FRANKFORT — A bill that would limit state regulation of water pollution in Kentucky picked up an amendment in a House committee Wednesday morning, but opponents say the changes don’t do enough to protect against groundwater contamination while small streams and wetlands would still be stripped of state environmental protections.
That bill gained House passage Tuesday afternoon along party lines. The minority of Democrats echoed concerns from environmental groups and the secretary of the Energy and Environment Cabinet who said even with the amendment the measure is “very concerning.”
“The bill threatens the water quality of many Kentucky rivers, streams, and tributaries and, as a result, would significantly compromise Kentucky’s groundwater, impacting the water quality of more than 31,000 private use wells and at least 156 public water systems,” Secretary Rebecca Goodman wrote in a letter to House members.
Audrey Ernstberger, an attorney and lobbyist for the Kentucky Resources Council, told the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Wednesday the amended SB 89 “exposes rural communities to pollution risks that could devastate local economies and health.”
Senate Bill 89 sponsor, Sen. Scott Madon, R-Pineville, and Rep. Jim Gooch, R-Providence, the chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said they worked with various groups to add an amendment to SB 89 after fielding concerns the legislation didn’t adequately protect against groundwater pollution, leaving private water wells vulnerable in particular.
Madon, speaking before the House committee next to a lawyer representing the Kentucky Coal Association, reiterated his reasoning for SB 89 arguing that industries from farming to manufacturing to coal mining would benefit from a limited definition of what waters the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet can regulate.
”The more I learned, the more I realized this isn’t just a coal industry issue. These issues are affecting a wide variety of businesses and job creators across the Commonwealth,” Madon said.
Madon pushed back on criticisms that the bill would threaten groundwater, saying he worked with the drinking water utility Louisville Water Company on changes to the bill.
Vince Guenthner, a senior utilities consultant for the Louisville utility, told the Lantern he worked with Senate President Robert Stivers, Gooch, Madon and Kentucky House leadership on changes to SB 89. Guenthner said he believed the changes protected Louisville’s water supply along with “a vast majority” of public drinking water supplies in the state. He said his conversations with lawmakers did not discuss private drinking water wells.
Rep. Jim Gooch, R-Providence, suggested the limitations on regulating state waters could be revisited in the future. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Liam Niemeyer)
The amended SB 89 passed the House committee with all Republicans except one voting in favor of the bill. Democrats opposed the bill, citing concerns from environmental groups that the bill could harm the private drinking water sources of rural Kentuckians.
Gooch said he met with the Energy and Environment Cabinet on changes to the bill but that it was his understanding the cabinet believed the changes did not go “far enough” with water protections. The secretary of the Energy and Environment Cabinet in a letter dated Wednesday expressed she still has “grave concerns” about the amended version of the legislation.
Energy and Environment Cabinet spokesperson Robin Hartman in a statement said SB 89 fails to protect drinking water sources for families and farmers and that the state, under SB 89, would “become the only state in the nation that has handed over its authority to regulate water resources to big business and outside interest.”
“As Audrey Ernstberger with the Kentucky Resources Council so aptly stated, this bill is an irresponsible, dangerous and deliberate choice to cater to a few at the expense of many,” Hartman said, referencing Ernstberger’s testimony to the legislative committee.
When asked about concerns from environmental groups about the amended bill still not adequately protecting groundwater, Gooch told the Lantern lawmakers would be willing to revisit the issue if “a well is not being protected, especially private wells.”
“Too many people in the state depend on those, and we’ll be looking at that,” Gooch said. “It might be in a couple years we may have to come back and tweak something.”
Gooch characterized one environmental lobbyist’s testimony as “hyperbole” during the Wednesday committee hearing.
Environmental groups and a representative of a Letcher County nonprofit law firm in Eastern Kentucky in testimony honed in on strong concerns they still had about the bill’s impacts on groundwater and the state’s water resources at large, asserting the changes didn’t go far enough to protect Kentuckians from potential water pollution.
The amended version of SB 89, like the original, still changes the definition of “waters of the commonwealth” by removing “all rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, marshes, and all other bodies of surface or underground water, natural or artificial.” The state definition is changed to instead mirror the federal definition of “navigable waters.” The bill also still sets bonding requirements for coal companies seeking permits for long-term treatment of water leaving mine sites.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2023 that drastically cut the federal government’s ability to regulate bodies of water and wetlands led to the Biden administration weakening federal rules on water pollution. Litigation over how expansive protections are under the Clean Water Act has continued over decades as various federal administrations have tried to define “waters of the United States” in more broad, or restrictive, terms.
The bill’s amendment expands the definition of regulated state waters beyond the weakened federal standard in specific, limited cases, though not in ways that alleviate concerns from environmental groups.
The amendment would add to the state definition sinkholes with “open throat drains;” naturally occurring “artesian or phreatic springs” and other springs used as water supply sources; and wellhead protection areas, which are surface and subsurface areas surrounding a water well or wellfield supplying a public drinking water system.
Ernstberger in an interview with the Lantern said the specific examples included in the bill’s amendment don’t account for the variety of geological features involving groundwater such as karst aquifers. In testimony before the committee she said tens of thousands of agricultural wells along with private drinking water wells in rural Kentucky remain vulnerable to pollution.
“SB 89 also excludes off-stream ponds, reservoirs and headwaters. To say that none of these water resources require the same level of protection as our rivers and lakes is not just irresponsible. This is dangerous,” Ernstberger said.
Nick Hart, a water policy director for the Kentucky Waterways Alliance, in testimony called on the legislature to preserve the existing definition of regulated state waters and instead take time to study the economic and statutory impacts of SB 89.
Rebecca Shelton, the director of policy at the Letcher County-based Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, told lawmakers about how she uses a filter for a water well on her Eastern Kentucky property because the water contains heavy metals and bacteria. She said she’s paid thousands of dollars to install the filter and maintain it and worries how SB 89 could impact other private well owners.
“I’m fortunate to have had these choices and the ability to pay for them. Yet I know there are still areas of Letcher County that do not, where households do not even have the option of hooking up to the public water system because the lines don’t run to their house,” Shelton said.
Rep. Bobby McCool, R-Van Lear, the only Republican to vote against the modified bill passing the committee, cited concerns about private water wells and impacts on utilities for his opposition. McCool represents Martin County that has for years dealt with infrastructure woes with its public drinking water utility.
“I certainly appreciate the efforts in trying to help with the coal industry,” McCool said. “I just cannot take the risk of hurting the water system.” He said he wasn’t confident concerns about private wells were “taken care of.”
On the House floor, McCool was one of seven Republicans to join the minority of Democrats in opposing the bill. The House passed the measure 69-26, sending it back to the Senate to either concur with or reject the House changes.
Rep. Chad Aull, D-Lexington, on the House floor repeated what Goodman, secretary of the Energy and Environment Cabinet, wrote in her letter. Kentucky would be the only state to cede its authority to define its own regulated waters, she said, which in turn could cost it “primacy” or the right to manage federal regulatory programs. “This is not where Kentucky needs to be the exception,” she said.
Aull said, “We put at risk our drinking water supplies for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our people. This bill fails to consider how Kentucky’s water chemistry is dependent on the entire watershed including those seasonal streams, and that underground and interconnected waterways will lose protection.”
Gooch responded by characterizing Aull’s comments as “hyperbole” similar to how he characterized the comments from an environmental lobbyist earlier in the day.
“There are people who we could not write an amendment that would please all of them,” Gooch said.
Rep. Suzanne Miles, R-Owensboro, who voted in favor of the bill advancing, said the amendment came about from multiple people working on the changes.
“I think it’s very important for all of us to recognize we all want clean water, and that is the intent of amending and just reassuring that we’ve protected the water,” Miles said.
This story has been updated with the House vote, a letter from Kentucky Energy and Environment Secretary Rebecca Goodman and a statement from an Energy and Environment Cabinet spokesperson.
Energy and Environment Secretary Rebecca Goodman’s letter to House members
Nick Hart with the Kentucky Waterways Alliance speaks against SB 89 as bill sponsor Sen. Scott Madon listens in the background. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Liam Niemeyer).
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
SUMMARY: The weather forecast includes a tornado watch for far northwestern communities like Jackson and Lawrence counties, effective until 11 PM. Scattered storms have started to develop due to high heat and humidity. The Steamboat Race is about to begin near the Ohio River, with dry conditions so far but some storms may pop up nearby. Temperatures are around 84°F with 50% humidity and a light southwest breeze. Evening storms are expected mainly along I-64 and points north. Wednesday night will quiet down, but Thursday will see scattered storms again, especially in the afternoon. Rain chances continue through Derby week, but mostly in periodic showers with plenty of dry times. The unsettled pattern will likely ease by next week.
SUMMARY: Severe weather is expected to return on Thursday, with a cold front moving through the Ohio Valley and re-energizing the atmosphere, creating conditions for strong to severe storms, including damaging winds, large hail, and isolated tornadoes. All of Central and Eastern Kentucky is under a Level 2 (Slight Risk) for severe weather. The storms will be fueled by gusty southwest winds, pushing temperatures into the low 80s. For Oaks Day (Friday), scattered showers and storms are likely, and the forecast for Derby Day (Saturday) is uncertain, with possible lingering clouds and showers. Temperatures will be cooler, staying in the mid-60s for the weekend.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Dave Mason | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-29 19:00:00
(The Center Square) – California and Arizona Tuesday joined 22 other states and the District of Columbia to sue the Trump administration to stop cuts in AmeriCorps’ grants and workforce.
The lawsuit objects to the federal government reducing 85% of the workforce for the agency, which promotes national service and volunteer work addressing disaster recovery and other community needs.
According to americorps.gov, the agency enrolls more than 200,000 people each year in community service organizations. AmeriCorps also provides more than $4.8 billion in education awards.
Besides California and Arizona, states filing the suit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February directing every federal agency to reduce its staff. Since then, AmeriCorps has placed at least 85% of its workforce on administrative leave immediately and told employees they would be dismissed effective June 24, according to a news release from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
The states’ lawsuit contends the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce AmeriCorps and its grants violate the Administrative Procedures Act and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.
California is co-leading the lawsuit against the Trump administration.
“In California, AmeriCorps volunteers build affordable housing, clean up our environment, and address food insecurity in communities across our state,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “California has repeatedly taken action to hold the Trump Administration and DOGE accountable to the law — and we stand prepared to do it again to protect AmeriCorps and the vital services it provides.”
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office said the cuts in AmeriCorps affect grants such as:
$700,000 for Northern Arizona University, Arizona Teacher’s Residency, designed to address teacher shortages.
$308,000 for Area Agency on Aging, Caring Circles, which helps older Arizonans with needs such as transportation to medical appointments, grocery shopping and help with technology.
$495,000 for Vista College Prepartory’s tutoring and teacher support for math and reading for low-income students.
“AmeriCorps represents the best of our nation – providing opportunities for millions of Americans to serve their neighbors and communities and make our country a better place to live,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said. “By unilaterally gutting this Congressionally authorized agency, Donald Trump and Elon Musk have yet again violated the law and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. Their illegal actions will harm Arizona communities.”
Mayes noted studies show AmeriCorps programs generate more than $34 per every dollar spent in terms of their impact on communities.
“Slashing these programs serves no purpose and is incredibly short-sighted from those claiming to champion efficiency,” she said.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
This article reports on a legal action filed by multiple states against the Trump administration over cuts to AmeriCorps, without offering an overt ideological stance. The content outlines the details of the lawsuit, the parties involved, and their claims. The language used is largely factual, describing the positions of the states, particularly California and Arizona, without endorsing one side. While the article highlights the perceived impacts of the cuts and quotes politicians critical of the Trump administration, it refrains from promoting an explicit viewpoint, focusing instead on reporting the legal and administrative actions at hand. The tone remains neutral and provides an equal space to both the states’ concerns and the implications of the lawsuit. It primarily serves as a factual report on the legal challenge, rather than an advocacy piece, and does not adopt a partisan perspective on the issue.
