to have total power . This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous
peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths
in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under
Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the
periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new
genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization
and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a

totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality,
and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to
ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the
result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. If there
is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact
that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists .
This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical
rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo.
Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three
versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic
of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of
social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of
political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the
war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers.

Prioritize ethics over utilitarianism – life itself only has value if everyone’s allotted full
dignity.
Shue ‘89
Henry Shue, Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University, 89 “Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint,” pp. 141-2

Given the philosophical obstacles to resolving moral disputes, there are at least two approaches one can
take in dealing with the issue of the morality of nuclear strategy . One approach is to stick doggedly with one of the
established moral theories constructed by philosophers to “rationalize” or “make sense of” everyday moral intuitions, and to accept the verdict
of the theory, whatever it might be, on the morality of nuclear weapons use. A more pragmatic alternative approach assumes
that trade-offs in moral values and principles are inevitable in response to constantly changing threats ,
and that the emergence of novel, unforeseen challenges may impel citizens of Western societies to adjust the
way they rank their values and principles to ensure that the moral order survive s. Nuclear weapons are putting
just such a strain on our moral beliefs. Before the emergence of a nuclear-armed communist state capable of threatening the existence of
Western civilization, the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings to preserve Western values may have appeared wholly unjustifiable
under any possible circumstances. Today,
however, it may be that Western democracies, if they are to survive as
guardians of individual freedom, can no longer afford to provide innocent life the full protection
demanded by Just War morality. It might be objected that the freedoms of Western society have value only on
the assumption that human beings are treated with the full dignity and respect assumed by Just War theory.
Innocent human life is not just another value to be balanced side by side with others in moral calculations. It is the raison d’etre of Western
political, economic, and social institutions. A
free society based on individual rights that sanctioned mass slaughter
of innocent human beings to save itself from extinction would be “morally corrupt ,” no better than soviet
society, and not worth defending. The only morally right and respectable policy for such a society would be to
accept destruction at the hands of tyranny,

Reject util-calculating lesser evils results in the more extreme systemic violence and
state of exceptions.
Weizman, ‘11
(Eyal, London University spatial and visual cultures professor, The least of all possible evils, pg 8-10)

The theological origins of the lesser evil argument still cast a long shadow on the present. In fact the idiom has become so deeply ingrained, and is invoked in such a
staggeringly diverse set of contexts - from individual situational ethics and international relations, to attempts to govern the economics of violence in the context of
the war on terror' and the efforts of human rights and humanitarian activists to maneuver through the paradoxes of aid - that it seems to have altogether taken the
place previously reserved for the term "˜good'. Moreover, the very evocation of the "˜good' seems to everywhere invoke the utopian tragedies of modernity, in
which evil seemed lurking in a horrible manichaeistic inversion. If no hope is offered in the future, all that remains is to insure
ourselves against the risks that it poses, to moderate and lessen the collateral effects of necessary acts, and tend to
those who have suffered as a result. In relation to the "˜War on terror, the terms of the lesser evil were most clearly and prominently articulated by
former human rights scholar and leader of Canada's Liberal Party Michael Ignatieff. In his book The Lesser Evil Ignatieff suggested that in "˜balancing liberty against
security' liberal states establish mechanisms to regulate the breach of some human rights and legal norms, and allow their security services to engage in forms of
extra juridical violence - which he saw as lesser evils - in order to fend off or minimize potential greater evils, such as terror attacks on civilians of western states. If
governments need to violate rights in a terrorist emergency, this should be done, he thought, only as an exception and according to a process of adversarial
scrutiny. "˜Exceptions', Ignatieff states, "˜do not destroy the rule but save it, provided that they are temporary, publicly justified, and deployed as a last resort.
The lesser evil emerges here as a pragmatic compromise a “tolerated sin” that functions as the very
justification for the notion of exception. State violence in this model takes part in a necro-economy in
which various types of destructive measure are weighed in a utilitarian fashion , not only in relation to
the damage they produce, but to the harm they purportedly prevent and even in relation to the more
brutal measures they may help restrain. I n this logic, the problem of contemporary state violence resembles indeed an all-too-human
version of the mathematical minimum problem of the divine calculations previously mentioned, one tasked with determining the smallest level of violence
necessary to avert the greatest harm. For
the architects of contemporary war this balance is trapped between two
poles: keeping violence at a low enough level to limit civilian suffering, and at a level high enough to
bring a decisive end to the war and bring peace. More recent works by legal scholars and legal advisers to states and militaries have
sought to extend the inherent elasticity of the system of legal exception proposed by Ignatieff into ways of rewriting the laws of armed conflict themselves.
Lesser evil arguments are now used to defend anything from targeted assassinations and mercy killings ,
house demolitions, deportation, torture, to the use of (sometimes) non~ lethal chemical weapons, the use of human shields, and

even "˜the intentional targeting of some civilians if it could save more innocent lives than they cost. In
one of its more macabre moments it was suggested that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima might also
be tolerated under the defense of the lesser evil . Faced with a humanitarian A-bomb, one might wonder what, in fact,
might come under the definition of a greater evil . Perhaps it is time for the differential accounting of the lesser evil to replace the mechanical
bureaucracy of the "banality of evil' as the idiom to describe the most extreme manifestations of violence. Indeed, it is through this use of the lesser evil
that societies that see themselves as democratic can maintain regimes of occupation and neo-colonization. Beyond state agents, those
practitioners of lesser evils, as this book claims, must also include the members of independent nongovernmental organizations that make up the ecology of
contemporary war and crisis zones. The lesser evil is the argument of the humanitarian agent that seeks military permission to provide medicines and aid in places
where it is in fact the duty of the occupying military power to do so, thus saving the military limited resources. The
lesser evil is often the
justification of the military officer who attempts to administer life (and death) in an "˜enlightened'
manner; it is sometimes, too, the brief of the security contractor who introduces new and more efficient weapons and spatio-technological means of
domination, and advertises them as "˜humanitarian technology'. In these cases the logic of the lesser evil opens up a thick political field of participation bringing
together otherwise opposing fields of action, to the extent that it might obscure the fundamental moral differences between these various groups.
But,
even according to the terms of an economy of losses mid gains, the concept of the lesser evil risks
becoming counterproductive: less brutal measures are also those that may be more easily naturalized, accepted and
tolerated - and hence more frequently used, with the result that a greater evil may be reached cumulatively

45 million Americans lack access to clean drinking water --- the impacts skew on race
and socio-economic privilege
Shah 20 --- Khushbu Shah, Reporter for Vox, “The pandemic has exposed America’s clean water crisis”,
April 17th 2020, https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/17/21223565/coronavirus-clean-water-crisis-
america

Having chemical- and lead-free water — or water at all — in the pandemic is vital: Hand-washing with soap is one of the
most effective ways to fight off the virus. But millions of Americans across the country lack clean water — from
small, rural towns in Kentucky to New Jersey’s densely populated city of Newark . And while clean water access
isn’t only an issue for majority-black communities like Flint, Denmark, or Detroit, one study did find race to be the strongest
correlative to lack of clean water. It is a crisis that is further exacerbated by the coronavirus,
compounding years-long injustices in water-poor communities.
“It’s just a Catch-22,” Edwards tells Vox. “If [these communities] don’t engage in rigorous hygiene, they’re endangering themselves to
coronavirus, and if they do, they’re fearful of the water.”

Communities without access to clean water are in a “constant state of emergency”

Contaminated water isn’t confined to a few communities or states, experts say. In any given year from 1982 to 2015, nearly
45 million
Americans were accessing water that violated health standards, according to a 2018 study in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.

While that may be true, the lack of water access impacts low-income communities like Denmark, Flint, and Martin
County, Kentucky, more aggressively.

“That is a reality for our poorest Americans,” Edwards said, which “translates into a lot of problems. ... Cities that have a
lot of water shutoffs. Others are living in fear of bathing and showering because of distrust in their water. And so even the basic
functional water and quantity for hygiene isn’t being delivered.”
Darlene McClendon at her home in Flint, Michigan, in 2016. Many residents have been buying bottled water because the city’s water supply has
been contaminated with lead. Brittany Greeson/The Washington Post via Getty Images
In Martin County, Kentucky, BarbiAnn Maynard, who has seen brown, milky water in her shower and kitchen for nearly two decades — when
she does have water — waves off the collective panic around coronavirus.

“This is not anything unusual for us,” Maynard, a member of the Martin County Water Warriors, tells Vox. “I used hand sanitizer rather than our
water” before coronavirus. She has been afraid to wash her hands for a long time, and the pandemic has changed almost nothing, she says.
When she takes a shower, she uses antibacterial hand-wash.

The Martin County Water District operates in a “ constant state of emergency,” the state’s Public Service
Commission noted. A 2019 report from the Appalachian Citizens Law Center noted nearly half of the county’s residents
couldn’t afford to buy water regularly. (The water department did not return Vox’s request for comment.)
Now in the pandemic, many of the grocery stores in the county are out of water, Maynard says. Donors paying into a fund for residents to buy
water are still making contributions, but the only grocery store allowing residents to buy water at market value limits it to two gallons per
person per visit. It takes an average of four gallons to get through the day, Maynard says. Before the pandemic, residents could make a 45-
minute drive to a spring in West Virginia, but now they’re not allowed to cross state lines.

To work around the grocery stores’ rules, Maynard went directly to the bottle distribution center in Elkhorn City, Kentucky, more than an hour
drive from her home, to buy cases in bulk.

But even before the coronavirus, Martin County needed more bottled and distilled water than other places in the US. “It’s just as bad inhaling it
in the shower, so you have to get right back out,” Maynard says.

The threat of dirty, lead-infused, or chemical-laced water — and, in some cases, no water at all — is not
only a rural concern. Last year, more than 23,000 accounts had their water shut off in the city of Detroit,
and 37 percent still hadn’t had service restored as of mid-January. With the virus spreading, the city promised to restore
water to residents, but as of March 31 had only done so for 1,050 of the 10,000 people who called with a water service problem (8,000 of those
callers did not qualify for the Coronavirus Water Restart Plan, according to a city report).

Kristi Pullen Fedinick, the director of science and data at the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, attributes the
overlooked water
crises across the country to governmental “policies that have led to specific communities
being disenfranchised and marginalized.”

These dozens of communities across the United States, she says, have been facing not only water crises but
many other issues because they have been systematically ignored for decades by those in charge. She
ticks off the problems communities tend to face when they lack water: poor air quality, poor access to
health care, and higher-than-average death rates. “The pandemic really exacerbated those issues they
have been facing for a very, very, very long time.”
 Misc

Weak-Form review
Ray 11 --- Brian E. Ray is a professor of law and the co-founder and Director of the Center for
Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection at Cleveland State University, “Demosprudence in comparative
perspective”, Stanford Journal of International Law(Vol. 47, Issue 1), Winter 2011,
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=fac_articles

D. Demosprudence and Weak-Form Review

These same themes are linked in a somewhat different manner to the growing literature on alternative forms of judicial review--a literature
that also predates Balkin's five-year time-flame but is part of the broad emphasis on constitutional development outside of courts which
characterizes that project. Rather than focusing on political and social movements, this literature examines the potential for formal
constitutional structures and judicial practices to distribute the power to interpret constitutions beyond the courts. While dissents--even oral
dissents--are judicial methods associated with traditional forms of judicial review, the effect that Guinier ascribes to demosprudential
opinions--provoking a political response to a court opinion that ultimately results in a change to the
law--is the kind of process that theories of alternative forms of judicial review propose and analyze.

Mark Tushnet is one of the leading theorists of these new models of judicial review. Tushnet describes
them as "weak-form" review to contrast them with the strong-form of review associated with the United
States Supreme Court. (91) Weak-form review encompasses a range of techniques but each shares the
characteristic that courts "do not have the final word on whether statutes comply with [constitutional] norms."
(92) Weak-form review can also develop in informal ways, including interpretive and remedial restraint by courts. Tushnet identifies the South
African Constitutional Court's first housing-rights decision, Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (93) as
one example
of this type of weak-form review. (94) In Grootboom, the court interpreted section 26 of the constitution to
require the South African government to incorporate plans for dealing with the emergency needs of
homeless citizens into national and regional housing policies . (95) The order, however, left it to the
government to determine precisely how to comply with this requirement and also ordered only programmatic
relief not individual relief for the plaintiffs in the case. (96) The limited interpretation of the right as providing
programmatic but not individual relief and the highly general order that left the policy details to the
government are key features of informal weak-form mechanisms.

Tushnet's analysis of weak-form mechanisms shares demosprudence's emphasis on the democracy-enhancing

potential of these judicial practices. He emphasizes that "weak-form systems of review hold out the promise
of reducing the tension between judicial review and democratic self-governance , while acknowledging that
constitutionalism requires that there be some limits on self- governance." (97) Weak-form systems reduce this tension by
recognizing that constitutional provisions are often phrased in sufficiently general terms and are
amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations. Under a system of strong-form review, the court has the final word on
which of these reasonable interpretations are definitive.

While demosprudential judging looks to court opinions as potential catalysts for democratizing
constitutional change, weak-form review focuses on institutional mechanisms and practices for creating
that same kind of dialogue among the courts , the political branches and other non-judicial actors over constitutional
interpretation. One key difference is that weak-form mechanisms operate along a much shorter time horizon than the mobilization process that
demosprudence entails. (98) As a result, weak-form mechanisms do not necessarily. create opportunities for non-elites to play a role in the
democratic response. (99) Nonetheless, weak-form
review shares the same general concern with democratizing
judicial review by recognizing the role of non-judicial actors in the development of constitutional norms.
Solvency
 Removing NWPR Solves

Reversal of NWPR key to reverse trump damage and restore rivers / wetlands
CASS 21 --- Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies, is composed of nine professional societies
representing almost 20,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Our members
work in the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and
federal agencies., “AQUATIC SCIENCE SOCIETIES CALL ON BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TO RESTORE
SCIENCE-BASED WOTUS RULE”, March 18th 2021, https://fisheries.org/2021/03/cass-wotus-letter-to-
biden/
Dear President Biden:

Thank you for your commitment to reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) that was finalized by the Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in April 2020 and became effective in June 2020.1 This rule established
a very
narrow definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that resulted in the loss of
protections for millions of stream miles and acres of wetlands, including five types of isolated wetlands with ecological
value disproportionate to their area. These losses have led to dire consequences for fish, fisheries, wildlife, watersheds, water quality and
supply, flood control, as well as the people and economies that rely on them.

In the face of climate change, it has never been more important to protect streams and wetlands that store carbon, provide critical habitat for
fish and wildlife, provide flood storage, and maintain downstream water quality and quantity.2, 3, 4, 5 The NWPR significantly
deviates from previous interpretations of the CWA and largely ignores and oversimplifies science.6 We greatly appreciate your
recent Executive Order 13990 establishing your Administration’s policy to “listen to the science.” With that in mind, we urge you to
quickly re-establish a science-based definition of WOTUS that will allow the CWA to fulfill its mandate
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.

The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) is composed of nine professional societies representing almost 20,000
individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Our members work in the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations,
and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We support
the development and use of the best-available science to
sustainably manage our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources to the benefit of the U.S. economy,
environment, and public health and safety.

CASS is on the record as strongly opposing the NWPR as inconsistent with more than a half century of scientific research that demonstrates that
the integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depends on ephemeral (i.e., flow only after precipitation events), intermittent
(i.e., flow seasonally), and perennial (flow year-round) streams, as well as on wetlands located both within (i.e., floodplain wetlands) and
outside (i.e., non-floodplain or geographically isolated wetlands) of floodplains.7 CASS fully supports the definition of WOTUS in the 2015 Clean
Water Rule (CWR),8 which was overwhelmingly supported by peer-reviewed science.

The comprehensive Environmental Protection Agency scientific report that accompanied the 2015 CWR, “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands
to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence,”9 synthesized more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications. Along
with input from 49 experts and a 25-member panel of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), this report provided the technical basis for the
2015 CWR. Substantial additional literature has emerged that reaffirms the report and the 2015 CWR.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 We stand by this
science.

The loss of protections for our nation’s waters under the NWPR threatens fish, fisheries, wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, and the human
populations that rely on them and places the highly valued ecosystem services that are derived from these systems in great peril.11, 17

Unlike the 2015 definition of WOTUS that established protection based on the connectivity of waters,
the NWPR defines a WOTUS in terms of its direct , consistent surface flows with traditionally navigable waters. This is
inconsistent with the full mandate of the CWA and is a critical shortcoming of the NWPR since many waters that play an important part in
maintaining ecological integrity flow ephemerally or intermittently and fluctuate substantially throughout any typical year.
Rather than protecting our waters’ integrity, the NWPR intensifies their vulnerability to climate change and extensive and intensive land uses
such as agriculture, livestock grazing, forestry, mining, and urbanization.6, 17 Climate change is warming rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands
and significantly altering precipitation patterns (both increasing and decreasing precipitation depending on season and location) throughout
America and is accelerating and intensifying water-quality problems, altering the functions of aquatic ecosystems, and impacting species’
ranges and survival.18 These impacts to our nation’s waters extend from small lakes and streams to large rivers like the once perennial Gila,
lower Colorado, and Río Grande rivers. These changes are not just theoretical; scientists are already seeing massive shifts in seasonal flows,
stream length, and surface flows from climate change and land use shifts, water withdrawal, and groundwater pumping.5, 11

By length, approximately half of stream channels in the conterminous United States are ephemeral, and 50% of these are no longer protected
under the NWPR; thus, at least 25% of the nation’s stream channels have now lost protection.19 Removing previous protections from millions
of miles of these ephemeral headwater streams will only exacerbate the transformation of historically perennial streams and rivers into highly
vulnerable intermittent and ephemeral streams and rivers. The NWPR reduces protections across the nation, with some of the strongest
impacts in arid areas of the country, such as in many states in the Southwest and Southern Plains. As such, the loss of CWA protections will be
most acute where water quantity and quality issues already threaten the sustainability of watersheds and communities.

The NWPR also abandons the bipartisan and long-standing “No Net Loss of Wetlands” national policy, first established by President George H.
W. Bush, by excluding nonfloodplain wetlands, or wetlands that are not connected at the surface to navigable waters, from CWA protection.
Relying on a surface connection of a wetland to navigable waters to establish CWA jurisdiction ignores the important biological and chemical
connections with navigable waters that allow these wetlands to play an outsized role in protecting water quality, reducing flooding and
pollution, providing fish and wildlife habitat, and storing carbon.20

Science-based Clean Water Act protections and aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
can help to protect the integrity of aquatic ecosystems, maintain crucial ecosystem services for
sequestration and storage of carbon, improve climate resilience, and promote our progress towards the drawdown of
carbon from the atmosphere.18 Land and water-based conservation solutions are a critical part of a multi-faceted effort
to sequester carbon, which will help to ensure that our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams, forests,
grasslands, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems are more resilient to the impacts of climate change.21, 22

We urge you to quickly establish a science-based definition of WOTUS that will allow the CWA to fulfill
its mandate to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. We ask for your
continued leadership in working towards significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
worst impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, aquatic resources including wetlands, and the communities that depend on them. We look
forward to working together on these critically important issues.
 Courts Key

Courts key --- they’ll strike down changes by other actors

Hijazi & Farah 20 --- Jennifer Hijazi, Niina H. Farah, E&E News, “How a More Conservative Supreme
Court Could Impact Environmental Laws”, Scientific American, Sept 28 th 2020,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-more-conservative-supreme-court-could-impact-
environmental-laws/

With Judge Amy Coney Barrett poised to become the sixth Republican-nominated justice on the nation’s highest bench,
environmental law experts see her influence tipping the scales on energy and climate rules.
President Trump tapped Barrett on Saturday, and Trump—with the help of a Republican-led Senate—is intent on swiftly filling the position left
by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was nominated in 1993 by President Clinton, a Democrat (Greenwire, Sept. 26).

Barrett, who currently serves on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has a relatively slim record on climate and environmental matters. But if
she is confirmed to the high court, Barrett, 48, likely would
lock up a conservative coalition there, legal experts said.
That bloc could smooth the path for future environmental rollbacks or make it more difficult to expand emissions
regulations through a broad reading of statutory authority.

“I view Barrett being added to the court as taking it even further in the direction it was already going,” said Jody Freeman, founding director of
the Environmental & Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School.

The court “was already headed in the direction of [being] much more skeptical of broad efforts to regulate new problems, to interpret statutes
that may be older, to deal with new risks,” she added.

That momentum could be a boon for Trump’s legacy of relaxing environmental standards, as a
conservative high court likely would be more amenable to his viewpoint in legal challenges to those efforts. Trump
has pushed to roll back regulations on vehicle, power plant and industry emissions.

“If you look at what Trump has done on NEPA regulations, ACE, WOTUS, they are doing rulemakings that don’t push the
envelope, [they are] narrow interpretations of law that I think the court would actually be sympathetic to,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs
director at the Center for Biological Diversity, referring to the National Environmental Policy Act, EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy rule and the
“Waters of the U.S.” rule.

Even if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the White House, Brookings Institution Nonresident Senior Fellow Barry Rabe said, the
high court’s new makeup would set up a questionable future for aggressive Biden administration
environmental policies.

“I think it
likely dials back ambition for any future president to try to achieve a major environmental policy reform
through unilateral executive action,” Rabe said.
COALITION-BUILDING

The addition of Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee may not have major implications for pending environmental cases.

But Barrett
would give the right-leaning side of the bench more flexibility to form coalitions on certain
environmental issues—even if some conservative justices may not always agree on issues of standing or
statutory interpretation, said Joseph Goffman, executive director of the Environmental & Energy Law Program.

“If you think about majorities being coalitions like in any other body that votes, having
more generally like-minded people on
the court will increase coalition-forming opportunities to end up with anti-regulatory results,” he said.
A more conservative Supreme Court also has the potential to “ chip away” at standing to bring cases to court,
which could make appeals more difficult for environmental plaintiffs, said Kym Hunter, a senior attorney at the Southern
Environmental Law Center.
A2: Offcase
 A2: Demoprudential Spec = Extra T
We don’t demosprudence spec in this plan text --- the ruling is demosprudential ---
that’s 1AC MCCRORY & RAYMOND

No impact and infinitely regressive --- The aff only specifies reasoning for the decision
--- no different than grounds --- forcing us to write out the entire decision is obviously
unreasonable

Counter-Interp --- We get to --- its best;

1) Aff ground --- the reasoning of the court is key to generate solvency comparison
between actors --- key to solvency deficits

2) Topic Education --- the way the court rules matters for water policy --- we have ev
that the court should rule this way on WOTUS specifically --- that should frame your
decision on permissible fiat

3) Increases neg ground --- How the court rules is critical for disad links and CPs

Reasonability
A2: T “Protection Is Cessation”
 2AC --- A2: T Cessation

We meet --- CWA protects water resources

MidMEAC 16 --- Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council, “Ingham County Drain Commissioner
Plans Massive Urban Retrofit”, 2016, http://www.midmeac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/ICDC_MontgomeryDrain_1P.pdf

Clean Water Mandates The Federal Clean Water Act protects water resources through the Environmental Protection Agency’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES.) NPDES regulates pollutant discharge into rivers, lakes and
streams. In Michigan, the Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) reviews development plans to assure clean water standards are
met. Because of the known pollution problems and the need to provide drainage for the new Red Cedar Renaissance development, the City of
Lansing and Ingham County petitioned for improvements to the Montgomery Drain. Drain Commissioner Lindemann’s team of engineers and
scientists are designing a system that will store and clean storm water runoff from 95% of storms without any discharge to the Red Cedar River

Counter-Interp --- Protection is the prevention of damage --- does not require
cessation
Jakobsen 16 --- Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen, professor of law at the Faculty of Law at UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, “Marine
Protected Areas in International Law : An Arctic Perspective.” In “part 3 Legal Obligations to Establish mpas” Copyright 2016, Starting on page
139

The term “protection and preservation” is consistently applied in Part xii.13 An analysis of the words “protection and preservation” may help to
clarify the activities that the States are required to prohibit or regulate and how strict the measures must be that States must adopt. The
term “protection” is understood as a reference to “prevention of prospective damage,” while “preservation”
is considered to have a broader meaning, including a duty to take “active measures to maintain or improve
the present condition of the marine environment .”14 The inclusion of the term “preservation,” which points to
measures that ensure a certain quality or state of the environment, also implies that the general duty to protect the
marine environment contains more than a duty to control and regulate marine pollution and relates more broadly to the regulation of threats.
Furthermore, it can be questioned whether the term “protection and preservation” also encompasses the term “conservation .”
The term “conservation” is not applied in Part xii, but it is applied in the terms that deal with liv-ing resources, such as Article 56 (1) (a) and
Article 62. Article 193 requires that natural resources are exploited in accordance with the duty to protect and pre-serve the marine
environment. Thus, the sovereign right of fisheries or mining oil or gas exploitation may not take place without considering and regulating the
environmental damages caused by these activities. This suggests that the term “protection and preservation of the marine
environment” also includes conservation of living resources. The order of the ITLOS in the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases
seems to confirm this, as the ITLOS found that “the conservation of the living resources of the sea is an element in the
protection and preservation of the marine environment.”15
Moreover, the Preamble of the los Convention states that “the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a
whole,” which is a further indication that Article 192 requires protecting the marine
environment against all activities and
threats that may cause damage and not only those that may cause marine pollution. This means that the
States must adopt a broad approach to comply with the obligation. This could include, for example, a duty to
ensure that the marine environment, such as coral reefs, is not damaged by shipping or oil, gas, and mining
activities. When the coastal States exploit their living resources, they must also consider their duty to
protect and preserve the marine environment. This includes both conservation of the species that are
exploited and the impact of fishing on the marine environment , including the ecosystems and marine biodiversity.
Measures to, for instance, avoid negative impacts on the marine environment by fishing with certain
equipment, such as damage to the sea bottom due to the use of trawling, must therefore be considered
part of the duty to protect the marine environment. However, the level at which the marine environment should be
protected and preserved and how strict the regulations of damaging activities have to be to comply with the duty remain undefined. It is not an
obligation with clearly defined substantive requirements. The term “preserve” implies as explained above, that a certain quality should be
maintained. Still, it is not possible to define the required quality of the environment. Nevertheless, although the language in the legal
obligation “shall protect and preserve” is strict, Article 192 is
not an absolute obligation and does not require that all
activities that may cause damage to the marine environment be prohibited. States are granted rights
and obligations in the different maritime zones, which also circumscribe the legal duty to protect the
marine environment.16

Conclusively, the
term “protection and preservation of the marine environment” is broad enough to encompass
the use of MPAs to protect and conserve ecosystems, habitats, species and biological diversity .17 The
broad and open formulation of Article 192 with regard to measures for complying with the obligation does not, however, give any direction
regarding which tools States must apply to achieve protection of the marine environment. The States are there-fore free to choose which
measures and tools they want to apply to fulfil the obligation, including mpas.

Prefer our definitions;

a) Precision In the context of WATER, “protection” is a pragmatic concept that implies

regaining or sustaining quality --- Limiting “protection” to “restricting use” ONLY
MAKES SENSE for terrestrial resources
Roux et al 06 --- Dirk J Roux, Freshwater Conservation Scientist, Jeanne L Nel, Heather M MacKay and
Peter J Ashton, “DISCUSSION PAPER ON CROSS-SECTOR POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR CONSERVING SOUTH
AFRICA’S INLAND WATER BIODIVERSITY” WRC Report No. TT 276/06. Pretoria: Water Research
Commission, June 2006, http://www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/TT%20276-06.pdf
In South African water policy, the term water conservation is most often used to refer to water use efficiency, where water demand
management approaches are used to improve efficiency. The
term resource protection is more commonly used to refer
to the protection of ecological features, the integrity or the ecological state of water resources. The term
protection, as used in water policy, is a pragmatic concept, which is applicable to all water resources and not only those
located inside formally protected areas.

In terrestrial conservation science, the term conservation is used generically to incorporate the concepts of
protection, preservation, management and restoration. On the other hand, the term protection in
terrestrial disciplines generally implies restricted access, usually governed through the proclamation of some sort of formal
protected area.

It is clear that the terms protection and conservation could have different and even directly opposite
connotations when used by water resource and terrestrial land-use planners, respectively. Following the lead of
South African water policy, protection of water resources is seen to refer to the efforts aimed at maintaining
and improving the integrity of all water resources, and thus regaining or sustaining their capacity to
provide services to society. The particular level of protection and the nature or portfolio of services derived will vary depending on
which of three possible management classes is designated to a specific resource.
Consensus of lit votes aff
Riley 15 --- Belinda Riley – Senior Planner, Hawke's Bay Regional Council, “CRITERIA AND
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING OUTSTANDING FRESHWATER BODIES”, Ministry of Environment,
December 2015, https://www.hbrc.govt.nz/assets/Document-Library/Reports/Asset-Management-
Reports/1539560-003B-Rev0-R-HBRC-Report-OFWB-Lit-Review-1-Part-Two-Summary-Report-FINAL.pdf
6.5.1 While it is clear that the NPSFM requires the protection of significant values of OFWBs, it is unclear what level of protection should be
provided to these significant values under the NPSFM. For example, once freshwater
bodies are deemed outstanding, should the
‘protection’ be absolute where no adverse effects on significant values can occur under any circumstances, or
should the ‘protection’ be softer where adverse effects will generally be avoided.
6.5.2 There is limited discussion around the term 'protection' in the context of the NPSFM OFWB provisions, with only the 2011 section 32
and the Implementation Guides briefly discussing this matter. However, while the 2012 Cabinet paper on water reform and the 2012 RIS on
objective and limit setting do not directly discuss the term protection, they identify some risks around the OFWB provisions which are relevant
to this discussion.

6.5.3 There is consensus in this literature that the term 'protecting' sets a high standard, with the 2011
section 32 report noting that the term 'protection' is consistent with two of the properties set in section 6 of the RMA13. This is further
supported by statements in the 2011 section 32 report, the 2012 Cabinet paper and 2012 RIS which all note a key risk of the NPSFM OFWB
provisions being that if too many water bodies are deemed outstanding, their development potential will be limited, i.e. due to the high level of
protection.

6.5.4 However, discussion differs in reviewed literature around whether some minor effects on OFWBs may be accepted in the right
circumstances.

6.5.5 This is apparent when comparing advice in the 2011, 2014 and 2015 NPSFM Implementation Guides. The language used
in the 2011 Guide implies that some minor effects on an OFWB may be acceptable by stating that generally the adverse
effects on the quality of the water in an OFWB will be avoided, whereas the draft 2014 Guide implies that no adverse effects will be acceptable
under any circumstances by stating that adverse effects on significant values will be avoided on OFWBs.

6.5.6 The 2015 Guide implies that some adverse effects may be allowed, noting however that adverse effects on the significant values of
the water body may need to be avoided in some instances to provide for those values. The 2015 Guide qualifies this statement by advising that,
while degradation of some aspects of the water quality of an OFWB is allowable, that degradation cannot be at the expense of the OFWB
significant values. The 2011 section 32 report is more aligned to the thinking in the 2011 Implementation Guide, noting that while
the
term 'protecting' sets a high standard it is not absolute and in some circumstances a OFWB may be able
to be protected while allowing a level of use. However, this is not discussed further, and it is unclear if the section 32 report is
only referring to a level of use being allowed where there are no adverse effects. The 2014 section 32AA report does not discuss this issue and
therefore cannot be compared to the 2014 and 2015 Implementation Guides.

b) Aff Flex --- Cessation is too narrow --- Only MPAs are topical --- causes stale debates
and competitive inequity for the neg

Functional limits check – States CP prevents a limits explosion and ensures neg always
has ground

Reasonability over competing interps --- solves race to the bottom and arbitrary limits
 1AR Ext --- CWA “Protects”

CWA “protects”
Puig-Williams & Mace 19 --- Vanessa Puig-Williams, PLLC, and Robert E Mace, PhD, P.G. Texas
State, “Regulatory Impediments to Implementing One Water in Texas”, The Meadows Center, December
2019, https://gato-docs.its.txstate.edu/jcr:461305d9-e80e-47df-9b89-dc5b37c7193f

While the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program under the
Clean Water Act protects water quality
by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into surface-water bodies, it also establishes
requirements for nonpoint sources under the NPDES program. The most common form of nonpoint source pollution in an urban
environment is stormwater runoff. Nonpoint source pollution “represents 50% of the nation’s water pollution problems and according to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 85% of impaired rivers and streams and 80% of impaired lakes and reservoirs are polluted by nonpoint
sources.”52
 1AR A2: Protection = Cessation --- CI Ext

Protection is the prevention of change --- allows use --- this creates a more reasonable
case list and is more precise --- functional limits solves all neg offense
Hamilton & Macintosh 08 --- C Hamilton and A Macintosh, environmental law and policy expert at
The Australian National University (ANU), Australian National University, Canberra, “Environmental
Protection and Ecology” in “Encyclopedia of Ecology”, 1342–1350 (2008),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288218998_Environmental_Protection_and_Ecology

Environmental protection can be defined as the prevention of unwanted changes to ecosystems and their
constituent parts. This includes

• the protection of ecosystems and their constituent parts from changes associated with human activities;
and

• the prevention of unwanted natural changes to ecosystems and their constituent parts.
One issue associated with this definition is whether ‘ecosystems and their constituent parts’ include humans and communities, or whether
environmental protection is only concerned with the protection of natural capital. From an ecological perspective, humans are regarded as an
integral part of the ecosystem. Separating humanity from the natural environment can therefore be seen as artificial. While this is true, the
phrase environmental protection is not used to refer to measures that are designed to regulate or mediate direct interaction between people.
For example, laws prohibiting assault are not regarded as environmental protection measures. Environmental protection is concerned with the
relationship between people and the natural environment rather than the relationships between people and communities.

Another issue is whether environmental protection relates to preservation, conservation, or both.

Preservation refers to the protection of an ecosystem or natural environment from change, while
conservation is generally associated with the sustainable use of natural resources. The objective of
conservation is to ensure the maintenance of a stock of renewable resources that is being exploited for
human purposes rather than the protection of the natural environment from any anthropogenic modifications. The exploitation of
natural resources for human purposes is not environmental protection as it is not associated with the
prevention of unwanted changes. The change associated with exploitation is deliberate and wanted, at least by those doing the
exploitation. However, measures that are put in place to prevent overexploitation of natural resources do
constitute environmental protection. They are designed to prevent exploitation beyond a point that is deemed desirable or
sustainable. For example, catch quotas in fisheries and air pollution limits are environmental protection
measures because, while they accept some environmental degradation, they aim to limit it.

The distinction between preservation and conservation has dissipated in recent years with growing recognition of the
dynamic nature of natural systems, humanity’s place in the biosphere, and the need for active human involvement to maintain the integrity of
certain ecosystems. Consequently, environmental protection
is now generally used to refer to measures that have
traditionally been associated with preservation (e.g., reserves, including national parks), as well as conservation and
natural resource management initiatives.

A critical aspect of environmental protection is that it is driven by the values that humans attribute to different aspects of the environment.
These values need not be instrumental, but the motivating factor for environmental protection is always the prevention of changes to the
environment that humans do not want. This is why measures
associated with the prevention of unwanted natural
changes to ecosystems – like the prevention of coastal erosion or systematic burning in reserves to
reduce the risk of wildfires – can be included as environmental protection. Such measures do not aim to protect
ecosystems from human activities but rather from natural forces that are deemed to threaten human interests.
 1AR A2: Protection = Cessation --- Reasonability

Vote aff on reasonability --- Competing interps on debatability alone creates a race to
the bottom of narrowest definitions that distort the literature.

Its not judge intervention --- we have ev that our interp is more accepted IN THE
COMMUNITY and EVEN IF the ev is a wash that’s MORE REASON to default aff on
“either use is acceptable”
Hariry 21 --- Nik Nurhalida Binti Nik Hariry et al, Faculty of Management, Economics and Social
Development Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, “ENFORCEMENT OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY IN
MALAYSIA: A REVIEW”, Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government Vol. 27, No. 2,2021,
https://cibg.org.au/article_9927_dfac2a77b7d5e66d915931165ce062c8.pdf

The term ‘protection’ is used in several aspects; first in terms of the ‘prohibition’ of certain activities related to
underwater cultural heritage and second in terms of the ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ of heritage. In terms of
archeology, underwater cultural heritage requires protection from two types of problems, namely protection against human interference that
is not allowed to encroach on historic sites and damage historic sites as well as protection against natural degradation in the environment.
Therefore, the use of the term protection carries different practical implications. Protecting underwater cultural heritage from human
interference will raise issues related to heritage ownership, exploitation and disposal. Protecting heritage from destruction or deterioration will
pose problems related to preservation and conservation either in situ or otherwise.

Either is fine
Winterbrook 16 --- Winterbrook Planning, land use and environmental planning company based out
of Portland, Oregon, “Goal 5 ESEE Analysis for Significant Wetlands and Riparian Corridors”, Clear Lake
UGB Expansion Area ESEE Analysis, , December 8, 2016, https://www.eugene-
or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30867/Employment-Parks-Schools-Ordinance-Ex-I-Appendix-F2-Clear-
Lake-UGB-Final-Goal-5-ESEE?bidId=

Notably, Goal 5 does not require a specific outcome. Although Goal 5 on its face appears to require that natural
resources be “protected”,1 Goal 5 and its implementing rule are more about going through a conflict-resolution process than actually
protecting particular resource sites. The term “protection” is defined in the Goal 5 Rule (OAR 660-023-0010) as follows:

(7) "Protect,"when applied to an individual resource site, means to limit or prohibit uses that conflict with a
significant resource site * * *. When applied to a resource category, "protect" means to develop a
program consistent with this division
 1AR A2: Protection = Cessation --- General Ev

Protection allows use --- preservation requires cessation

D'Amato & Chopra 91 --- Anthony D'Amato and Sudhir K. Chopra, Professor D'Amato is a member of
the Board of Editors. Mr. Chopra is a staff attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
Dallas, Texas, “ARTICLE: WHALES: THEIR EMERGING RIGHT TO LIFE”, 85 A.J.I.L. 21, Jan 1991, Accessed on
Lexis
We have attempted so far to show that the initial regulation of whaling was transformed into conservation (for the health of the whaling
industry), which in turn was overtaken by a drive for protection (for the survival of whales themselves). The protectionist attitude
and the conservationist attitude have much in common, even though their psychological motivations are different.
Together they account for the momentum seen in the activities of the IWC from 1946 through 1982. The protectionist attitude allows for
"reasonable" exceptions. For instance, the
protectionist will try hardest to protect whale species that are
endangered, while making trade-offs with whalers on stable and growing species. The protectionist might
concede that a certain amount of whaling is commercially necessary, so long as the activity is restricted to
stable or even growing species. In this respect, protectionists and conservationists find considerable common
ground.
We now introduce a form of protectionism that is largely incompatible with conservation. For want of a better label, we call it
"preservationism." Unlike the protectionist, the preservationist will not admit of exceptions -- reasonable or
otherwise. The preservationist wants to ban all whaling, irrespective of whether a particular species is stable or endangered,
an attitude that is clearly incompatible with the industry of whaling. Whalers and preservationists view each other as mortal enemies -- as is
dramatically reflected in the "whale wars" that began approximately in 1978 and have since escalated.

Protection allows continued use

Wallace 17 --- Annie Wallace, Operations Manager, Coastal Otago, Eastern South Island Region, New
Zealand, “Notified Concession Officer’s Report to Decision Maker”, Last cited date 2017,
https://www.doc.govt.nz/contentassets/cc9c0ffad1514ab8bcef37824de9d310/notified-concession-
deerstalkers-association.pdf

Section i9(i)(a) refers to “protection”. The term “protection” is defined in section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987 as:

“protection, in relation to a resource, means its maintenance, so far as is practicable, in its current state;...” (underline
added for emphasis).

As noted above, the scenic area has a number of conservation values identified in Section 4.5 of this Report. In
order to comply with
the test laid down by section 1?U(3) the granting of a concession must not be contrary to the protection of
those values.
In this case the pre-existing activities that would take place within the scientific area are:

(a) A lease to correspond with the footprint of the existing structures - hut and toilet; and

(b) A licence for the helicopter landing site.

Protecting the values of the scenic area in their “current state” can be understood to mean protecting
them as they currently are, namely with the applicant’s historic activity and human disturbance already evident. Allowing
continued access to the applicant to utilise the hut, toilet and helicopter landing site would not amount to a failure to
protect the values identified in this Report because the “current state” of those values would continue. Accordingly, it
would not be contrary to the purposes for which the land is held to grant a lease for the hut and toilet, and licence for the helicopter landing
site.

Can include regulated use

Manta 13 --- This paper is authored by Manta Consulting on behalf of the participants of a working
group of land conservation experts, “Land Conservation Impact Metrics”, June 1, 2013 ,
https://s3.amazonaws.com/giin-web-assets/iris/assets/files/metric-details/land-conservation-metrics-
working-group-paper.pdf

*FOOTNOTE 7* For the working group, the term “protection” is a specific method of “conservation.” “Protection”
includes legal and non-legal protection designations as well as a variety of uses, ranging from highly restricted
use or no use to various permitted uses for sustainable economic development.

Not absolute
MURRAY 12 --- DANIEL JAMES MURRAY, Full Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute, a
Member of the Resource Management Law Association (RMLA), and Secretary of the Canterbury RMLA
branch, “BEFORE THE CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL “, Last cited state 2012,
https://api.ecan.govt.nz/TrimPublicAPI/documents/download/1766757

36.In Section 6, the term “protection” is used several times in relation to specifically identified resources (emphasis added):
36.1the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and
their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (clause (a));

36.2the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (clause (b));

36.3the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna (clause (c));

36.4the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (clause (f));

36.5the protection of protected customary rights, (clause (g))

37.Section 7 uses the term “protection" in only one clause (clause (h)), with respect to the habitat of trout and salmon.

38. It is my understanding that the

term “protection” is not to be interpreted in absolute terms, but rather in terms
of whether such protection would achieve the purpose of the Act.

Protection can allow use

Arcari 2019 --- Maurizio Arcari, Doctor of Research in International Law, and currently holder of a
postdoctoral scholarship at the Institute of International Law and Organization, University of Parma,
Italy, Chapter 2 Section 1 “Scope of The Convention (Article 1)” in “The UN Convention on the Law of the
Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses”, Published Feb 13 th 2019, Page 39, google books
A few additional remarks are to be reserved for the specific linkage between the three words ‘protection, preservation and management’ in Article 1. As already
mentioned, the word “protection” was introduced during the final stage of negotiations in the context of a
strategy aimed at addressing in the text of the Convention the achievements of the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and
Development. The environmental slant of the term ‘protection’ is, however, inextricably linked to, and has to be
complemented with, the subsequent word ‘preservation’, also introduced in the WG instead of the term ‘conservation’ previously appearing in
the ILC Draft. Beyond the explanation given in the statement of understanding on Article I to the effect that the concept of preservation also includes

that of conservation,49 the specific effect of the former term is to further expand the scope of the
protective obligations of States, by pointing out that it is not only required to shield watercourses and their
ecosystems from damage (i.e. to ‘protect’), but also to maintain them as much as possible in their natural
state (i.e. to preserve’).50 Finally, the fact that the word ‘management’ was already present in Article 1 from the early stages of the ILC work, does not
detract from its critical importance for a contextual interpretation of the Convention. Insofar as the terms ‘protection’ and ‘preservation’ have the potential to
expand the reach of the Convention beyond the traditional dimension of water apportionment, the reference to ‘management’ is a reminder that protective

and environmental purposes must be considered on a par with rational and optimal utilization of
watercourses, and that all such goals can be attained only though the meaningful and effective cooperation between the watercourse States concerned.51

Protection = conservation / sustainability

VON ZHAREN 98 --- DR. W.M. VON ZHAREN, Marine Policy Coordinator for the Texas Institute of
Oceanography, Texas A&M University at Galveston., “Ocean Ecosystem Stewardship”, WM. & MARY
ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV., Oct 1998, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1268&context=wmelpr

Protection240 regimes for living marine species can be subsumed into several categories . The first category
includes those international and United States federal regimes designed to protect marine species directly. The second category
includes those regimes that indirectly protect them through specific pollution prevention and response initiatives.
The final category consists of voluntary codes and management strategies that either directly address
living marine species or can be applied to stewardship strategies. These categories are by no means entirely separate.
241 However, each is addressed independently with major protection provisions highlighted. Where applicable, the first date after each regime
indicates the year the regime was opened for signature while the second represents the year of entry into force.

*FOOTNOTE 240* For purposes of this section only, the

term "protection" is used to describe generically those
regimes that may emphasize conservation and, in some instances, sustainability.

“Protection” can limit the use --- doesn’t have to be absolute

UN 94 --- United Nations “Draft articles on the law of the non-navigational uses of international
watercourses and commentaries thereto and resolution on transboundary confined groundwater”, The
law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses, 1994,
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/8_3_1994.pdf
This goal must not be pursued blindly, however. The concluding phrase of the second sentence emphasizes that efforts to attain optimal
utilization and benefits must be consistent with adequate protection of the international watercourse. The
expression "adequate
protection" is meant to cover not only measures such as those relating to conservation, security and
water-related disease, but also measures of "control" in the technical, hydrological sense of the term,
such as those taken to regulate flow, to control floods, pollution and erosion, to mitigate drought and
to control saline intrusion. In view of the fact that any of these measures or works may limit to some degree
the uses that otherwise might be made of the waters by one or more of the watercourse States, the second sentence
speaks of attaining optimal utilization and benefits "consistent with" adequate protection. It should be added that, while primarily referring to
measures undertaken by individual States, the expression "adequate protection" does not exclude cooperative measures, works or activities
undertaken by States jointly.
A2: T “Protection Not Restoration”
 2AC --- A2: Protect Not Restoration

We meet --- CWA establishes water quality standards

Mas 04 --- Diane M.L. Mas Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, “State of Surface Water Protection: A Summary of Critical Environmental
Statutes”, Aug 2004, https://www.umass.edu/ecologicalcities/watershed/papers/Mas.pdf

The Clean Water Act establishes water quality standards (WQS) for “Waters of the United States,” defined
broadly to include most rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and wetlands (EPA, 2003b). WQS have three components: (1)
designated uses for the waterbody, (2) water quality criteria that specify quantitative measures of water quality, and
(3) antidegradation measures expressed as a series of policies to maintain water quality.

CI --- Protection includes any activity intended to reduce harmful activity or create an
ecological balance
STELMASIAK 01 --- JERZY STELMASIAK, professor, habilitated doctor of legal sciences, professor at the
Department of Administrative Law and Administration Sciences, “Environmental protection law in
Poland”, “LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS”, UNI VERSITATIS MARIAE CURIE-SKŁODOWSKA LUBLIN –
POLONIA, 2001, http://dlibra.umcs.lublin.pl/Content/38018/czas4058_48_2001_10.pdf

The term “protection” is often used in the administration law and organizational activity of the state administration organs. It
consists in preventive action or neutralization of the harmful activity in reference to the case which should be
consistent with the standard determined by legal norms. The domain of this general term includes two subdomains4. The
term “protection” refers to using material and technical means which are first of all of preventive
character. Hence, “legal protection” refers to a set of legal norms created to guarantee such social-economic relations which would prevent
from harmful and undesirable changes.

However, only the

Act of Environmental Protection and Management introduced the following terms to
determine their legal definitions:
-“environment” - the entirety of the nature elements like: flora, fauna and landscape both in the natural state and their altered form as a result
of human activity (biospheric elements) as well as water, air, mining resources and the surface of the earth inclusive of soil,

-“environmental protection” - every action or giving it up, the aim of which is to preserve or restore the
ecological balance i.e.:

-rational formation of the environment,

-rational development of nature resources,

-prevention and action against harmful and negative effects on the environment,

-restitution of nature elements to the ecological balance state,

-“environment formation” - transformation of the environment elements to reach the intended social-
economic objectives and not to disturb the ecological balance conditions as well as to make resources
regeneration possible in a given area.
Prefer it;

A) Precision --- In the context of WATER, “protection” is a pragmatic concept that

implies regaining and sustaining quality --- Limiting “protection” ONLY MAKES SENSE
for terrestrial resources
Roux et al 06 --- Dirk J Roux, Freshwater Conservation Scientist, Jeanne L Nel, Heather M MacKay and
Peter J Ashton, “DISCUSSION PAPER ON CROSS-SECTOR POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR CONSERVING SOUTH
AFRICA’S INLAND WATER BIODIVERSITY” WRC Report No. TT 276/06. Pretoria: Water Research
Commission, June 2006, http://www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/TT%20276-06.pdf
In South African water policy, the term water conservation is most often used to refer to water use efficiency, where water demand
management approaches are used to improve efficiency. The
term resource protection is more commonly used to refer
to the protection of ecological features, the integrity or the ecological state of water resources. The term
protection, as used in water policy, is a pragmatic concept, which is applicable to all water resources and not only those
located inside formally protected areas.

In terrestrial conservation science, the term conservation is used generically to incorporate the concepts of
protection, preservation, management and restoration. On the other hand, the term protection in
terrestrial disciplines generally implies restricted access, usually governed through the proclamation of some sort of formal
protected area.

It is clear that the terms protection and conservation could have different and even directly opposite
connotations when used by water resource and terrestrial land-use planners, respectively. Following the lead of
South African water policy, protection of water resources is seen to refer to the efforts aimed at maintaining
and improving the integrity of all water resources, and thus regaining or sustaining their capacity to
provide services to society. The particular level of protection and the nature or portfolio of services derived will vary depending on
which of three possible management classes is designated to a specific resource.

EPA votes aff on precision

EPA 18 --- “Basic Information about Source Water Protection”, Website created sept 2018,
https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/basic-information-about-source-water-
protection#:~:text=Source%20water%20protection%20includes%20a,%2C%20reservoir%2C%20or
%20river).

Source water
protection includes a wide variety of actions and activities aimed at safeguarding,
maintaining, or improving the quality and/or quantity of sources of drinking water and their contributing areas. These
activities may depend on the type of source being protected (e.g., groundwater, reservoir, or river).

Some examples of source water protection are:

Riparian zone restoration to reduce runoff pollution;

Stream bank stabilization to reduce sedimentation;

Land protection/easements;
Best management practices for agricultural and forestry activities or stormwater control;

Local ordinances to limit certain activities in source water or wellhead protection areas;

Developing emergency response plans; and

Educating local industry, businesses, and citizens on pollution prevention and source water protection.

B) Aff Flex --- it makes no sense to say we have to defend the status quo level of water
pollution --- we lose on alt causes and inherency

C) Grammar --- Increase means to make larger

Encarta 6 – Encarta Online Dictionary. 2006. ("Increase"
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741)

in·crease [ in krss ]
transitive and intransitive verb  (past and past participle in·creased, present participle in·creas·ing, 3rd person present singular
in·creas·es)Definition: make or become larger or greater: to become, or make something become, larger in number,
quantity, or degree
noun  (plural in·creas·es)

Functional limits check – States CP prevents a limits explosion and ensures neg always
has ground

Reasonability over competing interps --- solves race to the bottom and arbitrary limits
 1AR A2: Protection Excludes Restoration --- CI Ext

Protection can sustain AND enhance water quality

Anabo 16 --- Ayele Anabo, PhD, “The Quest for Salient Features of Effective Water Resources
Management Systems: Assessing the English and Ethiopian Water Policies and Laws” Thesis Paper, Kent
Academic Repository, May 2016, https://kar.kent.ac.uk/58443/1/42Final%20thesis.submssion.pdf
7.3.3.2.6 Environmental protection The FDRE Environment Authority and the regional environmental agencies were established in 2002.1435 At
the federal level, the Environment Authority was accountable to the Prime Minister.1436 At the regional levels, the environmental protection
institutions were accountable to a body that was determined by the respective regional state. Each regional state would designate or establish
an institution responsible for protecting the environment. 1437 The objective for establishing these organizational structures was to separate
environmental development functions from protection functions, as they are by nature conflicting if they are conferred upon a single
institution. 1438 Remarkably, the
law defines ‘protection’ as ‘sustaining the essential characteristics of nature
and enhancing the capacity of the natural resources base with a view to safeguarding the interests of the
present generations without compromising the opportunities for the future’. 1439 The concept of protection in
this Proclamation encompasses both present needs and the interests of future generations, whilst safeguarding nature. In addition to the
Federal Environmental Authority and regional environmental agencies, the federal government may assign a competent authority for
environmental protection.1440

Resource protection includes conservation and restoration

Schaum 18 --- Christian Schaum Institute of Hydro Sciences, Universität der Bundeswehr München ,
“Phosphorus: Polluter and Resource of the Future”, “Wastewater treatment of the future: Health, water
and resource protection” Chapter 34, 2018,
https://www.iwapublishing.com/sites/default/files/9781780408361_537.pdf

UBA (2012a) defines resource protection as all measures to conserve or recreate natural resources. “(…) [This]
includes renewable and non-renewable primary raw materials, physical space (such as land), environmental media (water, soil and air),
flow resources (such as geothermal, wind, tide and solar energy), and the diversity of all living organisms ” (UBA, 2012a).

Enhancement is protection
Jennings et al 20 --- Philip Jennings, John Bailey and Patricia Harris for the Beeliar Group: Professors
for Environmental Responsibility., “PROPOSALS FOR THE REFORM OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1986: A POSITION PAPER”,
https://thebeeliargroup.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/tbg-reform-of-ep-act-position-paper-final-
version-290120.pdf
At present, the obligation to protect animals from harm and suffering is not reflected in the EP Act, except in so far as the protection of species
from extinction or loss constitutes part of environmental protection. We note that the
Act defines ‘protection’ as ‘including
conservation, preservation, enhancement and management thereof’. This is a limited formulation since it does not
incorporate the ‘duty of care’ for the welfare of animals commonly associated with protective legislation.
 1AR A2: Protection Excludes Restoration --- Aff Flex Ext

Protection by its nature “improves” --- neg interp limits out all affs
Nascimento 98 --- Adelaida de Almeida Nascimento Assistant Lecturer in Public International Law
University of Alicante, “Protection of Habitats: A Presentation and Assessment of Spanish Practice”,
Online Publication Date: 01 Jan 1998 In: Volume 6: Issue 1, Pages: 31–77,
https://brill.com/view/journals/syio/6/1/article-p31_.xml
Article 45 is also the basis of a number of functions of public authorities in connection with protection of the environment: prevention (the
"duty to see to" the rational utilization of natural resources, "to conserve and protect the quality of life" and "to defend the
environment");11� promotion (initiatives by public authorities should be oriented towards "improving quality of life")11g and restoration (to
"repair" damage and aggression to the environment wherever possible).119 The actions of public authorities are therefore designed to protect
and improve the quality of life and to protect and restore the environment. In line with these postulates, the
Constitutional Court
defines "protection " as an act of safeguard, aid, defence or custody, either preventive or repressive. In
the view of the Constitutional Court, protection is "the essence of a function whose prime purpose must be the
conservation of what exists, but which also tends to improve, both of which are contemplated in the Constitution (article
45.2), and also in the Act of European Union, article 130R and the Stockholm and Rio Declarations". 120
A2: T “Water Resources”
 2AC A2: Water Resources

Their argument is a distinction without a difference --- all water has a human use
Fiore 18 --- Corina Fiore, B.S.Ed. in Earth-Space Science from West Chester University of Pennsylvania.
Fiore taught high school science for 7 years and offered several teacher workshops to regarding
education techniques. She worked as a staff writer for science texts and has been published in Praxis
review materials, “Types of Water Resources”, Updated April 23, 2018, https://sciencing.com/calculate-
piezometric-head-8710823.html
Around 71 percent of the earth's surface is covered in water. This massive quantity of water is hard to visualize: the total water resources of the
earth equal roughly 326 million cubic miles, with each cubic mile equal to around 1 trillion gallons of water. To imagine just one trillion gallons
of water, try to picture 40 million swimming pools, or 24 billion baths. Now, multiply those numbers by 326 million!

Of all of this water, only about 2.5 percent is freshwater: the other 97.5 percent is saltwater. Almost 69 percent of freshwater resources are
tied up in glaciers and ice caps, about 30 percent is groundwater, and a mere 0.27 percent is surface water. While all kinds of water resources
are important for the survival of the planet, accessible freshwater is especially important for humans.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read)

Water resources come in many forms, but the three main categories are saltwater, groundwater and
surface water.

Saltwater Resources
As mentioned, saltwater is abundant in the surface of the planet. However, saltwater is currently not particularly useful when it comes to
potable water supplies. Desalination plants, while they do exist, are scarce because the energy required for desalination makes the process
extremely expensive.

That said, thereare saltwater resources from which humans benefit , aside from beautiful ocean views. Saltwater fish
are a staple in much of the world's diet ( although overfishing and pollution has put much of the marine life population at risk).
Furthermore, tidal waters are being used as a source of hydroelectric energy. So, while saltwater is not
helpful in dealing with scarce water supplies, it does provide resources that humans rely on.

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater is the most plentiful of all freshwater resources. As water percolates into the ground through layers of soil, clay, and
rock, some of it adheres to the topmost layers to provide water to plants. This water is in what is called the unsaturated, or vadose, zone. Most
of the pores in the vadose zone are filled with air, rather than water.

Gravity continues to move the water down through the ground. Eventually, the water reaches the saturated zone, where all the pores are filled
with water. The separation between the saturated and unsaturated zone is called the water table.

Aquifers are areas of permeable rock that hold water . Typically, aquifers are made of bedrock that has many fractures and
connected pores, such as limestone, sandstone and gravel. Shale and clay layers are impermeable, and therefore make poor aquifers. An
aquifer is "recharged" through precipitation from above percolating through the layers of soil and rock. Therefore, there is significant
interaction between surface water and ground water.

In turn, groundwater
feeds surface water through springs, and surface water can also recharge
groundwater supply.

Most often, groundwater is accessed by humans via wells. To build a well, one must drill down past the water table. In most
cases, a pump is placed in the bottom of the well, and it is pumped into homes, businesses and water treatment plants, where it is then
dispersed. As water is pumped from the ground, a cone of depression forms around the well. The groundwater from the surrounding area
moves towards the well. Wells can run dry during times of drought, or if surrounding wells are pumping too much water, causing the cone of
depression to be large.

Water pumped from wells is generally very clean . The layers of soil, clay and rock acts as a natural filter. However,
contaminants from nearby contaminated soils, leaky underground tanks, and septic systems can pollute a well, rendering it unusable.
Furthermore, salt water intrusion can occur when the rate of pumping near a shoreline exceeds the rate of recharge. Saltwater gets pulled from
the ocean into the cone of depression, and enters the well.

Subsidence, the gradual settling of the land due to continuous pumping and development, has also become an issue as groundwater is mined.
This occurs when groundwater is pumped out faster than it can be replenished, and the sediment beneath becomes compacted. Subsidence is a
permanent phenomenon. It can cause structural problems to foundations, an increased incidence of sinkholes and flooding problems. To top it
off, subsidence is extremely costly. In some areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley in California, the land has subsided over 30 feet due to
groundwater withdraw.

Surface Water Resources

Surface water is the water that exists in streams and lakes . This water is primarily used for potable water
supply, recreation, irrigation, industry, livestock, transportation and hydroelectric energy. Over 63
percent of the public water supply is withdrawn from surface water. Irrigation gets 58 percent of its
water supply from surface water. Industry gets almost 98 percent of its water from surface water systems.
Therefore, surface water conservation and quality is of the utmost importance.

CI --- Water Resources require the potential for use --- we meet --- <______> can be
used
Dr Sabara et al 18 --- Zakir Sabara, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, UMI, Doctor of Engineering, S.
Soemarno , Amin Leksono, Andi Tamsil, “PLANNING STRATEGY OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DRINKING
WATER”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 10, October
2018, pp. 524–535,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328868354_Planning_strategy_of_water_resources_for_dri
nking_water
The definition of “water resources” means for distinguishing the definition of “water sources”, and “water” itself as the potential raw material
used to the social and economical activities of community. The distinguishing of definition to those three elements will give definition toward
the pattern of management. Thedefinition of water resources here is the ability and capacity of water potential
that can be used by human activities for socioeconomical activities. There are various types of water sources which
commonly used by community, such as sea water, rain water, ground water, and surface water . The water sources
commonly used by people are surface water for example river, lake, and reservoir will be the main consideration.

Water resources is the renewable resources that dynamically follows the hydrological cycle, naturally moving
and have the change in form and characteristic. Depend on its location and time, water can be the solid substance such as ice
and snow, can be flowing water, and be the surface water . When on the ground is ground water, when
in the air is rain water, when on the sea is sea water, and even can be water vapor which defines as the
air water.

Prefer it --- most precise in government codes that have a shoreline

SENATE COMMITTEE 05 --- Bill Report to the Senate Committee on Water, Energy, and Environment, “SENATE BILL REPORT SB 5113”, Feb
2005, https://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2005-06/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5113.SBR.pdf
Washington's Water Code requires "all waters within the state" and "any right thereto, or to the use thereof, shall be acquired only by
appropriation for a beneficial use" pursuant to a permit-based system "and not otherwise." "Beneficial use" includes, but is not limited to,
"domestic use, irrigation, fish, shellfish, game and other aquatic life, municipal, recreation, industrial water, generation of electric power, and
navigation" and other uses that do not constitute a waste of water. Additional provisions of the Washington Code establish the
Department of Ecology (DOE) as the administrative, enforcement, and planning authority with respect to the water
resources of the state. "Water resources" is defined as "all waters above, upon, or beneath the surface of
the earth." Accordingly, a state permit or license is required from the DOE before a person may "appropriate" public waters and place that
water to "beneficial use"

B) aff flex --- their interp limits out the best affs with an angle against the states CP

Functional limits checks limits

Reasonability
 1AR A2: Water Resources

Our CI is potential use --- we meet that

Dr Pavlova 17 --- Greenskillsresources, The resources on this site were developed by a team led by Dr
Margarita Pavlova, Director of the UNEVOC Center (Hong Kong) and funded by the President’s reserve
fund at the Education University of Hong Kong (CRAC project “Creating an Impact: Setting up a Green
Skills Hub at the EdUHK” - 03A68), “The Name of the Concept: Water Resources and Water Pollution”,
2017, https://www.greenskillsresources.com/resources/uploads/page/66/document/Concept-Water-
resources-and-Water-pollution-20200116185138.pdf

Water resource refers to any of the entire range of natural waters that occur on the Earth, regardless of their
state (i.e., vapor, liquid, or solid) and that are of potential use to humans. Of these, the resources most available
for use are the waters of the oceans, rivers, and lakes; other available water resources include
groundwater and deep subsurface waters and glaciers and permanent snowfields (Encyclopaedia Britannica,
2018).
A2: T “In The United States”
 2AC A2: In The United States

We meet
Sullivan et al 20 --- S. Mažeika Patricio Sullivan, Professor, School of Environment and Natural
Resources (SENR) Director, Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park & Assistant Director,
Mark C. Rains, Amanda D. Rodewald, William W. Buzbee, Amy D. Rosemond, “Distorting science, putting
water at risk”, Science 14 Aug 2020: Vol. 369, Issue 6505, pp. 766-768,
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/766.summary

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) (1), which was published in April by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of the Army (“the Agencies”), has redefined “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) to restrict federal protection
of vulnerable waters (2). With its emphasis on “continuous surface connections” and “permanen[ce],” the
NWPR removes or reduces protection for U.S. waters, including millions of miles of streams and acres of
wetlands, many of which comprise headwaters that are critical for sustaining water quality and healthy
watersheds (3) (see the figure). Although the Agencies claim to have “looked to scientific principles to inform” the NWPR, science has been
largely ignored and oversimplified. These new exclusions are based on selective parsing of statutory language and earlier case law, rather than
on previously established, science-based interpretations of the U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water
Act (CWA) (4). The EPA's own Science Advisory Board (SAB) found sufficient evidence to conclude that “…the proposed Rule lacks a scientific
justification, while potentially introducing new risks to human and environmental health” (5). Responding to this unprecedented distortion of
science and rollback in water protections, which went into effect nationwide on 22 June, will require coordinated efforts among scientists,
lawmakers, and resource managers.
A2: States CP
 2AC --- A2: States CP

(__) Perm Do Both --- Shields the DA links

(___) Perm do the CP

Freedman, 14 (Alan, Associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Assistant @ U Chicago to
Judge Richard Posner, 2/26,
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.pdf)

In 1945, the Supreme Court settled this once and for all in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 indeed, saying that they
wouldn t deal with it again; henceforth, it must simply be given judicial notice. They upheld the Downes v. Bidwell case, above, but now GAVE THREE MEANINGS TO THE
TERM UNITED STATES. (at 671-672) In the instant paper, the primary meaning of "United States" will be that designating territory
over which the sovereignty of the corporate United States extends as granted to this federal agency (i.e.,
creation) of the union states , under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, of their Constitution for the United States of ( i.e., belonging to or

originating from) America. The other two meanings designated are a nation among the family of nations,
as at the UN, and the collective name of the states united by and under the Constitution (in this case, not including the
District of Columbia, etc.). In other words, "the [s]tates united," as it was worded in People v. De Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870). Especially the last of these three, is often referred to
as the United States of America.

(___) CP doesn’t solve:

a) States can’t solve demosprudence adv --- Court action key to building social
movements --- Impact is _______

b) State regulatory fill-in fails --- funding and inter-State gaps. Impact is 200 million
people without safe water.
MCCRORY & RAYMOND 20 --- MARTIN A. MCCRORY, Associate Professor in the Kelley School of
Business, Indiana University, AND ANJANETTE H. RAYMOND, Director, Ostrom Workshop, Program on
Data Management and Information Governance; Associate Professor, Kelley School of Business, Indiana
University; Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, “NAVIGATING
MURKY WATERS: THE RISE AND FALL OF CLEAN WATER PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES”, REVIEW
OF LAW AND SOCIAL JUSTICE , [Vol. 29:2 2020],
https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume29/summer2020/1-3-martin-
anjanette.pdf

4. Reversing Policy: Shifting Burdens/Creating Unfunded Mandates

Another important omission is the lack of a detailed analysis describing how the agencies expect the
local and state regulators to shoulder this new regulatory burden without a drastic increase in federal
funding. Correspondingly, the agencies fail to quantitatively analyze the potential for increased pollution due
to states' inability to handle increased, unfunded regulatory obligations.266 This lack of funding,
personnel, equipment, technology, and (in some cases) incentive brought about the creation of federal
water pollution control. The previous failures of state-driven water protection, for example, resulted in the
1969 fires on the Cuyahoga River and the death of Lake Erie; these and other environmental disasters
inspired the 1972 CWA.267

Under the Trump administration’s rule, states are now required to individually shoulder regulatory burdens
associated with protecting waters that have been federally regulated for decades. Yet, there is no
federal guidance or detailed analysis explaining how states will pay for this increase in regulatory costs.268 This
is despite the fact that, in the RPA, the agencies recognize that the potential change in CWA jurisdiction will strain the state
and local water systems.269

5. Reversing Policy: Ignoring Interstate Waters

The regulatory agencies have not offered an assessment of how the new rule will ensure national
consistency in the protection of our nation's waters .270 Without safeguards, the implementation of the new
rule could lead to disparities relative to water safety. This is of particular concern since the new rule
also removes protections for some previously-covered interstate waters.271 The rule categorically
excludes interstate waters that are not connected to traditionally navigable waters; i.e., waters which cross
state lines but do not have the required surface connectivity.272 The agencies admit, however, that they have not performed the research
necessary to justify this change to longstanding regulatory practice.273

6. Reversing Policy: Abdicating Governance

For over half a century, the

United States engaged in one of the most ambitious and successful pollution
abatement and elimination programs in history .274 The CWA was the one of the best designed and most
artfully drafted statutes of its kind—it formed the backbone of this nation’s continuing efforts to protect its citizens from
pollution.275 With all of its faults, the CWA and its regulatory enforcement has been a mainstay of U.S.
homeland protection since President Nixon.276 On the other hand, recent attempts to redefine its terminology,
reallocate responsibilities, and remove regulatory water protections have left gaps in national
environmental governance. The three most significant of these gaps are: (1) confusion caused by a rollback of well-established
water-protection approaches; (2) failure to consider affected communities; and (3) misaligned enforcement regimes.

a. Rollback
The current rule threatens or eliminates many of the federal regulatory protections created over the past half century without a calculus for
whether this regulatory change will increase environmental protection. On the contrary, this rollback
in protections seems to
threaten to health and safety.277 For example, the new rule may adversely affect well over twenty-five
million people living in Great Lake states who rely upon drinking water systems stemming from
ephemeral, intermittent, and headwaters streams.278 The agencies' proposed redefinition could additionally remove
protections for as much as 70 percent of U.S. tributaries and 50 percent of wetlands.279 Furthermore, the
reduction in regulatory protections threatens drinking water sources for over two hundred million
citizens.280 The new rule fundamentally undermines longstanding efforts to restore many water bodies
including the Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, and Great Lakes. 281

--- State fill-in fails --- Our 1AC Kihslinger evidence says it would take DECADES to build
out the capacity to regulate effectively --- fiat doesn’t solve that –
-- there is a major expertise and capabilities cap that fiat cant solve --- crushes water
protection
Richards 19 --- Ryan Richards, senior policy analyst for Public Lands at American Progress, focusing on
natural resource economics and markets, “Debunking the Trump Administration’s New Water Rule”,
Center for American Progress, March 27 th 2019,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2019/03/27/467697/debunking-trump-
administrations-new-water-rule/

In February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its revised
“Waters of the United States” (WOTUS)
rule. The proposed rule dramatically restricts what falls under the purview of the Clean Water Act , the
environmental law that has led to the cleanup of thousands of rivers and lakes in the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated
that the rule would remove federal protections for 18 percent of stream and river miles and 51 percent of wetlands in the United States,
putting protections at their lowest levels since the Reagan administration and leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to polluted water.

Despite EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s claim that the changes were made to simplify what waterways are covered by the Clean Water
Act, a close reading of the rule suggests that the changes add little clarity. In fact, experts have pointed out that the definitions used in the new
rule are so general—and stray so far from sound science—that consultants may be required to determine whether a water body falls under
federal jurisdiction. This would place further stress on farmers and landowners who are making good-faith efforts to follow the law.

While Wheeler recently claimed that “access to clean drinking water worldwide is ‘the biggest environmental threat’,” the rule appears to be
yet another gift from Trump’s EPA to polluters, especially the coal and hard-rock mining industries that have already benefited from myriad
Trump administration policies. The proposed rule’s shift away from science will seriously undermine water quality improvements that have
been achieved since the Clean Water Act became law. Not only will the rule’s narrowed definitions overwhelm
states with new
regulatory responsibilities, but the rule will also kneecap the booming restoration economy. This has been key to
drawing billions of dollars in private investment to support environmental restoration and protection.

What counts as WOTUS?

Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act gives the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers the responsibility to regulate water pollution. The agencies
have written several rules since 1972 to define the bodies of water they must oversee, with new rules being promulgated in response to court
decisions. The most recent case, Rapanos v. United States, was decided in 2006; the decision was 4-1-4 and defined federal jurisdiction as
applying to traditionally navigable waters as well as other waters with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters. The latter refers to those water
bodies that affect the chemical, physical, or biological health of navigable waters.

In 2015, the EPA concluded a four-year scientific review of the nation’s rivers and wetlands to determine what counted as a “significant nexus”
under the Rapanos decision. It also released a rule that applied this definition to water bodies. However, industry opposed the rule, and over
the subsequent years, litigation limited its implementation to 26 states.

Instead of fighting for the rulemaking and ensuring strong protections against water pollution, the Trump administration has continued its track
record of supporting industry interests at the expense of the American public. The proposed new WOTUS rule eliminates the categories
introduced in the 2015 rule, limiting federal protections to broad categories of “traditional navigable waters”—seas, lakes, permanent or
intermittent rivers, and wetlands that either feed into or out of these water bodies. The proposed rule also explicitly excludes ephemeral
streams, which flow during and shortly after precipitation events, and wetlands without surface connections to traditional navigable waters.
The proposed rule also leaves open the option of removing intermittent rivers and streams before its finalization.

The new rule benefits industry at the expense of public health

A close reading of the proposed rule shows that it includes a big exemption that benefits mining companies. Specifically, it explicitly excludes
“water-filled depressions created in upland incidental to mining or construction activity.” While the 2015 rule excluded dry land depressions
created by mining or construction activity, it clarified that ephemeral and intermittent streams could still be considered waters of the United
States, even if they were dry part of the year.

Ephemeral and intermittent streams are a critical part of hydrology in much of the country, where seasonal rainfall means that many streams
and rivers do not flow year round. One example of this is an arroyo in the American Southwest, a stream that flows only during and after rains,
not permanently, because the region receives so little precipitation. Including these seasonal streams under the WOTUS rule is essential, as
mining activities in these areas have a major effect on the quality of water downstream.

Yet mining groups have been quietly advocating for a new WOTUS rule. While farm groups opposing WOTUS have received most of the media
attention, lobbying records indicate that since 2017, the National Mining Association alone has spent $3.5 million on lobbying activities related
to the new WOTUS rule. Several coal and hard-rock mining companies also list millions of dollars in WOTUS advocacy in their lobbying reports.
Given the unequivocal link between mining and water contamination, these groups have a clear incentive to advocate for the narrowest
definition of “waters of the United States.”

Trump’s 2019 “Economic Report of the President” confirms that the proposed WOTUS rule is intended as a handout to the mining industry,
calling it one of “the most economically significant deregulatory actions for energy” currently underway. This aligns with the Trump
administration’s stated priorities to support coal and extractive industries; it also follows ongoing efforts to weaken environmental and public
health standards to benefit these interests by weakening EPA rules on mercury pollution and supporting the successful nullification of the
Department of the Interior’s Stream Protection Rule under the Congressional Review Act.

The new rule leaves states holding the bag

Instead of empowering states, the proposed rule appears to be an end run to gut environmental
protections at all levels of government.

By removing federal oversight of clean water in many areas, the proposed rule punts a significant amount of
responsibility to individual states, many of which are under-resourced and legally unprepared to take
on permitting and enforcement. In fact, fewer than half of states have their own permitting programs for
protecting wetlands, with many of the remaining states relying on federal standards or joint programs with the Army
Corps of Engineers for monitoring and enforcement. Even where these programs exist , it is not guaranteed
that states will have the staff capacity to ensure that similar levels of protection are maintained. A 2015 survey
by the Association of State Wetland Managers finds that only 10 states have more than 20 staff members devoted to
wetlands-related regulatory or monitoring work.

States’ lack of staff and funding to regulate water quality, combined with the Trump administration walking away from its
responsibilities, means that it simply won’t get done—and that communities will be left vulnerable to water
pollution. The Trump administration’s redefinition of WOTUS is part of a broader effort to eliminate large portions of the EPA’s historical
responsibilities, ostensibly handing them off to state and local agencies. However, the administration’s talking points run counter to the
decadeslong history of federal-state cooperation that has improved water quality across the country.

c) CP doesn’t solve federal lands --- the deficit is massive

Rosenblum 19 --- Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Letter from Attorneys General of
New York, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia to Andrew
Wheeler, EPA, April 15th 2019, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/comment-letter-
final-04-15-19-final.pdf

EPA and the Corps presume in their analysis of states’ potential reactions to the proposed Waters of the
United States definition and the associated narrowing of Clean Water Act programs that states that choose to
continue to administer more expansive water quality programs will do so based on the state’s definition of “Waters of
the State.” In Oregon, while this is a likely outcome, in addition to the level of resources necessary to implement programs based on state
authorities (as described above), another significant consideration is the implementation of these authorities on
federal lands.

As described in the preceding section, headwaters,

ephemeral waters, and wetlands all serve essential functions in
the overall watershed health and ecology. In Oregon, over 50% of land within the state is owned by the
federal government and managed by various government agencies. Most federal land is in the Cascade Mountain Range and
Eastern Oregon, which has significant overlap with waters proposed to be excluded from federal jurisdiction
and water quality protections would need to rely in the future on state administered programs. EPA and the Corps fail to address how programs
administered by states to fill gaps associated with a narrowed Waters of the United States definition would be implemented by federal agencies
on federal lands. Examples include implementation of Load Allocations within Total Maximum Daily Loads or addressing
wetland protections or mitigation arising from a state wetlands protection program. EPA and the Corps need to provide more
information regarding how this change will be implemented on federal lands.

(___) 50 State uniform fiat is a voter:

--distorts topic lit – states/federal is important but the Aff should get lack of
uniformity or implementation arguments. Fed key warrants are fringes of lit. Makes
‘structural violence’ Affs unwinnable because states solves.

--aff fairness – coopts all Aff offense, hard to get solvency deficits, outweighs Neg
fairness because they start the debate

--no solvency advocate for 50 state uniformity – kills topic education

They get single state CPs but not all 50 states – solves ‘federalism important’ offense.
Martin 21 --- Cole Martin Staff Writer and Reporter for Resources for the Future, “Navigating the
Waters of the United States”, Feb 2021, https://www.resources.org/archives/navigating-the-waters-of-
the-united-states/

The Trump administration’s economic analysis also assumes that many states will strengthen local regulation of water
bodies affected by the new rule. In several scenarios in the analysis, those states that EPA and the Army Corps expect to fill the gap left by less
stringent federal jurisdiction have been excluded entirely; the potential costs and benefits of lax federal standards in these states are thus not
considered at all, which has a sizable impact on national benefit estimates. And while it might seem reasonable to expect states to move quickly
to protect priority waterways, regardless of federal guidance, the E-EEAC report authors point out that this type of speculative reasoning
violates EPA’s own guidelines for conducting economic analysis. In fact, they cannot find any precedent for such an assumption, instead writing
that “we cannot find another example in contemporary regulatory impact analysis.”

The former administration’s prediction that various states—as many as 31 in its most optimistic scenario—would move to
protect isolated wetlands and intermittent streams is hardly supported by recent history, either. The report
points to the aftermath of a 2001 Supreme Court case, which stripped federal protections from many
isolated wetlands. Even though many states were impacted, only a few states over the following two decades felt
compelled to strengthen their regulations to protect bodies of water that were no longer covered.

“Toassume that 31 states are going to fully subsume the federal role doesn’t align very well with
precedent,” Olmstead says.
 2AC --- Indigenous Nations Solvency Deficit / AO

( ) Solvency deficit – indigenous nations.

A - States can’t solve there and indigenous nations can’t go it alone.

- Indigenous Nations can’t go it alone due to:
o Nearby Federal Lands often need to be regulated;
o disparities block indigenous governance for having the resources to solve; and
o implementation delays in the face of imminent damage to water.

Pueblos v. Regan ‘21

In this lawsuit, The Pueblo of Laguna and the Pueblo of Jemez are the plaintiffs and self-identify together “the Pueblos” in this
legal challenge. The Defendant is MICHAEL REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency; Filed 03/26/21 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs
arguments submitted by the following attorneys and Law Clinics: Kenneth Bobroff (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF
LAGUNA); David Yepa (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF JEMEZ) And – THEUNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW
CLINIC; #E&F - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents/pueblo_of_laguna_v._regan_d.n.m._-
_complaint_03.26.21.pdf

186. The 2019 Repeal Rule and 2020 NavigableWaters Rule are harming and will imminently harm the Pueblo of
Laguna and the Pueblo of Jemez andtheir members because they have stripped CWA protections from many
waterbodies within the respective Pueblos, from waterways upstream of the Pueblos’ reservation borders, and from
waterways that are on federal lands to which the Pueblos’ have ongoing and longstanding legal and cultural
connections. Hundreds of miles of ephemeral streams that support the Pueblos’ agriculture, recreation, and
cultural and spiritual practice are now at imminent risk of degradation and destruction without federal
protection.
187. The Pueblo of Laguna will be and already is subjected to actual harms because it is no longer able to exercise its CWA Section 401 right to
certify certain upstream dischargers as meeting its Section 303 water quality standards for those waterbodies that are now stripped of their
CWA jurisdiction. For example, the Pueblo of Laguna previously reviewed an upstream NPDES permit through its Section 401 TAS program.

188. Both Pueblos will be and already are subjected to actual harms because they no longer can rely on the
Agencies to enforce or provide technical assistance for the protection of waterbodies that are no longer jurisdictional. The
Pueblo of Jemez relies on the EPA and the Corps to enforce and administer all water pollution protection programs on its lands. The Pueblo
of Laguna relies on the EPA and the Corps to enforce and administer all water pollution programs on its lands
except for the Section 303(c) and 401 programs for which it has TAS status. Even for these programs, it relies on federal technical
assistance.

189. Although the

Agencies suggested that tribes and states now have the advantage of creating their own
water pollution protection programs for non-jurisdictional waters, the Pueblos do not have the resources and
technical capacity to take over fully the federal role in protecting water quality under the CWA, and the Agencies have
acknowledged this contradiction. 85 Fed. Reg. at 22,336–37.

190. To the extent that the Pueblos do attempt to create tribal water pollution control programs for non-
jurisdictional waters, they will be economically harmed because they will need to expend scarce resources on
these programs. The Pueblos have fewer resources than states to implement their own comprehensive
water quality programs.

191. Further,any Pueblo efforts to initiate tribal water pollution control programs for non-jurisdictional waters will
take significant time, during which the waters of both Pueblos will be left unprotected and in jeopardy.

192. These harms are directly traceable to the actions of the Agencies in promulgating a narrower,
unscientific definition
of “waters of the United States,” contrary to the purpose of the CWA.

193. Theimminent and actual harms suffered by the Pueblos will be directly redressed by a decision from this
court to set aside and vacate the 2019 Repeal Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule.

B - Water quality vital to survival of indigenous nations.

- Premise holds not just for the Pueblo – but many indigenous nations, including the Navajo Nation (the largest
indigenous nation in the “united states” by land mass and arguably by population

Navajo Nation v. Wheeler ‘21

In this lawsuit, The Navajo Nation is the plaintiff. The Defendant is ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Filed 06/22/20 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs arguments submitted by attorney Jill Elise Grant - representing The Navajo Nation - #E&F –
available at: https://www.eenews.net/assets/2020/06/24/document_gw_02.pdf

1. On the Navajo Nation, as elsewhere, water is an essential resource used for drinking, washing, other
domestic uses, recreation, fishing, agriculture, and tourism. Water sources also support aquatic and wildlife habitat. The protection of
water quality is vital for these reasons alone.
2. Additionally, the Navajo Nation is located in the arid Southwest, where every drop of water has value. The scarcity of water on the Navajo
Nation—which on top of its customary arid climate also is undergoing a prolonged drought—makes protection of water quality all the more
important. In many instances scarcity of water also increases the impact of water pollution, because the concentration of contaminants is less
likely to be diluted.

3. Clean water is also important to Navajo culture. Natural springs and other water sources must be protected for use in religious and
ceremonial observances. Wildlife, plants, and fisheries, which rely on clean water sources, are an essential part of Navajo culture. Navajo
traditional ceremonies and practices use feathers from specific birds and pelts and oils from specific animals. Navajo traditions include
fashioning implements from the bones of certain animals, baskets from specific plants, and bows using the sinew of certain species of deer.
Numerous plants and insects are also used for traditional medicines. The Navajo world view is a holistic one in which the air, water, people, and
wildlife are all related to one another, and it is imperative for the Navajo people to protect Mother Earth and Father Sky and maintain harmony
and balance with all living beings within their ecosystem.

4. Clean
water is, therefore, essential to the Navajo Nation’s survival, as well as to the survival of all the
people in this country and
to our environment. Congress recognized the importance of clean water by
enacting the Clean Water Act (CWA), in which Congress stated unequivocally that the purpose of the statute is “to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” CWA § 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). To achieve this purpose, the Clean
Water Act, among other things, prohibits the discharge without a permit of pollutants into “navigable waters,” which are defined as “the waters
of the United States, including the territorial seas” (WOTUS). CWA §§ 301(a), 502(7); 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7). The term “waters of
the United States” is not defined in the statute.
5. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (together, Agencies) first promulgated
definitions of “waters of the United States” in the 1970s. More recently, the Corps updated the definition in 1986 and EPA duplicated the Corps’
definition in 1988. Over time, the Agencies found that they were “evaluating the jurisdiction of waters on a case-specific basis far more
frequently than is best for clear and efficient implementation of the CWA,” 79 Fed. Reg. 22,188, 22,188 (Apr. 21, 2014), and they therefore
embarked on a process to promulgate a new updated definition. After rigorous review and public participation, including the submittal of over
one million comments by states, tribes (including Plaintiff Navajo Nation), industry, environmental organizations, and numerous other
stakeholders, the Agencies promulgated the 2015 Clean Water Rule based on “the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best
available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies’ technical expertise and experience in implementing the statute.” 80 Fed. Reg.
37,054, 37,055 (June 29, 2015).

6. Forthe past three years, however, in response to Executive Order 13,778 of February 28, 2017, 82 Fed. Reg. 12,497 (Mar. 3, 2017),
the Agencies have unlawfully sought to delay, rescind, and ultimately replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule .

7. The Agencies’ Delay Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 5,200 (Feb. 6, 2018), would have added to the 2015 Clean Water Rule an “applicability date” of
February 6, 2020, that is, four and a half years after the 2015 rule was set to become effective. The Delay Rule has been found unlawful and has
been vacated. S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt, 318 F. Supp. 3d 959, 967 (D.S.C. 2018).

8. This Court similarly should vacate the Agencies’ rescission of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which also reverted to
the prior “waters of the United States” rule dating back to 1986, 84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Oct. 22, 2019) (Rescission Rule), and their subsequent
promulgation of a significantly narrower definition of “waters of the United States” than was in the 2015 Clean Water Rule. 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250
(Apr. 21, 2020) (2020 WOTUS Rule).

9. In
order to promulgate the Rescission Rule and 2020 WOTUS Rule, the Agencies were obliged to reject
the factual and scientific record established during the development of the 2015 Clean Water Rule . The
Agencies did so without providing any new facts or analysis, and instead conjured up an interpretation of the Clean Water Act and associated
case law that suited the conclusion they had already been directed to reach, by Executive Order 13,778, regarding the scope of the term
“waters of the United States.”

10. With respect to the Rescission Rule, the Agencies revealed their preordained intentions when they limited the issues for public comment
and did not provide a rationale for their actions until they issued the final rule.

11. With respect to the 2020 WOTUS Rule, the Agencies accomplished their preordained intentions by promulgating a rule that conflicts with
the text and stated objective of the Clean Water Act, contravenes controlling Supreme Court precedent, ignores sound science, and does not
even provide the clarity they claimed as a rationale.

12. The Agencies’ actions significantly diminish the number and extent of Navajo Nation waters that are included within the definition of
WOTUS, as well as diminishing Clean Water Act protections for those waters which remain covered by the definition. What’s more, not only did
the Agencies fail to consider the impacts of their actions on the Navajo Nation and its waters, but they also
failed to do so for waters throughout the U nited States.

13. The Agencies’ actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Clean Water Act, the Navajo Nation’s treaty rights, the federal
trust responsibility, and the Due Process clause of the Constitution, as articulated below.

14. The Navajo Nation therefore requests that this Court set aside the Rescission Rule and 2020 WOTUS Rule. The Agencies
should resume implementation of the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which provides a definition of “waters of
the United States” that respects controlling law, is grounded in sound science, and reflects a reasonable analysis of its impacts.

C – reject this on an ethical level – it’s a racist and assimilationist policy

Tanana ‘21
et al; Internally quoting Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation. Heather Tanana is an Assistant Professor of Law (Research) &
Wallace Stegner Center Fellow with The S.J. Quinney College of Law at The University of Utah. Tanana holds a Masters of Public
Health from Johns Hopkins University – Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Tanana identifies as “Diné
(Navajo) of the Kinyaa’áanii (Towering House) clan”. “Water Is Life: Law, Systemic Racism, and Water Security in Indian
Country” - Health Security (Ahead of Print) - Commentary - Apr 30, 2021 - #E&F -
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/hs.2021.0034
No lands can be a permanent homeland without an adequate supply of water, especially potable water.… Safe
drinking water is a
basic need, and the consequences of lack of access to reliable potable water supplies can be staggering.

– Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation

The 21st century has been marked by significant advancements in technology, from travel to Mars and self-driving cars to smartphones and
bitcoin. And yet, at the same time, hundreds of thousands of Native Americans live without access to safe, clean, and reliable drinking water. By
some estimates, 48% of households on Indian reservations do not have clean water or adequate sanitation.1 This lack of access has been
highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is not a new issue. Native American communities have long suffered inequities stemming from
colonization and perpetrated by federal policy. While the pandemic has devastated many Tribal communities, it has also brought attention to
issues long ignored, including lack of clean water access and health disparities. As a result, a unique window of opportunity has arisen to
address these issues and achieve universal access to clean water across the United States.

The pandemic heightened the need for clean water access in Indian country (the legal term under federal law that includes, in part, all land
within the boundaries of an Indian reservation).2 Two crucial actions to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19,
are frequent handwashing and sanitizing high-touch surfaces.3 Hydration is also being studied as a factor in COVID-19 mortality,4 and
healthcare providers have cited hydration and nutrition as tools for supporting COVID-19 recovery.5-7 For drinking, eating, and hygiene, access
to clean water is essential. Limited water access makes it challenging to take these recommended steps against COVID-19. Consequently, it is
not surprising that a recent study found an association between lack of indoor plumbing and COVID-19 infection rates on reservations.8
According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are at least 3.5 times more
likely than White persons to contract COVID-19.9 Lack of water access may have contributed to the higher rate of COVID-19 in AI/AN
communities.10

“Water is essential to every aspect of household and community life and the economy.”11 Aside from its association with COVID-19 incidence,
water insecurity also contributes to other negative health outcomes in Tribal communities, including lead
poisoning, anemia, diabetes,12 kidney disease, and certain cancers. Contaminants, such as the chemicals associated
with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), are pervasive in some water supplies and have been identified as a potential risk to human
health, but their full health impacts are still being studied.13 Overall, in comparison to other populations, the AI/AN population suffers
significant health disparities, many of which are associated with disproportionate exposure to environmental health hazards.14

For many Tribal communities, connection to culture is an indivisible component for individual and community health. And while Western
scientific research is not necessary to demonstrate this connection, (Tribal traditional knowledge is Indigenous science, equally valid and more
relevant to Tribal communities), studies have shown that engaging in cultural activities is a protective factor and loss of culture is a risk factor
for various health conditions.15 For
many Tribes, water is part of their cultural and community activities, serving as
another reason for water access in Indian country to be prioritized as a public health tool. From the Navajo
(To' ei 'iina até) to the Hopi (Paatuwaquatsi) to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Mní Wičóni), these
Tribes view water as sacred and recognize that “water is life.”
There are 574 federally recognized Tribes in the United States, located across 35 states. The specific challenges that a given community faces
with respect to water varies from Tribe to Tribe. However, some common experiences include lack of a piped delivery system providing water
to homes and unsafe or otherwise unacceptable water quality. Even when clean water is provided to a community, the aging and deteriorating
water and sanitation infrastructure can threaten future supply of that water or prevent Tribal growth. Each of these challenges are briefly
discussed next.

Water Access. “Race is the strongest predictor of water and sanitation access.”14 Vis-a-vis White households, Native Americans are 19 times
more likely to live in a household without indoor plumbing with running water.16 This disparity is even higher for residents of the Navajo
Nation, who are 67 times more likely to live in a household without running water compared to other population groups.16 Without piped
water, many families are required to haul water over long distances from communal wells. In addition to being a time-consuming burden,
hauling water is also more costly. The average American family with piped water delivery spends $600 per acre-foot of water. In comparison,
the Navajo Department of Water Resources estimates that Navajo families relying on hauled water spend $43,000 per acre-foot of water.17

Water Quality. Inadequate water quality is also prevalent in some parts of Indian country. A small study conducted on the Navajo Nation with
the Johns Hopkins Center for American Indian Health found Escherichia coli and other coliform bacteria in 8% and 44% of samples,
respectively.18 A long history of mining in the western United States has left groundwater in many areas, including the Navajo Nation, polluted
with arsenic and uranium, as demonstrated by a study of nearly 300 water sources.19 Naturally occurring arsenic has plagued the Hopi Tribe
since its drinking water systems were first installed in the 1960s. The Hopi Tribe estimates that 75% of its community members are drinking
contaminated water.20 Beyond these known contaminants, there are also several lurking unknowns. For example, PFASs have been detected in
the drinking water of cities across the United States.21 They have also been linked to a reduced immune response and other harmful health
effects.22 But the true extent of PFAS, including its presence in Indian country, is unknown. Given the extent of unlined landfills and unpaved
roads on or near many Tribal lands, PFAS is a potential threat to many Tribes23 and, more broadly, represents the dire need for further
research into water quality issues.

Water Infrastructure. While some Tribes have constructed suitable water infrastructure to provide water delivery into homes within their
reservation, such infrastructure is often deteriorating or inadequate to keep up with population growth and other needs. Broadly across the
United States, the American Society of Civil Engineers has rated the country's drinking water infrastructure a “D,” based on condition, safety,
and other factors.10 Deteriorating infrastructure raises several public health concerns, including increased risk of water contamination and
nonpotable water delivery.24 Waterborne disease outbreaks caused by inadequate infrastructure have occurred in several cities across the
United States.24 Tribal drinking water infrastructure is not an exception to these challenges, and in many cases is worse.

The federal government has treaty obligations and trust responsibility to Tribes. When the federal government removed Tribes from their
homelands, it frequently entered into treaties with Tribes and established a reservation as a permanent homeland for the Tribe. Like any
other communities, Tribes must have access to a clean, safe, and reliable supply of water in order for reservations to
be a permanent and habitable homeland. Treaty rights thus include access to water25 and access to healthcare,26 among other rights. The
trust responsibility is a legal, moral, and fiduciary responsibility of the federal government to protect Tribal treaties, lands, and resources.27
While these treaty and trust rights are legally binding, it is well-documented that the
federal government has reneged on its
responsibilities to adequately protect Tribal lands and waters and to provide adequate healthcare through Indian Health
Service and other funding.28 Other scholarship has documented that these violations are rooted in racism.29,30

The continued violation of treaty and trust rights by the federal government are barriers to adequate water access in Indian country. “The
protection of tribal sovereignty and treaty rights through the support of Indigenous activism and alliance building is necessary to ensure treaty
trust responsibilities, which are critical to water-related environmental and social justice.”31

Beyond federal treaty and trust responsibilities, inequities in water quality and access have been facilitated by other laws and legal systems that
reduce the access, quality, and infrastructure for water. First, federallaw fails to provide adequate protection for Tribal
water. The Clean Water Act32 and the Safe Drinking Water Act33 established federal water quality standards. Today, these laws are
intended to support Tribal self-governance and thereby protect Tribal environmental values by allowing
Tribes to directly administer federal water protection programs.34 However, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)—the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal clean water and safe drinking water standards—has only approved 2
Tribal programs since 2016 (Pueblo of Laguna and Swinomish Indian Tribal Community) and only 15% of eligible Tribes
have water quality standards needed for EPA approval .35 Generally speaking, Tribes have a strong connection to their land
and environment. Threats to environmental quality are threats to Tribal culture and tradition. For example, “ water pollution permits
that do not account for Indigenous cultural uses of water risk environmental injustice in a manner
reminiscent of early colonial attempts at assimilation .” 35 One proposal to increase Tribal eligibility and water quality
protections, is for the EPA to create a direct implementation program that encompasses cultural and traditional considerations. Such action
would begin to close the regulatory gap that exists in water quality protection in Indian country while still allowing Tribes the opportunity to
assume administration of these programs in the future.
 1AR – A2: States CP --- Resources + Inter-State gaps

States fail for reasons not solved by Neg fiat.

- Our MCCRORY & RAYMOND ev proves States lack funding.
- There are also inter-State gaps – like areas that cross State boundaries.
- The Impact’s 200 million people without safe water.

States can’t find the funding – AND inter-State gaps tube all solvency because of
shared waterways.
Rabinow 20 – deputy director of research at the Rockefeller Institute of Government
Laura, October, The Shape of Water Regulations, Rockefeller Institute of Government,
https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/10-22-20-WOTUS-Report-web.pdf

State wetlands programs, laws, and regulations vary considerably .45 For example, many states rely entirely on Section
401 certification of federal permits under the Clean Water Act, while others have further laws or regulations requiring permits in “waters of the
state” that effectively broaden the WOTUS definition to include wetlands and ephemeral streams. Some states do not have
wetlands programs at all, and those that do may pertain to freshwater wetlands, or coastal wetlands, or both. Instead or in addition
to these programs, a number of states also employ nonregulatory programs— education, restoration, outreach, etc.—concerning wetlands,
ephemeral streams, and other waterways. As of 2008, the date of the most recent survey, at least 13 states have specific wetland water quality
regulations that may be used in permitting determinations and 23 states have the authority to issue permits for dredge and fill activities in
wetlands. This diverse array of state-level policies and programs illustrates that the impact of the 2020 Rule on states,
state agencies, and their ability to ensure oversight of environmental permitting will likely be uneven, though
significant. New Mexico New Mexico does not have a state permitting program in place that could address
many of the waters now excluded under the 2020 Rule .46 As a result, the rule is estimated to eliminate roughly 40 percent
of water pollution permits in the state unless a state program is established to fill the resulting regulatory gap. Internal EPA documents
referencing the 2020 Rule, reflect that the impact of the rule will likely be most felt in arid west states like New Mexico,47 where ephemeral
and intermittent streams make up over 80 percent of all streams.
It is estimated that the 2020 Rule may exclude 96
percent of the New Mexico’s streams and wetlands from regulation—out of the state’s over 88,000
miles of streams and over 845,000 acres of wetlands .48, 49 Such waters include important tributaries to the Rio Grande
River and parts of the Santa Fe River, that are significant drinking water sources for residents of Santa Fe. More broadly, 78 percent of New
Mexicans depend on groundwater50—excluded from protections in the Clean Water Act under the 2020 Rule51 and the 2015 Rule—for their
drinking water. Half of all water withdrawals in the state, including those for agriculture and other industry, come from groundwater. Given the
significant potential impact of the 2020 Rule, the New Mexico state attorney general has generally joined the multistate lawsuits contesting the
change in WOTUS definitions. Likewise, New Mexico’s Environment Department secretary, submitted comments to the EPA that outlined
concerns about the 2020 Rule’s impact in the state. The secretary later stated of the rule that it “will devastate New Mexico’s scarce and limited
water resources […] New Mexico is arguably the state with the most to lose, and my Department will do whatever it takes to prevail in
protecting our most precious resource.”52 New York As in New Mexico, New York’s attorney general and Department of Environmental
Conservation commissioner have contested the 2020 Rule. The New York State Office of the Attorney General joining the multistate lawsuits to
stay its implementation. In New York, roughly 29 percent of streams are intermittent and, while ephemeral streams are not mapped in the
state, it is estimated that there are over 100,000 miles of unmapped ephemeral streams in the state.53 Likewise, over 4.7 million New Yorkers
depend on groundwater for their drinking water.54 Unlike in New Mexico, New York’s “waters of the state” definition is more expansive than
the federal government’s WOTUS definition. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in New York has an approved permitting
program by the EPA.55 The Department of Environmental Conservation further administers a Freshwater Wetlands Program56 under the
state’s Freshwater Wetlands Act. This act requires permitting for activities in wetlands or their adjacent areas, including (but not limited to):
construction of buildings or roadways; placement of fill or excavation; application of pesticides; and, drainage with the exception of agricultural
drainage. Which areas fall under this regulation currently depends on DEC mapping and pertains to wetlands that are 12.4 acres57 or larger, or
those that are of unusual local importance. As the Trump Administration announced its changes to WOTUS in early 2020, Governor Andrew
Cuomo proposed revising those state regulations to further include all wetlands identified by the physical characteristics in the original state
statute.58 That proposal did not, however, make it into the final state budget amidst the largescale response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even
more recently in New York, when the state legislature reconvened in July, the Senate passed a bill extending state protections and permit
requirements to what are called “class C” waters.59 This bill, which had passed the Assembly in February, was directly framed by its sponsors
and environmental advocates to counteract the changes implemented in the 2020 Rule.60 Compounding
Factors for States The
long-term impact of COVID-19 on states and localities, agency funding, staffing, and general capacity, is
still not clear. COVID-19 related budget shortfalls will likely compound existing state-level shortfalls in
environmental protection.61 During and in the immediate years following the 2008 recession, 30 states
reduced funding for pollution control programs at their environmental agencies. Of those, 25 states cut
at least 10 percent, and 16 states cut 20 percent or more (adjusted for inflation). In total, 40 states over the last
decade have reduced environmental agency staff. In short, the rollback of WOTUS will mean that even
for states who want to fill the regulatory gaps the 2020 Rule will leave behind, they will be hard-
pressed to find the resources to do so and do so quickly. And, that impact will not only be felt based on
the interest and ability of states to fill those regulatory gaps, but on the interest and ability of
neighboring states with which they share watersheds to also fill those gaps . These effects will be further
compounded by the uneven impacts of climate change and by the way in which those impacts move more water bodies out of categories of
protection as their continuous surface connections become less consistent or move below ground. Conclusions The 2020 Rule’s
redefining the “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act removes key types of water
including wetlands and ephemeral streams from federal protections, jeopardizing the health of not only
ecosystems but drinking water sources, and shifting the burden onto states to address the resulting
regulatory gap. While the 2020 Rule went into effect in all states except Colorado in late June, its ultimate implementation and impact are
likely to be uneven. As reflected above, this unevenness is influenced by at least four central factors. First, given the judicial history and present
status of legal challenges to WOTUS, in which states the 2020 Rule continues to be implemented, will likely play out in the courts for some time
and, consequently, will result in uneven implementation depending on who ultimately brings successful challenges. Second, this unevenness
will be further affected by the degree to which a given state has existing regulatory
systems and programs— which vary
considerably across states—to potentially address those regulatory gaps left behind by the 2020 Rule. Third, states and their residents
will be unevenly impacted depending on their particular ecological and hydrological features. As noted, those more arid states in the southwest
are likely to be among the most impacted, as are other states whose ecologies, drinking water systems, and economies more heavily depend on
groundwater, wetlands, and ephemeral streams explicitly excluded from federal protections under the 2020 Rule. And fourth ,
the impact
on each state and its residents is likely to be compounded by both the existing longer term declines in
state environmental staffing levels, and the current economic and public health crisis related to COVID-
19 as the resources for related agencies to address the regulatory gaps left by the 2020 Rule stand to be
further strained. As a result, states stand to lose regulatory oversight for the protection of tens of
thousands of miles of streams, hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands, and the source water for
drinking supplies for millions of residents. Given that this is a presidential election year, it is important to note that the ultimate
implementation of the 2020 Rule is also dependent on the outcome of that election and whether or not the elected administration next year is
likely to continue this policy or work to rollback this rollback. As that work unfolds, as legal challenges continue to play out in the judicial
system, and as state regulatory systems shift, further work by the Rockefeller Institute will update this research.

Some inter-State gaps create significant solvency deficits.

Ryan 18 - editor of The Clean Water Act Handbook, Fourth Edition (ABA 2018) and is a member of the
editorial board of Natural Resources & Environment. He is a principal with the firm of Ryan & Kuehler
PLLC in Winthrop, Washington

Ryan, Mark A. "The WOTUS Rule Repeal." Natural Resources & Environment 33.2 (2018): 55-6.
ProQuest. Web. 9 June 2021.
Reading the June 29 notice as a whole, it is clear that the agencies are working hard to discredit the 2015 rulemaking by questioning the legal
rationale for significant nexus, the science used to support the decision-making, the estimates on the potential increase in jurisdictional
determinations, and other foundations of that rulemaking. It is unusual to see two agencies tearing apart their own prior
rule this aggressively, highlighting all the perceived faults while doing nothing to defend their own recently promulgated rule. But tear
apart they must if they are to justify a full repeal of the 2015 rule under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). First, consistent with the
Trump administration's focus on states' rights, the agencies have elevated CWA section 101(b) (states' role in the CWA) to even status with
section 101(a) (goal of the CWA is to protect the nations' waters). Almost every court interpreting the CWA cites section 101(a) as the starting
point of its analysis. Comparatively few courts have focused on section 101(b), for this reason: Congress made clear in the 1972 amendments to
the CWA that the states shall continue to run most of the CWA programs, but with minimum federal standards and a broad federally mandated
regulatory scheme to combat nationwide water quality problems. That was the big change made by the 1972 amendments. Prior
to 1972,
the states were in charge (the June 29 notice incorrectly states at page 18 that the Corps was in charge), and water quality
throughout the United States was very bad. Without minimum federal standards, the states were in a
well-documented race to the bottom to avoid scaring away employers. Beach closures, algal blooms,
and fish kills were common, and rivers were catching fire . Congress noticed. The 1972 amendments set minimum federal
standards and directed that the CWA apply to the waters of the United States. Congress recognized that water runs downhill,
and often doesn't respect state boundaries. The agencies devote an entire section of the June 29 notice to the "potential
impact on the federal-state balance." This reflects the policy priorities of the Trump administration. The agencies question, for example,
whether asserting jurisdiction over waters within the 100-year flood plain is consistent with section 101(b). See June 29 notice at 77. This
focus on states' rights, however, seems to miss the point that water pollution does not obey state
boundaries. The 2015 rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that affect downstream navigable-infact waters. What happens to Arkansas v.
Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992), with this new approach? In that case, the Supreme Court held that EPA has the authority to apply water quality
standards of a downstream state in issuing a permit to point source in an upstream state.
If states' rights become paramount,
what happens to interstate waters? The entire purpose of the federal CWA is to protect the nations'
waters, which are largely interconnected, and which largely flow over state lines.

No funding or framework
Winters 19 – American Fisheries Society Policy Director Drue Banta Winters, Proposed Changes to
Waters of the U.S. Rule Could Strain Fisheries and Wildlife, Fisheries | Vol. 44 • No. 1 • January 2019,
DOI: 10.1002/fsh.10207
As always, there is a role for AFS members to help inform policy-makers of the implications for fish. First, comment on the new rule individually
and as AFS Chapters specifically citing case studies from your region that demonstrates how fish could be negatively impacted by the new rule.
Use all of the communication channels at your disposal to communicate this information more broadly. Finally, share the science with state
policymakers and advocate for protections for these waters on a local level. State
agencies will be left with the role of
protecting waters that are not subject to federal jurisdiction. Many agencies have neither the funding,
nor the legal and regulatory framework in place, to oversee robust protection of these very important
waters that help maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.
 1AR – Indigenous Nations --- States can’t solve

State fiat can’t solve – States are legally precluded from acting within indigenous
nations.
Kloeckner ‘12
Jane Kloeckner is Attorney/Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, Region VII, Kansas City,
Kansas, and Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Law – “Hold Ona to Tribal Sovereignty:
Establishing Tribal Pesticide Programs That Recognize Inherent Tribal Authority and Promote Federal-Tribal Partnerships” -
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER – modified for language that may offend - #E&F -
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jane-Kloeckner-
2/publication/259486773_HoldOntoTribal_Sovereignty_EstablishingTribal_PesticideProgramsThat_RecognizeInherentTribal_Au
thorityand_PromoteFederal-_TribalPartnerships/links/0c96052c30c4601702000000/HoldOntoTribal-Sovereignty-
EstablishingTribal-PesticideProgramsThat-RecognizeInherentTribal-Authorityand-PromoteFederal-TribalPartnerships.pdf

Environmental regulatory control in Indian country 12 by the federal and tribal governments is complex. It is governed at the crossroads of two
intricate bodies of federal law—environmental and Indian law. Many legal scholars
have written about the intersection of
federal Indian law and other environmental laws, such as the CWA, the CAA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA),13 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).14 FIFRA has not been studied as
much.'5 FIFRA is especially important in Indian country because many Indians reside in rural agricultural areas where pesticide use and abuse
may present exposure risks.16

The federal government17 and tribal sovereigns'8 exercise power and jurisdiction to protect human health and the
environment from pesticide pollution by using command-and-control regulatory programs to mitigate pollution. On the other hand,
state governments lack authority over environmental regulatory matters in Indian country (indigenous
nations), absent an express grant from Congress.19 In general, EPA purged state environmental regulatory
programs inside Indian country (indigenous nations), in 1984, when the Agency adopted its national Indian Policy.20 Absent
explicit congressional action, EPA does not authorize states to implement federal environmental programs, such as FIFRA, inside Indian
country.21
 1AR – Indigenous Nations --- Impact/Ethics

Extend our impacts –

One – indigenous survival.

Indigenous communities are disparately impacted by the Navigable Water Rule –
resulting in thousands of avoidable deaths. This outweighs on probability – retuning
to the 2015 rule would definitely save lives.

Two – ethics.
The Navigable Waters Rule should be rejected on principle - it’s a racist policy that
unduly harms indigenous communities.

There’s an ethical imperative to act to on behalf on indigenous water quality.

Cosens ‘18
et al; Barbara Cosens is a Professor, University of Idaho, College of Law. LL.M., Lewis & Clark School of Law (2002); J.D.,
University of California, Hastings College of Law (1990); M.S., Geology, University of Washington (1982); B.S., Geology,
University of California, Davis (1977). “Indigenous Water Justice” - 22 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 841 (2018) - #E&F -
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=faculty_scholarship

I. INDIGENOUS WATER JUSTICE

In innumerable, unequivocal, and heart-wrenching ways, indigenous members of our communities and societies have
suffered monumental injustices stemming from "colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and
resources."16 This legacy is morally and politically reprehensible and must be broken. As expressed by UNDRIP,
it is imperative in contemporary times to respond decisively to the "urgent need to respect and promote the inherent
rights of indigenous peoples."17 Indigenous water justice is the concept espoused in this Article to
advocate for these rights vis-a-vis water—again, the first medicine18 and essence of life.
Although indigenous water justice can be conceptualized in diverse ways,19 UNDRIP is our particular cornerstone. This Part sheds light on
indigenous water justice as conceptualized around that authentic, visionary instrument. We begin with an overview of UNDRIP and its
animating principle of self-determination. At that juncture, we turn to water and its multi-faceted connections to Indigenous Peoples' self-
determination— more precisely, to the socioeconomic, cultural, and political dimensions associated with Indigenous Peoples' exercise of the
right to self-determination. Water declarations from Indigenous Peoples reveal these connections, and a host of UNDRIP
provisions are implicated by them. Taken together, these materials delineate important norms for conceiving of just
relations between Indigenous Peoples, nation-states, and public and private entities therein surrounding
water. Whereas this Part initially identifies the UNDRIP provisions embodying these norms, Part III subsequently revisits these provisions as
bases for principles and prescriptions aimed at realizing indigenous water justice within the three basins under study and elsewhere. UNDRIP
thus constitutes our normative backbone.
Federal action is key – it’s vital to fulfill an ethical obligation to avoid racist and
genocidal water policy.
Tanana ‘21
et al; Heather Tanana is an Assistant Professor of Law (Research) & Wallace Stegner Center Fellow with The S.J. Quinney College
of Law at The University of Utah. Tanana holds a Masters of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University – Bloomberg School of
Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Tanana identifies as “Diné (Navajo) of the Kinyaa’áanii (Towering House) clan”. “Water Is
Life: Law, Systemic Racism, and Water Security in Indian Country” - Health Security (Ahead of Print) - Commentary - Apr 30,
2021 - #E&F - https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/hs.2021.0034

The legal framework governing Tribal rights, including water rights, in Indian country is based on racism,
colonization, and genocide. Early federal reports have documented insufficient water access in Indian country. The 1928 Meriam
Report38 documented both lack of access to clean water and lack of sanitation facilities for waste disposal in Indian country. Nearly a century
later, the US Commission on Civil Rights chronicles many of the same water access issues in its 2018 report, Broken Promises: Continuing
Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans.28

The legal foundations for water access under federal law are important, but access to clean water is more appropriately framed as a human
rights issue. In addition to the United Nations recognizing the human right to water,39 the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of
Indigenous People40 recognizes the right to:

“the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health;”

“maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories,
waters and coastal seas;” and

require governments to “consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous people […] in order to obtain their free and informed consent
prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development,
utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”

The COVID-19 pandemic reveals yet another reason to make the right to water a reality in the United States, particularly in the context of water
security for Tribal communities. The
federal government continues to have a major role in providing clean and
reliable water access to Tribes; yet, it has long failed on its legal obligations. The public health community should align their efforts
alongside the work that Indigenous water protectors have been doing since time immemorial.

One area that is ripe for a public health–Tribal partnership is the gap in research related to water quality, access, and health. This issue is
compounded by a persistent lack of data regarding water access and health outcomes across Indian country. Most of the related research
relates to the Navajo Nation (the largest Tribal nation in the United States); but, even there, more comprehensive studies are needed to truly
understand and address problems. At present, no federal or Tribal entity is tasked with assessing each home in Indian country. While Indian
Health Service maintains a database to track sanitation deficiencies in AI/AN homes (which includes drinking water), the database has
limitations and relies on deficiencies being first identified by the Tribe and then reported to Indian Health Service for inclusion.41 Nonetheless,
although the amount and quality of data currently available is not ideal, it does underscore that many Tribal communities continue to suffer
from water insecurity. Furthermore, data insufficiencies do not justify continued lack of action under the law. The
federal government,
under treaty and trust obligations, is legally responsible to provide water and healthcare access. Holding the
government responsible in these areas is essential to bridging the gap in existing water access inequities.
Although each Tribe's water challenges are unique and require content-specific solutions, the federal government
must address the water- and health-related inequities that affect all Tribes. This includes more protections of
Tribal waters under federal law, more leadership at the federal level to prioritize Tribal water quality and access,
and a commitment to honor federal treaty and trust obligations.

The policy violates an ethical obligation to protect environmental justice.

Pueblos v. Regan ‘21
In this lawsuit, The Pueblo of Laguna and the Pueblo of Jemez are the plaintiffs and self-identify together “the Pueblos” in this
legal challenge. The Defendant is MICHAEL REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency; Filed 03/26/21 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs
arguments submitted by the following attorneys and Law Clinics: Kenneth Bobroff (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF
LAGUNA); David Yepa (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF JEMEZ) And – THEUNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW
CLINIC; #E&F - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents/pueblo_of_laguna_v._regan_d.n.m._-
_complaint_03.26.21.pdf

An assessment of the impact on cultural and historical resources should be considered a vital part of an environmental justice analysis. An
agency, such as the EPA, should “recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors that may amplify the
natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed agency action.” Council of Envtl. Quality, Executive Office of the President,
Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997).

The EPA’s own guidance on environmental justice states that the “EPA should be particularly careful not to
diminish tribal resources, including cultural and natural resources and treaty rights, without tribal concurrence and the EPA
should ensure the protection of such resources from environmental harm.” U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Final Guidance for Incorporating
Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (1998).

Removing or limiting access to clean water for both Pueblos’ populations directly threatens to diminish tribal
resources and adversely impact their cultural practices.

Both Pueblos use water from local sources, both on and off their reservations, for domestic, ceremonial,
and cultural practices.

The Agencies failed to recognize the interrelated cultural factors that amplify the environmental effects of narrowing
the definition of “waters of the United States,” leaving unprotected hundreds of miles of ephemeral
streams and wetlands that are essential to domestic uses and ceremonial and cultural practices.

The Agencies additionally failed to consider the adverse and disproportionate effects on the populations of the
Pueblos by promulgating the 2019 Repeal Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule in direct violation of executive
direction regarding environmental justice and their own stated policies on incorporating environmental justice concerns into the NEPA
process.

Loss of protection for waters used by the Pueblos for domestic, ceremonial, and cultural practices is a
direct impact from the EPA’s rulemaking, and the cultural importance of using water from ephemeral
streams and wetlands greatly amplifies the effects of the Agencies’ new rule.
The EPA arbitrarily failed to conduct an environmental justice analysis, falsely— and illogically—asserting that one was not required “because
there is no significant evidence of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12,898.” Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 84
Fed. Reg. 4154 (proposed Feb. 14, 2019) (to be codified at 33 C.F.R. pt. 328). Had the EPA conducted an environmental justice analysis to
support the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule, the agency would have learned and understood how the narrowed definition of “waters of the United
States” disproportionately affects the Pueblos.

“Environmental justice is not just a box to be checked ,” Friends of Buckingham, 947 F.3d at 92. Addressing the issue
of environmental justice would have and should have informed the Agencies’ decision-making before they
disregarded concerns expressed previously on behalf of the Pueblos. In particular, in promulgating the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule, the
Agencies ignored the oral and written comments of the Pueblos opposing the proposed rule that would narrow the scope of “Waters of the
United States.” See infra ¶¶ 173–78. Accordingly,
the Agencies failed to meet their obligations under Executive Order
12,898 and subsequent case law for achieving the ends of environmental justice.
 1AR – Indigenous Nations --- Fed Key – resources/permits

Fed key - Indigenous communities lack permits and resources to solve.

Navajo Nation v. Wheeler ‘21
In this lawsuit, The Navajo Nation is the plaintiff. The Defendant is ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Filed 06/22/20 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs arguments submitted by attorney Jill Elise Grant - representing The Navajo Nation - #E&F –
available at: https://www.eenews.net/assets/2020/06/24/document_gw_02.pdf

Treating Tribes as States under the CWA

53. In 1987, Congress added Section 518 to the

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1377. Section 518(e) authorizes EPA to grant
eligible Indian tribes “treatment as a state ” (TAS) for a variety of purposes, including administering and enforcing each of the
principal CWA regulatory programs. Id. § 1377(e). The EPA has established specific TAS application processes for
six Clean Water Act regulatory programs: Section 303(c) water quality standards; Section 303(d) impaired water listing and
total maximum daily load programs; Section 401 water quality certification programs; Section 402 NPDES permitting and other provisions;
Section 404 dredge-and-fill permitting; and Section 405 sewage sludge management programs. 40 C.F.R. §§ 123.31, 130.16, 131.8, 233.60,
501.23.

54. Tribes are not required to apply for TAS. Sixty-two tribes, however, including the Navajo Nation, have
TAS approvals for either
water quality standards, water quality certifications, or both. From planning to approval to implementation, the process
takes years to complete.
55. No tribe has TAS for any Clean Water Act permitting programs or Section 303(d) impaired water listing and total maximum daily load
programs. Most tribes lack the capacity to develop and administer these programs, which are resource-
intensive, and have not applied for TAS for these programs. Instead, tribes rely on the Agencies’ implementation of
these programs on their behalf. Indeed, even the states rely on the Corps to implement the CWA § 404
program.

56. If
the Agencies’ narrow definition of “waters of the United States” in the 2020 WOTUS Rule is allowed to stand,
discharges into the newly excluded waters may no longer require a NPDES or dredge-and-fill permit. In the
Navajo Nation’s case, because so many of its waters are ephemeral, the majority of its waters may not be protected
from immediate or upstream contamination.

(Note to students: the “Corps” citied in this evidence is the US Army Corps of Engineers – a Federal entity).

Fed Key – Indigenous nations lack permits and resources.

Navajo Nation v. Wheeler ‘21
In this lawsuit, The Navajo Nation is the plaintiff. The Defendant is ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Filed 06/22/20 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs arguments submitted by attorney Jill Elise Grant - representing The Navajo Nation - #E&F –
available at: https://www.eenews.net/assets/2020/06/24/document_gw_02.pdf
119. The 2020WOTUS Rule also does not include “interstate” waters as a separate category of “waters of
the United States,” and therefore excludes many waters that cross state or tribal borders and have long
been protected by the Clean Water Act. See id. at 22,338.

120. As a result of these new exclusions, a vast number of streams and wetlands— previously covered
by the CWA for decades—will no longer receive CWA protections.
121. In the 2020 WOTUS Rule, the Agencies state that they do not view the new, narrower definition of “waters of the United States” “as
conclusively determining which of the nation’s waters warrant environmental protection and which do not,” but instead view the definition as
drawing the line between “waters subject to federal requirements under the CWA and those waters that States and Tribes are free to manage
under their independent authorities.” Id. at 22,270.

122. The Agencies acknowledge that the new rule will affect tribes differently from states . Id. at 22,270, 22,336-
37. They offhandedly dismiss this disparity, however, stating that they were unable to quantify the final rule’s effects on tribal waters because
they were not aware of datasets showing the potential effects and they could not quantify how tribes would react to the Rule.14 Similarly, the
Agencies’ Economic Analysis did “not consider how the 573 federally recognized tribes might react to a change in CWA jurisdiction, nor does
[the Economic Analysis] include tribes in its calculations of costs and benefits.”15

123. TheAgencies did not analyze impacts on tribes or treaty rights, even though they acknowledged that tribes do not have
the resources to implement their own permitting programs and so are dependent on federal permitting
programs to protect tribal waters, which programs will be diminished under the new rule. See id.

Fed Key – indigenous nations can’t solve on their own.

Pueblos v. Regan ‘21
In this lawsuit, The Pueblo of Laguna and the Pueblo of Jemez are the plaintiffs and self-identify together “the Pueblos” in this
legal challenge. The Defendant is MICHAEL REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency; Filed 03/26/21 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs
arguments submitted by the following attorneys and Law Clinics: Kenneth Bobroff (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF
LAGUNA); David Yepa (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF JEMEZ) And – THEUNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW
CLINIC; #E&F - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents/pueblo_of_laguna_v._regan_d.n.m._-
_complaint_03.26.21.pdf

In 2015, the Agencies promulgated the Clean Water Rule , which relied on a thorough survey of the best available science to
determine which bodies of water were "waters of the United States" under the significant nexus test. 80 Fed. Reg. at 37,060. In keeping with
historic practice and based on clear science, the
2015 Clean Water Rule determined that many of the ephemeral and
intermittent streams,1 such as those common on the lands of the Pueblos, were "waters of the United
States."
In 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Agencies to repeal the Clean Water Rule and consider replacing it
with a regulation employing the narrower approach and reasoning of Justice Scalia's plurality opinion in Rapanos. Exec. Order No. 13,778, 82
Fed. Reg. 12,497 (Mar. 3, 2017).

The Agenciesrepealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule and then reversed their longstanding policy by promulgating a new,
much narrower interpretation of the "waters of the United States." Definition of "Waters of the United States" —
Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules, 84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Oct. 22, 2019) [hereinafter the 2019 Repeal Rule]; The Navigable Waters Protection
Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States," 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (Apr. 21, 2020) [hereinafter the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule]. The 2020
Navigable Waters Rule follows the directive of Executive Order 13,778, but without due regard for established law.
The 2019 Repeal Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Rule are inconsistent with both the CWA's objective of "maintaining] the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" and the Rapanos significant nexus test.

The 2019 Repeal Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule harm the Pueblos by removing federal CWA water pollution protections from many of the ephemeral
streams and other waterbodies that sustain the Pueblos. These
rules remove CWA protections from 79% to 97% of stream miles
in the Pueblo of Laguna. These rules remove CWA protections from 94% of stream miles in the Jemez watershed and 87% of stream miles on Jemez
Pueblo trust lands.

Where a waterbody is not determined to be a "water of the United States," the Pueblos alone are left to
establish and administer water pollution control programs at their own expense.

However, the Pueblos rely on the Agencies to implement nearly all of the CWA's pollution programs on
their behalf and do not have the financial or administrative resources or capacity to administer these
programs themselves.
Further, both Pueblos rely on the federal jurisdiction of the CWA to protect themselves from upstream pollution.

For the Pueblos, high water quality is essential to day-to-day life, as well as cultural and religious practices.

The removal of federal jurisdiction creates the imminent risk of the degradation and destruction of the Pueblos' waters and
would harm the Pueblos' agriculture, as well as cultural and religious practices.

The Agencies promulgated both the 2019 Repeal Rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule without due respect to the sovereignty of either
Pueblo.

The Agencies' actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the CWA, and the federal trust responsibility toward tribes, as
described herein.

The Pueblos respectfully request that the Court vacate and set aside the 2019 Repeal Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters
Rule and return to the post-Rapanos case-by-case application of the "significant nexus" test.

Resource disparity is significant - Pueblo nations prove

Pueblos v. Regan ‘21
In this lawsuit, The Pueblo of Laguna and the Pueblo of Jemez are the plaintiffs and self-identify together “the Pueblos” in this
legal challenge. The Defendant is MICHAEL REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency; Filed 03/26/21 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs
arguments submitted by the following attorneys and Law Clinics: Kenneth Bobroff (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF
LAGUNA); David Yepa (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF JEMEZ) And – THEUNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW
CLINIC; #E&F - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents/pueblo_of_laguna_v._regan_d.n.m._-
_complaint_03.26.21.pdf

The Pueblo of Laguna is located within both the Rio Puerco and Rio San Jose watersheds. The Rio Paguate also runs
through the Pueblo. Each of these three rivers is ephemeral or intermittent.

The people of Laguna have been residing within the watersheds of the Rio Puerco and the San Jose River and using water
from both rivers for irrigation and domestic purposes since before European contact .

Water is essential to Laguna beliefs, cultural practices, ceremonies, and daily activities. Members of the Pueblo of
Laguna consume water directly from the rivers as part of domestic uses and for ceremonial practices.

Members of the Pueblo of Laguna are directly affected by upstream water activities that occur beyond the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo
and on federal lands.
Ephemeral and intermittent streams are a significant source of surface water for the Pueblo of Laguna.

The Pueblo of Laguna contains approximately 1,795 miles of linear streams. Under the 2015 Clean Water
Rule, all 1,795 stream miles within the Pueblo were considered jurisdictional waters and were protected under the
CWA. The 2020 Navigable Waters Rule will remove 79% to 97% of stream miles within the Pueblo from protections
under CWA jurisdiction.

The Pueblo of Laguna was granted "Treatment in a similar manner as States" ("TAS") status by the EPA for three CWA programs under Section
518(e) of the Act. The Pueblo of Laguna has received TAS status to participate in the Section 106 pollution control grant program, the Section
303(c) water quality standards program, and the Section 401 water quality certification program.

The Pueblo of Laguna has obtained TAS, federally recognized water quality standards, and section 401 certification authority, but must rely on
the Agencies and their expertise for permitting and enforcing CWA requirements. These requirements include permit conditions under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") and section 404 dredge-and-fill programs to help protect the Pueblo's water.

The department responsible for water quality at the Pueblo of Laguna consists of one full-time Surface Water
Quality Specialist and one part-time employee who assists the Surface Water Quality Specialist with the water quality
monitoring program.

The Pueblo of Laguna has relied on the protections of the 2015 Clean Water Rule to protect its water quality standards from degradation by
upstream dischargers such as the City of Grants, and the Roca Honda, L-Bar, Homestake, Rio Grande Resources Mount Taylor, and Bluewater
uranium mines. The Lee Ranch Coal Company is also located upstream of the Pueblo of Laguna.

According to public census data, the Pueblo of Laguna has an average annual per capita income of $14,743, less than half of the average annual
income in the United States, with a poverty rate of 32%, more than double the rate of the United States at 13.4%.

The repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule and the promulgation of the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule harm the
Pueblo of Laguna by removing the ability to enforce federal water quality standards within nearly all its
waterways. The repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule and the promulgation of the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule also harm the
Pueblo of Laguna by leaving the Pueblo without the capacity or resources to administer its own water
quality standards and without the legal authority under the CWA to enforce water quality standards against upstream discharges.
 1AR – Indigenous Nations --- A2: Rule will be overturned in the Squo

Rule won’t be overturned quickly in the squo

Wyland ‘21
Internally quoting Cliff Villa, associate professor and supervising attorney for the University of New Mexico’s Natural Resources
and Environmental Law Clinic AND Rachel Conn, projects director for Amigos Bravos, a Taos-based water advocacy group, Scott
Wyland – Reporter - “Two New Mexico pueblos sue EPA over Trump-era water rule” – Santa Fe New Mexican - Mar 31, 2021 -
#E&F - https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/two-new-mexico-pueblos-sue-epa-over-trump-era-water-
rule/article_12d8e8ac-9165-11eb-bb9f-b3e6649b7f8d.html

Both Villa and Conn are confident the Biden administration eventually will overturn the rule

But repealing and replacing an EPA policy takes time because such actions must go through a long
public process, they said.

The Clean Water Rule took the Trump administration three years to undo, Villa said, and it could take just as
long to rescind this rule.

A legal challenge could be much swifter in nullifying a rule that is now leaving waters unprotected, not
only in the pueblos but throughout New Mexico, he said.

Thus, the status quo won’t solve in time – our ev is strong that damage to water
quality is an imminent issue for indigenous communities.
 1AR - Indigenous Nations --- Threat is imminent

Trump’s Navigable Waters Rule creates an imminent threat to water quality on

indigenous territories.
Pueblos v. Regan ‘21
In this lawsuit, The Pueblo of Laguna and the Pueblo of Jemez are the plaintiffs and self-identify together “the Pueblos” in this
legal challenge. The Defendant is MICHAEL REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency; Filed 03/26/21 in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Plaintiffs
arguments submitted by the following attorneys and Law Clinics: Kenneth Bobroff (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF
LAGUNA); David Yepa (Attorney representing The PUEBLO OF JEMEZ) And – THEUNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW
CLINIC; #E&F - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents/pueblo_of_laguna_v._regan_d.n.m._-
_complaint_03.26.21.pdf

The Pueblo of Laguna provided written comments regarding the proposed 2020 Navigable Waters Rule.
Pueblo of Laguna, Comment Letter on Proposed Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States,” Comment ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149-
4799 (Apr. 14, 2019)

In its comments,the Pueblo of Laguna emphasized that the proposed 2020 Navigable Waters Rule posed an
imminent threat to tribes, failed to honor trust obligations, and would result in sources of water no longer being
considered or protected by the CWA. The Pueblo of Laguna went on to comment that the rule would create significant
gaps of protection from pollution in their surface water that would result in pollution that will generate
consequences for generations to come. Id.
The Pueblo of Jemez also submitted written comments on the proposed 2020 Navigable Waters Rule. Pueblo of Jemez, Comment Letter on
Proposed Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States,” Comment ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149-4565 (Apr. 15, 2019).

In its comments, the Pueblo of Jemez warned that the proposed 2020 Navigable Waters Rule did not adequately consider the complexity of the
drainage system in the arid southwest. The proposed rule would exclude Pueblo of Jemez waters from protection under the CWA, and also
much of the surface water in the Southwest. The Pueblo of Jemez commented that it lacks the resources to fill the gap created by the proposed
2020 Navigable Waters Rule. Id.

In addition, on April 19, 2019, the All Pueblo Council of Governors (“APCG”), of which the Pueblo of Jemez and Pueblo of Laguna are members,
provided written comments on the proposed 2020 Navigable Waters Rule. All Pueblo Council of Governors, Comment Letter on Proposed
Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States,” Comment ID: EPA-HQOW-2018-0149-5107 (Apr. 15, 2019).

In its comments, the APCG warned that the proposed 2020 Navigable Waters Rule weakens CWA protections for tribal waters and poses an
imminent threat to tribal communities. The APCG went on to comment that the proposed 2020 Navigable Waters Rule created enforcement
gaps and failed to protect tribal lands under the CWA, which would result in pollution and negative consequences for Pueblo generations to
come. Id.

The 2019 Repeal Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Rule Harm the Pueblo of Laguna and the Pueblo of Jemez

The 2019 Repeal Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Rule harm the sovereign, governmental, environmental, economic,
and proprietary interests of the Pueblos .
 1AR – Indigenous Nations --- utilitarianism is wrong

Utilitarianism is a poor framework.

It re-enacts sacrifice of indigenous peoples to save populations holding more socio-
economic privilege. It ensures a violent present – and should be rejected in favor of
ethical approaches.
Santos 3 (Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of
Coimbra, “Collective Suicide?” Bad Subjects, Iss.63, April 2003,
https://bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos)KMM
According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save
humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the
need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over
which it is supposed to have total power . This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous
peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths
in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under
Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the
periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new
genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization
and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a

totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality,
and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to
ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the
result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. If there
is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact
that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists .
This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical
rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo.
Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three
versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic
of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of
social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of
political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the
war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers.

Prioritize ethics over utilitarianism – life itself only has value if everyone’s allotted full
dignity.
Shue ‘89
Henry Shue, Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University, 89 “Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint,” pp. 141-2

Given the philosophical obstacles to resolving moral disputes, there are at least two approaches one can
take in dealing with the issue of the morality of nuclear strategy . One approach is to stick doggedly with one of the
established moral theories constructed by philosophers to “rationalize” or “make sense of” everyday moral intuitions, and to accept the verdict
of the theory, whatever it might be, on the morality of nuclear weapons use. A more pragmatic alternative approach assumes
that trade-offs in moral values and principles are inevitable in response to constantly changing threats ,
and that the emergence of novel, unforeseen challenges may impel citizens of Western societies to adjust the
way they rank their values and principles to ensure that the moral order survive s. Nuclear weapons are putting
just such a strain on our moral beliefs. Before the emergence of a nuclear-armed communist state capable of threatening the existence of
Western civilization, the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings to preserve Western values may have appeared wholly unjustifiable
under any possible circumstances. Today,
however, it may be that Western democracies, if they are to survive as
guardians of individual freedom, can no longer afford to provide innocent life the full protection
demanded by Just War morality. It might be objected that the freedoms of Western society have value only on
the assumption that human beings are treated with the full dignity and respect assumed by Just War theory.
Innocent human life is not just another value to be balanced side by side with others in moral calculations. It is the raison d’etre of Western
political, economic, and social institutions. A
free society based on individual rights that sanctioned mass slaughter
of innocent human beings to save itself from extinction would be “morally corrupt ,” no better than soviet
society, and not worth defending. The only morally right and respectable policy for such a society would be to
accept destruction at the hands of tyranny,

Reject util-calculating lesser evils results in the more extreme systemic violence and
state of exceptions.
Weizman, ‘11
(Eyal, London University spatial and visual cultures professor, The least of all possible evils, pg 8-10)

The theological origins of the lesser evil argument still cast a long shadow on the present. In fact the idiom has become so deeply ingrained, and is invoked in such a
staggeringly diverse set of contexts - from individual situational ethics and international relations, to attempts to govern the economics of violence in the context of
the war on terror' and the efforts of human rights and humanitarian activists to maneuver through the paradoxes of aid - that it seems to have altogether taken the
place previously reserved for the term "˜good'. Moreover, the very evocation of the "˜good' seems to everywhere invoke the utopian tragedies of modernity, in
which evil seemed lurking in a horrible manichaeistic inversion. If no hope is offered in the future, all that remains is to insure
ourselves against the risks that it poses, to moderate and lessen the collateral effects of necessary acts, and tend to
those who have suffered as a result. In relation to the "˜War on terror, the terms of the lesser evil were most clearly and prominently articulated by
former human rights scholar and leader of Canada's Liberal Party Michael Ignatieff. In his book The Lesser Evil Ignatieff suggested that in "˜balancing liberty against
security' liberal states establish mechanisms to regulate the breach of some human rights and legal norms, and allow their security services to engage in forms of
extra juridical violence - which he saw as lesser evils - in order to fend off or minimize potential greater evils, such as terror attacks on civilians of western states. If
governments need to violate rights in a terrorist emergency, this should be done, he thought, only as an exception and according to a process of adversarial
scrutiny. "˜Exceptions', Ignatieff states, "˜do not destroy the rule but save it, provided that they are temporary, publicly justified, and deployed as a last resort.
The lesser evil emerges here as a pragmatic compromise a “tolerated sin” that functions as the very
justification for the notion of exception. State violence in this model takes part in a necro-economy in
which various types of destructive measure are weighed in a utilitarian fashion , not only in relation to
the damage they produce, but to the harm they purportedly prevent and even in relation to the more
brutal measures they may help restrain. I n this logic, the problem of contemporary state violence resembles indeed an all-too-human
version of the mathematical minimum problem of the divine calculations previously mentioned, one tasked with determining the smallest level of violence
necessary to avert the greatest harm. For
the architects of contemporary war this balance is trapped between two
poles: keeping violence at a low enough level to limit civilian suffering, and at a level high enough to
bring a decisive end to the war and bring peace. More recent works by legal scholars and legal advisers to states and militaries have
sought to extend the inherent elasticity of the system of legal exception proposed by Ignatieff into ways of rewriting the laws of armed conflict themselves.
Lesser evil arguments are now used to defend anything from targeted assassinations and mercy killings ,
house demolitions, deportation, torture, to the use of (sometimes) non~ lethal chemical weapons, the use of human shields, and

even "˜the intentional targeting of some civilians if it could save more innocent lives than they cost. In
one of its more macabre moments it was suggested that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima might also
be tolerated under the defense of the lesser evil . Faced with a humanitarian A-bomb, one might wonder what, in fact,
might come under the definition of a greater evil . Perhaps it is time for the differential accounting of the lesser evil to replace the mechanical
bureaucracy of the "banality of evil' as the idiom to describe the most extreme manifestations of violence. Indeed, it is through this use of the lesser evil
that societies that see themselves as democratic can maintain regimes of occupation and neo-colonization. Beyond state agents, those
practitioners of lesser evils, as this book claims, must also include the members of independent nongovernmental organizations that make up the ecology of
contemporary war and crisis zones. The lesser evil is the argument of the humanitarian agent that seeks military permission to provide medicines and aid in places
where it is in fact the duty of the occupying military power to do so, thus saving the military limited resources. The
lesser evil is often the
justification of the military officer who attempts to administer life (and death) in an "˜enlightened'
manner; it is sometimes, too, the brief of the security contractor who introduces new and more efficient weapons and spatio-technological means of
domination, and advertises them as "˜humanitarian technology'. In these cases the logic of the lesser evil opens up a thick political field of participation bringing
together otherwise opposing fields of action, to the extent that it might obscure the fundamental moral differences between these various groups.
But,
even according to the terms of an economy of losses mid gains, the concept of the lesser evil risks
becoming counterproductive: less brutal measures are also those that may be more easily naturalized, accepted and
tolerated - and hence more frequently used, with the result that a greater evil may be reached cumulatively
 A2: NGA CP
**Note --- See the NGACP for extensive 1AR extensions**
 2AC --- A2: NGA CP

(___) Perm – do both – shields the link

(___) Perm – do the CP – plan doesn’t commit to an agent, states can be the US.
Freedman, 14 (Alan, Associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Assistant @ U Chicago to
Judge Richard Posner, 2/26,
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.pdf)

In 1945, the Supreme Court settled this once and for all in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 indeed, saying that they
wouldn t deal with it again; henceforth, it must simply be given judicial notice. They upheld the Downes v. Bidwell case, above, but now GAVE THREE MEANINGS TO THE
TERM UNITED STATES. (at 671-672) In the instant paper, the primary meaning of "United States" will be that designating territory
over which the sovereignty of the corporate United States extends as granted to this federal agency (i.e.,
creation) of the union states , under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, of their Constitution for the United States of ( i.e., belonging to or

originating from) America. The other two meanings designated are a nation among the family of nations,
as at the UN, and the collective name of the states united by and under the Constitution (in this case, not including the
District of Columbia, etc.). In other words, "the [s]tates united," as it was worded in People v. De Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870). Especially the last of these three, is often referred to
as the United States of America.

(___) States CP’s a voting issue --- not real world, no literature, crushes Aff ground, no
logical decision-maker can choose, and it fiats multiple actors which isn’t reciprocal

(___) CP Doesn’t Solve:

(A) Doesn’t solve demosprudence --- court action key --- Impact is _____

(B) It gets rolled back --- Biden pushing for change now --- but court fights ensures it
fails --- that’s 1AC ______

--- Courts key --- they will lock in narrow WOTUS definition
Ryan 18 --- Mark Ryan, editor of The Clean Water Act Handbook, Fourth Edition (ABA 2018) and is a
member of the editorial board of Natural Resources & Environment. He is a principal with the firm of
Ryan & Kuehler PLLC in Winthrop, Washington, “The WOTUS Rule Repeal”, Natural Resources &
Environment; Chicago Vol. 33, Iss. 2, (Fall 2018): 55-56.,
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2216721801?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the Supreme Court. With Kennedy stepping down, the
conservative members of the court now may have the five votes necessary to adopt the Scalia standard of
jurisdiction. That would judicially rewrite the CWA to limit WOTUS to relatively permanent waters (RPWs),
which would, in effect, exclude most of the headwaters systems and all wetlands and other waters that do not
abut an RPW. If that happens, the CWA will become a shadow of its former self-and we will be litigating new
issues such as whether irrigation ditches are now point sources where they empty back into rivers
because they would not be WOTUS. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari on WOTUS cases eight times
since Rapanos, presumably not wanting to deal with another split decision. With Kennedy gone, that
dynamic likely will change.

(C) Say no and no spillover

Goldsmith 97 (Jack, Associate Prof – U Chicago, Virginia Law Review, November, Lexis)
The executive branch has special monitoring capabilities and preemptive lawmaking powers when foreign relations is at issue. As for
monitoring,
it is inconceivable that the executive branch will be unaware of a state's action that adversely
affects U.S. foreign relations or unduly burdens the federal government's ability to conduct foreign relations. The President is the
primary agent of U.S. foreign relations and the primary organ of communication with foreign governments. 266 And the executive branch
receives all foreign government complaints about state activity. When
the executive branch identifies harmful state foreign
relations activity, it is much better positioned than Congress to address it. Foreign relations is (and is
perceived to be) the President's responsibility. He is thus more accountable for foreign relations problems than Congress,
and has a greater interest in redressing state-created foreign relations difficulties. The President also has a
massive executive branch bureaucracy at his disposal to monitor and redress such difficulties.
Importantly, the executive branch's ability to respond to these difficulties is not burdened by collective action problems to nearly the same
degree as Congress. 267 In addition, the President's unique role in foreign relations enables him to redress
unacceptable state foreign relations activity in a variety of ways . First, he exercises special influence on the congressional
foreign relations agenda and the content of foreign relations legislation. 268 Second, he or one of his subordi-  [*1685]  nates can
communicate directly with states on behalf of the federal government in order to influence or alter the offensive state activity. 269
Sometimes this communication is nothing more than an informal telephone call to the proper state or local official. Other times the State
Department will send a formal letter to the state urging it to cease its offensive behavior . And sometimes the executive branch
will file an amicus brief in state court. 270 These means of "informal" presidential control are often employed and often, though not always,
successful in changing the offending state behavior. 271 Third, the
President has limited but important federal lawmaking
powers that enable him, on his own, to preempt state law that adversely affects the nation's foreign relations or the
political branches' ability to conduct such relations. Some of these powers derive directly from the Constitution itself. For example, incident to
his power to recognize foreign governments, 272 the President can enter into international agreements that preempt state law. The most
famous instance is the Litvinov Agreement, which officially recognized the Soviet Union and assigned all Soviet property in the United States to
the federal government. This "executive agreement" preempted inconsis-  [*1686]  tent state property and creditor law. 273 It also ended state
court uncertainty about the domestic effect of the Soviet Union's extraterritorial confiscations. 274

(D) **If NGA threaten Court for some reason** --- Courts won’t change their ruling
based on statements by governors
MCCORMACK 03 --- ANDREW MCCORMACK, Michigan Daily, “Granholm brief to support ‘U’
policies”, Feb 12th 2003, https://www.michigandaily.com/uncategorized/granholm-brief-support-u-
policies/

Gov. Jennifer Granholm will file a brief supporting the University’s admissions policies to the U.S. Supreme
Court within the week, her office announced Monday.
Granholm also filed a brief as attorney general in 2001 when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing the lawsuit challenging the race-
conscious policies.

“The governor is very committed to the University’s right to determine the diversity of its student body,” said Elizabeth Boyd, spokeswoman for
the governor. She “has supported the University’s position through this whole process.”
Briefs supporting the University, called amicus briefs, as well as the University’s, are due next Tuesday. Granholm asked Attorney General Mike
Cox to write a brief similar to her own, but he declined. Cox spokesman Sage Eastman said while the attorney general supports diversity, a
separate brief would do little good.

“The attorney general looked at the briefs that have been filed, and felt that there was no new legal
ground to break,” Eastman said. “There are briefs upon briefs. … The issues have been exhausted on both sides.
It’s time to sit back and let the court make its decision.”

While the
governor’s office declined to comment on the details of the brief, Boyd said it will hopefully have an impact on
the Court’s Decision.

But some feel Granholm’s position as governor will have little influence on the Supreme Court.

“With the Court, the

amicus brief has no political weight,” said Wayne State University’s Professor of
Constitutional Law, Robert Sedler. “If there are interesting points in the brief, the clerk might show it to the Supreme Court, but it’s
not going to matter if ‘the president’ or ‘the governor’ filed a brief.”
“Groups file amicus briefs largely for their own purposes. Bush filed his brief for his reasons, and Granholm is filing her brief for her reasons,”
Sedler said.

The attorney general has similar thoughts about the issue, Eastman said.

“We don’t feel the justices will be swayed by who signed the brief, but by the points made in the brief,” he said.

(___) Perm --- do the plan as an outcome of the counterplan’s process

(___) Conditionality is a voter – creates time and strategy skews, not reciprocal –
undermines argument responsibility – dispo solves

(___) Perm --- NGA threaten support until fed passes green new deal – limited
intrinsicness justified by artificial net benefit – proves it’s not an opportunity cost to
the plan

(___) Links to politics – states removing all support for fed policies would obviously
trigger a massive fight
 A2: Con-Con CP
**Note --- there are extensive Con-Con 1AR blocks in Con-Con file
 2AC --- A2: Con-Con CP

No solvency advocate for amending about WOTUS --- it’s a voter --- no lit to answer,
unpredictable, and kills topic education

Perm do both --- solves the link --- zero court backlash if it’s followed up by am
amendment

Perm do the CP then the plan --- the plan is a judicial affirmation of the amendment

Follow on links to the net benefit

CP doesn’t solve the case:

(A) Doesn’t solve demosprudence --- Court action at the front end necessary to
radicalize social movements --- that’s ____

(B) Conservative Court will say the amendment violates federalism and gut it ---
there’s precedent
Rappaport 19 --- Mike Rappaport, Professor Rappaport is Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the
University of San Diego, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of
Constitutional Originalism, “The Unbearable Wrongness of Slaughterhouse”, Law & Liberty, April 1 st
2019, https://lawliberty.org/the-unbearable-wrongness-of-slaughterhouse/

The 14th Amendment was a key constitutional amendment. After the Civil War, many in the former Confederate states
resisted the regime sought by the victorious North. Once the 13th Amendment ending slavery was enacted, many of
the former Confederate States sought to impose Black Codes which treated former slaves as second
class citizens – depriving them of basic common law rights, such as the right to contract. The former Confederates argued this second class
citizenship was consistent with the 13th Amendment because it fell short of full-fledged slavery.

To prohibit the Black Codes, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. But the constitutionality of the Act was
questionable (since it lacked an enumerated power foundation). In addition, it was possible that the Act would be
repealed once the Democrats took back control of the Congress. Thus, section 1 of the 14th Amendment
was designed in part to address these concerns , both providing a secure foundation for the Civil Rights Act
and establishing basic protections in the Constitution itself. The relevant language stated:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It should be clear that the Privilege or Immunities portion of this provision was meant to be important. It
was placed first and it most obviously protected individual substantive rights (rather than procedure or equality).

The Slaughterhouse Cases involved a state law that forbade the use of a slaughterhouse except at a
specified slaughterhouse. This was challenged as a violation of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States. (The specific dispute in Slaughterhouse was not all that consequential for the issues of this post, although it does raise some
interesting questions.)

Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Miller first concluded that the provision did not protect state privileges or immunities.
Thus, the Clause did not cover the type of rights attacked by the Black Codes and protected by the Civil
Rights Acts. This was extremely dubious. A key purpose of the Amendment was to protect these rights ,
yet Miller claimed they were not protected by the Clause. The reason : Miller believed that viewing
these state law rights as protected would undermine federalism.
But even worse than this artificial exclusion of the privileges or immunities from state law rights is Miller’s description of what the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States were. Here is an excerpt from the opinion:

the right of the citizen of this great country, protected by implied guarantees of its Constitution, ‘to come to the seat of government to
assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its
offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports, through which operations of foreign commerce
are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States.’

Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand

the care and protection of the Federal government
over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government.

The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The right to use the navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several States,
all rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations

A review of these rights shows the problem with viewing them as the “privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States” in the 14th Amendment. They are largely unrelated to the purpose of the
Amendment to provide basic protections to the former slaves (and to unionists in the South).

Now, if this were the only meaning of “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” then we
would be stuck with it. But it was not. Instead, the Court chose it because it did not like that other
interpretations would interfere with state rights and federalism . But while federalism is an important
part of the Constitution, it cannot justify reading the Privileges or Immunities Clause to be irrelevant
rubbish.
There were several other very plausible interpretations of this language. First, the Court could have interpreted that language to refer to
enumerated rights that were conferred by the U.S. Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights. That would have had the advantage of at least
protecting some rights of relevance, such as the First Amendment and the Comity Clause. This position has been ably defended in recent years
by Kurt Lash. To my mind, though, there are significant problems with this view, which I may discuss in a later post.*

Second, the Court could have interpreted “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” to mean the rights enjoyed by citizens
throughout the United States. Under this view, the rights would include state law rights that were enjoyed throughout the states of the union.
If a right had been protected for many years throughout the country, then an attempt to take it away by some states would be
unconstitutional. This would protect the common law rights mentioned in the Civil Rights Act and that the Black Codes infringed. This is my view
of the Clause. While it raises many issues, it fits the language and strongly fulfills the purpose of the Clause.

Whichever alternative interpretation of the Clause one has, I think it

is clear that Slaughterhouse was wrong – seriously
and grievously wrong. It is as if a court interpreted “freedom of speech” to mean the right to speak
when no one is listening, because the court feared that the unclear meaning of the provision might give
the judiciary too much power. That would gut the First Amendment in much the same way that
Slaughterhouse gutted the 14th Amendment.

--- This court is particularly eager to kill the CWA

Ryan 18 --- Mark Ryan, editor of The Clean Water Act Handbook, Fourth Edition (ABA 2018) and is a
member of the editorial board of Natural Resources & Environment. He is a principal with the firm of
Ryan & Kuehler PLLC in Winthrop, Washington, “The WOTUS Rule Repeal”, Natural Resources &
Environment; Chicago Vol. 33, Iss. 2, (Fall 2018): 55-56.,
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2216721801?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the Supreme Court. With Kennedy stepping down, the
conservative members of the court now may have the five votes necessary to adopt the Scalia standard of
jurisdiction. That would judicially rewrite the CWA to limit WOTUS to relatively permanent waters (RPWs),
which would, in effect, exclude most of the headwaters systems and all wetlands and other waters that do not
abut an RPW. If that happens, the CWA will become a shadow of its former self-and we will be litigating new
issues such as whether irrigation ditches are now point sources where they empty back into rivers
because they would not be WOTUS. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari on WOTUS cases eight times
since Rapanos, presumably not wanting to deal with another split decision. With Kennedy gone, that
dynamic likely will change.

(C) Delay
D’Onofrio 4 (William D., National President – NANS, “Gay Marriage Ban Faces Many Obstacles”, New
York Times, 3-1, http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClippings/2004/March%202004/Gay-Marriage
%20Ban%20F aces%20Many%20Obstacles.htm)
Many amendments have been proposed and argued, but few have actually gone to the states. The most celebrated recent failure -- the Equal
Rights Amendment, which would have enshrined equality between men and women -- missed by three states, winning ratification in only 35.
`It will be a very difficult and potentially divisive debate both in Congress and in the states, should it ever get out to the states,'' said Seth
Kilbourn, national field director with the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. ``The
American public is split on this issue.
There is clearly no consensus for amending the Constitution .'' Gipp, in Iowa, said the writers of the
Constitution intended it to be a slower, drawn-out process to ensure wide support and thorough
discussion.

Fiating states is a voter --- robs our best offense, no solvency advocate exists, and they
don’t specify which so we can’t read DAs
If they fiat beyond the states – Multi-actor multi-level fiat destroys debate about real
world solvency deficits – not reciprocal and wrecks aff ground
(___) Gets struck down and wrecks the constitution – delay, watered down by
Court/Congress
Lucas 16 – James W. Lucas is an attorney in New York City and member of the New York Bar., June 2 nd
2016, "To Originate the Amendment of Errors: Reforming Article V to Facilitate State and Popular
Engagement in Constitutional Amendment by James Lucas :: SSRN," No Publication

Madison was right – a convention is procedurally unworkable. In its time the Philadelphia convention of 1787 was not unusual.
Many states had then recently held conventions and other assemblies to write state constitutions and address other matters, and the
convention at Philadelphia had seemed to come off well.109 Of the framers, only Madison sensed that another national convention would be a
far more difficult matter when left as procedurally vague as in Article V. Scholars
and advocates have spilt much ink
confidently announcing their numerous and contradictory solutions to these multitudinous issues .
However, state legislators who are charged with the constitutional duty to actually decide whether to summon
a second convention have time and time again emerged from the jungle of unresolved procedural
questions to find themselves, not in the promised land of constitutional reform, but rather at the edge of a
dangerous precipice whose base is shrouded in clouds of uncertainty . These legislators have repeatedly
shied away from taking the leap into the unknown .

No one can really assure these state legislators what constitutes a proper application for a convention,
whether, how or to what extent Congress would count their applications, whether the convention
could be limited as to subject matter, or who would go to the convention, how they would be selected
and, most critically, how their votes would be counted. There can be no assurance that the federal
Congress and/or courts will not control how these issues are decided or, conversely, if there is any
predictable mechanism with certain authority to sort out all of these fundamental issues. Instead, there is
a real possibility of the kind of constitutional confrontations predicted by Professor Tribe in testimony before the California
state legislature. (Here “constitutional” does not mean technically legal under the Constitution, but rather fundamental political
conflicts which could tear the very fabric of the governmental system created in 1787.) These are
confrontations between Congress and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and the states, and the
Congress and the convention itself if it ever came into being.110

After surveying these issues during the first great convention drive of recent years in the 1960s, Professor Robert Dixon concluded that even
“without exhausting here all of the possible complexities, the state petition and federal convention
route to constitutional amendment emerges as a veritable can of worms, and seems unlikely to be used
successfully.”111 Experience since then has proven him right, as well as Madison. There has been no Article V convention, nor is there any
realistic prospect of one. However, Professor Dixon went on to observe that “ situations can be imagined even in this age
where the disposition of congressional forces, including a Senate filibuster, could block the initiation of
an amendment which, if submitted, would receive adequate popular support for ratification. ”112 This brings
us to our next question.

(___) Constitution prevents nuclear war

Hemesath 00 (Paul A., Georgetown Law Journal, August, 88 Geo. L.J. 2473, Lexis)
In the case of an offensive nuclear attack, the importance of a coherent and legitimate decision cannot
be overestimated. Even with the force of a congressional declaration of war, Harry Truman still faced critics that questioned the sagacity
of his atomic decision in World War II. 183 Although the wisdom of any nuclear use may always remain open to criticism, the legality of such a
decision should be beyond reproach. As previously noted, the potentially "unlimited costs" of a nuclear war are extremely difficult to fathom,
both physically and politically. 184 A legitimate decision to utilize a nuclear weapon thus requires a high level of legality and consensus--two
qualities that cannot be attained with a Congress plausibly asserting the nonexistence of the Executive's very constitutional authority to carry
out the act.   Finding a resolution to nuclear war powers uncertainty is not an obvious endeavor . However, the
harms associated with an unprepared and contentious "on-the-fly" decisionmaking process are serious
enough to demand a principled solution based on the Constitution and not on improvised convenience.
To reach such a solution, Congress must cohere in an attempt to draft an unambiguous War Powers Act
and proceed to pursue remedies in the courts well in advance of a nuclear crisis. In return, the courts
must either deign to decide the issue on its merits, or provide a definitive jurisdictional holding upon
which the courts and the President may come to rely . 
A2: Congress CP
 2AC --- A2: Congress CP

(___) Perm do both and do the CP then the plan --- both perms shield the link

(___) Agent CPs are a voter --- crushes fairness by doing all the Aff and undermines
education by focusing on trivial details

(___) CP doesn’t solve the case:

(A) Demosprudence --- Court action key to mobilize social movements --- that’s
Guinier

--- Only the aff redefines the role of judicial actors and empowers social movements
GUINIER 09 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “BEYOND
LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 89:539 2009],
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf

Why then do I focus on the dialogic relationship between the Supreme Court and other essential social
change actors in the foreword? The foreword is designed to be, and has always been, about the Court's Term.96 In this venue, I
developed the idea of demosprudence in application to this particular organ of government. The inherent
structural limitation of this particular art form was challenging but ultimately, in my view, productive. It pushed me to explore the ways that
judicial actors, in conjunction with mobilized constituencies, can redefine their roles consistently with
ideas of democratic accountability. Indeed, because the format of the foreword encouraged me to
approach demosprudence from this angle, I discovered something important about demosprudence :
judges, not just lawyers or legislators, speak to constituencies of accountability in a democratically
accountable and democracy-inspired legal system.
I argued that oral dissents (like Justice Ginsburg’s in Ledbetter) reveal the existence of an alternative, and relatively unnoticed, source of judicial
authority.87 The Court’s legitimacy in a democracy need not depend on the Court speaking with an
“institutional voice” (that is, unanimously). Here I am influenced by Jane Mansbridge’s idea that democratic power can be held to
account through two-way interactions, a source of authority rooted in “deliberative accountability.”88 The demosprudential dissenter
ideally provides greater transparency to the Court’s internal deliberative process .89 At the same time, the
dissenter may disperse power “by appealing to the audience’s own experience and by drafting or inspiring them to participate in a form of
collective problem solving.”90 Thus, the
Court gains constitutional authority when dissenters speak in a “democratic
voice,” potentially expanding their audience beyond legal elites. In Mark Tushnet’s words, “the Constitution belongs to all
of us collectively, as we act together.”91
(B) Courts will rollback congressional WOTUS definitions --- if they CP out of this then
the CP is the perm
Ryan 18 --- Mark Ryan, editor of The Clean Water Act Handbook, Fourth Edition (ABA 2018) and is a
member of the editorial board of Natural Resources & Environment. He is a principal with the firm of
Ryan & Kuehler PLLC in Winthrop, Washington, “The WOTUS Rule Repeal”, Natural Resources &
Environment; Chicago Vol. 33, Iss. 2, (Fall 2018): 55-56.,
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2216721801?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the Supreme Court. With Kennedy stepping down, the
conservative members of the court now may have the five votes necessary to adopt the Scalia standard of
jurisdiction. That would judicially rewrite the CWA to limit WOTUS to relatively permanent waters (RPWs),
which would, in effect, exclude most of the headwaters systems and all wetlands and other waters that do not
abut an RPW. If that happens, the CWA will become a shadow of its former self-and we will be litigating new
issues such as whether irrigation ditches are now point sources where they empty back into rivers
because they would not be WOTUS. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari on WOTUS cases eight times
since Rapanos, presumably not wanting to deal with another split decision. With Kennedy gone, that
dynamic likely will change.

--- It’s not just about agency deference --- the CP will be challenged as exceeding
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY --- the Courts will HAVE TO weigh in
Stenehjem 18 --- Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota AG, “WATER TOPICS OVERVIEW COMMITTEE “,
June 13th 2018, https://www.legis.nd.gov/files/committees/65-2017/19_5129_03000appendixi.pdf

The WOTUS Rule violates the U.S. Constitution in at least three significant ways. First, it violates the Tenth
Amendment by intruding upon the Plaintiff States’ sovereign interests in regulating their land and water
resources as recognized by the reservation of state sovereignty and core federalism principles enshrined in the CWA. Second, it exceeds
Congress’s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause because it provides for federal
jurisdiction over isolated waters with no meaningful impact on or connection to interstate commerce. And third, it violates the Due
Process Clause because it is unconstitutionally vague.

A. The WOTUS Rule Violates Plaintiff States’ Rights Under The Tenth Amendment

Under the Tenth Amendment, “(t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ...
are reserved to the States respectively , or the people.” U.S. CONST., Amend. X. The Plaintiff States unquestionably “retain a
significant measure of sovereign authority ... to the extent the Constitution has not divested them their original powers.” Garcia v. San Antonio
Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 549 (1985). Under States’ sovereign authority, “regulation of land use is perhaps the quintessential state
activity.” FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 768 n.30 (1982); accord City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, 514 U.S. 725, 744 (1995) (“land-use
regulation is one of the historic powers of the States”).

Congress expressly recognized the Plaintiff States’ inherent powers over local lands and water resources in the CWA. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b) (“It is
the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to . . . plan the development and
use ... of land and water resources.”). In SWANCC, the Supreme Court likewise recognized States’ "traditional and
primary power over land use” in rejecting the Corps’ attempt to assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate waters. 531 U.S. at 174.
The Court noted that allowing the Corps' to assert jurisdiction over isolated intrastate ponds would "result in significant impingement of the
States’ traditional and primary power of land and water use.” Id. Similarly, in
Rapanos the plurality found that any federal
attempt to regulate isolated intrastate waters would be “an unprecedented intrusion into traditional
state authority.” and would "stretch[] the outer limits of Congress’ commerce power and raise[] difficult
questions about the ultimate scope of that pow er.” 547 U.S. at 738 (Scalia, J., plurality).

The WOTUS Rule’s overbroad assertion of authority over local land and water features that have no or
only a remote connection to navigable-in-fact waters invades the Plaintiff Stales’ sovereign authority, in
violation of their Tenth Amendment rights. The definitions in the WOTUS Rule extend federal jurisdiction to isolated,
usually-dry, and entirely intrastate land and water features remote from any navigable waterway. The Agencies displace
state and local land regulation, and act as a "de facto" federal “zoning board” for waters and lands traditionally under state regulations.
Rapanos. 547 U.S. at 738 (Scalia. J., plurality). The issue is not merely the breadth of jurisdiction asserted by the federal government, but also
the scope of regulatory power that the federal government would exercise in those areas. See SWANCC. 531 U.S. at 173.

The practical effect on the Plaintiff States from the WOTUS Rule’s expansion of federal authority is breathtaking. From Prairie Potholes in North
Dakota, to arroyos in New Mexico, and ephemeral drainages in Wyoming, the WOTUS Rule extends federal jurisdiction to virtually every
potentially wet area of the country, including their associated dry land features. See 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a). Once federal jurisdiction is triggered,
the potential scope of that power is exceedingly broad. See. e.g.. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a) (identifying about 25 "public interest” factors the Corps
considers when determining whether to Jssue a section 404 permit, including economic, aesthetics, land use, historic properties, safety, and
food and fiber production). The WOTUS Rule sweeps so broadly that the Agencies oddly find it necessary to explicitly disclaim authority over
"puddles" and swimming pools "created in dry land." Id.§ 328.3(6)(4).

North Dakota is particularly affected by the overreach of the WOTUS Rule. See ND Comments, ID-15365. North Dakota straddles the Central
and Great Plains regions and has a relatively flat topography. Id. at 9. Floodplains under the WOTUS Rule will be miles wide, allowing the
Agencies to assert jurisdiction over lands miles removed from any body of water. Id.; see also EmPowerND Comments 1-2, ID-13604 (noting
that 6% of the North Dakota's total acreage is in floodplain areas); North Dakota Stockmen's Association ("NDSA") Comments 27, ID-13688
(noting that Prairie Potholes cover more than 300,000 square miles nationwide). The WOTUS Rule also overreaches to classify all Prairie Pothole
wetlands, features abundant in North Dakota, as per se jurisdictional. Id. at 7. 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(7)(i). But these geological areas of depression
in North Dakota's plains occasionally fill with water on an approximate 200- year cycle where many depressions are functionally dry uplands or
isolated wetlands for most of the period of record, only rarely connecting to other waters during extended wet periods. ND. Comments 6-7, ID-
15365. Prairie Potholes are often remote and only remotely connected to navigable waters through several degrees of other water bodies. Id.
Prairie Potholes are also closely linked to farming in North Dakota, and forcing them into a federal regulatory regime removes them from the
expertise of local regulators and farmers who are better equipped to manage these lands. Id.

Alaska also presents a telling example of the breadth of the WOTUS Rule's expansion of federal authority. See AK DEC Comments 18-20, ID-
19465. Forty-three percent of Alaska is wetlands, covering more than 174 million acres. Id. at 4. Many of those wetlands are frozen much of the
year, and are underlain with permafrost. Id. at 21. During the warmer seasons, the surface soils become inundated when thawing conditions
generate near-surface water that cannot penetrate the underlying permafrost, causing the soils to exhibit wetland-like characteristics. Id. These
areas can extend for hundreds of miles inland from the main navigable-in-fact waterways, as much of northern Alaska is covered in "continuous
permafrost." Id. at 19. These lands are subject to federal jurisdiction by virtue of the WOTUS Rule's definition of neighboring: "The entire water
is neighboring if a portion is located within 1,500 feet of the [OHWM] and within the 100-year floodplain." 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(2)(ii) (emphasis
added). As Alaska warned the Agencies, the Proposed Rule would "federalize land use decisions for State, local and private lands" in Alaska
because "nearly all waters and wetlands in Alaska" would be subject "to regulation by the EPA and the Corps." AK Gov. Comments 1, ID-19465.
This conclusion applies equally to the WOTUS Rule.

The City of Scottsdale, Arizona provides another compelling example in a completely different ecological region. See City of Scottsdale
Comments, ID-18024. The City is replete with ephemeral drainages that flow in response to "high intensity and short duration storms." Id. at 3.
The flow is limited in duration, and typically infiltrates through the highly permeable soils long before it could reach a navigable-in-fact water, if
at all. See, e.g., id. (describing Rawhide Wash as flowing 0.014% of the time over a 15-year period). A single storm may produce flow in one
wash, but others a mile away could be bone dry. See id. All washes in the region are marked by a bed and banks and an OHWM, sometimes
created after a single rain event. See id. These dry washes will be per se jurisdictional under the WOTUS Rule, despite not having any
connection to navigable waters and historically being treated as non-jurisdictional under the Agencies' post-Rapanos guidance. See id. at 4.

The Agencies are asserting jurisdiction over traditionally State-regulated waters and associated lands, impairing the Plaintiff States' authority to
establish and enforce their own policies for their waters and lands. Any implication that waters and lands falling outside federal CW A
jurisdiction are somehow "unregulated" and thus "unprotected" must be rejected: what is at issue here are the limits of federal jurisdiction, not
environmental protection. Waters that fall outside the scope of federal jurisdiction remain subject to regulation as state waters through local
laws and regulations. See, e.g., N.D. Cent. Code Ch. 61-28.; Mont. Code Ann. §§ 75-5-101 et seq.; N.M. Stat. Ann.§§ 74-6-4 et seq.; Mo. Rev.
Stat.§§ 644.006 et seq.; Ark. Code Ann.§ 8-4- 101 et seq. Instead of Plaintiff States regulating the land and water within their borders to
advance their own sovereign responsibilities to protect their resources and citizens, the WOTUS Rule would have them defer to the federal
government's vast regulatory overreach. This intrusion into the "quintessential state activity" and historical powers over land-use violates the
10th Amendment.
B. The WOTUS Rule Exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause Authority The Constitution grants Congress the
power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." U.S.
CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. That power extends only to three areas: (1) "channels of interstate commerce ;" (2) the
"instrumentalities of commerce;" 16 and (3) activities that "substantially affect interstate commerce." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-
59 (1995). Congress exercises its Commerce Clause power "subject to the limitations contained in the
Constitution," including the Tenth Amendment. New York v. US., 505 U.S. 144, 156 (1992). Here, the "Tenth Amendment thus directs us to
determine . . . whether an incident of state sovereignty is protected by a limitation" on Congress's Commerce Clause power. Id. at 157

1. Channels Of Interstate Commerce The WOTUS Rule exceeds Congress's delegable authority to regulate
"channels of interstate commerce." As the Supreme Court explained in SWANCC, the CWA is authorized
by Congress's "traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable-in-fact or which could reasonably be so
made."' 531 U.S. at 172; id. at 168 n.3 (finding no indication that "Congress intended to exert anything more than its
commerce power over navigation"). The Court noted "Congress evidenced its intent to regulate at least some
waters that would not be deemed 'navigable' under the classical understanding of the term." Id. at 167. However, a "central
requirement" of the CWA is that "the word 'navigable' in 'navigable waters' be given some importance." Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 778 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring). The
WOTUS Rule instead sweeps in many local land and water features that are not navigable-
in-fact and have only an extremely tangential , if any, connection to navigable-in-fact waters, including dry
or ephemeral stream beds that might flow just once every one-hundred years, as well as interstate waters the Agencies admit are not
navigable.

In SWANCC, the Court rejected the Agencies' assertion of authority over similarly situated, isolated intrastate waters, noting that this authority
was not "consistent with the Commerce Clause." 531 U.S. at 162. The Agencies implicitly acknowledged that their attempted jurisdictional
reach was beyond the channels of interstate commerce by seeking to justify it under the third prong of Commerce Clause power, which the
Court declined to assess under constitutional avoidance principles. Id. at 173 ("Respondents argue that the ... [r]ule ... falls within Congress's
power to regulate intrastate activities that 'substantially affect' interstate commerce.").

Rapanos also touched on the limits of the Agencies' Commerce Clause authority under the CW A. The
plurality noted that the CW A provides for regulation of waters "other than those ... used ... to transport
interstate or foreign commerce," but ultimately did not need to decide the precise limits of CWA jurisdiction over waters, as the
Agencies' had tried to regulate nonwaters, or dry lands. 547 U.S. at 731-732. (Scalia, J., plurality). The concurrence devised a significant nexus
test it claimed would avoid "serious constitutional or federalism difficulty" in the context of waters "that are adjacent to tributaries." Id. at 782
(Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasis added). The concurrence's significant nexus test was applied to the prior codification of 33 C.F .R. § 328.3
( effective to August 27, 2015), which was much narrower than the WOTUS Rule. This new assertion of even broader federal jurisdiction raises
"serious constitutional or federalism difficulties" that Rapanos 's concurrence did not address and exceeds the Agencies' authority to regulate
the use of channels of interstate commerce. Furthermore, the Agencies'
attempt to reassert jurisdiction over non-
navigable interstate waters in the WOTUS Rule, regardless of their connection to navigable waters,
exceeds the Agencies' authority to regulate channels of interstate commerce.

ii. Activities Substantially Affecting Interstate Commerce The

WOTUS Rule also exceeds Congress's delegable authority
to regulate economic activities that "substantially affect interstate commerce ." When a regulation or statute
implicates the Commerce Clause, "unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-
state balance." Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, at 562 (citing United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336,349 (1971).

In Lopez, the Court determined that the law reached activity—specifically, the possession of a firearm in a school zone—that was “in no sense
an economic activity.” 514 U.S. at 567. The Court rejected the argument that Congress had the authority to reach this non-economic activity
because, in aggregate, guns in school zones would not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. That aggregation would involve
“pil(ing) inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general
police power of the sort retained by the States.” Id. at 567. The
WOTUS Rule involves precisely this piling on of
speculative inferences to regulate similarly non-economic activities. As the Rapanos plurality observed.
“[i]n deciding whether to grant or deny a permit, the [Corps] exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot, relying on such factors as
•economics." ‘aesthetics," ‘recreation," and ‘in general, the needs and welfare of the people.”' 547 U.S. at 721 (Scalia. J., plurality) (quoting 33
C.F.R. § 320.4(a) (2004)). The Agencies could prohibit an individual from disposing of leaves or brush in a shallow swale on his or her property
provided that the swale is within 1.500 feet of the OHWM of a “tributary" to a navigable water, or if a bird nested in the swale for a portion of
its life cycle before leaving for a navigable water not hydrologically connected to the swale. That is “in no sense an economic activity that might,
through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce." Lopez. 514 U.S. at 567. The same analysis applies to the
Agencies attempt to regulate all interstate waters, regardless of their connection to a navigable water. Many interstate waters have no
connection to a water that is “navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Rapanos. 547 U.S. at 759 (Kennedy, J., concurring). These
waters thus have no ability to “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Lopez. 514 U.S. at 567.

The WOTUS Rule also fails to ”exprcss|ly]... limit its reach to [activities that] have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.”
Id. at 562. Under the WOTUS Rule, there is no rational basis for concluding that failure to regulate activities such as leaf or yard waste disposal
into dry stream beds that "contribute!] flow”—no matter how ephemeral or infrequent—“either directly or through another water" to a
navigable water significantly affects interstate commerce. 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(3) (emphasis added).

Because the WOTUS Rule violates Congress's delegable Commerce Clause authority, it also violates Plaintiff
States* rights under the Tenth Amendment . New York. 505 U.S. at 157.
 1AR Ext --- Courts Strike Down

Courts would strike it down on commerce clause

Schmitt 19 --- Jeffrey M. Schmitt, Associate Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law,
“LIMITING THE PROPERTY CLAUSE”, NEVADA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 20:1 Fall 2019],
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1804&context=nlj

Even if federal environmental legislation like the ESA is sound under the current doctrine, it is always possible that
the Supreme Court will further narrow the Commerce Clause. In fact, with Justice Kennedy’s retirement and
the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh, such a move would not be completely unexpected. The federalism
revolution of the last few decades has been a product of the right , and studies consistently show that
Kavanaugh is to the right of Kennedy on most issues.400 In fact, prominent conservative academics have called
for the new Court to further limit federal power, including in the sphere of the Commerce Clause and
environmental law.401

Court will uphold Scalia Rapanos opinion

King 20 --- Pamela King, E&E News reporter, “Water case offers a window into Barrett's jurisprudence”,
Sept 28th 2020, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063714885

Chief Justice John Roberts

and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined their liberal colleagues in a decision that said
pollution that travels through groundwater on its way to a federal body of water may be subject to the
Clean Water Act if the contamination is a "functional equivalent" of a direct discharge.

But Kavanaugh penned a concurrence in the case that leaned heavily on Scalia's Rapanos opinion,
which some legal experts took as an indication that he would vote to uphold Trump's revised WOTUS
rule (Greenwire April 24).

Hilary Tompkins, a partner at Hogan Lovells and former Interior Department solicitor under Obama, noted that as a 7th Circuit judge, Barrett
is bound by the appellate court's precedent.

"It
remains to be seen if she would apply Justice Scalia's narrower test from Rapanos should the matter
come before her in the Supreme Court where she would have more leeway to adopt her mentor's analysis,"
Tompkins said.

At the very least, it's notable that Barrett didn't take the opportunity to write a concurring opinion, said Liebesman, who represented Orchard
Hill in its administrative appeal before the Army Corps.

"She could have done that," he said, "but she didn't."

Scalia's protege

After Trump announced Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, she made a point to align herself with Scalia.
"Iclerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago , but the lessons I learned still resonate," Barrett said
during a speech in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday evening. "His judicial philosophy is mine, too."
A2: Executive CP
 2AC --- A2: Executive CP

Perm do both and do the CP then the plan --- both perms shield the link

Agent CPs are a voter --- crushes fairness by doing all the Aff and undermines
education by focusing on trivial details

CP doesn’t solve the case:

(A) Demosprudence --- Court action key to mobilize social movements --- that’s
Guinier

--- Only the aff redefines the role of judicial actors and empowers social movements
GUINIER 09 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “BEYOND
LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 89:539 2009],
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf

Why then do I focus on the dialogic relationship between the Supreme Court and other essential social
change actors in the foreword? The foreword is designed to be, and has always been, about the Court's Term.96 In this venue, I
developed the idea of demosprudence in application to this particular organ of government. The inherent
structural limitation of this particular art form was challenging but ultimately, in my view, productive. It pushed me to explore the ways that
judicial actors, in conjunction with mobilized constituencies, can redefine their roles consistently with
ideas of democratic accountability. Indeed, because the format of the foreword encouraged me to
approach demosprudence from this angle, I discovered something important about demosprudence :
judges, not just lawyers or legislators, speak to constituencies of accountability in a democratically
accountable and democracy-inspired legal system.
I argued that oral dissents (like Justice Ginsburg’s in Ledbetter) reveal the existence of an alternative, and relatively unnoticed, source of judicial
authority.87 The Court’s legitimacy in a democracy need not depend on the Court speaking with an
“institutional voice” (that is, unanimously). Here I am influenced by Jane Mansbridge’s idea that democratic power can be held to
account through two-way interactions, a source of authority rooted in “deliberative accountability.”88 The demosprudential dissenter
ideally provides greater transparency to the Court’s internal deliberative process .89 At the same time, the
dissenter may disperse power “by appealing to the audience’s own experience and by drafting or inspiring them to participate in a form of
collective problem solving.”90 Thus, the
Court gains constitutional authority when dissenters speak in a “democratic
voice,” potentially expanding their audience beyond legal elites. In Mark Tushnet’s words, “the Constitution belongs to all
of us collectively, as we act together.”91
(B) Courts will rollback Executive reinterpretation --- if they CP out of this then the CP
is the perm
Ryan 18 --- Mark Ryan, editor of The Clean Water Act Handbook, Fourth Edition (ABA 2018) and is a
member of the editorial board of Natural Resources & Environment. He is a principal with the firm of
Ryan & Kuehler PLLC in Winthrop, Washington, “The WOTUS Rule Repeal”, Natural Resources &
Environment; Chicago Vol. 33, Iss. 2, (Fall 2018): 55-56.,
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2216721801?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the Supreme Court. With Kennedy stepping down, the
conservative members of the court now may have the five votes necessary to adopt the Scalia standard of
jurisdiction. That would judicially rewrite the CWA to limit WOTUS to relatively permanent waters (RPWs),
which would, in effect, exclude most of the headwaters systems and all wetlands and other waters that do not
abut an RPW. If that happens, the CWA will become a shadow of its former self-and we will be litigating new
issues such as whether irrigation ditches are now point sources where they empty back into rivers
because they would not be WOTUS. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari on WOTUS cases eight times
since Rapanos, presumably not wanting to deal with another split decision. With Kennedy gone, that
dynamic likely will change.
 1AR --- Courts Strike Down

Courts strike down Biden changes

Liebesman 20 --- Larry Liebesman, who spent 11 years as a Department of Justice environmental
litigator, “What might a Biden Administration do about WOTUS?” Dawson & Associates, Updated Nov
2020, https://www.dawsonassociates.com/post/what-might-a-biden-administration-do-about-wotus

3) Woulda Biden Administration be likely to craft a new WOTUS rule if it thinks it can't defend it before
a conservative Supreme Court? And would possibly lead a Biden Administration to scrap the Trump rule and leave in place the 2008
guidance?

Larry: It’s
hard to predict how a new WOTUS rule would be crafted in order to be sustained in an eventual
Supreme Court review. If a Biden Administration desires to create a new rule, it would have to analyze
carefully whether a new WOTUS rule identical to the Obama Administration’s rule and based largely on Justice Kennedy’s
“significant nexus” opinion would survive in a Court that is likely to still have a 5-4 conservative majority.

Given that Justice Roberts sided with Justice Scalia in Rapanos and his comments in cases since then,
going back to the Obama rule may not be successful in the Supreme Court.

Court will uphold Scalia Rapanos opinion

King 20 --- Pamela King, E&E News reporter, “Water case offers a window into Barrett's jurisprudence”,
Sept 28th 2020, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063714885

Chief Justice John Roberts

and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined their liberal colleagues in a decision that said
pollution that travels through groundwater on its way to a federal body of water may be subject to the
Clean Water Act if the contamination is a "functional equivalent" of a direct discharge.

But Kavanaugh penned a concurrence in the case that leaned heavily on Scalia's Rapanos opinion,
which some legal experts took as an indication that he would vote to uphold Trump's revised WOTUS
rule (Greenwire April 24).

Hilary Tompkins, a partner at Hogan Lovells and former Interior Department solicitor under Obama, noted that as a 7th Circuit judge, Barrett
is bound by the appellate court's precedent.

"It
remains to be seen if she would apply Justice Scalia's narrower test from Rapanos should the matter
come before her in the Supreme Court where she would have more leeway to adopt her mentor's analysis,"
Tompkins said.

At the very least, it's notable that Barrett didn't take the opportunity to write a concurring opinion, said Liebesman, who represented Orchard
Hill in its administrative appeal before the Army Corps.

"She could have done that," he said, "but she didn't."

Scalia's protege

After Trump announced Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, she made a point to align herself with Scalia.

"Iclerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago , but the lessons I learned still resonate," Barrett said
during a speech in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday evening. "His judicial philosophy is mine, too."
A2: Reg Neg
 2AC

(___) Perm --- do both --- Supreme Court ruling and Reg-neg on implementation.

(___) Industries block

SNIDER 21 --- ANNIE SNIDER, Politico, “Biden EPA to reverse Trump's sweeping Clean Water Act
rollback” 6/9/21, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/09/epa-navigable-waters-protection-rule-
repeal-492638

In his statement Wednesday, Regan said he is committed to crafting a new, more protective definition that is
“durable,” consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and informed by lessons from the previous whipsaw of regulations. The agency has
already committed to holding public outreach sessions around the country this summer and fall.

But forging a compromise in the decades-long battle appears to be a long-shot, with environmental groups holding firmly
to a strong stance on wide protections.

“It’shallucinogenic” to think any sort of agreement could be reached among the long-warring parties,
Vermont Law School Professor Patrick Parenteau told POLITICO last month.

(___) Unravels the process

Rivkin 93 (Administrative Law Journal, Summer, Lexis)
MR. RIVKIN: That is really getting into the minutiae of the Clean Air Act. It was a subcommittee of the Acid Rain Advisory Committee (ARAC) that
dealt with NOX issues. 98 There was a decision made not to pursue NOX issues to their final resolution. That is ancient history and has nothing
to do with the Council on Competitiveness. I think that there was a certain tension within ARAC itself when the decision was
made. It is not that it was equally split, but this case substantiates the point that both Tom and Cass made. The pitfall of reg-neg is that
in any decision taken by consensus, a small band of dissenters can unravel  [*342]  the entire process. I think
there were a few people in ARAC who did not like the way the NOX strawman was emerging and, in the interest of time, the EPA and the
people involved decided not to pursue the matter.

(___) Doesn’t solve --- watered-down

Coglianese 1 (Cary, Assistant Prof Public Policy – Harvard, Environmental Law Journal, Lexis)
Negotiated rulemaking's emphasis on unanimity also makes it more likely that the final outcome will succumb to
the lowest-common-denominator problem. The outcome that is minimally acceptable to all the members of a negotiated
rulemaking committee will not necessarily be optimal or effective in terms of achieving social goals. A recent study of negotiated
rulemaking conducted by Charles Caldart and Nicholas Ashford shows that in industries that are not likely to innovate in
the absence of strong governmental regulation, the lowest-common-denominator problem keeps negotiated
rules from promoting the technological innovation needed to improve environmental and safety performance. 276
They conclude that because industry representatives in these types of industries will be reluctant to agree to
regulations that would compel firms to make dramatic investments in new technologies, "negotiated rulemaking's
focus on consensus can effectively remove the potential to spur innovation." 277
(___) Conditionality is a voter --- creates time and strategy skews, argumentative
irresponsibility, and dispo solves their offense

(___) Perm --- undertake the process of the CP and do the plan no matter what

(___) Process CPs are a voter---steals the Aff, diverts topic education to stale,
repetitive questions, disads alone solve their offense

(___) Conditionality is a voter --- creates time and strategy skews, argumentative
irresponsibility, and dispo solves their offense

(___) CP delays and undermines certainty

Ackerman 94 (Susan Rose, Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence (Law and Political Science), Yale
University, Duke Law Journal, April, Lexis)
According to Improving Regulatory Systems, the aims of regulatory negotiation are to reduce the time it takes to put a rule into
effect and to obtain high levels of compliance. Because affected parties have signed on to the negotiated regulation, they may be both less
likely to challenge the rule in court and more likely to comply with it. However, as the authors of the report recognize, regulatory
negotiation under current law introduces an extra step that is time-consuming and difficult . One observer advised
participants to expect a “roller coaster experience.” Even though regulatory negotiation may shorten the
regulatory process in terms of calendar time, the actual hours of participant time [*12 121 may be greater than under other
regulatory procedures. Although a number of regulatory negotiations have been successful, 22 the claims of widespread benefits are
mostly speculative . And when it comes to enforcing the regulation, reg neg may not help significantly: even for rules promulgated by
standard methods, compliance seems high.
 1AR --- Court Strike-down

Court ruling key --- they’ll strike down the CP alone

Ackerman 94 (Susan Rose, Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence (Law and Political Science), Yale
University, Duke Law Journal, April, Lexis)

How should policymakers decide which approach to regulation is best given our commitment both to public participation
and to technical competence and efficiency? The initial consideration is a constitutional one. Because both regulatory
negotiation and incentive systems involve private individuals, they raise concerns about the extent to which the government
can delegate public tasks to the private sector. American democracy traditionally is wary of delegating policymaking tasks to private
groups. In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 36 the U.S. Supreme Court objected to Congress's reliance on
industry self-regulation. The Government urges that the codes will "consist of rules of competition deemed fair for each industry by
representative members of that industry -- by the persons most vitally concerned and most familiar with its problems." . . . But would it be
seriously contended that Congress could delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups
so as to empower them to enact the laws they deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and expansion of their trade or
industries? Could trade or industrial associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for that purpose because such associations or
groups are familiar with the problems of their enterprises? . . . The answer is obvious. Such a delegation of legislative power is
unknown to our law and is utterly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress.
A2: Farming DA
 2AC A2: Farming DA

(___) Farm values low now

Abbott 20 --- Chuck Abbott, journalist for the Food & Environment Reporting Network, an
independent, nonprofit news organization, “FARMLAND VALUES CONSTRAINED BY FALLING INCOME,
PANDEMIC”, 6/23/2020, https://www.agriculture.com/author/chuck-abbott

Farmland values across the Midwest and Plains are steady or lower than they were last June under the weight
of the coronavirus pandemic and fears of declining farm income, said the largest U.S. farm management and real
estate sales company. “The land market became more cautious in the areas with dairy, livestock, and ethanol as these industries
endured mounting bad news,” said Farmers National Co.

Separately, ag lenders and land experts said they expect farmland values in Iowa to decline by 2.3% by
November even with an improvement in market prices for corn and soybeans, the two major crops grown in the state. Land
values would decline by an additional 1% by November 2021, according to a survey conducted annually for the Soil Management and Land
Valuation Conference.

(___) Expanded WOTUS definition has ZERO impact on farming

Ryan & Southerland 19 --- Mark Ryan served as assistant regional counsel for EPA Region 10 and
special assistant U.S. attorney at the Department of Justice. Ryan was an author of the 2015 Clean Water
Rule. Betsy Southerland is the former director of Science & Technology in the EPA Office of Water.,
“Repealing the Clean Water Rule is not about protecting farmers”, 9/20/19,
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/462325-repealing-the-clean-water-rule-is-not-about-
protecting-farmers

Last week, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a rule repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule. That Obama-
era rule defined the rivers, streams and wetlands considered “waters of the United States ” _ in other words,
waters requiring protection under the federal Clean Water Act.

The repeal was justified, in large part, because of the Clean Water Rule’s impact on farmers. Calling it “one the
worst examples of federal regulation,” President Trump said the Rule is “prohibiting [farmers] from being allowed to do what they’re supposed
to be doing.”

In fact, the Clean Water Rule had very little effect on farmers. The real beneficiaries of the repeal
include deep-pocketed developers, the fossil fuel industry, and mining companies.

Farmers were never seriously impacted by the rule. That’s because the original 1972 Clean Water Act
regulates discharges from “point sources,” but exempts most agricultural discharges, relieving farmers
of the need for permits for runoff from their land. It doesn’t matter if a neighboring stream is a “water of the United States” if a farm’s
runoff into it is exempt. When the Clean Water Rule was passed in 2015, it included all of the original exemptions from
the Clean Water Act, and even added new ones.

Second, the Clean Water Act exempts farming and ranching activities from the need for a permit to fill
wetlands if those wetlands are “prior converted cropland.” In other words, if a wetland has been tilled,
farmed or ranched for years, it’s exempt from the normal permitting requirements , regardless of the new definition
of waters of the United States.
Third, in response to farmers’ concerns, the Clean Water Rule added a new exemption for certain types of ditches
and puddles, to ease the concern that EPA would start regulating minor water bodies on farmers’
properties. The Rule has been in effect in 21 states for almost four years, and there have been no
reports that agriculture in those states is doing worse than in the states where the rule is not in force.
So, who really benefits from the repeal of the Clean Water Rule? To answer that question, we looked at EPA data on who is seeking permits
under the Clean Water Act to fill wetlands, streams and shorelines. Those permit-seekers are the true beneficiaries of loosened regulations.
The data show that farmers rarely request such permits. The majority of the 248,688 federal permits issued from 2011 to 2015 were given to
developers and extractive industries such as oil, gas and mining companies.

These data make clear that the Trump administration’s repeal and replacement of the Clean Water Rule
is being done to allow builders to drain wetlands, oil and gas drillers to dredge pipelines across streams
and wetlands, and mining companies to fill in small streams and wetlands without getting a federal permit or mitigating
the damages of these actions.

(___) No investor confidence link --- Trump rule created GREATER uncertainty
Finney 19 --- Brad Finney is currently a federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, “ONE WOTUS, TWO POTUS: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT”, 86 Tenn. L. Rev. 895, Summer 2019, Accessed on Lexis

1. Reasons Why Obama's Rule Is Easier to Predict

Over the course of the history of the CWA, as the Supreme Court issued rulings and new guidance was provided, there was
a substantial amount of unpredictability as to what water was under the jurisdiction of the CWA . 173
Confusion and uncertainty are not good for the economy. 174 Conversely, straightforward regulations making it easier to
predict the jurisdictional coverage of the CWA improves the economy. 175

[*919] Obama's Rule increases the clarity and predictability of the CWA's jurisdiction through clearer,
more specific, and more objective standards. 176 For example, in defining waters that are "neighboring" a
jurisdictional water, and, thus, subject to the CWA, Obama's Rule defines neighboring in specific objective
elements, such as waters adjacent to jurisdictional waters within a minimum of 100 feet and within the
100-year floodplain. 177 Trump's Rule defines "adjacent" using more subjective and ambiguous
language, such as "wetlands that abut or have a direct hydrological surface connection to other 'waters of the
United States' in a typical year." 178 Abut is defined as "when a wetland touches an otherwise jurisdictional water at either a point or side." 179
And direct hydrologic surface connection is also defined with subjective and unclear language--"a result of inundation from a jurisdictional
water to a wetland or via perennial or intermittent flow between a wetland and jurisdictional water." 180 Trump's
Rule's definition
although long and detailed contains more subjective and ambiguous language that would likely lead to
more confusion and controversy--one could easily get confused regarding whether there is an
inundation from a jurisdictional water given that the definition is open to more than one interpretation .
181

Moreover, in regard to isolated bodies of water, Obama's Rule states that such waters are within the CWA's jurisdiction when a water is found
to have a significant nexus with jurisdictional waters, based on a specific analysis of that water. 182 Waters that are subject to this significant
nexus test are waters within the jurisdictional water's 100-year floodplain and waters within 4000 feet of the jurisdictional water's high tideline
or ordinary high-water mark. 183 Obama's Rule also establishes a new definition of a "significant nexus" that provides more guidance through
specific factors and elements to look for to determine if water has the connectivity needed with [*920] downstream water. 184 These factors
include contribution of water flow, nutrient recycling, and pollutant filtering to the downstream water. 185
(___) Aff is comparable MORE predictable
Finney 19 --- Brad Finney is currently a federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, “ONE WOTUS, TWO POTUS: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT”, 86 Tenn. L. Rev. 895, Summer 2019, Accessed on Lexis

The Trump administration has opined that Obama's Rule is too complicated for the typical landowner to correctly
identify whether water is under the CWA's jurisdiction. 190 Many scientific experts disagree with this
assertion. 191 And instead they assert that Obama's Rule makes it easier for landowners to make a jurisdictional
determination. 192 For example, Obama's Rule protects any tributary if it had particular landmark signatures
such as a streambed, banks, or an ordinary high-water mark. 193 Although the typical landowner might not initially have the

ability to identify these signatures, according to leading scientists, landowners can learn to make such an
identification, making it easier for the landowner long term. 194 Additionally, given the nature of the
requirements underlying Trump's Rule, Obama's Rule is far easier for the average person to learn. 195

[*921] For instance, Trump's Rule only protects certain tributaries that are fed by groundwater. 196 Trump's
own proposal admits that this would significantly complicate the jurisdictional assessment. 197 "The
[administration] notes that identifying whether the channel bed intersects with the groundwater table may be
challenging to accomplish in the field, that gathering the relevant data could be time consuming, and
could require new tools and training of field staff and the regulated public ." 198 This proposal further states that
conducting this analysis could require installing monitoring systems to identify the presence of water, and that the installation of such systems
is often very difficult because groundwater tables often rise and fall. 199 Further,
if groundwater tables are under rocky
formations, that would prove difficult to access making it impossible to even conduct such testing . 200

The Trump administration also

proposed the complicated utilization of thirty-year precipitation averages for
geographic areas surrounding a stream to decide if that stream flows independent of rainfall and thus, is
deemed a tributary protected by the CWA . 201 The administration's proposal to use thirty-year
precipitation averages presents several complicating issues. 202 First, there is no guidance regarding the
source to which a landowner should go to find such an average . 203 Second, there is no indication
concerning which average should be used, if there is more than one. 204 Finally, there is no instruction on the
proper way to utilize the thirty-year average of precipitation for the entire geographic area to determine
whether that particular stream flows independent of rainfall . 205 It is highly unlikely that the typical
landowner could successfully navigate these three issues without confusion, delay, and expense.

(___) Business comply without going bankrupt

Finney 19 --- Brad Finney is currently a federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, “ONE WOTUS, TWO POTUS: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT”, 86 Tenn. L. Rev. 895, Summer 2019, Accessed on Lexis

An increase in the CWA's jurisdiction would likely result in some negative economic effects. It is unlikely,
however, that such [*954] negative effects would have a large enough impact to create a substantial
decrease in the U.S. economy. This is based on several factors. First, in the U.S. market, companies are
innovative. When faced with regulations, large fines, or other roadblocks, companies have often proven their
resilience and creativity in coming up with solutions that improve their bottom line while also complying
with regulations. Also, given the competitive nature of most major industries, if a company does not
innovate to become compliant with Obama's Rule, it is likely that another company will innovate and take
over that company's role in the economy.

Second, many scientists agree that landowners impacted by Obama's Rule can learn how to make a
jurisdictional analysis on their own without devoting substantial time to the analysis or hiring an outside
professional. Thus, concern over constant expensive jurisdictional analyses is likely unwarranted for many of
the new regulations within Obama's Rule. Third, the economic benefits of the increase in the CWA's jurisdiction will
likely outweigh the negative effects. Thus, when looking at the economy at a national level, Obama's Rule would
provide sustainable long-term economic growth and success for the United States .

(___) Turn --- clean water key to farming

Ali 20 --- Maz Ali, Managing editor at Earthjustice, “Trump Said Water Protections Hurt Farmers. An
Earthjustice Attorney Fact-Checked Him.”, EarthJustice, Aug 7 th 2020,
https://earthjustice.org/blog/2020-august/is-the-water-all-right

*Brimmer = Earthjustice attorney Janette Brimmer

What Trump said:

“Water is the lifeblood of agriculture, and we will always protect your water supply.”

The Reality:

Building on Davila’s sewer comparison, Brimmer refers to an example of how Trump’s

rule change actually threatens
farmers’ water supplies: In 2019, three nationwide E. coli outbreaks originating in California’s Salinas
Valley were traced to cattle excrement found in a grate two miles from the fields where contaminated
lettuce was grown.

Because the Trump Dirty Water Rule significantly reduces the waters covered by the Clean Water Act,
including many that apply to farming, it sets the nation up for more such outbreaks in the future.

Turn outweighs the link --- crosses multiple sectors

Finney 19 --- Brad Finney is currently a federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, “ONE WOTUS, TWO POTUS: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT”, 86 Tenn. L. Rev. 895, Summer 2019, Accessed on Lexis

1. Obama's Rule Increases the Water Quality

Obama's Rule protects more water from pollution than Trump's Rule. Obama's Rule expanded the CWA's
jurisdiction by around 3% when compared to the previous iteration of the CWA. Conversely, Trump's Rule not only reverses
Obama's Rule, but results in a rollback of regulations that have been enacted since President George H.W. Bush's
administration. By protecting more water, Obama's Rule would provide an exceedingly higher quality of water than Trump's Rule.

Wetlands act as natural filters for water, and, as such, the Obama administration purposefully increased the number of wetlands protected by
its rule. Wetlands across the country capture many [*930] types of pollution, including runoff from the agriculture industry, which is important
as that industry maintains its exemptions, even under Obama's Rule. The Trump administration admitted the value of wetlands in 2018 by
stating, on EPA's website, that "[w]etlands are important because they protect and improve water quality." Yet, Trump's Rule excludes
approximately 51% of the wetlands in the United States from the CWA's jurisdiction. Thus, Obama's Rule protects a far greater amount of
wetlands and as a result decreases the amount of water pollution across the United States.

Another significant difference between the two rules is that under Obama's Rule, an entire body of water is considered "adjacent," and
protected by the CWA, if any part of it is bordering, contiguous, or neighboring a jurisdictional water. The Obama administration justified this
expansion of adjacency based on the impact that adjacent waters have on the quality of downstream water as proven in the Report. Thus, this
definition is an improvement because more adjacent water would be protected by the CWA, resulting in less pollution in downstream water.
The Obama administration made a similar change regarding isolated waters. Under Obama's Rule, the CWA applies to waters that have a
significant nexus with a jurisdictional water and are within 4000 feet or within the 100-year [*931] floodplain of that jurisdictional water. This
increases water quality because an isolated water meeting these specifications has a significant impact, proven through the significant nexus
test, on downstream water. And by protecting this isolated water from pollution, the downstream water is similarly protected.

Trump's Rule narrows and possibly completely eliminates pollution protections for ephemeral and
intermittent waterways that are protected by Obama's Rule. According to the EPA, ephemeral and intermittent
waterways constitute approximately 60% of all streams in the United States. Thus, Trump's Rule has the
potential to allow pollution in a significant portion of water across the country. Moreover, approximately 33% of
the U.S. population rely on such waterways, as well as wetlands, for their drinking water. Thus, given the rollback of protections
for the majority of wetlands combined with the elimination of protections for ephemeral and
intermittent waterways, the drinking water of one in three people could be polluted.
The former chief of environmental crimes for the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush said that Trump's Rule ignores "basic
science" and endangers "drinking-water supplies across the country." Thus, if Trump's Rule is adopted, it will likely have a
negative impact on the nation's health as well as the economy . [*932] Obama's Rule, which would cover more water
and protect more water from pollution, would not cause such results.

2. The Impact of Water Quality on the Economy

i. Health Risks Associated with Water Pollution and the Economic Impact
Although it is often far from people's thoughts, in 2009, prior to the implementation of Obama's Rule, the tap water of more than 49 million
people contained an illegally high amount of pollutants in the United States. And consuming water containing the type of pollutants found is
linked to millions of people contracting illnesses each year, including cancer and gastrointestinal illnesses. Moreover, hundreds of millions of
dollars are spent to treat these illnesses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that in the United States, there are
between 4 and 32 million cases of gastrointestinal illness each year linked to the poor quality of tap water. And the health care cost to treat just
the low level sideeffects, like diarrhea, cost around $ 14-$ 32 per case. Thus, improving the water quality to a level that would eliminate
diarrhea alone could save anywhere from $ 56 million to $ 1 billion in health care costs per year.

[*933] A scientific study analyzed the number of annual medical episodes caused by water pollution at two beaches in Southern
California. The study found that, in addition to gastrointestinal illnesses, an average of nearly 37,000 illness episodes
occurred per year due to water pollution at these two beaches alone. The study further determined that some 38,000 additional
non-gastrointestinal illness episodes per year resulting from this water pollution, including respiratory infections, ear infections, and eye
infections. The economic cost of each illness episode was also analyzed . When updated to reflect 2019
dollars, the study found the following: the cost per gastrointestinal illness is $ 48; the cost per respiratory infection is $ 101; the
cost per ear infection is $ 50; and the cost per eye infection is $ 36. The study found that the combined annual cost was $ 4.4
million for these two beaches. Thus, given the likelihood that water pollution causes similar health
problems for people across the nation, if water pollution were improved to decrease the number and
severity of these water pollution-caused illnesses, the health care savings would be substantial.
The study mentioned above demonstrates that there is a significant amount of cost to treat just relatively minor health issues caused by water
pollution. Thus, there is great opportunity for cost savings if there is a reduction in the frequency of serious health issues. Per the EPA, many
water pollutants commonly used by [*934] large industries are linked with extremely serious health issues, including acute and chronic toxicity,
anemia, and cancer, as well as damage to the kidney, liver, circulatory system, nervous system, and reproductive system. Therefore ,
if there
was a decrease in the amount of cases in which water pollution caused these health issues, the dollar
amount saved in healthcare expenses and loss of productivity would be significant as these health issues are
often extremely expensive to treat.

Finally, given the environmental justice aspect of water pollution--that poor and disenfranchised people are more likely to not have access to
clean water--increasing the water quality could drastically reduce the costs of healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid and improve
the health of these communities. In 2018, [*935] the annual amount of money spent on Medicare and Medicaid in the United States was
incredibly high--over $ 750 billion and $ 597 billion, respectively. And this amount is growing every year. In 2018, Medicare spending grew by
6.4%, and Medicaid spending grew by 3%. Curtailing
the amount of pollution in the water will likely lead to less water
pollution-related illnesses and decrease the amount of expense the federal government is spending
through these programs.

ii. Employees and Employers Economically Benefit from Cleaner Water

A recent investigation and analysis of 680,000 water quality and monitoring violations from the EPA found that approximately 63
million people in the United States were exposed to unsafe drinking water multiple times . This number is
alarming for two reasons. First, the number of people exposed to dangerous drinking water is significant, approximately 20% of the
entire U.S. population. Second, the illnesses caused by the type of contaminants found in the water are very serious, including cancer,
gastrointestinal diseases, and developmental delays in children. This is particularly concerning because according to the CDC, approximately
10%-15% of the U.S. population rely on drinking water that is not subject to federal health regulations or monitoring. It is unknown how many
days of work those people miss per year from illnesses arising from contaminants in water sources not covered by regulatory [*936] standards.
However, even if it is only a fraction that miss one day of work, the number would likely still be in the
millions. Millions of days missed per year results in significant and serious negative economic
consequences for employers and employees.

Employers are negatively impacted by an employee's absence in the workplace due to direct costs , such as
wages paid to absent employees and replacement workers, including overtime pay for other employees and high-cost temporary workers.
Additionally, there are often added administrative costs of managing absenteeism such as finding an employee that is willing to work overtime
and finding temporary workers.

Further, there are other indirect costs for the employer, including a decrease in the quality of goods and
services, as well as reduced productivity, both of which stem from overtime fatigue or understaffing.
Additionally, there is an increase in safety issues and their related costs, including employees filling in for the missing [*937] employee without
proper training. Moreover, there is often low morale among employees who have to replace a sick employee by performing extra work to make
up for absent coworkers. This poor morale can lead to high employee turnover, which can cost businesses significant amounts of money--
studies have estimated that the cost to replace an employee is 50% to 200% of their annual pay. If the employee is in a leadership role,
consistent absences at work can result in a loss in direction and a loss in management for the employees the absent employee supervises. This
can create an environment in which other employees may feel disconnected from their work, employer, and absent leader. And this feeling can
lead to more turnover for the employer which, again, is often extremely expensive.

For an employee, the economic impact of missing work due to illness is also significant . Employees often do not
get paid for the time they miss, or if they do get paid, the amount of their vacation or sick time is decreased accordingly. This could also result in
a decrease in potential earnings by missing out on raises due to not achieving certain requirements of being promoted--like reliability and
attendance. Similarly, many employers provide bonuses for attendance; thus, an employee who is sick from water pollution would not receive
that bonus. Employees who miss a substantial amount of time also risk losing their health and retirement benefits if they are terminated for
their absence.

Furthermore, an employee under these circumstances will experience indirect costs of missing work. For example, an [*938] employee that
misses work for a substantial amount of time or frequently misses work will likely be viewed by the company as unreliable. This is likely even if
the sickness is not the employee's fault and the employee provides a doctor's note. If an employee is viewed as unreliable, that employee's job
security will likely decrease, and the employee will receive less opportunity to advance within that company.

It is apparent that employee absence is a significant issue with negative economic implications. These implications not only affect the sick
employee but also impact other employees and the employer. With such a large number of people that are sick each year from water pollution,
the total annual economic impact is likely very high. Thus, decreasing the amount of water pollution and water pollution-related sickness would
improve overall health, the bottom line of employers, and would increase the economic outlook of employees.

iii. The Cost to Treat Polluted Water

In many states, high amounts of water pollution results in the state and its citizens using a significant
amount of resources to treat the water to make it safe for human consumption. For example, [*939] the average U.S.
family uses over 300 gallons of water per day for their everyday needs. The cost of water treatment for water with typical
pollution levels is around $ 1 for every 250 gallons . Thus, families may pay between $ 1 and $ 3 per day just to have access to
water that is safe for drinking. Considering that the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the 2017 median national household income was $
61,372, this expense represents around 1% of the average household income per year.

In some states, this cost has even greater significance as there is a much lower average household income, and many of those same states are
also maligned with more water pollution issues. In West Virginia, a state consistently dealing with pollution by large industries, the median
household income was $ 43,469 in 2017. Thus, the cost of water treatment represents over 1% of the average
household income per year, without factoring in that the cost of treatment is likely significantly higher due to increased
concentrations of pollution.

Obama's Rule would result in a reduction in the pollution level of water, which would in turn result in less filtering and treatment
[*940] costs. This could save the average household hundreds of dollars and provide an economic boost
throughout the nation. Conversely, Trump's Rule will likely increase the pollution levels in water. Thus, the costs to treat such water
would rise, causing households to spend an even greater amount of money on such a basic necessity.

iv. Highly Filtered Water Is a Requisite for Some Businesses

For many businesses, highly filtered water is necessary to the function of their business. Industries like high-tech
manufacturing, restaurants, and even breweries rely on high-quality, clean water as a direct input in their
business production. Under current circumstances, tap water is often heavily polluted and requires these
businesses to filter the water to the level that is needed for their business. This filtration often
represents a significant business expense , and that expense will continue to rise if pollution protections are rolled back.
[*941] Filtration costs are often very expensive, resulting in diminished profit for companies and leaving the companies with less capital to
reinvest. For example, due to such high filtration costs, Unilever (a large corporation that employees over 155,000 people) stated in a public
release that making clean water readily available would improve their business significantly and would likely increase profits. Unilever requires
clean water to produce many of its products, such as food and beverages, cleaning supplies, beauty products, and personal care products.
Similarly, other businesses that are reliant on clean water, such as brewers New Belgium and Sierra Nevada, voiced their opinion that an
increase in CWA jurisdiction would result in cleaner water. And cleaner water would save them a significant amount of money on filtering water
to a level suitable for making their products.

If these businesses had access to water that did not need such extensive filtration, they would save a
considerable amount of money and resources . This savings would likely allow for these companies to hire more employees,
increase wages, and increase the quality of employee benefits provided. However, given that Trump's Rule protects less water from pollution,
businesses that need highly filtered water will see an increase in filtration expenses as they will have to increase their filtration efforts. This
increase in expenses could result in layoffs, a decrease in wages, and even could result in an increase in the price of beer--something that all
Americans can agree [*942] is unacceptable.

v. Tourism Relies on Clean Water

A substantial portion of the tourism industry relies on water to attract tourists . Rivers, lakes, oceans,
ponds, wetlands, mountains, and the tourist companies in these areas all rely on clean water to attract tourism dollars. In 2017, the
tourism industry in the United States generated over $ 1.6 trillion in revenue and employed over 7 million
people. The tourism industry comprised nearly 3% of the entire gross domestic product of the nati on in 2017, and
that number is expected to continue to grow. Thus, for areas that are reliant on tourism dollars , clean water is
necessary for the success of the economy. Further, heavily polluted water can have disastrous
consequences on the national economy.

For example, a few years ago, the

economy of the Lake Erie area was severely impacted from a large drop in
tourists and tourism dollars. This drop was due to toxic algae overrunning a large part of the lake. This
pollution severely decreased the over $ 10 billion in estimated annual tourism revenue that typically pours into
the area. Due to this pollution, large populations of fish died and almost half of the Lake Erie area charter fishing companies were forced to
permanently shut down their business. The Brookings Institution studied the economic effects this pollution had on Lake Erie's [*943]
economy. The study
found that if the pollution ceased and the ecology of the area was restored, the
economy would reap benefits of more than $ 80 billion.

Although it is unlikely that Obama's Rule would completely solve Lake Erie's problem (as agriculture is one of the causes of this pollution), the
implementation of Obama's Rule would reduce some of this pollution and likely provide an increase of a
significant portion of the tourism dollars back in the area. Requiring businesses to change their current pollution habits
may cause an increase in expenses for the polluting businesses around the Great Lakes. But allowing the pollution to become more of a
problem may eventually cause the tourism economy in the area to completely collapse. The economic consequences of this collapse would
likely far outweigh the benefits of allowing industries to continue their calamitous polluting practices. Lake Erie and the Great Lakes region are
not the only areas experiencing pollution issues like this.

[*944] This is a common issue throughout the country as the national tourism industry loses nearly $ 1 billion every year to
pollution, largely due to decreases in recreational business revenue. For many states, tourism is a vital part of the economy because it
produces revenue and jobs for both local businesses and government. Both Obama's and Trump's Rule would impact states that rely on
tourism. However, whether that impact is positive or negative is dependent on which rule is in place.

In Tennessee, the wildlife-related recreation industry, which includes hunting, fishing, and nature observation, is a vital part of the state's
economy, as it generated $ 20.7 billion in direct visitor spending in 2017. Additionally, almost 117,000 people travel to Tennessee each year for
fishing alone and the average person that fishes spends over $ 1300 on trip-related costs. Without clean waters the wildlife-related recreation
industry in Tennessee would significantly suffer, as would the economy of the state. Obama's Rule would positively impact this industry by
providing more protection of water, lands, and wildlife's habitat, which would create an opportunity for more wildlife activities and increased
revenue.

Moreover, as the quality of water increases nationwide under Obama's Rule, some areas that were not previously tourist destinations because
of the poor quality of water will likely attract tourists when the water quality improves. This improvement in water [*945] quality will increase
the opportunities to swim, fish, hunt, and enjoy the water, resulting in an increase in tourist destinations. And increasing the amount of tourist
destinations will also increase revenue for local businesses. For example, approximately twenty years ago, Little Pigeon River, near the Great
Smokey Mountain National Park, had water with such a high pollution level that a contact advisory was implemented. After a multitude of
environmental changes and improvements to the water quality in that area, the advisory was lifted partially in 2014 and 2016. Due to the
improved quality of water, the local area will benefit from an increase in tourism as more tourists visit Little Pigeon River to enjoy the water and
the surrounding wildlife.

An increase in revenue would likely occur for businesses engaged in direct tourism activities like hotels, fishing guides, and boat rentals, as well
as restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations. Additionally, the property values in areas like Little Pigeon River generally rise as the water
quality rises and water-based recreation becomes more attractive. Then, revenues from property tax increases could provide improved public
schools, parks, and many other benefits.

[*946] Relatedly, many individuals and companies in the fishing industry across the nation are witnessing their business deplete right in front
of them. This business failure is not due to a lack of demand for fish and seafood; instead, pollution is literally killing the market. Many
fishermen and fishing companies in the Chesapeake [*947] Bay area are being forced to close their businesses because of the vast amount of
pollutants in the bay water. The decline in water quality has directly resulted in a decline in the number of oysters, crabs, clams, and fish.

Specifically, as a result of pollution in Chesapeake Bay, the oyster population has decreased by 50% over the last twenty years. This decline not
only decreased the amount of oysters sold for consumption but also decreased the overall water quality as oysters naturally filter out pollution.
Additionally, any fisherman in the area that continues to fish risks serious physical harm. This is because diseases, including multiple flesh eating
diseases, have become more prevalent in the area. Water pollution has also caused a dead zone, an oxygen depleted zone, to grow to several
hundred square miles in the Chesapeake Bay.

This is not a problem that is unique to the Chesapeake Bay as many people in the fishing industry across the nation are dealing with the
ramifications of polluted water. Trump's Rule will decrease the amount of water protected from such pollution while increasing the amount of
pollution and number of fishing businesses negatively impacted by pollution. Additionally, the economic impact is not limited to just the fishing
industry--other local tourism businesses are often severely crippled by increased water pollution. Pollution is a problem for many local
economies, and decreasing the CWA's jurisdiction, as Trump's Rule does, will continue to negatively impact the economy.

[*948] vi. Major Urban Development Depends on Access to Clean Rivers and Lakes
Many cities across the nation are experiencing unprecedented growth as people flock to "it" cities. A common factor
in these highgrowth cities is access to rivers, lakes, streams, and parks for various outdoor activities. Given this, many cities are investing
significant resources in establishing or revitalizing such "natural" assets in their cities with an eye towards appealing to more people and,
ultimately, improving the city's economy. Without
clean water, a city's attractiveness significantly declines and likely
fails to attract potential development and economic growth.

Nashville, Austin, and Seattle are some of the fastest growing cities in America. This
growth is attributed to many factors;
however, one thing all of these cities have is close proximity to bodies of water that are clean and support
outdoor activities including [*949] kayaking, paddle boarding, running along the river, and so forth. The importance of such activities to the
growth of these cities cannot be dismissed as these bodies of water act as a medium to not only exercise but also to read, relax, think, and
meet. Without clean water, these cities would likely not have grown as fast and would have missed out on many of the economic benefits that
come with population growth.

As previously discussed in Section B of Part II, Obama's

Rule increases the amount of water protected from pollution
resulting in an overall higher quality of water . The opposite is true of Trump's Rule. Under Trump's Rule, the water
quality in many of these cities could decrease, resulting in a plateau, or possibly even a decline, in
growth. Maintaining high water quality is essential for these cities to attract, retain, and supplement
their high growth, and, as such, Obama's Rule positions these cities, and other cities like them, to continue to have sustainable growth
and reap economic benefits.

Major population growth in urban areas provides many economic benefits but also presents unique economic
challenges. One such [*950] challenge is the need for increased development of residential and commercial real estate to keep pace with
increased demand. For example, around 85 to 100 new people moved to Nashville each day in 2016. As more people and businesses relocate to
Nashville, the need for residential and commercial real estate escalates. Many major commercial real estate developments throughout the area
are experiencing occupation rates of 99%. And home prices in the [*951] Nashville area increased by approximately 35% from 2016 to 2018.
Thus, an increase in the supply of developable land for housing and commercial real estate is needed to keep up with demand and to moderate
pricing.

As detailed in Section A of Part II, Obama's

Rule provides greater predictability of the CWA's jurisdiction and
allows investors to feel more confident in their investments . This will likely lead to more development,
an increase in the supply of real estate, and lower real estate prices . Conversely, Trump's Rule decreases overall
jurisdictional predictability because of the vague, ambiguous, and unclear standards it has set forth. This lack of predictability could decrease
the amount of investment and development that is needed to keep up with the growth of these cities.

Obama's Rule supports and helps continue the substantial economic growth of many major cities in two
separate ways. First, Obama's Rule would protect the high quality of life--great parks, lakes, rivers, and outdoor recreational activities--that has
helped foster this growth. By increasing and protecting the quality of water in these cities, outdoor activities flourish and continue to attract,
retain, and supplement this significant growth. Second, Obama's [*952] Rule
increases jurisdictional predictability, which
assists in land planning and encourages real estate investment in these cities to keep up with the
increase in demand. Trump's Rule fails to do either of these things.

(___) No food wars

Rosegrant 13 – M ark W., Director of the Environment and Production Technology Division at the
International Food Policy Research Institute, et al., 2013, “The Future of the Global Food Economy:
Scenarios for Supply, Demand, and Prices,” in Food Security and Sociopolitical Stability, p. 39-40

The food price spikes in the late 2000s caught the world’s attention, particularly when sharp increases in food and fuel prices in
2008 coincided with street demonstrations and riots in many countries. For 2008 and the two preceding years, researchers
identified a significant number of countries (totaling 54) with protests during what was called the global food crisis (Benson et al. 2008).
Violent protests occurred in 21 countries , and nonviolent protests occurred in 44 countries. Both types of protest took place in
11 countries. In a separate analysis, developing countries with low government effectiveness experienced more food price protests between
2007 and 2008 than countries with high government effectiveness (World Bank 201la). Although the incidence of violent protests was much
higher in countries with less capable governance, many
factors could be causing or contributing to these protests,
such as government response tactics, rather than the initial food price spike.
Data on food riots and food prices have tracked together in recent years. Agricultural commodity prices started strengthening in international
markets in 2006. In the latter half of 2007, as prices continued to rise, two or fewer food price riots per month were recorded (based on World
Food Programme data, as reported in Brinkman and Hendrix 2011). As prices peaked and remained high during mid-2008, the number of riots
increased dramatically, with a cumulative total of 84 by August 2008. Subsequently, both prices and the monthly number of protests declined.

Several researchers have studied the connection between food price shocks and conflict, finding at least some relationship between food prices
and conflict. According to Dell et al. (2008), higher food prices lead to income declines and an increase in political
instability, but only for poor countries. Researchers also found a positive and significant relationship between weather shocks
(affecting food availability, prices, and real income) and the probability of suffering government repression or a civil war (Besley and Persson
2009). Arezki and Bruckner (2011) evaluated a constructed food price index and political variables, including data on riots and anti-government
demonstrations and measures of civil unrest. Using data
from 61 countries over the period 1970 to 2007, they found a direct
connection between food price shocks and an increased likelihood of civil conflict, including riots and
demonstrations.

Other researchers have broadened the analysis by considering government responses or underlying policies
that affect local prices, and consequently influence outcomes and the linkage between food price shocks and
conflict. Carter and Bates (2012) evaluated data from 30 developing countries for the time period 1961 to 2001,
concluding that when governments mitigate the impact of food price shocks on urban consumers, the
apparent relationship between food price shocks and civil war disappears. Moreover, when the urban
consumers can expect a favorable response, the protests only serve as a motivation for a policy response
rather than as a prelude to something more serious, such as violent demonstrations or even civil war.
Many in the international development community see war and conflict as a development issue, with a war or conflict severely damaging the
local economy, which in turn leads to forced migration and dislocation, and ultimately acute food insecurity. Brinkman
and Hendrix
(2011) ask if it could be the other way around, with food insecurity causing conflict. Their answer, based on a review of
the literature, is "a highly qualified yes," especially for intrastate conflict. The primary reason is that insecurity itself
heightens the risk of democratic breakdown and civil conflict. The linkage connecting food insecurity to conflict is
contingent on levels of economic development (a stronger linkage for poorer countries ), existing political
institutions, and other factors. The researchers say establishing causation directly is elusive, considering a lack of
evidence for explaining individual behavior. The debate over cause and effect is ongoing.
 2AC Pipeline Add-On Vs Farming DA

The change in WOTUS definition allows oil and gas companies to BYPASS the
permitting process --- resulting in a pipeline boom
Lerner 18 --- Sharon Lerner is an Investigative Reporter at The Intercept covering health, science, and
the environment, “TRUMP’S ATTACK ON THE CLEAN WATER ACT WILL FUEL DESTRUCTIVE PIPELINE
BOOM” The Intercept, Dec 9th 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/12/09/clean-water-act-regulations/

A NEW WATER RULE that will strip federal protections from an estimated 60-90 percent of U.S. waterways
will dramatically ease restrictions on how polluting industries do business.

According to the rule, which is due out next week, streams

that don’t run year-round and many wetlands will no
longer be subject to the Clean Water Act. As a result, a wide range of industries — including agriculture, mining,
waste management, chemical companies, real estate development, and road construction — will be free to pollute, reroute, and pave
over these waterways as they see fit.

But oil and gas transport companies may benefit most from the imminent shift.

When the rule takes effect, pipeline

construction projects that are currently required to undergo months, or
even years, of scrutiny from water experts in order to minimize their environmental impact will be
allowed to speed forward. For energy companies that have been pushing for exactly these changes for years, the new rule may be
well worth the wait.

A Pipeline Bonanza

The energy company ONEOK should have applied for permits to work on its Arbuckle II pipeline by now. The
$1.3 billion project, which will transport natural gas liquids 530 miles from the company’s supply basins in
Velma, Oklahoma, to its storage facilities on the Gulf Coast of Texas, will cross dozens of waterways in both
states. According to factsheets on its website, ONEOK was supposed to have begun construction in both Texas and Oklahoma and has
submitted applications for water permits required for this work during 2018.

As of Friday, however, the company hadn’t submitted any applications for the permits required to build its
pipeline across waterways, according to the Army Corps of Engineers offices in Tulsa, Fort Worth, and Galveston, which are responsible for
permitting pipelines under the Clean Water Act.

Brad Borror, a communications manager at ONEOK, said the company was not delaying its projects. “We’re still going to go through that
process and confident in our timeline,” said Borror.

But if ONEOK and other companies currently constructing pipelines do fall behind on their permits, they may ultimately come out ahead. The
Trump administration rollback of water regulations will allow ONEOK and other companies involved in
the energy pipeline boom now underway to simply bulldoze through waterways that are currently
protected without any environmental scrutiny at all.

The Trump administration’s rule will replace an Obama-era regulation known as the Waters of the
United States rule. According to leaked talking points about the replacement rule, it will exempt seasonal waterways and
wetlands that are not connected by surface water to permanent water bodies from regulation. The
change will allow the Arbuckle II and other pipelines now in the works to advance more quickly — and with far
fewer environmental protections.
The oil and gas industries have been pushing for years for these same changes. The Waters Advocacy Coalition, an umbrella organization of 48
industry trade groups, has spent more than $1 million since 2007 lobbying to limit federal water protections. The group’s members include the
Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the American Gas Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Independent Petroleum Association of
America, according to comments that the group filed with the EPA in 2017.

The 2015 WOTUS rule aimed to settle long-standing conflicts between industry and regulators over which waterways are protected by the
Clean Water Act. Almost since that federal statute went into effect in 1972, industries have been fighting to limit its reach. Still, for decades, the
law was widely seen as protecting the great majority of the country’s waterways, both big and small.

That began to change after a 2001 Supreme Court case that dealt with whether ponds on an abandoned mining site were subject to federal
water protections, said Jon Devine, director of federal water policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The decision was narrow, about
whether certain isolated water bodies could be protected based on their use by water fowl, but there was a lot of language that expressed
doubt about the proper scope of the law,” said Devine. “And industries jumped on that, and challenges sprang up across the country.”

Though some environmentalists felt it didn’t go far enough to protect water, the 2015 rule pushed back slightly against some of the incursions
that industry campaigns had made on federal water protections. Now in effect in 22 states, and held up by court challenges in the others, the
rule increased the waters covered by the Clean Water Act by 3-5 percent and clarified that rivers, streams, and wetlands are protected by the
Clean Water Act even if they run for part of the year or depend on rain to flow.

The Trump rule, which will be subject to public comment before it’s finalized, will reverse those expansions in federal
water protections and go further by stripping protections from many wetlands . The change will likely have the
most dramatic effect in Alaska and the arid west, which, depending on the wording of the rule, may see up to 90 percent of its waterways lose
federal protection.

A Sledgehammer to Clean Water Act

Pipeline companies are currently required to either get approval for the crossing of every waterway, or in
cases when they can show that a project will have only minimal impact on the environment, apply for a nationwide
permit that allows them to avoid scrutiny of each individual crossing.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which will carry fracked natural gas 600 miles from the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia
through Virginia to North Carolina, recently had its national permit suspended due to concerns about its impact
on a West Virginia waterway. The new regulations will likely cut the number of permits required for the
project in half, according to an analysis by the Southern Environmental Law Center.

A joint effort of Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, and Southern Company Gas, theAtlantic Coast Pipeline
(together with a much shorter pipeline that will supply natural gas to customers) will cross waterways in 1,699 places. At least
half those waterways flow only during the wet seasons or after rainstorms and therefore would no longer require
permits after the new rule is in place.

The new rule will increase the environmental threats posed by the Atlantic Coast and other pipeline
projects, according to Geoff Gisler, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, which has filed numerous challenges to the
pipeline.

“Thisis a sledgehammer to the Clean Water Act,” Gisler said of the new rule. “Out of all the anti-environmental
attacks we have seen from this administration, this may be the most far-reaching and destructive.”

Dozens of other pipelines now in the planning phase could also see the number of permits required for
their projects reduced. Fifty-four natural gas pipeline projects, including the Atlantic Coast, were approved in U.S. in the past two years,
and 36 more projects are currently pending, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Three new oil pipeline projects have
recently been announced, and five, including the Keystone XL, are in development.

Many of the companies building these pipelines may be putting off applying for their permits until the industry-friendly rule is in place,
according to Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “Going through the permitting
process can take years, so waiting for the final rule is still going to be shorter than applying for a permit that can have a ton of impact,” said
Bennett, who described the companies as “salivating over the new rule.”
For the Arbuckle II pipeline, which runs through semi-arid areas, far fewer permits will likely be required under the new rule, which will
ultimately speed up the construction process. “If they end up saying they’re crossing the Red River, and if they only have to get a couple of
crossings versus 100 crossings, then the permit process is going to be way, way quicker,” said Bennett, a scientist and attorney who worked on
wetlands management at the EPA before joining the environmental group. “I think they’re poised to apply for the permits the minute the new
rule comes out.”

The permitting process typically involves pipeline companies meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and the Fish and Wildlife
Service to discuss the project’s impact on the environment. The federal agencies then devise plans to minimize the environmental damage of
construction.

“They might require them to tunnel underneath a stream or work when a stream is dry,” said Amy Mall, senior advocate at the NRDC. “ Every
single site is unique.” Without these environmental protections, sediment and erosion can pollute the
waterways, which can impact species living there.

Disruption of waterways by pipeline construction can also result in drinking water contamination, as it has
in the case of the Mariner East 2 pipeline in Pennsylvania.

“You can have long term or permanent damage,” said Mall.

While some states may continue to require permits for waterways once they’re not subject to the federal law, others are unlikely to safeguard
their own waterways from damage caused by pipeline construction. “We have no local protections,” Ashley Nicole McCray said of Oklahoma,
which is home to one of the biggest pipeline hubs in the world. McCray, who ran for a spot on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission this year,
has been raising concerns about the environmental impacts of the pipelines in her state.

“Because of the construction of so many pipelines, we’re losing traditional prairie lands and grasslands ,”
said McCray, who is a member of the Oglala Lakota nation. “The loss of land has serious impacts . When the vegetation is
gone, the insects and animals that rely on it die, too. We’re seeing animals going extinct.”

Pipelines destroys topsoil

Mall 17 --- AMY MALL SENIOR ADVOCATE, DIRTY ENERGY, LANDS DIVISION, NATURE PROGRAM,
“Pipelines Ruin Farmland Across the Country”, NRDC, Nov 27 th 2017,
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amy-mall/pipelines-ruin-farmland-across-country

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley Pipeline would each cross hundreds of private
properties. Many of these private properties are farms, and farmers are rightfully concerned about damage
to their farmland from pipeline construction , as well as ongoing environmental and safety issues. Some of these farmers are
suing the pipeline companies to protect their farms from pipeline construction, and some are being sued by the pipeline companies, who want
access to their private property.

An important new report from Farm Journal spells out exactly how pipelines can damage farms and soil.

According to the article, pipeline

construction on farmland in Illinois caused subsoil compaction that “ is heavily
affecting natural soil drainage.” The Chairman of the McClean County Soil Board, Mike Kelley, raised concerns
regarding the use of heavy machinery on wet soil on his own farm. Yet the pipeline company ignored him, and construction went ahead
anyway. He reportsthat 18 acres of his farm show huge differences in subsoil structure compared to non-
impacted farmland, and his crop yield is lower on the pipeline-impacted acreage . Kelley stated: “I don’t
think I’ll ever see that farm area return to its former production.”

In Georgia, farmer Randy Dowdy reports that pipeline construction crossing his farm led to a loss of over 40
acres of topsoil and a reduced crop yield of less than half compared to non-impacted land. Dowdy’s
agreement with the pipeline company stated that the company would return all of his farmland to its original condition, but he says the
pipeline company ignored this agreement and took shortcuts. Now he states: “The experts have said this will take
not only my lifetime, but multiple lifetimes to fix.”

In Iowa, farmer David Richter reports that pipeline construction on his farm has led to widespread damage.
While the pipeline company had the right to access 45 acres of his farm, poor drainage has damaged more than 300 acres .
Richter had asked the pipeline to move its route a short distance because of his farm’s drainage, but he says the company ignored his familiarity
with his own farm and that now the company has refused to do the work necessary to restore his farm to its original condition. Richter states:
“I’m 58 years old and I won’t see normal yields for the rest of my life.”

That turns food insecurity

Cosier 19 --- Susan Cosier, Reporter for The Guardian, “The world needs topsoil to grow 95% of its food – but it's rapidly disappearing”,
May 30th 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america

The sense of urgency

over topsoil is growing as the planet is projected to reach 9 billion people by 2050.
Without a healthy farm system, farmers won’t be able to feed the world’s growing population , says Dave
Montgomery, a geologist at the University of Washington and author of the book Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life.

To see what can happen to civilizations that lost the topsoil they needed to grow food, look no further than
Syria or Libya. Roman tax records show that those areas grew ample amounts of wheat, but as farmers continued to
plow their fields, they exposed valuable microbes and topsoil eroded. Today those areas barely have any soil
to grow crops.

“Societies that lose their topsoil, their descendants pay the price,” Montgomery says. “Nature takes a long time to
build soil.” By some estimates, it can take 500 years for healthy topsoil to develop and less than a century to degrade.
 1AR Pipeline Ext --- Pipelines Destroy Soil

Pipelines destroy soil and cause lower yields

Neideigh 19 --- Erica Rae Neideigh Iowa State University, A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE, “Evaluation of deep tillage
remediation in a construction easement on soil compaction and crop yield”, 2019,
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9200&context=etd

The first three years of this study indicated differences in soil compaction and crop yield within the
construction ROW zones and the adjacent unaffected zones. Overall, the soil compaction in the ROW has been
reported as greater than the two adjacent unaffected areas, regardless of the subsoiling remediation practices. Crop
yields in the last two years showed a decrease in yields for both soybean and com, and minimal recovery was
observed from the crop yield data from 2017 to 2018.

The investigations of soil compaction remediation and crop yield responses to the subsoiling treatments
reported similar results after analysis:
• The subsoiling treatment depth did not show a significant difference in soil compaction remediation or crop yield responses in
comparison to each other within the designated ROW zones.

• Also, the subsoiling treatments did not prove to be a significant remediation practice to alleviate subsoil compaction, nor did crop
yield responses show significant differences in the three zones across the ROW.

• Additionally, soil bulk density and crop yield responses in the ROW zones showed that subsoil remediation practices were still not
enough to restore the subsoil to similar unaffected conditions.

Similarly, crop
yield responses were affected by the soil disturbance from pipeline installation and showed
significantly lower values in the ROW zones compared to the adjacent unaffected areas. However, crop yield responses compared
between the three ROW zones were not observed to be significantly different from each other.

Pipelines permanently destroy topsoil

Hardy 18 --- Kevin Hardy, Des Moines Register, “Dakota Access pipeline wrecking soil, farmers
complain”, Aug 2018, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2016/08/23/dakota-
access-pipeline-degrading-soil-farmers-complain/88945728/

GRANVILLE, Ia. — All Francis Goebel wanted was for Dakota Access pipeline crews to put his soil back
the way they found it. Instead, he's got a scar running across his soybean fields where the dark, fertile
topsoil is being stacked on top of several feet of hard clay mixed with clay loam. The result, Goebel
fears, will be soil less suited for growing crops — and much less valuable. "Nature separated those soils
for a reason, that's the way I feel," said Goebel, who runs a 164-acre century farm in Sioux County. "If
nature put it there, they should put it back the way it was." His complaint is one of several popping up
across Iowa as work ramps up on the pipeline that will stretch from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota
across Iowa to Patoka, IIl. Admittedly, Goebel was against the pipeline from day one. But he's not the
only landowner complaining about how Dakota Access is handling their soil. Although Dakota Access is
separating the rich topsoil from the soil beneath, it isn't being as careful with the next two layers, mixing
the clay loam subsoil with the hard clay underneath. Goebel acknowledges he was well compensated by
Dakota Access for the 12-acre easement the company obtained to cross his land. He received $21,000
per acre for the easement, plus payments for initial crop losses. But he's worried about his future corn
and soybean yields. In some places, crews excavated 20 feet deep, meaning the hard clay at the bottom
could end up just a couple feet from the ground. "To me, it's a scar," he said. 'It will come up red' Across
the street from Goebel, Tom Konz shares his neighbor's concern. He grows crops on 120 acres of his
wife's family farm. Crews dug up about 4.5 acres for pipeline work. He grudgingly began negotiating an
easement agreement with Dakota Access this spring after it became clear the company could use
eminent domain to condemn properties in the pipeline's path. But he never really knew much about the
dirt deep beneath his topsoil. He really had no need. "How often do you go out in your field with an
excavator and dig 20 feet deep to see what your soil looks like?" he asked. After crews dug 20 feet deep
to bore under a county road at the border of his and Goebel's properties, he said the soil layers became
visibly apparent. He lobbied contractors to separate his soil layers, but they refused. He even offered to
dig and separate the soil himself with his own excavator, but he said Dakota Access declined. Konz
acknowledges that it is too late for his and his neighbor's land — contractors buried the pipe last week.
But he wants other Iowa landowners in the pipeline's path to remain vigilant about their soil as crews
begin tearing into the ground. Konz received about $102,000 from Dakota Access, a figure that included
payments for the easement, plus three years' worth of crop damage. But he said that's nothing
compared with the ongoing costs of anticipated crop losses. "The rest of my life, I guarantee you will see
that pipeline forever," Konz said. "It will come up as red (on a yield map). We'll fight it every year for
yield loss." Disturbing the ground Dakota Access did not reply to requests for comment. But in a court
hearing Friday, an attorney representing the pipeline company addressed allegations of soil disruption.
An attorney representing landowners in a lawsuit over the pipeline argued that trenching deep into
cropland would "irreparably harm" landowners by disrupting soil that had been layered over "thousands
and thousands of years." But Dakota Access attorney Bret Dublinski noted that all the contested farms
already had tile buried under crops to help drain fields. It is often removed, repaired and replaced, he
said. "You cannot consistently argue both that Dakota Access is going to irreparably harm my soil
because it hasn’t been changed in 1,000 years and then also say 'I'm concerned about my pattern tile
that I put in by turning up the soil,'" Dublinski said. "… Those are arguments that simply cannot exist in
the same space." 'Home of black soil' Drivers who approach Granville, population 300, on Iowa Highway
10 are greeted by billboards that boast of the town's status as "Home of Black Soil." Northwest Iowa is
home to some of the state's most fertile and coveted farmland. Land here often fetches among the
state's highest prices per acre. In Sioux and O'Brien counties, the average farmland price topped $10,800
per acre in 2015, according to statistics kept by Iowa State University. The statewide average sale price
was $7,633 per acre. Paul Kassel, a field agronomist at Iowa State University Extension in Spencer, said
he understands why farmers are worried about the soil being mixed. Corn and soybean plants absorb
most nutrients from the first foot of soil, but he said the first 5 feet of soil are important to crop yield. "It
would definitely be a concern," he said. Too much clay or gravel in the first few feet of soil can hurt
yields, Kassel said. And mixing soil is not a problem that can be mitigated later. "They have one shot to
do it right," Kassel says, "and they may be encountering things that they don’t even know." Hands tied
for county inspectors Dakota Access is required to follow soil guidelines in Iowa law and the Agricultural
Impact Mitigation Plan, which was approved by the Iowa Utilities Board. But the plan stipulates only that
the topsoil be segregated. Some landowners negotiated further provisions, such as separating three
layers of soil, rather than two. But not all farmers knew to ask for such an arrangement. "A realty with a
project like this is that landowners are learning more about what is below the surface of their lands than
they knew before," said Evan Del Val, a civil engineer with ISG, one of the companies hired by counties
to inspect pipeline work. "And these landowners already knew a lot about their fields." Aside from soil
issues, Del Val said the pipeline work will provide farmers with GPS mapping of underground drainage
tile that historically has been poorly tracked. ISG was hired by 13 of the 18 Iowa counties in the path of
the pipeline, including O'Brien and Sioux counties (Polk County has elected to do inspections in-house).
Del Val said he's sympathetic to landowners' concerns over their soil. But county inspectors cannot
change the rules on contractors. "From an inspection standpoint, this is what we are limited to," he said.
ISG has received complaints from landowners that not enough topsoil is being stripped and stockpiled.
Requirements call for removing up to 36 inches of topsoil on top of the pipeline ditchline and up to 12
inches from the adjacent easement area. Landowners may request removal of all topsoil, with a hired
soil expert determining just how much dirt qualifies. Landowners haven't always agreed with those
determinations. Still, Del Val said soil complaints have been isolated and that inspectors are working
alongside contractors to ensure construction follows the pipeline company's agreement with
landowners 'Sign of what's to come' But for pipeline opponents, the landowner complaints about
construction are only just the beginning. Storm Lake lawyer John Murray, who represented landowners
opposing the project, said aside from the soil issues, he's heard complaints that construction is causing
drainage and runoff issues. In some cases, water has been flowing out of construction zones onto
cropland. He said more issues will arise when work goes on in wet fields. "If we have rain, we’re going to
see a lot more complaints," he said. "If we don’t have rain, you’re still going to have issues, but they’re
not going to be as extensive." Adam Mason, state policy organizing director at Iowa Citizens for
Community Improvement, said the system for landowners lodging complaints is flawed. CCI last week
asked the Iowa Utilities Board to authorize a public complaints officer to streamline complaints from
landowners. The Iowa Utilities Board said two routes for complaints exist: through the board or through
county inspectors. But landowners are suspicious of inspectors. While hired by counties, the cost for
inspection firms is paid by Dakota Access. "We feel that since the IUB granted the permit, they should be
the one doing the inspecting," Mason said. At a recent press conference, landowners aired grievances
over pipeline work, including inadequate protection of topsoil, trash piling up in the work zone and
deterioration of fields because crews continued working in wet areas. "I think it’s a sign of what's to
come," he said.
 1AR Ext --- WOTUS Doesn’t Impact Farms

Expanded definition has a marginal effect on farming

Finney 19 --- Brad Finney is currently a federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, “ONE WOTUS, TWO POTUS: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT”, 86 Tenn. L. Rev. 895, Summer 2019, Accessed on Lexis
C. The Agriculture Industry's Exclusions and the Economic Impact

President Trump has long criticized the CWA and Obama's Rule. A focal point of that criticism was that Obama's Rule hurt farmers, made the
agriculture business more difficult, increased expenses, decreased revenue, and decreased total agricultural output. Trump declared that his
rule would provide far greater [*955] benefits to the agriculture industry as compared to Obama's Rule. Trump's critique of the impact of
Obama's Rule on the agriculture industry is incorrect, as is his assertion that his rule would bring far more benefits to the industry.

In comparison to Obama's Rule, Trump's Rule does not provide any additional ag riculture exemptions. In
regard to agriculture industry exemptions, both rules are exceedingly similar. The agriculture industry has held
exemptions from the CWA under several administrations and, under Obama's Rule, "'every single exemption or exclusion that agriculture'
[previously] had was preserved." According to Cindy Barger, a Corps official involved in the creation of Trump's Rule, "[t]he gain for farmers
would be the Trump administration's attempt to streamline [the] definition of protected wetlands, meaning farmers wouldn't have to consult
experts to know if an area is protected." It
is likely that only a few farmers own land containing such wetlands;
therefore, the added benefit under Trump's Rule is that a select group of farmers would spend fewer
resources on their jurisdictional analyses. This is a marginal difference when discussing the national economy.

No farming impact
Rosner 17 --- HILLARY ROSNER, award-winning independent journalist who has been covering the
environment for more than a decade, “The Potential Big Impact of Trump's Clean Water Rollback”,
NatGeo, JUNE 27, 2017, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/waters-of-the-us-rule-
conservation-colorado

The rule protected tributaries that contain “a bed, bank, and ordinary high water mark” as well as
“regional water treasures” such as prairie potholes an d Texas coastal wetlands “when they impact
downstream waters.”

It explicitly did not cover most farm ditches. Nor did it extend to most farm-related activities like plowing
fields or moving livestock.

But the rule was immediately challenged in court and put on hold.

WOTUS has no effect on farmers

Ali 20 --- Maz Ali, Managing editor at Earthjustice, “Trump Said Water Protections Hurt Farmers. An
Earthjustice Attorney Fact-Checked Him.”, EarthJustice, Aug 7 th 2020,
https://earthjustice.org/blog/2020-august/is-the-water-all-right
*Brimmer = Earthjustice attorney Janette Brimmer

What Trump said:

The 2015 Clean

Water Rule “would give the federal government vast and unlimited power to restrict
farmers’ access to water.”

The Reality:

“There is no evidence that farming practices have ever been affected by the Clean Water Rule,” says
Earthjustice strategist Alejandro Dávila. He notes that while farming is almost completely exempt from the reach of the
Clean Water Act, there are still practical reasons (and matters of courtesy) landowners should consider before
polluting waters, even if they are on their property:
“If a stream cuts through your property and flows into a neighbor’s property, do you just dump your run-off into it? No, that would make you a
terrible neighbor.”

WOTUS rule has no farming impact

Everett Belch 19 --- Corinne Everett Belch, Sound Rivers Director of Development, “Fishing for Facts: What to Know About the Clean
Water Act”, Sound Rivers, a nonprofit organization that guards the health of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins, DECEMBER 27, 2019,
https://soundrivers.org/fishing-for-facts-what-to-know-about-the-clean-water-act/

As we head into 2020, we

are going to be hearing more about the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Waters of the
United States (WOTUS), the rule that defines which bodies of water are protected under the CWA. So, we need to start with some
basic understanding of what the CWA, as currently written, does and what it clearly does not do. The Clean Water Act establishes that all
“waters of the United States” would be federally protected. However, attacks by industry and developers over which waters should be covered
has led to numerous and confusing court rulings. That is why a rule that actually defines what waters are protected is
needed.

In 2015, the Obama administration attempted to do that by issuing the Clean Water Rule . But it didn’t take
long for industry and big corporate agriculture to attack the rule, mainly by perpetuating myths and false
narratives. The Farm Bureau and other factories of misinformation spread myths such as, “EPA would
now regulate puddles,” and a farmer could not even mow without obtaining a Clean Water Act permit .
Not to be outdone, then NC Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Donald van der Vaart, speaking at the 2015 NC Farm Bureau
annual meeting, perpetuated these myths by suggesting that almost all of North Carolina’s land would now
be regulated under the law and farmers could no longer farm or use their land as they had . All of this
was false.

First let’s
explore the myth that puddles would be regulated under the Clean Water rule . So does the CWA
regulate puddles? NO! In fact, section 230.3(s)(2)(iv)(G) of the law states, “The following are not ‘waters of the
United States… puddles.” The EPA went one step further for the folks who still don’t get it; they added it to the Preamble on page 176:
“The final rule adds an exclusion for puddles…”

Let’s take the rest of the Farm Bureau’s untruths and break them down. The CWA does not add any
additional regulation or permits to farms. It does not regulate most ditches (you can’t turn a stream
into a ditch, that’s already against the law) and does not regulate groundwater or tile drains (type of
drainage system on farms that removes excess water from soil below its surface).
The preamble of the Clean Water rule expressly stated that the rule did not CHANGE EXEMPTIONS FOR
AGRICULTURE! Preamble page 8: “Congress has exempted certain discharges, and the rule does not affect any of the exemptions from
CWA section 404 permitting requirements provided by CWA section 404(f), including those for normal farming, ranching, and silviculture
activities. CWA section 404(f); 40 CFR 232.3; 33 CFR 323.4. This
rule not only maintains current statutory exemptions, it
expands regulatory exclusions from the definition of “waters of the United States ” to make it clear
that this rule does not add any additional permitting requirements on agriculture.”

But facts did not matter. The myths perpetuated by industry and polluters worked and the Trump
administration repealed the Clean Water Rule . As noted in our lead article, a new, “dirty water rule” is set to be released in
early 2020. A rule that will most certainly reduce protections for North Carolina’s streams and wetlands. This is a big fight and we’re ready to
tackle it.
 1AR Ext --- WOTUS Increases Certainty

Turn --- Aff INCREASES predictability

Finney 19 --- Brad Finney is currently a federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, “ONE WOTUS, TWO POTUS: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT”, 86 Tenn. L. Rev. 895, Summer 2019, Accessed on Lexis

By providing new, more objective standards, Obama's Rule increases certainty and predictability
regarding what waters are subject to a significant nexus analysis and ultimately, what waters are under
jurisdiction. 186 However, there is the possibility of ambiguity regarding some of the factors and elements Obama's
Rule uses to determine if water has a significant nexus. 187 For example, it is likely difficult for a landowner to determine whether an isolated
body of water recycles its nutrients with the downstream water or filters pollution. 188 Although some aspects of Obama's Rule
could cause confusion, it generally provides increased clarity, certainty, and predictability regarding the
CWA's jurisdiction. 189

Turn --- Trumps proposal hurts business confidence by applying rules on a “case-by-
case” basis and increasing pollution --- net worse for businesses
Powell 18 – JD, U of Alabama Law Powell, Jessalin. (2018). Clean water or guilty conscience: The newly
proposed rulemaking to rescind and replace the clean water rule has ethical and professional
implications for epa attorneys. Journal of the Legal Profession, 43(1), 87-100.

The driving force behind Goal 3 is the need for consistency, certainty, and a national network. 9 3 However, the newly proposed rule
has a high risk of inconsistency and uncertainty for several reasons. For one thing, the proposal is premature. After
the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to issue a nationwide stay of the Clean Water Rule, 9 4 the Sixth Circuit
was forced to lift the stay, 9 5 making the Clean Water Rule effective in twenty-two states until the final new rule is promulgated, creating
inconsistency and a regional, instead of a national, program.96 The
proposed new rule will also lead to inconsistency and
uncertainty, as it will determine "significant nexus" on a case-by-case basis for more categories of water,
which gives permittees no guidance as to which bodies of water they are prohibited from discharging
into.97 This case-by-case determination will also make it nearly impossible for the EPA to issue timely
decisions as it sets out to do. Since the process of making a "significant nexus" determination consumes much
of the agency's time and resources, the agency's caseload will also be overwhelmed due to the large
number of industries seeking section 404 and section 402 permits . The EPA committed itself to robust science in its
Draft Strategic Plan, but the 2015 rule was already based on robust science.9 8 Plus, science shows that "ephemeral and intermittent streams,"
which the new rule would likely cease to protect, are needed to maintain the water quality of larger bodies of water.99 Science also shows that
wetlands that may not be visibly linked to protected waters may be connected in other, less apparent, ways. 00 Yet, the
EPA seeks to
rescind the 2015 rule that is already based on peer-reviewed science and replace it with a rule that
contradicts that science. 101 If the EPA attorneys' client is the public at large, the attorneys behind the
newly proposed rulemaking are far from furthering their clients' interests ; to the contrary, they are
scourging the interests of their clients. Clean water free from pollutants is well within the public interest. Polluted streams
affect more than just the environment. They also affect activities that the public at large values, like
clean drinking water, swimming, farming, fishing, tourism, and manufacturing , to name a few.102 Also, while
many people rely on treatment plants to remove pollutants from their drinking water, it comes at a high cost, a cost that the public at large
must bear.1 03 if
the new rule were to be finalized, community treatment plants would most likely need to
increase spending in order to remove more contaminants.'0 Since these treatment facilities are not
designed to handle an overwhelming amount of pollutants in their systems, the new rule may also have
the effect of making it harder for treatment facilities to clean the water and result in drinking water with
unacceptable contaminant levels.' Private wells may also potentially be affected for many Americans, as they are often connected
to nearby streams and other water.'06 In short, while the proposed rule is broader on its face than the 2015 rule, eliminating many
categories and requiring a "significant nexus" to be determined on a case-by-case basis for all types of
waters will increase the EPA's caseload by a significant amount, which will result in the insufficiency of
resources needed to effectively carry out the purposes of the CWA . It will also consume a significant amount of time,
which will also result in a decrease in regulation. In effect, more polluters will get away with discharging pollutants into
the nation's waters, which will not only harm the environment in significant ways, but also the public at
large.

Turn --- Trumps rule was arbitrary --- reducing certainty --- the plan clarifies covered
land
James et al 19 --- Letitia Ann James et al, AG of NY et al, Letter from Attorneys General of New York,
California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia to Andrew Wheeler, EPA,
April 15th 2019, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/comment-letter-final-04-15-
19-final.pdf

V. The
Proposed Replacement Rule is Arbitrary and Capricious Because It Promotes Regulatory Confusion
Rather than Certainty

A rule is arbitrary and capricious if it “frustrates the regulatory goal” of the agency. Mercy Catholic Medical Center v.
Thompson, 380 F.3d 142, 156 (3d Cir. 2004). “Rational decision making also dictates that the agency simply cannot employ
means that actually undercut its purported goals .” Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 779 F.2d 702,
707 (D.C. Cir.1985). The Agencies assert that the “proposed rule is intended to increase CWA program predictability
and consistency by increasing clarity as to the scope of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ regulated under the Act. 84 Fed. Reg. at 4154,
4156 (“The Agencies believe the proposed definition would also ensure clarity and predictability for Federal agencies, States, Tribes, the
regulated community, and the public.”). But
the replacement rule would only make defining the “waters of the
United States” less predictable, less consistent, and less clear . Accordingly, it frustrates and undercuts the
Agencies’ goal, and is arbitrary and capricious.

The Agencies promulgated the Clean Water Rule in 2015 to replace the 1980s regulations after having found the
1980s regulations “did not provide the public or agency staff with the kind of information needed to ensure timely, consistent, and predictable
jurisdictional determinations.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 37,056. Replacement of the 1980s regulations with the Clean Water Rule was necessary, in the
Agencies’ view, “to ensure protection of our nation’s aquatic resources and make the process of identifying ‘waters of the United States’ less
complicated and more efficient. The
[Clean Water] [R]ule achieves these goals by increasing CWA program
transparency, predictability, and consistency . . . with increased certainty and less litigation .” 79 Fed. Reg.
at 22,190.

While the Clean Water Rule serves those objectives, the proposed replacement rule does not. Rather
than increase “program predictability and consistency,” the proposed rule does the opposite, eroding
the substantial improvements in clarity achieved by the Clean Water Rule. The Clean Water Rule in most
instances enables the Agencies and regulated community to learn which waters are covered by the Act by
making simple inspections, objective measurements, or consulting maps, and without necessarily requiring the expense of hiring expert
consultants. As illustration, a “tributary” under the Clean Water Rule is a water that (1) has physical indicators of a bed and bank and an
OHWM, and (2) contributes flow directly or indirectly to primary waters, consisting of traditional navigable waters (waters that can be
navigated by a boat), interstate waters, or the territorial seas (e.g., the oceans). 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(3)(iii). The required physical indicators of
bed, bank, and OHWM can be verified by visual observations. Identifying whether the waterway flows directly or indirectly into one of the
primary waters also need not be difficult. The primary waters receiving the flow are often known to the landowner, the public more generally
(e.g., the Hudson River (traditionally navigable) or the Atlantic Ocean (territorial sea)), and if not can be obtained in simple internet searches.

The proposed replacement rule stands in sharp contrast to the Clean Water Rule. Identifying a
“tributary” now would be a complex, uncertain, and expensive undertaking. Under the proposed rule, a
tributary must be perennial (flowing continuously year-round in a typical year) or intermittent (flowing continuously during certain
times of a typical year and more than in direct response to precipitation), and not ephemeral (flowing or pooling only in direct response to
precipitation). 84 Fed. Reg. at 4204.

To determine whether a waterway qualifies as a tributary under the proposed rule, one would need to identify
its flow regime to decide which, if any, of the above classifications it fits into. This inquiry may entail, in
addition to a field visit: remote and field-based tools , such as visual observations, photographs, data collection
on flow, trapezoidal flumes and pressure transducers for measuring surface flow and comparing that to rainfall;
StreamStats by the U.S..Geological Survey (USGS) (available at https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS); hydrologic tools and soil maps; desktop tools that provide for the
hydrologic estimation of a discharge sufficient to generate intermittent or perennial flow, such as a regional regression analysis or
hydrologic modeling; USGS topographic data, or modeling tools using drainage area, precipitation data,
climate, topography, land use, vegetation cover, geology, and other publicly available information;
identification of field indicators, such as vegetation and macroinvertebrates, which could be regionalized (for example, the
Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for the Pacific Northwest, at http://www.epa.gov/measurements/streamflow-durationassessment-
methodpacific-northwest. 84 Fed. Reg.at 4176-77.

Thus, determining the flow regime by itself is a complex task, relying on a variety of methodologies,
and requiring expertise at a minimum in hydrology . As such, this analysis would yield a range of potentially inconsistent
results depending on who the expert is and what specific methodology is used in the analysis. The same is true for another task made necessary
by the proposed rule, establishing the “typical year” for the flow regime.24

The Clean Water Rule has a clear and easily understood definition of protected riparian and floodplain waters. This is
not so for the proposed replacement rule. The Clean Water Rule protects any wetland (or other water) within a 100-foot
riparian buffer of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, territorial sea, tributary, or impoundment of a jurisdictional water. 33
C.F.R. 328.3(a)(6), (c)(1), (c)(2)(i). In many instances, it would suffice merely to use a tape measure to determine whether a
wetland in such a buffer is subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. In contrast, under the proposed rule one would have to
determine whether the wetland abutted or had a direct hydrological connection to a jurisdictional water
in a typical year – thereby requiring a challenging determination of what “typical” means and a field hydrologic
investigation if the wetland was not abutting.

Under the Clean Water Rule, any wetland (or other water): (i) within the 100- year floodplain of a traditional navigable water, interstate water,
territorial sea, tributary, or impoundment, and (ii) within 1500 feet of the OHWM of such water is protected under the Act. Id. 328.3(a)(6), (c)
(1), (c)(2)(ii). A map showing the floodplain as defined in the Clean Water Rule with distances drawn to scale would be sufficient to make the
jurisdictional determination. But for
the proposed replacement rule, a professional determination of what
“typical” means and a hydrologic investigation would be needed if the wetland is not abutting, which also can
result in inconsistent and unclear outcomes.25

Thus, the Agencies were arbitrary and capricious in proposing the replacement rule because it frustrates and undercuts
the Agencies’ goal “to increase CWA program predictability and consistency by increasing clarity as to the
scope of ‘waters of the United States.’’’ See Mercy Catholic Medical Center v. Thompson, 380 F.3d at 256.
 1AR A2: Trumps Rule Covers Less

That’s irrelevant --- Jurisdictional determinations outweigh

Finney 19 --- Brad Finney is currently a federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, “ONE WOTUS, TWO POTUS: THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT”, 86 Tenn. L. Rev. 895, Summer 2019, Accessed on Lexis

This increased predictability provided by Trump's Rule is relatively small in impact. 212 Even though
Trump's Rule protects less water, it is difficult to determine what water is covered due to the use of
unclear and subjective language in Trump's Rule. 213 Thus, it is difficult to make a jurisdictional
determination under Trump's Rule [*923] even though there are less steps involved than with an
analysis under Obama's Rule. 214
 1AR Ext --- Clean Water Turns Farming

Turn --- Ineffective CWA threatens economic growth---the link turn massively
outweighs
Mills 19 - Emory Law School Graduate, J.D. 2020 Marguerite Mills, Clean Water Rule: Can Business
Afford Otherwise?, 6 Emory Corp. Governance & Accountability Rev. Perspectives 1009 (2019). Available
at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/ecgar-perspectives/2

Third, large
and small businesses that are clean water dependent filed an amicus brief in the case of
Rapanos v. United States.33 The brief filed on behalf of Bass Pro Shops, The Orvis Company, Inc., American Fisheries Society, Trout
Unlimited and more: businesses and organizations which rely on hunters and anglers as customers, and organizations which represent
professionals who manage fishers and wildlife.34 Amici argue that headwaters,
tributaries and adjacent wetlands are
“inseparably bound to navigable-in-fact waters like trees to their roots” and therefore must be
protected to ensure larger water bodies do not become “lifeless and polluted .”35 They assert hunting,
fishing, and wildlife-related activities maintain a multi-billion dollar a year industry which would be
substantially affected by the degradation and destruction of water resources .36 The final amicus briefs under
review are also from the Rapanos case and represent large businesses that are non-clean-water-dependent.37 These include trade associations
representing corn growers, pork producers, dairy producers, livestock and cattle feeders, as well as general contractors, industrial and office
properties, real estate investment trusts, and shopping centers.38 The real estate groups argue there is no basis in science or law for regulating
wetlands and ephemeral streams and by forcing land owners to obtain expensive CWA permits, the rule slows development inequitably.39 The
agricultural groups echo the same concerns, focused on the “substantial and inappropriate permitting obligations” that are imposed by allowing
regulation of wetlands and other seemingly stand-alone bodies of water with no impact on other bodies of water.40 III. THE
CLEAN
WATER RULE IS A PRO-BUSINESS RULE Instead of attempts to lessen regulations over the water body types or quality of clean
water under the WOTUS definition, focus should be on finding ways to keep stringent protections while expediting the permitting process. No
group or business amicus brief opposes having clean water. The opposition is heavily concerned with the slow, time-consuming, expensive
permitting process. The business benefits of stringent clean water regulation far outweigh the
disadvantages. When it comes to weighing economic and business arguments, the factor that should be given the most weight in
regulating WOTUS is the lack of alternatives a group of businesses will face if stringent regulation is repealed. A large real estate company may
have to pay more for compliance, however stricter
water rules will be unlikely to crush the foundation needed for
their business to exist. On the other hand, the businesses which rely on clean waterways have no way to
continue their work once the water is polluted with chemicals, heavy metals, disease causing bacteria,
fertilizers, or even heat, as these pollutants are not readily removed from water .41 For example, Not a Clue
Adventures leads camping, kayaking, and fishing expeditions in Tampa, Florida but some trips have been marred by algae blooms caused by
upstream polluting.42 The streams and wetlands flowing into the Suwanee River affect its biological integrity which in this case, results in
dissatisfied customers for Not a Clue Adventures.43 The
destruction of industries ranging from craft breweries to
organic farms to outdoor recreation charter companies is more damaging than stalled business
development due to permit requirements . Without a stringent WOTUS definition, the small
businesses this administration vows to protect may be the ones going out of business.

A2: Econ DAs

Jackson 19 --- Derrick Z. Jackson, Union of Concerned Scientists fellow in climate and energy and the
Center for Science and Democracy, “Trump Swamp Threatens Waters of the US”, Jan 2019,
https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/trump-swamp-threatens-waters-of-the-us/
Opponents tried to block Obama’s polishing of these diamonds with wild claims about the harm to the economy. When
WOTUS was proposed, then-House Speaker John Boehner condemned it as a “tyrannical power grab that will crush
jobs.” The American Farm Bureau called it a “nightmare” that would crush the value of some farmland “by as much as 40 percent.” Lawsuits,
including those filed by the US Chamber of Commerce, have pushed the 2015 rule into purgatory; it is currently in force in 22 states and
blocked in the remaining 28. The map of states where the rule is or is not in force looks significantly like the electoral map that propelled Trump
into office.

A month and a half after taking office, Trump signed a February 2017 executive order to review the rules, claiming, “The EPA’s regulators are
putting people out of jobs by the hundreds of thousands.” In June 2018, Scott Pruitt, then Trump’s administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, sarcastically belittled bodies of water he wanted to remove from federal protection, such as prairie potholes, which are
major migratory refuges and breeding grounds for waterfowl. Pruitt called them “prairie puddles,” and that removing them from protection in
states like North Dakota would “save the economy a billion dollars.” Pruitt and farm lobbyists falsely raised the specter of the federal
government swooping in to regulate every ditch dug by a farmer and every rainfall puddle, even though the Obama rule explicitly excluded
ordinary puddles and ditches.

A highly dubious cost-benefit analysis

In its warped notion of freedom for polluters, one of the first things Trump’s EPA did to grease the skids for
the replacement rule was produce a highly dubious cost-benefit analysis that is the polar opposite of one produced
by the Obama EPA.

Under Obama, the EPA projected that the annual costs of complying with enhanced protection might range
from $158 million to $465 million. But, it found, the benefits from wetland mitigation, stormwater implementation,
and other improvements were significantly more, ranging from $349 million to $572 million. Since then, a 2017 study
by researchers at New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity found that, given the value of wetlands and the
public’s willingness to pay for them, a more accurate estimate of annual benefits may be between $612
million and $1 billion.

But Trump’s EPA threw out the benefits of protected wetlands in its so-called analysis. That’s because, according to internal
documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the environment and energy news site E&E, the Trump administration
would exclude half of the nation’s wetland acreage that has been mapped by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. Its cover story for ditching wetland benefits was that studies used by the Obama administration were too old (of course neither
Pruitt nor Wheeler bothered to hustle up one of their own). It also said it was too confusing to consider wetlands where state and federal
jurisdiction overlap (conveniently ignoring how many conservative state legislatures abandoned such protections). The Trump EPA concluded
that its rule would produce only between $34 million to $73 million in annual benefits while avoiding between $162 million and $476 million in
compliance costs.

The selective bean counting of the Trump EPA does not stack up against a world of evidence attesting to the value of clean water. To date,
neither the administration nor lobbyists have offered evidence of any job loss for the 22 states that have been under the rule. As for cropland
values, they soared 55 percent during Obama’s two terms, from $2,640 an acre to $4,090, while rising just one percent in Trump’s first two
years amid his international trade wars that have led to falling incomes for farmers in 2019.

Economic benefits of clean water

The attack on clean water risks putting many people out of work. A 2015 study by researchers from the University of
North Carolina and Yale University found that government and privately funded ecological mitigation programs add
up to a $9.5 billion in annual economic output , providing direct jobs to 126,000 Americans with a
median salary of nearly $50,000. The biggest shares of jobs are in planning, design, engineering, earth moving, and planting and
site construction.

The study authors said their findings run counter to the narrative of the US Chamber of Commerce (and of
course now the Trump administration) that environmental regulation has a “corrosive” effect on the economy .
Moreover, the study bolstered calculations by University of Massachusetts researchers that reforestation and land and
watershed restoration work provide 39 jobs per $1 million invested , compared to five jobs for oil and gas and six for
Trump’s economic centerpiece of coal.
Clean water means much higher quality recreation. Several fishing
and hunting groups have joined forces with
conservation groups to protest the Trump rollback , saying that clean water supports 828,000 jobs in the sports
fishing industry. The Trump administration itself, via a US Fish and Wildlife report, boasts that one in three Americans engage annually in
hunting, fishing, or some form of wildlife-related recreation, pumping $157 billion into the economy.

With wildlife-related recreation increasing 16 percent since 2011, the report said, with obvious irony, “These findings represent good news for
everyone who cares about the health of our wildlife, natural landscapes, and people.”

In even more expansive data, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis says the national outdoor
recreation economy was $412
billion in 2016, and growing faster than the general economy with 4.55 million jobs. The most significant
core activity by revenue was boating and fishing ($37 billion), the most obvious recreational activity that cannot exist
without clean water.

Prefer the link turn---NEG studies overlook economic benefits of environmental

protection
Schwartz and Shrader 17 - Jason Schwartz is the Legal Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at
NYU School of Law. Jeffrey Shrader is the 2017-2018 Economics Fellow at the Institute for Policy
Integrity

Jason Schwartz and Jeffrey Shrader, Muddying the Waters: How the Trump administration is obscuring
the value of wetlands protection from the Clean Water Rule, Institute for Policy Integrity,
https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Muddying_the_Waters.pdf

The EPA and Corps’ proposed redefinition of the “waters of the United States” provides a clear example of
how inappropriate evidence selection can lead to erroneous conclusions. The agencies’ analysis is not based
on a complete evaluation of all the best available information, it applies different criteria for the selection of cost studies
than for benefit studies in a manner that biases the results , and it arbitrarily and mechanically excludes relevant studies
based solely on their age. Reversing their own findings from 2015, the agencies claim that they cannot quantify the environmental benefits
from protecting wetlands under the 2015 Clean Water Rule. By
failing the quantify these environmental benefits, their
economic analysis suggests that the Clean Water Rule would entail larger costs than it will provide in
benefits. In fact, this conclusion is based on an arbitrary and inconsistent assessment of evidence. A
balanced analysis shows that wetlands protected by the Rule would provide substantial economic and
environmental benefits, outweighing the costs of that protection.
 A2: Federalism DA
* Note --- there are more federalism aff cards in the federalism core
 2AC --- A2: Federalism DA

Biden thumps federalism now

Karen Winters, 12-7-2020, partner at Squire Patton Boggs, leading their Environmental, Safety &
Health practice group. Karen has an established reputation for the management of large-scale
environmental liability and compliance issues including strategic counseling; defense of federal and
state enforcement proceedings; and defense of environmental tort claims, “Looking Ahead to 2021 -
Implications of a Change in Administration on Environmental Policy”
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/looking-ahead-to-2021-implications-change-administration-
environmental-policy

Environmental enforcement. The Trump Administration focused on EPA embracing the principles of
“cooperative federalism” and working with states , local governments and tribes rather than dictating a
one-size-fits-all federal mandate on environmental issues. EPA’s FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan specifically implemented
cooperative federalism in the compliance and enforcement process with states primarily taking the lead in enforcement programs. In light
of cooperative federalism, there has been a decline in the number of federal enforcement cases
initiated by EPA under the Trump Administration. In a Biden Administration, it is reasonable to presume
that EPA will not adhere to this more limited role in federal enforcement. Instead, it is likely that EPA in
a Biden Administration will take a more active, aggressive stance in pursuing civil and criminal
enforcement cases at the federal level. EPA will also likely reinstate the use of supplemental
environmental projects (SEPs) in resolving civil enforcement cases – a settlement tool that was phased out and
ultimately eliminated under the Trump Administration. In March 2020, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that EPA lawyers may no
longer use SEPs in consent decrees or settlements because “SEPs violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, which is
intended to protect Congress’ constitutional power of the purse.” We
expect that SEPs will be resurrected and allowed for
use by EPA in settlements in a Biden Administration as a means to carry out specific projects and
implement environmental justice goals.

Federalism tension over water is inevitable and productive---states alone fail

Hansen 17 - PhD Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis Kristiana M.
Hansen, Chapter 1.1 - Meeting the Challenge of Water Scarcity in the Western United States, Editor(s):
Jadwiga R. Ziolkowska, Jeffrey M. Peterson, Competition for Water Resources, Elsevier, 2017, Page 13,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803237-4.00001-X.

Although there may well be a larger role for the federal government in resolving conflicts over water allocation, tensions remain
regarding the proper extent of federal authority over water . In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
an order designed to improve protection for public health and aquatic resources and to clarify the scope of waters of the United States
protected under the Clean Water Act. Within days, more than half of US states (along with industrial and agricultural groups) had filed suit
against the EPA, claiming that the clarifications extended federal regulatory reach into smaller, previously unregulated waterways and ditches
in a way that would increase uncertainty and liability for farmers and ranchers. The case awaits resolution by the courts (Copeland, 2016). USFS
also recently proposed a directive, this one on groundwater resource management, intended to establish a clear approach to evaluating and
monitoring the effects of actions on USFS groundwater resources. USFS subsequently withdrew the directive amid complaints from states (as
well as industry and agriculture) that the directive was an infringement on states’ authority over groundwater management (WGA, 2015).
These tensions
between state and federal authority over water management will continue. They are likely
ultimately useful as well, given, as Huffaker suggests in Chapter 3, relying on traditional state policy to allocate
water among competing uses without continued federal intervention might not be enough to protect
environmental uses of water that society increasingly finds important.

One Federal violation won’t spillover – many safeguards check.

Bednar ‘20
Jenna Bednar, professor of political science at the University of Michigan, member of the external
faculty at the Santa Fe Institute and author of “The Robust Federation: Principles of Design” April 17
2020, "Of course Trump’s authority isn’t ‘total.’ Here are 3 myths about how federalism works,"
Washington Post, - 4/17 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/course-trumps-
authority-isnt-total-here-are-3-myths-about-how-federalism-works/
Instead of coordinating a national pandemic response, the federal government has compounded the collective action problem, as shown by
Jared Kushner’s striking assertion that the national stockpile is “ours” and not a resource for the states. The
founders pointedly
included safeguards to prevent national government overreach or shirking; those include the judiciary,
separation of powers, state representation in federal decisions, intergovernmental councils, the
people themselves and states’ ability to push back. Another safeguard emerged later: the party
system. In a robust federal system, these reinforce one another, a kind of fail-safe system intentionally
full of redundancies. The founders worked to design an institutional immune system so that no single
person or faction could disrupt the government . They hoped that federalism might sustain democracy. What might threaten
this robustness would be what the Federalist Papers called a “lack of diverse interests”: If the judiciary, the branches of federal government and
the internal workings of political parties were all aligned in their thinking or had a culture of obedience, and if the public were apathetic or ill-
informed, then the safeguards may simultaneously fail. Where
Trump has faced limits to his attempts to expand
powers, he has attempted to skirt them: purging internal oversight by firing inspectors general and on
Wednesday, making the extraordinary threat to adjourn Congress so he can make recess appointments.
Will the pandemic serve as a catalyst, making it even easier for the president to accumulate power, or awaken the slumbering safeguards?
The governors’ decisive responses to the pandemic may suggest that the safeguards can again
constrain the federal government.

No commerce clause violation

Worth 16 --- Samuel Worth, Executive Articles Editor, BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
LAW REVIEW, “Water, Water, Everywhere, and Plenty of Drops to Regulate: Why the Newly Published
WOTUS Rule Does Not Violate the Commerce Clause”, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law
Review, Volume 43 Issue 2, 5-31-2016, https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2204&context=ealr

The new WOTUS Rule considers “adjacent waters” to be categorically jurisdictional , and defines
“adjacent” to mean “bordering, contiguous or neighboring.”223 A water-body that is bordering, or contiguous with a
traditionally jurisdictional water, is itself jurisdictional by virtue of a physical, chemical, or biological hydrologic
connection that occurs through actual contact . 224 A water will also be categorically jurisdictional if it is considered
neighboring, meaning that it is close enough in proximity to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas.225

EPA and the Corps have emphasized that the best currently available science supports that waters within the proximity limits establishing
adjacency “possess the requisite connection to downstream waters and function as a system to protect the chemical, physical, or biological
integrity of those waters.”226 Other waters that are adjacent but less hydrologically connected must pass a significant nexus test to be
considered jurisdictional.227 While the scope of the term “adjacent” is certainly broader than before, it still
requires that the adjacent water have either some form of hydrologic connection to water that is navigable-in-
fact, or alternatively, a significant enough nexus so as to influence the quality of the jurisdictional water. 228 This interpretation is
consistent with prevailing judicial interpretations.229 Courts have held that, to establish CWA jurisdiction
of waters, there must be “some measure of the significance of the connection for downstream water
quality.”230
In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Corps’s exercise of
jurisdiction over an abandoned gravel pit.231 The Court held that the presence of a “hydrologic connection” to a navigable-in-fact water is
sufficient to establish CWA jurisdiction over “other waters.”232 The Court clarified this point in Rapanos v. United States, in which the federal
government alleged in an enforcement action that developers dumped fill material into protected wetlands in violation of the CWA.233 The
Court held that not every hydrologic connection could satisfy the significant nexus requirement, because
“the connection may be too insubstantial for the hydrologic linkage to establish the required nexus with
navigable waters as traditionally understood.”234

Because the definition of “adjacent” requires a hydrologic link or significant nexus between adjacent
waters and navigable-in-fact waters, it eliminates the need for federal agencies to demonstrate
separate Commerce Clause jurisdiction over the adjacent water body.235 A significant nexus means
that separate waters affect one another, and therefore the waters can be “evaluated as a single
landscape unit with regard to their effect on the chemical, physical and biological integrity” of navigable-
in-fact waters used as channels of interstate or foreign commerce.236
In United States v. Cundiff, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether or not wetlands located on private property were
sufficiently adjacent to a navigable-in-fact river.237 The
Sixth Circuit determined that due to a significant nexus
between two tributaries, the wetlands were in fact adjacent, and thus fell within CWA jurisdiction .238
Specifically, the court found that the Cundiff family’s alterations consisting of “unauthorized ditch digging,
the mechanical clearing of land, and the dredging of material and using it as filler” had affected the
wetlands’ water storage capacity, which in turn affected the regularity and extent of flooding, and
augmented the flood peaks in the river. 239 Due to the hydrologic connection between the wetlands and
the river, the court described a potential Commerce Clause challenge as “tenuous .”240 Furthermore, in United
States v. Robinson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that it was “well established that
Congress intended to regulate the discharge of pollutants into all waters that may eventually lead to
waters affecting interstate commerce.”241
The KLA argues that the scope of “adjacent waters” in the new WOTUS Rule is contrary to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion in
Rapanos v. United States because it would allow geographically isolated waters to fall under CWA regulation.242 Justice
Kennedy’s
concurrence, however, did not construe adjacency to depend exclusively on geographic locality , but also
on whether the water in question “affects water quality” of a navigable-in-fact water.243 Furthermore, there is
ample legal support for the proposition that adjacency can properly be determined on the basis of a
significant nexus test.244

Turn --- NWPR is anti-federalist

Adler 20 --- Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and inaugural Director of the
Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law,
“Uncooperative Environmental Federalism 2.0”, HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 71:101 May 2020],
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3058&context=faculty_publications

At the same time, some of the

rule’s details suggest the final contours of the rule were motivated as much with
reducing federal regulatory jurisdiction for its own sake as they were with trying to strike a principled
balance between federal and state authority. The rule shows little concern for the need to focus federal
regulatory resources on those waters and wetlands in which there is a distinct federal interest, such as
where there are transboundary resources or interstate spillovers. For example, there is an undeniable
federal interest in regulating the filling or dredging of wetlands where such activities would cause or contribute
to interstate pollution problems or compromise water quality in interstate waterways. Where the effects of wetland
modification are more localized, the federal interest is less clear. Not coincidentally , in the latter case, the legal
basis for federal jurisdiction is also more attenuated.

Perhaps the most conspicuous example of this is the

final rule’s exclusion of interstate waters as a distinct category of waters
included within the definition of “Waters of the United States .” This omission is concerning on both statutory
and policy grounds. As a statutory matter, the category of waters considered to be “ waters of the United
States” would seem to include interstate waters almost by definition. After all, what are “waters of the
United States” if not those waters that concern, or are contained in . more than one of the United States? Indeed, it
would seem that of all non-navigable waters, those that touch and concern more than one state fit more
securely within the definition of “waters of the United States ” than those contained wholly within a single state. The
latter may simply be “waters of the state.” The former cannot.

The exclusion is perhaps more inexplicable on federalism grounds, as interstate waters are precisely
those waters that are least likely to be adequately protected by state and local governments acting on their
own. There is ample evidence that state and other efforts to address water pollution began to produce benefits prior to the enactment of the
CWA.^8 The history of state-level wetland regulation further suggests a great willingness on the part of states to act in defense of wetland
resources within their boundaries.79 Yet there
is little reason to expect states to be as aggressive where the
benefits of any conservation actions they may take will accrue to other jurisdictions.
Because of the particular problems that result from interstate spillovers, and the incentives faced by states that share transboundary or
interstate water resources, the
EPA and Army Corps should pay particular attention to whether the proposed
rule provides adequate protection for interstate waters. It may be true, as the agencies maintained in the rulemaking, that
most interstate waters will be otherwise included within the definition of the “waters of the United States,” yet the agencies provided little
support for this assertion. Indeed, the agencies acknowledged they “lacked the ability” to determine the effect of this exclusion.

Given that interstate waters are readily included within the statutory phrase and that the nature of transboundary resources makes federal
action particularly appropriate, the agencies would have demonstrated a principled commitment to federalism by including interstate waters in
the revised WOTUS definition, at least presumptively.

Adopting a clearer and more focused definition of “waters of the United States” that provides regulatory certainty is certainly beneficial for the
regulated community and will give state governments more leeway to set their own environmental policy priorities on the margin. There are
reasons to believe that state policymakers will be more likely to act when they are more certain of the potential benefits of their interventions.
A clearer and more circumscribed definition may also help facilitate environmental conservation efforts by other non-federal actors. Yet the
revised definition, as promulgated, is disappointing in its adherence to principles of federalism .

The US Constitution isn’t modeled globally – best studies.

Law & Versteeg ’12 (David S. & Mila; Law is a Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Washington University in St.
Louis; Versteeg is Associate Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law; June 2012; “THE DECLINING INFLUENCE OF THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION”; http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-87-3-Law-Versteeg_0.pdf; NYU Law Review,
Volume 87, Number 3; accessed 6/27/17)

It has been suggested, with growing frequency, that the United States may be losing its influence over
constitutionalism in other countries because it is increasingly out of sync with an evolving global consensus on
issues of human rights. Little is known in an empirical and systematic way, however, about the extent to which the U.S. Constitution
influences the revision and adoption of formal constitutions in other countries. In this Article, we show empirically that other
countries have, in recent decades, become increasingly unlikely to model either the rights-related provisions or
the basic structural provisions of their own constitutions upon those found in the U.S. Constitution. Analysis of sixty
years of comprehensive data on the content of the world’s constitutions reveals that there is a significant and
growing generic component to global constitutionalism, in the form of a set of rights provisions that appear in nearly all
formal constitutions. On the basis of this data, we are able to identify the world’s most and least generic constitutions. Our analysis also
confirms, however, that the U.S. Constitution is increasingly far from the global mainstream . The fact that the U.S.
Constitution is not widely emulated raises the question of whether there is an alternative paradigm that constitutional drafters in other
countries now employ as a model instead. One possibility is that their attention has shifted to some other prominent national constitution. To
evaluate this possibility, we analyze the content of the world’s constitutions for telltale patterns of similarity to the constitutions of Canada,
Germany, South Africa, and India, which have often been identified as especially influential. We find some support in the data for the notion
that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has influenced constitution making in other countries.
This influence is neither uniform nor global in scope, however, but instead reflects an evolutionary path shared primarily by other common law
countries. By comparison, we uncover no patterns that would suggest widespread constitutional emulation of Germany, South Africa, or India.
Another possibility is that international and regional human rights instruments have become especially influential upon the manner in which
national constitutions are written. We find little evidence to indicate that any of the leading human rights treaties now serves as a dominant
model for constitutional drafters. Some noteworthy patterns of similarity between national constitutions and international legal instruments do
exist: For example, the constitutions of undemocratic countries tend to exhibit greater similarity to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
while those of common law countries manifest the opposite tendency. It is difficult to infer from these patterns, however, that countries have
actually emulated international or regional human rights instruments when writing their constitutions. INTRODUCTION: THE DECLINE AND FALL
OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM? In 1987, to mark the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, Time magazine released a special issue in
which it called the Constitution “a gift to all nations” and proclaimed proudly that 160 of the 170 nations then in existence had modeled their
constitutions upon our own.2 As boastful as the claim may be, the editors of Time were not entirely without reason. Over its two centuries of
history, the U.S. Constitution has had an immense impact on the development of constitutionalism around the world.3 Constitutional law has
been called one of the “great exports” of the United States.4 In a number of countries, constitutional drafters have copied extensively, and at
times verbatim, from the text of the U.S. Constitution.5 Countless more foreign constitutions have been characterized as this country’s
“constitutional offspring.”6 It
is widely assumed among scholars and the general public alike that the United States remains
“the hegemonic model” for constitutionalism in other countries.7 The U.S. Constitution in particular continues to be
described as “the essential prototype of a written, single document constitution.”8 There can be no denying the popularity of the Constitution’s
most important innovations, such as judicial review, entrenchment against legislative change, and the very idea of written constitutionalism.9
Today, almost 90% of all countries possess written constitutional documents backed by some kind of judicial enforcement.10 As a result, what
Alexis de Tocqueville once described as an American peculiarity is now a basic feature of almost every state.11 There are growing suspicions,
however, that America’s days as a constitutional hegemon are coming to an end.12 It has been said that the
United States is losing constitutional influence because it is increasingly out of sync with an evolving global
consensus on issues of human rights.13 Indeed, to the extent that other countries still look to the United States
as an example, their goal may be less to imitate American constitutionalism than to avoid its perceived flaws
and mistakes.14 Scholarly and popular attention has focused in particular upon the influence of American constitutional jurisprudence.
The reluctance of the U.S. Supreme Court to pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”15 by
participating in an ongoing “global judicial dialogue”16 is supposedly diminishing the global appeal and
influence of American constitutional jurisprudence .17 Studies conducted by scholars in other countries have begun
to yield empirical evidence that citation to U.S. Supreme Court decisions by foreign courts is in fact on
the decline.18 By contrast, however, the extent to which the U.S. Constitution itself continues to influence the adoption and revision of
constitutions in other countries remains a matter of speculation and anecdotal impression. With the help of an extensive data set of
our own creation that spans all national constitutions over the last six decades, this Article explores the extent to which
various prominent constitutions—including the U.S. Constitution—epitomize generic rights constitutionalism or are, instead, increasingly out of
sync with evolving global practice. A stark contrast can be drawn between the declining attraction of the U.S.
Constitution as a model for other countries and the increasing attraction of the model provided by
America’s neighbor to the north, Canada. We also address the possibility that today’s constitution makers look for
inspiration not only to other national constitutions, but also to regional and international human rights
instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Our findings do
little to assuage American fears of diminished influence in the constitutional sphere.
 1AR Ext --- No Link To Federalism

Expanded WOTUS definition doesn’t violate the commerce clause

Worth 16 --- Samuel Worth, Executive Articles Editor, BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
LAW REVIEW, “Water, Water, Everywhere, and Plenty of Drops to Regulate: Why the Newly Published
WOTUS Rule Does Not Violate the Commerce Clause”, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law
Review, Volume 43 Issue 2, 5-31-2016, https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2204&context=ealr

The “case-specific” analysis to determine whether an “other water” has a significant nexus to a water
that is navigable focuses on the degree to which the “other water” affects the chemical, physical, or biological
integrity of the navigable-in-fact water.212 The WOTUS Rule has been challenged by opposition groups,
including the NAHB, for impermissibly regulating under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), activities that
substantially affect interstate commerce, rather than “channels” of interstate commerce.213 Indeed, the
power of Congress to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce is limited, as the NAHB suggests, to activities that are
economic in nature.214

In United States v. Deaton, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether the CWA
could prohibit private property owners from discharging fill material into wetlands adjacent to traditional
navigable waters.215 The Fourth Circuit held that the Commerce Clause can be used to regulate not just
channels of interstate commerce themselves, but also their use or misuse.216 Additionally, in United States v.
Royal Rock Co-op, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture had overstepped his Commerce Clause authority by issuing an order regulating the handling of milk in the New York
metropolitan area.217 The
Court found that the Commerce Clause, in addition to regulating channels of
interstate commerce themselves, also authorizes the regulation of activities that interfere with
interstate commerce.2

The regulatory determinations called for by the new Rule focus on the degree to which the “other
water” affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the navigable-in-fact water. 219
Therefore, it effectually focuses on several ways in which the “other water” could interfere with the way
a navigable-in-fact water is used.220 Thus, the regulation prescribed in the new WOTUS Rule could
reasonably be described as a controlling interference with, or the use or misuse of, a “channel” of
interstate commerce.221 The NAHB’s argument that “other water” regulation under the new Rule is an
impermissible stretch of Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that “substantially affect interstate commerce” is
unsound, because the regulation can be understood as preventing misuse and interference with
navigable-in-fact “channels” of interstate commerce that might be “misused” through pollution, or
otherwise chemically, physically, or biologically interfered with via flow connectivity. 222

No state right to regulate water

Brian W. Blomain 20. J.D. Candidate, May 2020, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law;
B.B.A., Economics, Philosophy Minor, 2017, Loyola University Maryland. "Trump Administration Makes a
Splash: The Altered Clean Water Act's Rippling Effect on State and Federal Water Regulation." Villanova
Environmental Law Journal 31. No. 1 (2019): 83-112.
A properly proposed change to the CWA would allow the EPA to take full control over the WOTUS,
including waters within the individual states.1 65 In this type of proposal, the state governments would simply
be acting as enforcers of the law as opposed to individual states making proposals for their own regulatory plans.16 6
To achieve the maximum social welfare from CWA enforcement, lawmakers' best bet is to spend more
of the allocated funding on proper enforcement of the CWA. 67 The EPA needs to be given the power to
overrule the state regulatory plans because the majority of the wastefulness from the CWA stems from
inefficiencies within state government.' 68 A change like this would allow for the proper constitutionally
vested authority, the EPA, to regulate all of the WOTUS without state-level interference. 1 6 The
proposal would also reduce government waste and increase social welfare because the EPA, being an executive
branch regulatory agency, has the most power and knowledge to create successful and efficient regulations . 70
For example, the EPA would have the authority to instruct states that portions of their CWA compliance are less efficient
than national averages and need to be changed to fit the status quo.' 7 1 These state-level inefficiencies could come by way of
expensive water treatment facilities, testing, or simply manpower hours expended to ensure
compliance.' 7 2 More than 650 billion of taxpayer dollars are being allocated towards state water treatment facilities and the reduction of
water pollution as a whole, and there is no correlation with an in increase in social welfare. 173 It is time to start reallocating taxpayer dollars to
enforcement and compliance of the rules under the CWA not only to make sure that companies are complying with the CWA, but also that the
EPA is enforcing the penalties imposed to deter future pollution.' 74
Although one could argue that such a change would raise commandeering red flags under the Tenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the
power to regulate water was never actually vested in the states in the first place.' 7 5 Congress
has completely delegated
its power of environmental control to the federal EPA , not necessarily the
individualized state EPAs.1 76 Congress needs to step in and "emphasize in statute that water resources are
best protected when the federal and state partnership outlined in the CWA is respected," not when a
regulation permits states to make their own regulatory plans and the federal EPA has little say.' 77
A2: Congressional Politics DA
 2AC --- A2: Congressional Politics DA

Won’t pass- no compromise agreement

Burgess Everett, 6-3-2021, "GOP mulls throwing Biden more infrastructure money," POLITICO,
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/03/gop-infrastructure-money-491776

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), her party's lead infrastructure negotiator, is preparing to come
back to the table with Biden tomorrow in the latest round of high-stakes talks that have frozen the
White House's initial $4 trillion proposal on Capitol Hill. The gap between the two sides is massive at the
moment — Biden and Republicans aren’t even counting the size of the bill the same way and are
approximately $750 billion apart. Their differences appear nearly impossible to bridge right now,
according to two GOP sources familiar with the negotiations.

Biden announcement of reg changes thump

Unity and floor time links thumped- unemployment and judicial confirmations
Marianne Levine & Sarah Ferris, 5-24-2021, "Dems sweat a summer pileup of big votes on Biden’s
agenda," Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/24/democrats-brace-for-heated-legislative-
summer-490184

Before summer’s end, Democrats also must determine the fate of pandemic-related unemployment
benefits, with an extra $300 per week in federal jobless benefits set to expire Sept. 6. It’s likely to be a
divisive issue, even among Democrats, with moderates and liberals at odds over whether to extend the
aid as vaccinations increase, but the nation continues to see troubling economic indicators. Republicans
aren’t expected to support an extension, arguing that the benefits discourage returning to work.

Schumer cautioned his caucus at an in-person lunch last month that Democrats don’t have the luxury of
time, given the tight legislative calendar and the need for the Senate to keep confirming Biden’s
nominees. While the Senate has confirmed nearly all of Biden’s Cabinet picks, the chamber is soon
expected to ramp up its pace of judicial confirmations, further bogging down the floor schedule.

Announcement delayed until after the infrastructure debate

No vote switching --- ideology, party affiliation and commitments overwhelm

Edwards 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in
Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the
White House Transition Project

The best evidence is that presidential persuasion is effective only at the margins of congressional
decision making. Presidential legislative leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the
president’s control and must compete with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress in
addition to party. These include ideology, personal views and commitments on specific policies, and
the interests of constituencies. By the time a president tries to exercise influence on a vote, most
members of Congress have made up their minds on the basis of these other factors.

Courts don’t link

Mazzone 18 --- Jassone Mazzone, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, “Above Politics: Congress and the Supreme Court in 2017,” Chicago-Kent Law
Review Vol 93 Iss 2 Art 5, Aug 9 2018, https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4207&context=cklawreview

CONCLUSION After President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of
Justice Scalia, fifteen House Republicans sponsored a Resolution that “the House firmly supports the
nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court” and “the Senate should hold a swift confirmation of
this nomination.”229 The proposed resolution died, without further action, in the Committee on the Judiciary. While Gorsuch was, of
course, confirmed, the failure of the Republican-controlled House to pass a simple resolution supporting the nomination is telling. After an
election season in which the Supreme Court figured very prominently, aside from the Senate’s
confirmation of a new Justice, Congress in 2017 accomplished nothing with respect to the Supreme
Court. Various bills and resolutions —some sponsored by Republicans, others by Democrats, and some garnering bipartisan
support—targeted statutory and constitutional rulings by the Court and sought also to impose new
regulations upon the Court’s activities . Even the most modest of these proposals failed to advance
through the legislative process and become law. We like to think that the Supreme Court, guided solely
by the rule of law, is above politics. The experience of 2017 suggests that the Court may also be above
politics in the quite different sense that its rulings and activities are largely immune to political
response and redress.

Bidens plan not sufficient to solve

Corbett 3/21 (Jessica Corbett, staff writer, March 22nd 2021, “Even Manchin Called for $4 Trillion':
Progressives Say Biden's Infrastructure Plan Falls Short” Common Dreams,
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/22/even-manchin-called-4-trillion-progressives-say-
bidens-infrastructure-plan-falls) MULCH

But while this recommendation would be a huge step forward, the

crises we face demand at least $1 trillion per year
over the next decade," Sciales continued, adding that "$3 trillion is simply not enough to create jobs in the
national interest, combat the climate crisis, and support working people."
People's Action Climate Justice Campaign director Kaniela Ing agreed, saying that "I'm encouraged to see President Biden driving forward his
campaign promise to create millions of good jobs to tackle the climate crisis. But $3 trillion is not enough to address the scale
of the overlapping crises we face."
The critique was echoed by Claire Guzdar, campaign manager and spokesperson for ProsperUS, a coalition of more than 75 progressive
organizations.
"The current draft proposal of $3 trillion does not go far enough in rebuilding our broken economy and
meeting the critical needs of the climate, caregiving, racial injustice, and other crises," she said. "The
administration needs to be more aggressive in their economic policy proposals to make up for decades
of underinvestment and debunked economic thinking that created our fragile and unequal economy."
 1AR Ext --- Courts Don’t L2P

Courts don’t link

Don’t deal with gridlock or political pressure, take the blame from presidents that might have electoral
costs

Ward 9 (Artemus, Professor – Political Science – Northern Illinois University “Political Foundations of
Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court”, Congress & the Presidency, Jan-Apr, (36)1; p.
119)
After the old order has collapse the once- united, new-regime coalition begins to fracture as original commitments are extended to new issues.
In chapter 3 Whittington combines Skowronek's articulation and disjunctive categories into the overarching "affiliated" presidencies as both
seek to elaborate the regime begun under reconstructive leaders. By this point in the ascendant regime, Bourts are staffed by justices from the
dominant ruling coalition via the appointment process - and Whittington spends time on appointment politics here and more fully in chapter 4.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, affiliated political actors - including presidents - encourage Courts to exercise vetoes
and operate in issue areas of relatively low political salience. Of course, this "activism" is never used against the affiliated president
per se. Instead, affiliated Courts correct for the overreaching of those who operate outside the preferred constitutional vision, which are often
state and local governments who need to be brought into line with nationally dominant constitutional commitments. Whittington explains
why it is easier for affilitated judges, rather than affiliated presidents, to rein in outliers and conduct
constitutional maintenance. The latter are saddled with controlling opposition political figures, satisfying
short-term political demands, and navigating intraregime gridlock and political thickets. Furthermore, because
of their electoral accountability , politicians engage in position-taking , credit-claiming, and blame-avoidance behavior. By contrast,
their judicial counterparts are relatively sheltered from political pressures and have more
straightforward decisional processes. Activist Courts can take the blame for advancing and legitimizing
constitutional commitments that might have electoral costs. In short, a division of labor exists between politicians and
judges affiliated with the dominant regime.

Courts shield the link

Chemerinsky ’17 (Erwin; 4/1/17; Professor of Law at UC-Berkeley, J.D. from Harvard Law School, B.S. from Northwestern University,
author of ten books and specialist in judicial affairs; William & Mary Law Review, “In Defense of Judicial Supremacy,”
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3801&amp;context=facpubs)

Accordingly, in deciding who should be the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution, the answer is the
branch of government that can
best enforce the Constitution's limits against the desires of political majorities. By this criterion, the federal
judiciary is the obvious choice. It is the institution most insulated from political pressures.2 Article III of the
Constitution provides that federal court judges have life tenure unless impeached and that their salary may not be
decreased during their terms of office.28 Unlike legislators or the President, they never face reelection. 29
Furthermore, the method of federal judicial selection reinforces its antimajoritarian character. Unlike the House of
Representatives, whose members are elected at the same time, or the Senate, where one-third of the members are chosen in each election,
the President appoints the Court's members one at a time, as vacancies arise. 30 “Generally, no single
administration is able to appoint a majority of the Court or the federal judiciary. The result is that the Court
reflects many political views, not just the one that dominates at a particular time. Other reasons exist, too, why the
judiciary is the branch of government that is best suited to enforce the Constitution and should be deemed its
authoritative interpreter. First, the judiciary is the only institution obligated to hear the complaints of a
single person. For the most part, the federal judiciary's jurisdiction is mandatory. Although the Supreme
Court can choose which cases to hear, a lower federal court must (with relatively rare exceptions)" rule on every
case properly filed with it.32 Long ago, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not
but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. We have no more right to decline the exercise of
jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given."
 A2: SetCol K
*Note --- you can certainly build your own 2AC based on the length of the 1NC
argument --- this 2AC is a bit long, but it could be longer or shorter.
There are also extensive 1AR cards in the SetCol Core
 2AC --- A2: SetCol K

(___) Framework --- Plan vs a competitive policy option --- its best for aff ground ---
otherwise they moot 8 minutes of the 1AC

(___) And it turns their framework --- Debating the details of water policy is able to
facilitate pragmatic education that can challenge environmental destruction and
status quo ecological sovereignty --- only our framework access the nitty gritty of
policy water debates
Gerlack ’08 (Andrea Gerlack, University of Arizona, “Today’s Pragmatic Water Policy: Restoration, Collaboration, and
Adaptive Management Along U.S. Rivers”, Society & Natural Resources, 21:6, ppg. 540-541)

Today’s water policy is characterized by more pragmatic intergovernmental relatio ns. It mirrors the pragmatism
of John Dewey that has been revived in recent years by philosophers, political scientists, and legal scholars (Rorty 1999; Evans 2000, 312; Box
2002; Foucault 1991; Farber 1999; Karkkainen 2003; Morales 2003). For Dewey, every
social policy is ‘‘logically, and should
be actually, of the nature of an experiment’’ to be tested (Dewey 1938, 508–509). It is attuned to problems
and the development of solutions. The art of government today entails an emphasis on developing
competencies and capacities to better solve societal problems as opposed to an older effort of
legitimating sovereign rule (Foucault 1991).
Pragmatic approaches are a response to the hyperpluralism, excessive litigation, and broad public
support for environmental and restoration values that have come to characterize water policy (Gerlak
2005). No one event or piece of legislation captures the pragmatic federalism of today’s water policy
exclusively. Rather, they are place-based, collaborative, and experimental. They are unique to their
circumstances—geographic, ecological, political, and social. The division of authority or locus of
decision-making is less important. Water attorney John E. Thorson calls it the ‘‘new pragmatism’’ or ‘‘contingency
management’’—‘‘a return to practicality—whatever works!’’ (Thorson 2003, 358–359).
Although there is not an established governing philosophy or policy per se, one can discern some particular characteristics of current water
policy by taking a sweeping look at modern water-related activities and programs around rivers. Today’s
water policy is
characterized by a pragmatism that emphasizes (1) restoration efforts, (2) collaborative institutional
arrangements, and (3) adaptive management strategies. These characteristics are not applied uniformly
within water systems or geographic locations, nor do they exist in all systems or watersheds.
Increasingly, decision makers and environmental organizations are emphasizing the restoration of
streams and rivers in the United States . In 1992 the National Research Council (NRC) recommended the restoration of
ecologically altered rivers and streams in the United States (NRC 1992). It is estimated that more than $1 billion is being spent on river and
stream restoration projects nationwide today, with the number of projects increasing by six times over the past 10 years (Bernhardt et al. 2005,
636–637). Thereare a range of restoration efforts underway including reclamation efforts, dam removals,
restoration of habitat, and simulation of natural flows (Lowry 2003, 61–62; Clark 2004). The Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan passed by Congress in 2000 is considered to be the largest ecosystem restoration project in human history (Clarke and
Dalrymple 2003, 541). The objective of the plan is the restoration of the ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region,
including water supply and flood protection (U.S. Army Corps and South Florida Water Management District [SFWMD] 2003).
As in the case of the Everglades, other restoration efforts also aim to integrate ecosystem restoration goals with engineering and development
strategies. For example, the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, dating back to the late 1980s, is designed to both
recover endangered Colorado River basin fish and provide for future water deliveries for agricultural, municipal, and hydroelectric uses (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2005). In April 2005, after nine years of planning, implementation began on the Lower Colorado River
MultiSpecies Conservation Program. This multi-agency coordinated effort aims to ‘‘conserve and recover
endangered species and to protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River’’ (U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation [USBR] 2005). There are also restoration efforts underway on the Upper Mississippi. An active
coalition of environmental and representative committees plan and implement habitat restoration along
the river and improve governmental coordination and research activities (Northeast Midwest Institute 2005). Efforts
are even underway to devise a way to restore the Los Angeles River, a system thought to have become the ‘‘world’s largest storm drain’’
(Millions 2005; Hyman 2005).
In response to growing political pressure, federal natural resource agencies have expanded their
missions to incorporate environmental restoration values. For example, the Bureau of Reclamation announced a policy of
‘‘no new dams’’ in 1987, changing its mission from water developer to water manager. Under the Clinton Administration, the Army Corps of
Engineers began its transition to ‘‘environmental protector,’’ moving from a water development mission to a water management one (Clarke
and McCool 1996, 45).
Despite the rise of restoration strategies in recent years, there is little agreement on what constitutes successful river restoration efforts today
(Palmer et al. 2005, 208). Moreover, not all participants in a particular restoration effort may even define it or see it the same way (Woolley and
McGinnis 2000, 340; Connelley and Knuth 2002). Some scientists have raised concerns that there is not enough monitoring of restoration
projects (Bash and Ryan 2002).

(___) Perm do both --- Challenging environmental injustice through state engagement
is key – that includes action through the court
NoiseCat 16 (Julian Brave - enrolled member of the Canim Lake Band Tsq'escen in British Columbia
where he was nominated to run for Chief in 2014 AND a graduate of Columbia University and the
University of Oxford, “The Indigenous Revolution,” 11/24/16,
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/standing-rock-dakota-access-pipeline-obama/)

Movements working to reshape infrastructure, environmental policy, financial systems, policing, and
work will be of particular importance to indigenous people. Fossil fuel divestment and the “Keep It in
the Ground” movement can weaken and even undermine companies seeking to exploit fossil fuels on
indigenous lands. Regulations that dismantle financial instruments and policies that profit from natural
resource speculation could divert and damage returns on capital flows. The abolition of mass incarceration would
loosen the death grip of prisons and police on indigenous communities. Unions can turn individual workers into collective forces of resistance,
helping drive up costs for developers and protect laborers from unsafe working conditions. Long-term efforts to reimagine work through full
automation and a universal basic income could prevent laborers from having to seek such dangerous work in the first place. As Standing Rock
has shown, indigenous nations that use their unique standing to advocate for viable alternatives to unjust
systems will gain supporters. Our traditional territories encompass the rivers, mountains, and forests
that capital exploits with abandon. Our resistance — to the pipelines, bulldozers, and mines that cut
through our lands and communities — has greater potential than yet realized. Ours is a powerful voice
envisioning a more harmonious and sustainable relationship with the natural world rooted in the
resurgence of indigenous sovereignty. As long as indigenous people continue to make this argument, we
are positioned to win policies, court decisions, and international agreements that protect and enlarge
our sovereignty and jurisdiction. As our jurisdiction and sovereignty grow, we will have more power to
stop, reroute, and transform carbon-based, capitalist, and colonial infrastructure. When the Justice Department
halted construction of DAPL in October, they also said they would begin looking into Free Prior Informed Consent legislation. This is a minimal
first step, and we must hold them to it. Longstanding
alliances with progressive parties and politicians are key to
our success. In the United States, Native people have worked with Democratic elected officials like Bernie
Sanders and Raúl Grijalva to advance bills like the Save Oak Flat Act, which aimed to stop an
international mining conglomerate from exploiting an Apache sacred site in Arizona. In Canada, First Nations
have supported the New Democratic Party. In New Zealand, the Maori Rātana religious and political movement has an alliance with the Labour
Party that stretches back to the 1930s. Some indigenous leaders, such as outspoken Aboriginal Australian leader Pat Dodson, a Labour senator
for Western Australia, have won prominent positions in these parties. This does not mean, of course, that we should pay deference to elected
officials. In 2014, Obama became one of the first sitting presidents to visit an Indian reservation when he travelled to Standing Rock. His visit
was historically symbolic and emotionally important, but if Obama fails to stop DAPL, indigenous people should renounce him. Politicians are
helpful when they change policies and outcomes. We cannot and should not settle for symbolic victories. If there is to be an enduring
indigenous-left coalition, the Left must support indigenous demands for land, jurisdiction, and sovereignty. At their core, these demands
undermine the imperial cut-and-paste model of the nation-state, stretching from Hobbes to the present, which insists that there is room for
just one sovereign entity in the state apparatus. Thomas Piketty’s call for a global wealth tax implies an international governance structure to
levy such a tax. He pushes us
to think beyond the state. Similarly, indigenous demands for lands, jurisdiction,
and sovereignty imply that we must think beneath it. As the Fourth World continues to push states to recognize our
inherent, constitutional, and treaty rights as sovereign nations, the Left cannot remain neutral. To remain neutral is to perpetuate a long history
of colonization. To remain neutral is to lose a valuable, organized, and powerful ally.

--- The perm is best --- You should adopt a contingent understanding of decolonial
possibilities – understanding colonial violence as something that transcends state-
based reforms naturalizes settler colonial power and renders resistance impossible
Corntassel 14 (Jeff, Tsalagi (Cherokee), University of Victoria; Corey Snelgrove, University of British
Columbia; Rita Kaur Dhamoon, University of Victoria; “Unsettling settler colonialism: The discourse and
politics of settlers, and solidarity with Indigenous nations”, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education &
Society Vol. 3, No. 2, 2014, pp. 1-32)

Discussion

Rita: We need to problematize the

question of solidarity because it separates issues, as if Indigenous issues are
distinctly separate from migration issues, issues around temporary foreign workers, violence against
women, etc. in two ways. One, it suggests that the white settler nation doesn’t need to maneuver
different bodies – Indigenous bodies, white bodies, bodies of colour, male, female, trans, queer, poor,
disabled, religious, secular, citizens, noncitizen workers, refugees – differently. And also, in my case, people of
colour are also structurally implicated in dispossession , whether that’s our choice or not. So it posits that
‘your’ issues of Indigenous land are not separate from ‘my’ issues if I care about racism , sexism, and that
I must think about the ways they are related to settler colonialism . Jeff: I guess for me ‘solidarity’ gets away from the
direct accountability, the trust elements that are embedded in any relationship that you have. So that trust and accountability are ongoing
feedback loops, if you will, that you have to constantly renegotiate or reinterpret in order to act in solidarity, or act in concert, or act in
camaraderie. But I think these terms mask the messiness of that overall process. Corey: I agree with both your critiques. Solidarity does
sometimes seem to imply a distinctness that, like you state Rita, ignores relations and complicity between. And like you state Jeff, there does
seem to be an underlying conceptualization of solidarity as temporal event. Jeff: And in terms of the temporal, at what point does forgetfulness
become a problem? A Tsalagi saying, “Live in a longer ‘now’— learn your history and culture and understand it is what you are now,” urges us
to consider that notions of time are fluid and flexible. After all, the Tsalagi word for “I am forgetting” is agikewsga, which literally means I am
blind or am unable to see something that happened in the past (Altman and Belt, 2012, p. 232). To live in a longer ‘now’, it becomes one’s
responsibility to live in tohi, or a process of balance and according to the pace of the natural world (p. 227). In this sense, 'the longer now'
implies not just a different time scale but also future generational responsibilities. So there is a different sense of Indigenous place-based and
living histories that should be understood by folks proposing to act in solidarity. If someone is just simply saying ‘I’m a Canadian, and I don’t
know my history’, how useful is that to deepening solidarity? Maybe that forgetfulness… is also sort of convenient. You haven’t done the hard
work to uncover your role, or your family’s role in, whether it’s direct colonial actions or just settling here. Corey: This not knowing, this
forgetting of our own histories, just supports the claiming of space and place. These histories too are obviously entangled and complex. For
instance, my great-great grandfather and his family were settlers in Ohio, eventually becoming a doctor and Christian missionary in the interior
of China. This side of my family stayed in China – over time, transitioning from Christian missionaries to foreign capitalists – until the Second
World War, when my great-grandfather was interned and my grandmother with her mother and brother came to Canada. So my own ancestral
history is entangled with the global structures of settler colonialism, capitalism, christianity, white supremacy and imperialism. And how does
this affect my own approaches and thoughts to solidarity? If I’m responsible to Indigenous peoples who have been and continue to be displaced
and dispossessed by myself and my ancestors, and thus accountable to the structures and practices of settler colonialism and ultimately their
destruction, am I not also responsible for my ancestors who served as missionaries and capitalists in China, and thus accountable to the
structures and practices undergirding those acts? How does this longer, entangled, complex history contribute to solidarity practices with
Indigenous peoples, and (in combination and/or isolation) amongst settlers ourselves? Rita: It is a challenge to know what it means to be ‘fully
grounded’, in a social and political sense. Growing up in the UK as a brown person in the 1970s and 1980s, during the era of overt police racism,
the rise of the National Front, the antiimmigrant stance of Margaret Thatcher, I recall noting that there was a battlefield and that I was in
solidarity with nonwhites. When I first arrived in Canada, the terrain shifted. I remember a series of racist incidences my family and I
experienced. One of them was when my brother went to apply for a job as a bar tender and, in the window it said, ‘No dogs allowed, no Indians
allowed’. He was mad when he got home, we were all angry. It took us a few months to realize that the notice was about Indigenous peoples,
not us as peoples from India. But the connections and differences started to form in my mind. I find it helpful when I think of the history of
colonialisms, of my family, and my role in Canada now to use ‘settler colonialism’ because it centres the dispossession of land as a distinguishing
and ongoing colonial feature. Colonial assemblages certainly exist in India today too, such as in the road or education system but this is not
government by a colonial body. The challenge is when we see colonialisms and racisms as separate, because the dispossession of Indigenous
peoples lands is related to the history of British and European imperialism in India, Africa, the Caribbean, and other parts of the world, and also
continuing. And these are patriarchal, heteronormative, ablest, and capitalist imperial formations that remain relevant today. Corey: This
relational, interdependent focus is also important amongst settlers ourselves – perhaps as a way to counter the flattening of differences that
occurs amongst settlers, particularly in solidarity work. Settlers
obviously need to be doing our own work and
challenging ‘our’ institutions and practices that serve to protect or further colonization. But we can’t do
this if we flatten the differences and ignore the inequalities and power relationships that exist within
settler society. Not only does such flattening prevent much needed alliances but flattening itself can
actually work to protect certain elements of settler colonialism . For instance, white supremacy works to naturalize
white settler presence. In terms of solidarity then, I find it problematic for myself, as a white, class privileged, cis-hetero, and able bodied male
(as well as people like me) to demand other peoples to act in solidarity, while also not holding myself (and others like me) responsible and
accountable to other forms of violence that may be a contributing factor to the further reification of structures that support settler colonialism,
like the State. Now I’m not arguing for the continued eschewal of Indigenous governance and legal orders
because others experience violence, but rather, that the substantive recognition of Indigenous
governance and legal orders also requires a dismantling of other, related forms of domination . This latter
dismantling I see as necessary but also insufficient for the dismantling of settler colonialism. These sites and spaces of domination
and resistance are distinct, but also connected dialectically. This seems to be something that settlers, white settlers
specifically, have yet to articulate and take up, critique and act against. And this is perhaps most evident in how settlers seem to be
continuously waiting for instruction from Indigenous peoples on how to act. Rita: I wonder if this relational
approach is a more useful direction for settler colonial studies, not unlike the kind of work you do Jeff, in thinking about
colonialism in a global, comparative context. Jeff: And I think, the more you can make those links, the British occupation of
Maori territory is directly related to HBC’s strategy to begin treaty making here… All those things are interrelated. They are shared, and they are
seen as shared strategies. The other thing I see is this impulse to delocalize it… it’s always that kind of Free Tibet Syndrome… the further away
acts of genocide are from your location, the more outrage expressed at these injustices. It’s a way of avoiding complicity, but it’s also a way of
recasting the gaze. It’s like, ‘We’re not going to look right here, because this appears to be fairly peaceful’ And so it’s always that sort of re-
directing away from localized responsibility, and almost magnifying impacts farther away. Rita: So what settler colonial studies does do, is help
us relocate to locality, which is helpful. You mention the HBC. I wonder what was the relationship between the Hudson Bay Company in Canada
and the East India Company or the East Africa Company? If we’re thinking about settler colonialism as a structure, how is it related to other
modalities of gendered and sexualized white supremacy? How are the logics of State sovereignty and authority over nonwhite bodies
connected? If we’re thinking about it, as non-Indigenous peoples being ‘in solidarity’, part of that is locating, attacking the whole structure of
imperialism that is deeply gendered and homonationalist, that depends on neo-liberal projects of prioritizing able-bodied workers who can
serve capitalism. Corey: Part of this, I think, what we’ve been discussing here, relates to what I sometimes see as the
framing of ‘settler’
as event, rather than structure – where we are perhaps overly focused on the question of ‘who’ at the
expense of the ‘how’. If we don’t understand how settlers are produced we run the risk of representing settlers as some sort of
transhistorical subject with transhistorical practices. So I’m worried that while in one moment the term ‘settler’
denaturalizes our – that is all non-Indigenous peoples – presence on Indigenous lands , in the next, and through
this construction of the ‘settler’ as transhistorical, we renaturalize it. In short, we go from a disavowal of
colonization, to its representation as inevitable. Here is where I think a historical materialist or genealogical
approach to the production of settler subjects may be useful in showing how this production is
conditioned by but also contingent on a number of factors – white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy,
capitalism, colonization, the eschewal of Indigenous governance and legal orders, environmental
degradation, etc. Now this is also not to say that the binary of Indigenous/Settler isn’t accurate. I think its fundamental. Rather, I think it is
possible and important to recognize that there have been, and are, individuals (or even collectives) that might be referred to as something
other than settlers by Indigenous peoples, perhaps as cousins. Or in a similar vein, that there have been and are practices by settlers that aren’t
colonial (and here is where centering Indigenous peoples’ accounts of Indigenous-settler relations, as well as their own governance, legal and
diplomatic orders is crucial). But I think it’s just as important to recognize that these relations have and do not occur despite settler colonial and
imperial logics, and thus outside of the binary. Rather, such relations occur in the face of it. The binary then is fundamental as the logics that
uphold the binary cannot be ignored due to the existence of possiblly good relations as the logics that uphold the binary threaten those
relations through the pursuit of the elimination of Indigenous peoples. Rita: Yet, how do we act in light of these entanglements, and with,
rather than overcoming differences? Corey: Tuck and Yang (2012) had this really great article, “Decolonization is not a Metaphor.” In it, they
talk about the importance of an ethics of incommensurability – a recognition of how anti-racist and anti-capitalist struggles are
incommensurable with decolonization. But what I’ve been thinking about recently is whether these struggles are incompatible. For example, in
the Indigenous resurgence literature, there is a turn away, but it’s also not an outright rejection. It also demands settlers to change. Yet
recognizing that settlers are (re)produced, the change demanded is not just an individual
transformation, but one connected to broader social, economic, and political justice . There are then, it
seems, potential lines of affinity between decolonization and others , though incommensurable, struggles. And
in order to sustain this compatibility in the face of incommensurability, relationships are essential in order to maintain accountability and to
resist repeating colonial and other relations of domination, as well as, in very strategic terms, in supporting each other’s resistance. Rita: As
some anti-racist and Indigenous feminists have long argued, it’s not possible for people of colour to confront different racisms without thinking
about sexism, capitalist exploitation, homophobia and transphobia, Indigenous struggles – they are tied to one another. There is an affinity
between decolonization and other struggles. Differently positioned people of colour and Indigenous peoples are not operating with the same
kinds or degrees of authority as whites or each other, but nonetheless we are not outside of these relations and forces of power. Jeff: I like
building off Tuck and Yang too. It’s a way of showing the linkages across these movements, but also how they can be tighter. How can we
deepen them and focus on the everyday acts of resurgence that Indigenous peoples engage in? Rita: What you say reminds me Corey about a
question you have raised in another context on temporal and spatial solidarities. Corey: In June 2013, at Congress, you both were on a panel
titled “Solidarities, Territorialities, and Embodiments.” At this panel, Jeff, you seemed to be challenging Rita’s notion of “temporary solidarities”
by emphasizing the importance of relationship grounded in place. So I first would question how useful ‘temporary solidarities’ as a concept is.
Second, I’m wondering about the importance of bringing the role of territorialities within these discussions of solidarity themselves. Maybe,
Jeff, what you were talking about at Congress and in conversations you and I have had, is a gesturing towards what we could potentially call
‘spatial solidarities’ – or bringing spatiality into discussions of solidarity. Jeff: As the late Vine Deloria, Jr. (2001) has said, “power and place
produce personality.” In this sense, place-based relationships are personal and anything approaching spatial solidarity would entail the
regeneration of Indigenous languages, ceremonial life, living histories, and nationhood. For this reason, spatial solidarities can be a way to
localize struggles for Indigenous resurgence. While the “Idle No More” movement, which began in 2012 in Canada as a response to proposed
legislation by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government that undermined Indigenous protections of land and water, tapped into an ongoing
and collective Indigenous struggle for land, culture and community, the settler support for it was predominantly temporally driven and
performative rather than localized and land-based. I find that the most powerful mobilization for change happens when the spatial and
temporal intersect. Rita: This centering of land strikes me as constitutive to any kind of political work with Indigenous peoples. Can you give an
example Jeff? Jeff: One example might be how settlers are welcomed onto Indigenous homelands among Native nations in Australia. Beginning
in the 1980’s, Tasmanian activist and lawyer, Michael Mansell, issued ‘Aboriginal Passports’ to an Indigenous delegation visiting Libya in 1988.
More recently, Aboriginal Passports have been issued to non-Indigenous people living on Indigenous homelands. Someone visiting Indigenous
homelands in Australia can apply for an Aboriginal Passport and sign a pledge stating that, “We do not support the colonial occupation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands” (Aboriginal Passport Ceremony, 2012). This innovative strategy challenges the authority of the
Australian government to regulate the travel of visitors onto Indigenous homelands and raises awareness of contemporary struggles of
Indigenous peoples in order to build solidarity for future movements. Rita: Corey, your question is helpful, and Jeff’s response also helps me
think through the movement between time-situated and place-based practices of ‘solidarity’ and ways of thinking about these situated
practices in terms of an ethos of ‘unsettled solidarities’ that moves across time and space, that is a way of being in the world, a set of ongoing
relations. Where I, where we, are never outside of struggle, everyone is ‘structurally implicated’ in the dispossession of Indigenous lands.
Everyone is differentially structurally implicated, where the ideology of presumed consent underlies settler colonialism. Jeff: I would add that
living on another Indigenous nation’s territory also carries an obligation to support those defending their homelands. Cheryl Bryce from
Songhees First Nation started the “Community Tool Shed” in 2009 to generate support for the restoration of Lekwungen food systems. The
Community Tool Shed in Victoria, British Columbia, is where settlers and Indigenous peoples can come
together to rid the land of invasive species , such as Scottish Broom, and to revitalize traditional plants
such as kwetlal or camas. Cheryl’s focus for this informal group is on reclaiming traditional place names, educating people about the
destructiveness of invasive species, and reinstating Lekwungen food systems. The tool shed meets once per month to pull invasive species on
places that have been managed by Cheryl’s family for generations, such as Meegan (aka, Beacon Hill Park), and Sitchamalth (Willows Beach). To
a ‘resident’ of Lekwungen homelands, the above-mentioned places are public lands. This demonstrates the urgency of reclaiming Indigenous
place names in tandem with the restoration of Indigenous foodscapes and landscapes. The May 22, 2013 reclamation of the name PKOLS
(formerly known as Mount Douglas) is one of many examples where communities can come together to demand representation on their own
terms. These are everyday acts of resurgence that highlight the terrain of Indigenous struggles to restore and reconnect a place-based
existence. Corey: And both examples you highlighted Jeff do not foreclose a wide-range of participants. The
PKOLS reclamation led
by the W̱ SÁNEĆ peoples, involved participation from Indigenous peoples across Vancouver Island and
across Turtle Island, it involved the university through the Indigenous Governance program, and it
involved local, non-Indigenous, activist groups, most notably Social Coast . The Community Tool Shed, a project that
I’ve also been involved in for the past two years, does something similar. What I find really interesting in this work is that settlers and
Indigenous peoples challenge our environmentally degraded and colonial present simultaneously. Yet, there is still attention paid to the
different roles and responsibilities in this work. For instance, non-Lekwungen
people in removing invasive species , and
Lekwungen people in managing these lands and in harvesting plants such as camas. So unlike other
stewardship groups around Victoria, those participating are not seeking to depoliticize this work, nor do
they argue that this work erases their complicity or their potential complicity in colonization. In supporting
Cheryl’s assertion of her roles and responsibilities, they aren’t seeking to restore land in order to claim it for themselves. They aren’t Locke
redux. And, given the nature and extent of Broom here – you find it pretty much everywhere around Southern Vancouver Island, something like
18,000 seeds are produced in a single plant, and those seeds can lie dormant for up to thirty years – pulling broom one time really does not
mean much. So there is a demand for longterm work, which itself can help build accountability through such
place-based relationships. And since land is the irreducible element of settler colonialism, and that
environmental degradation has often proceeded through and in support of settler colonialism, it
provides an example of non-Indigenous practices with the land that aren’t necessarily colonial . Now I’m
not saying that this is an example of decolonization or that those involved are somehow not settlers . After
all, decolonization and the transformation of settlers requires subjective and objective transformations. Rather it’s a practice that does
not reify colonization, and thus challenges settler colonial studies construction of settler colonialism as
inevitable and transhistorical.

Conclusion

Decontextualized conceptions of settler colonial studies, ‘settler’, and solidarity risk further eschewing
Indigenous peoples and thereby reifying the stolen land each of the above is founded upon . Perhaps, most
centrally, this is done through de-centering Indigenous peoples own articulations of Indigenous-settler
relations, their governance, legal, and diplomatic orders, and the transformative visions entailed within
Indigenous political thought. Such de-centering has the potential to present settler colonialism as
complete or transhistorical, as inevitable, rather than conditioned and contingent. This failure to attend
to the conditions and contingency of settler colonialism can also be traced to the marginalization of how
colonization actually proceeds across time and space . That is, as entangled with other relations of
domination, and not only through structures, but also practices that serve as , what Paige Raibmon (2008) refers to,
“microtechniques of dispossession.” Those who critique settler colonialism through transhistorical
representations are then able to feel good and satisfied about their criticisms , despite their ahistoricism
and decontextualization, and thus their own role in actually sustaining colonial power by failing to
attend to its conditions and contingency We ask: what good is it to analyze settler colonialism if that
analysis does not shed light on sites of contradiction and weakness, the conditions for its reproduction ,
or the spaces and practices of resistance to it? What is the purpose of deploying ‘settler’ without
attention to its utility, to what it alludes to or eludes from? What good is solidarity if it cannot attend to
the literal (and stolen) ground on which people stand and come together upon? In this paper, we have argued for a
contextual approach to the questions of settler colonialism, settlers, and solidarity. It is ultimately about accountability to each other, as the
Tsalagi word, digadatsele’i suggests, and treating Indigenous resurgence as a process that cannot occur in isolation. This, as argued
throughout this paper, demands a
centering of and support for Indigenous resurgences, and a shift from a one-
dimensional to a relational approach to settler colonial analyses that is connected to the issue of other
Others. This also demands place-based solidarities – that is, relationships and practices – that center both
Indigenous resurgences and more relational approaches to settler colonial power . After all, settler
colonialism will not be undone by analysis alone , but through lived and contentious engagement with the literal and stolen
ground on which people stand and come together upon.
(___) The case outweighs and turns the K:

--- First --- we access solvency for our impacts --- Liberalism not pervasive –
contestation is still possible which proves violence is caused by contingent factors
Alexandros Kioupkiolis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Faculty of Law, Economic and Political
Sciences, ‘14 (“Towards a Regime of Post-political Biopower? Dispatches from Greece, 2010–2012,” Theory, Culture &
Society January 2014 vol. 31 no. 1 143-158)

The concepts of post-politics and biopower may be helpful in theorizing the current mutations of
neoliberal power but they are not fully up to the task. They have been rightly castigated for
constructing an overly rigid and all-encompassing regime of power which lies beyond challenge and
change. As Bonnie Honig (2009: xv, 66–7, 88) makes clear, the apocalyptic image of the state of emergency and biopower in
Agamben rules out the possibility of democratic response and cements ‘emergency’s closures’. It postulates an all-
too solid, omnipotent, top-down sovereignty which takes exception to the law and cannot be resisted, covering
over remaining fissures, opportunities, drives and invitations to collective mobilization. Modern sovereignty
could be thought, instead, ‘as a contingent formation that might get relocated or redistributed in
contests over whether a state of exception should be instituted, in what such a state should consist’ (Honig, 2009: 88). In
contemporary globalized capitalism, sovereignty appears to be a multipolar circuit of forces, ‘displaced from national to international territories
and reconstituted for the benefit of financial capital’ (Saskia Sassen in Dean, 2009: 131–2). People’s
power in collective action or
electoral politics remains often a variable component in this mobile, complex and uneven constellation
of forces, at least where liberal democracy has not been fully torn apart.
Likewise, the ‘post-political’ qualification of biopower has attracted incisive criticisms . Jodi Dean argues that left-
wing laments about the rise of technocratic expert rule, the declining significance of democratic politics under the compulsions of the markets,
the disappearance of the ‘political’ as radical antagonism are apt but partial descriptions of our state of affairs. They
obfuscate the
surviving sites of politics and politicization and the real energies of democratic agency when they are taken
as full and comprehensive accounts. In this case, the emphasis on post-politics ‘cedes in advance key terrains of activism and struggle’ (Dean,
2009: 12). Talk
of post-politics fails thus to recognize and to engage with the terms of political games which
are actually being played, and it stops short of supporting emerging instances of democratic agency,
producing a vicious circle of self-fulfilling prophecies .
Biopower and post-politics apply demonstrably well to key facets of the contemporary rule of capital in
flagging democracies. But they tend to acquire an implausibly totalitarian ring with de-politicizing effects
when they are not duly qualified through the exposition of their cracks, imbalances and internal challenges. These do not only
restore some common sense and motion to the picture. They provide openings through which politics is in play again and some hope of change can glimmer. So, in the Greek state of exception
in 2010–12, effective sovereignty was unevenly shared among the ruling elites of the Eurogroup, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the potent financial interests weighing on these
institutions, the national government and the political establishment in the country. Although power was asymmetrically distributed in this constellation of forces, it remained partly mobile
and reversible. The insistence of Εurozone leaders on binding any future government to the new loan agreement ahead of the general elections in May 2012 (see Pylas, 2012) signalled how the
national government retained in effect considerable elements of independent sovereignty which could severely impact on the entire constellation. And, of course, the general elections in May
and June 2012, which brought about seismic shifts in the party-political landscape of the last 30 years, catapulting a radical left-wing party to a dominant position, have triggered unpredictable
political developments, disclosing the instability of the hegemonic bloc of power and how even electoral politics can still make a difference.

The international components of this nexus of power do not make up a solid compound , as indicated by the
dissonant dispositions of the new French president. The national constituents of the hegemonic constellation provide

further sources of disquiet and potential disruption . For so long as electoral politics are not fully
abolished, the ‘popular will’ can affect the dominant circuits of sovereignty through such formal
channels, giving the lie to any closed, totalizing depiction of the current state of emergency.
But what keeps alive and kicking the ‘political’ in the mode of radical intervention , deep antagonism and
reversal of hegemonic closures is the locus classicus of democratic agency : massive popular mobilization,
the rise of a demos as a collective agent with sovereign rights. If liberalism’s cultural hold were total and seamless
and the spread of a narcissistic individualism devoid of collective concerns were fully verified, the re-
emergence of massive demotic politics would have the status of a true miracle. The Rousseauian paradox – how
to institute a self-governing people out of a dispersed crowd of politically ignorant and apathetic individuals – would appear as irresolvable as
ever (for the paradox, see Honig, 2009: 13–20). And yet the
spring and the summer of 2011 witnessed unprecedented
manifestations of grassroots democratic agency on many streets and squares across the country, belying any
totalistic account of biopower and liberalism’s empire (for this mobilization and its features see, among others, Douzinas,
2011; Giovanopoulos and Mitropoulos, 2011). The singular feature of this collective movement, which brought together hundreds of thousands
of people in its heydays from May to July, is that it did not confine itself to reclaiming some space for people’s power and voice within the
dominant nexus of sovereignty. For the first time since the restoration of representative democracy in 1974, after the fall of the colonels’ junta,
a large multiplicity of citizens did not simply protest or press demands on the political establishment. By contrast, they
asserted
themselves as the collective subject of a real and direct democracy to be enacted here and now and to
embrace the entire country in order to institute an effective alternative to a defunct political system in
chronic malaise.

--- Second --- Vote AFF if the plan reduces existential risk---It’s a prerequisite to any
other impact and scope neglect results in ignoring true risks
Seth D. Baum & Anthony M. Barrett 18. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. 2018. “Global Catastrophes:
The Most Extreme Risks.” Risk in Extreme Environments: Preparing, Avoiding, Mitigating, and Managing,
edited by Vicki Bier, Routledge, pp. 174–184.

2. What Is GCR And Why Is It Important? Taken

literally, a global catastrophe can be any event that is in some way
catastrophic across the globe. This suggests a rather low threshold for what counts as a global catastrophe. An event
causing just one death on each continent (say, from a jet-setting assassin) could rate as a global catastrophe, because surely these deaths would
be catastrophic for the deceased and their loved ones. However, in common usage, a global catastrophe would be
catastrophic for a significant portion of the globe. Minimum thresholds have variously been set around ten thousand to ten
million deaths or $10 billion to $10 trillion in damages (Bostrom and Ćirković 2008), or death of one quarter of the human population (Atkinson
1999; Hempsell 2004). Others have emphasized catastrophes that cause long-term declines in the trajectory
of human civilization (Beckstead 2013), that human civilization does not recover from (Maher and Baum 2013), that
drastically reduce humanity’s potential for future achievements (Bostrom 2002, using the term
“existential risk”), or that result in human extinction (Matheny 2007; Posner 2004). A common theme across all
these treatments of GCR is that some catastrophes are vastly more important than others. Carl Sagan was
perhaps the first to recognize this, in his commentary on nuclear winter (Sagan 1983). Without nuclear winter, a global nuclear
war might kill several hundred million people. This is obviously a major catastrophe, but humanity would
presumably carry on. However, with nuclear winter, per Sagan, humanity could go extinct. The loss would
be not just an additional four billion or so deaths, but the loss of all future generations. To paraphrase Sagan,
the loss would be billions and billions of lives, or even more. Sagan estimated 500 trillion lives, assuming
humanity would continue for ten million more years, which he cited as typical for a successful species.
Sagan’s 500 trillion number may even be an underestimate. The analysis here takes an adventurous turn, hinging on the
evolution of the human species and the long-term fate of the universe. On these long time scales, the descendants of contemporary humans
may no longer be recognizably “human”. The issue then is whether the descendants are still worth caring about, whatever they are. If they are,
then it begs the question of how many of them there will be. Barring major global catastrophe, Earth will remain habitable for about one billion
more years 2 until the Sun gets too warm and large. The rest of the Solar System, Milky Way galaxy, universe, and (if it exists) the multiverse
will remain habitable for a lot longer than that (Adams and Laughlin 1997), should our descendants gain the capacity to migrate there. An
open question in astronomy is whether it is possible for the descendants of humanity to continue living
for an infinite length of time or instead merely an astronomically large but finite length of time (see e.g.
 the stakes with global catastrophes could be much larger than the loss of
Ćirković 2002; Kaku 2005). Either way,
500 trillion lives. Debates about the infinite vs. the merely astronomical are of theoretical interest (Ng
1991; Bossert et al. 2007), but they have limited practical significance. This can be seen when evaluating GCRs
from a standard risk-equals-probability-times-magnitude framework. Using Sagan’s 500 trillion lives
estimate, it follows that reducing the probability of global catastrophe by a mere one-in-500-trillion
chance is of the same significance as saving one human life. Phrased differently, society should try 500
trillion times harder to prevent a global catastrophe than it should to save a person’s life. Or,
preventing one million deaths is equivalent to a one-in500-million reduction in the probability of global
catastrophe. This suggests society should make extremely large investment in GCR reduction, at the
expense of virtually all other objectives. Judge and legal scholar Richard Posner made a similar point in monetary terms (Posner
2004). Posner used $50,000 as the value of a statistical human life (VSL) and 12 billion humans as the total loss of life (double the 2004 world
population); he describes both figures as significant underestimates. Multiplying them gives $600 trillion as an underestimate of the value of
preventing global catastrophe. For comparison, the United States government typically uses a VSL of around one to ten million dollars
(Robinson 2007). Multiplying a $10 million VSL with 500 trillion lives gives $5x1021 as the value of preventing global catastrophe. But even
using “just" $600 trillion, society should be willing to spend at least that much to prevent a global catastrophe, which converts to
being willing to spend at least $1 million for a one-in-500-million reduction in the probability of global
catastrophe. Thus while reasonable disagreement exists on how large of a VSL to use and how much to
count future generations, even low-end positions suggest vast resource allocations should be redirected
to reducing GCR. This conclusion is only strengthened when considering the astronomical size of the
stakes, but the same point holds either way. The bottom line is that, as long as something along the lines of the standard
riskequals-probability-times-magnitude framework is being used, then even tiny GCR reductions merit
significant effort. This point holds especially strongly for risks of catastrophes that would cause
permanent harm to global human civilization. The discussion thus far has assumed that all human lives
are valued equally. This assumption is not universally held. People often value some people more than
others, favoring themselves, their family and friends, their compatriots, their generation, or others whom they identify with. Great
debates rage on across moral philosophy, economics, and other fields about how much people should
value others who are distant in space, time, or social relation, as well as the unborn members of future generations. This debate is
crucial for all valuations of risk, including GCR. Indeed, if each of us only cares about our immediate selves, then global catastrophes may not
be especially important, and we probably have better things to do with our time than worry about them. While everyone has the
right to their own views and feelings, we find that the strongest arguments are for the widely held position
that all human lives should be valued equally. This position is succinctly stated in the United States Declaration of
Independence, updated in the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and 3 women are created
equal”. Philosophers speak of an agent-neutral, objective “view from nowhere” (Nagel 1986) or a “veil of
ignorance” (Rawls 1971) in which each person considers what is best for society irrespective of which
member of society they happen to be. Such a perspective suggests valuing everyone equally, regardless
of who they are or where or when they live. This in turn suggests a very high value for reducing GCR, or
a high degree of priority for GCR reduction efforts.

--- Third --- demosprudence outweighs --- the discourse of rights is specifically good for
Indigenous water advocacy
Stevenson ’18 (Shaun A. Stevenson, full-time Faculty Member in the University Studies Program at Northern Lakes College,
“(Re)Making Indigenous Water Worlds: Settler Colonialism, Indigenous Rights, and Hydrosocial Relations in the Settler Nation
State”, A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English Language and Literature Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario, Bookmark 17, pg. 41)
A great deal of scholarship on Indigenous water rights suggests that water rights are best conceptualized
as water responsibilities. See for example Cave and McKay 2016; Craft, 2014; King 2007. While I will explore the potential
to conceive of rights as responsibilities in subsequent chapters, I continue to mobilize the concept of
rights, given its history and significance in the Canadian context and globally. The continued calls for
the implementation of UNDRIP further illustrates the significance of speaking in the language of
rights. Rather than reproduce the necessity of Western liberal rights discourse, my aim is ultimately to
present the requirements for expanded conceptions of rights as they related to Indigenous peoples.

(___) Indigenous redress is good can only be accomplished through comprehensive

legal reform like the aff
Bradford ‘02 (William Bradford, Assistant Professor of Law at Miami University, LLM from Harvard University,
Chiricahua Apache, With a Very Great Blame on Our Hearts": Reparations, Reconciliation, and an American Indian
Plea for Peace with Justice”, American Indian Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2002/2003), pp. 1-175, https://www-
jstor-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/pdf/20070688.pdf)

Nevertheless, even if the non-Indian majority would reject the American Myth in the interest of mending national fences, the path to Indian redress winds
through terrain unmapped heretofore. Compensation and apologies, gestures potentially part of an
amicable settlement, are not germane to the resolution of Indian claims for injustices that cannot be
remedied save by reinvestiture of lands and sovereignty in self-determining Indian tribes. 70 This requires
not merely an abstract acknowledgment of the value of pluralism but a comprehensive program of legal
reform that dispenses with doctrines and precedents perpetuating the denial of the human rights of
Indian tribes and people.71 As law, more than any other social variable, has (reproduced the subordination of Indians in the United States,72 legal reform
occupies a central position in the claim for Indian redress. In short, proponents of Indian redress must not
only displace a flawed version of history: they must articulate a proposal for remediation that transports
the American people far beyond the strictures of existing law to enable the peaceful restoration of
Indian lands and powers of self-government.74 Such a transformative mission cannot be accomplished by
positing Indians and the non-Indian majority as adversaries, as would reparations; rather, redress of
Indian claims and the healing of the American nation —crucial foci of the drive toward perfection—
necessitate dialogue, reconciliation, and joint authorship of a future history of peace, harmony, and
justice.75 Part II of this Article offers a disquieting version of U.S-Indian history that accelerates erosion of the American Myth and acquaints the non-Indian majority with the necessary
factual predicate to Indian redress. Parts HI and IV contrast the assumptions, procedures, and remedies that distinguish reparations and reconciliation,76 the dominant contending models of

because it offers the best hope for a peaceful American

redress available to group victims of human injustice, and demonstrate that,

coexistence marked by mutual respect for sovereignty, reconciliation is a more appropriate avenue to
Indian redress. Several preliminary proposals, including the introduction of traditional tribal peacemaking as perhaps the most appropriate form of reconciliation, will be offered to
stimulate thinking.