Search Results

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing has triggered a rapid expansion of data centers across the United States. According to the industry database, Data Center Map, there are at least 4,000 data centers across the U.S., with already 126 in New England states.² These facilities “use or [are] able to use twenty megawatts or more of power and [are] engaged in providing data processing, hosting, and related services as described under code 518210 of the 2022 North American Industry Classification System.”⁵ They are also often framed as engines of economic growth. However, a largely overlooked cost is the strain on our water systems, especially rivers and local watersheds. Data centers run twenty-four hours a day, generating enormous heat that must be constantly managed.⁴ Most facilities rely on water-intensive cooling systems, consuming anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 gallons per day.⁴ The largest “hyperscale” centers can use up to five million gallons daily, roughly equivalent to the water consumption of a small city such as Concord, NH.³ This water is often drawn from the same public supplies that serve residents, farmers, and local ecosystems, many of which are directly connected to nearby rivers and watersheds.⁴ In many cases, it is not returned to the watershed, as much of it evaporates during the cooling process.³ The impact does not stop there. A report from Ceres found that indirect water use, primarily from power generation to meet massive energy needs, has an even greater impact than data centers’ direct on-site water use.¹ Power plants (especially those fueled by coal, gas, or nuclear energy) require vast quantities of water for cooling and steam generation.⁴ In 2022 alone, 40% of total U.S. water withdrawals, or about 48.5 trillion gallons, were made by coal and gas power plants.⁴ As demand for data centers continues to surge, so too will the hidden water footprint tied to their electricity consumption. Equally concerning is water quality. Data centers often use chemical treatments such as biocides and corrosion inhibitors in their cooling systems.⁴ These substances, along with trace heavy metals, can enter water systems.⁴ Evaporative cooling can also release salt particles into the air, which eventually settle into nearby soils and waterways.⁴ This increases salinity and harms aquatic life. Impacts like these compound existing environmental stressors and threaten long-term ecosystem health. Ceres states, “[d]ata center growth could increase water stress in already strained basins by up to 17% annually, with even higher spikes in peak seasons.”¹ Some prominent bills regarding data centers have been introduced in a few New England states: In Connecticut, SB245 is an act that would eliminate certain tax incentives for data centers. Currently, Connecticut has in place a Data Center Tax Incentive Program that allows the State to provide tax exemptions to eligible data centers within the state and make a minimum investment.⁷ In New Hampshire, SB439 was passed by the Senate and would authorize municipalities to regulate data centers in commercial and industrial zones. In Maine, LD 307 is an act “to establish the Maine Data Center Coordination Council and place a temporary limitation on certain data centers.” This bill places a moratorium on data centers with a load of twenty megawatts or more. LD 307 passed in both the House and Senate. Maine has officially become the first state with a data center ban.⁶ In Massachusetts, H83 would establish a special legislative commission to investigate and study the increasing electricity load caused by AI and data centers. In Vermont, H.727 is an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. The purpose of the bill is “to establish a regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an emerging industry in a manner that protects existing electric ratepayers from unwarranted costs and promotes sustainable climate, environmental, community, and equity outcomes consistent with State policies.”⁵ The bill successfully passed out of the legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor. It then failed upon an attempted veto override. Nonprofit organizations like the Connecticut River Conservancy regularly advocate for water protections, however states across the Connecticut River region and beyond must adopt policies to reduce dire impacts to our waterways and environment. Without thoughtful planning and regulation, data center expansion risks quietly draining the very resources communities rely on most. Water is finite, local, and essential. As states compete to attract data centers, they must ensure that short-term economic gains do not come at the long-term expense of rivers, ecosystems, and public trust. ¹Ceres; ²Data Center Map; ³Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; ⁴Nature Forward; ⁵VT H.727 ⁶Maine Morning Star ⁷CT.gov Written by Ava Barlow, Vermont Law School student and Legal Intern for Connecticut River Conservancy.

Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) cohosted this online webinar focused on the top aquatic invasive plants impacting the region. Learn how these species spread, why early detection is critical, and explore new reporting and data collection opportunities that empower boaters, anglers, and community members to play an active role in prevention and response efforts. The webinar was led by Kelly Beerman, Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager at the Connecticut River Conservancy, who directs CRC’s watershed-wide work on aquatic invasive species including hydrilla and water chestnut. Kelly brings extensive experience in invasive species prevention, community education, and collaborative conservation, with a strong focus on working alongside river and lake communities to protect shared water resources. Participants also heard from Georgia Brunnell, Exotic Species Program Coordinator and Limnologist with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Georgia holds a B.S. in Freshwater Biology and an M.S. in Geochemistry from the University of New Hampshire. Her work centers on understanding lake ecology and water chemistry, informed by graduate research on lake management impacts and hands on experience monitoring water quality across more than 60 New Hampshire lakes. Whether you’re on the water regularly or simply care about protecting New Hampshire and Connecticut River watershed lakes and rivers, this session provides practical tools, regional insights, and clear ways to get involved.

Sea Lamprey nest survey conducted with community science volunteers on the Ashuelot River in 2025, led by Dr. Kate Buckman. The Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) is thrilled to have recently welcomed Dr. Stefanie Farrington as the Aquatic Ecology Program Associate, to support our Aquatic Ecologist and Program Manager, Dr. Kate Buckman in implementing and growing CRC’s ecology programming. Among the priorities is data analysis for the past 5 years (2020-2025) of sea lamprey nest surveys conducted with community science volunteers on different tributaries in the Connecticut River watershed. Stefanie jumped right into the work, putting her coding skills to use in creating mapping tools allowing us to visualize the data collected through last year. We have started looking for high-level patterns in the data (number of nests, types of nests, distance covered) and how these may have varied between years and between sites. The charts below represent some findings so far, but we’re not jumping to any conclusions just yet. We are planning to continue the nest surveys this year, and then release a more comprehensive analysis of findings and trends for 2020-2026 after this summer’s activities. This sites map shows all the locations where CRC has led or participated in a sea lamprey nest survey at least once from 2020-2025 (no surveys were conducted in 2023 due to flooding). This map shows where the Ashuelot River (NH) has been surveyed annually from 2020-2025, with nest occurrences being clustered in the same approximate areas in the river each year. The number of nest occurrences, relative numbers of nest types (single, cluster, and community), and survey distances varied by year for the Ashuelot River. This map shows where the Green River (MA) was surveyed in 2025, with nests distributed in patches of suitable habitat. This combined histogram map shows annual nest data for both sites above, with the majority of counted occurrences being single nests. We will be conducting more formal analyses following this year's sampling to examine trends in occurrence, density, and habitat associations across the Connecticut River watershed. Stay tuned for when community science events open up in June so you can join us in documenting more sea lamprey nests this year! P.S. In the meantime, you can hear Kate's recent interview about sea lamprey in our rivers on WHMP's Talk the Talk radio show (scroll down to see where you can jump right to Kate's portion of the show).

A scenic foggy view of a beaver pond along the Long Trail in Vermont. By Prof. Michael H. Simpson Antioch University New England Senior Environmental Scientist, MHS & Associates LLC At first glance, wetlands don’t seem like places that would decide the fate of a river. They are easy to overlook—quiet pools in the woods, soggy ground at the edge of a field, a patch of moss that gives slightly underfoot. They don’t roar like rivers or stretch wide like lakes. Most people pass by them without a second thought. But these unassuming places are doing something extraordinary. They are holding back floodwaters after storms. They are filtering out pollution before it reaches drinking water. They are quietly storing carbon, supporting wildlife, and regulating how water moves across the entire landscape. In fact, much of what we value about healthy rivers—clean water, stable flows, thriving ecosystems—depends on wetlands that many people never notice at all. And here’s the surprising part, whether these wetlands are protected or left vulnerable often comes down to a single question of definition: What is a wetland? That question may sound simple. It is anything but. Scientists, landowners, regulators, and courts have all answered it differently. And over time, those answers have shifted—sometimes dramatically. Today, those shifting definitions are creating a growing gap between how wetlands actually function in the landscape and how they are treated under the law. As that gap widens, many of the wetlands that matter most—small, seasonal, or seemingly isolated—are at risk of falling through the cracks. This is especially true in places like the Connecticut River watershed, where the most important wetlands are often not the obvious ones, but the hidden network scattered across forests, headwaters, and glacial depressions. Understanding why wetland definitions matter is not just a legal exercise. It is about understanding how a landscape works and what happens when we stop recognizing the systems that quietly hold it together. An Ecologist’s View of Wetlands Wetlands rarely call attention to themselves. They lie at the edge of forests, beside rivers, in shallow depressions, and in soggy corners of the landscape where water lingers. But these quiet places do an enormous amount of work. An ecological definition of wetlands begins with the idea that wetlands are ecosystems shaped by the presence of water. Unlike dry land habitats, wetlands experience repeated or long-lasting soil saturation that influences nearly every aspect of the environment. When soils remain wet for extended periods, oxygen becomes limited, creating special soil conditions known as hydric soils. Only plants and animals adapted to these low-oxygen conditions can survive there. Because of this, wetlands are usually identified by the interaction of three elements: water, wetland soils, and plants adapted to saturated conditions. Ecologists also understand wetlands as part of a continuum between land and open water, rather than as sharply defined boundaries. Across a landscape, there is often a gradual transition from dry upland forest, to moist soils, to saturated wetland ground, and finally to ponds, streams, or lakes. Wetlands occupy this middle ground. They are often called ecotones—transitional zones where different ecosystems, and the species that inhabit them, meet and interact. Because they sit at this intersection, wetlands receive water, nutrients, sediments, and organic matter from the surrounding land while also influencing nearby streams and lakes. Another important concept for wetland ecologists is the hydroperiod—the seasonal rhythm of flooding and drying that shapes wetland conditions. Some wetlands remain saturated throughout the year, such as bogs and marshes. Others, like vernal pools, fill with water during spring snowmelt and gradually dry by late summer. Floodplain wetlands follow the natural rise and fall of nearby rivers. These water patterns strongly influence which plants and animals can live in a wetland and help create the rich variety of wetland habitats found across a watershed. Wetlands are also important biogeochemical systems where water, soils, and living organisms interact to transform materials moving through the landscape. Saturated soils slow decomposition, allowing organic matter to accumulate and store carbon. Microorganisms in wetland soils also convert and remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, helping protect water quality downstream. Because of these processes, wetlands filter sediments and pollutants. Wetlands, especially isolated wetlands, are distributed across the landscape as natural holding areas during rainstorms and snowmelt. When water flows across the land, these depressions capture and store it, slowing its movement and reducing the volume and speed of runoff reaching downstream channels. Over time, this stored water can move downward to recharge groundwater and can be released gradually through seepage and evaporation, helping to spread out flood peaks and reduce erosion. Even though they may appear disconnected, isolated wetlands function collectively as a network, buffering the landscape against sudden pulses of water and quietly reducing the severity of floods downstream. From this ecological perspective, wetlands are best defined not simply by their appearance, but by how they function within the broader landscape continuum. They are ecosystems created by recurring soil saturation that support specialized plants and animals and perform critical ecological roles. Understanding wetlands as part of a connected landscape helps explain why even small or seasonal wetlands can have large effects on watershed health and water quality. The Growing Gulf Between Ecologists and Regulators Ecological definitions are broader than regulatory ones. Understanding wetlands ecologically reveals why small headwater or seasonal systems can have outsized watershed effects—particularly in landscapes like the Connecticut River basin. But whether a wetland is protected under federal law depends on a legal question that sounds simple and turns out not to be simple at all: Is it a “water of the United States”? That phrase, at the heart of the Clean Water Act, and how it is interpreted, determines what wetlands are protected within the United States. Over the years, courts and federal agencies have debated what the phrase means and which wetlands it covers. As the legal meaning has changed, so has the reach of federal wetland protection. That matters everywhere, but it matters especially in New England. Many wetlands here are not broad marshes along major rivers. They are small forest pools, headwater wetlands, beaver wetlands, and soggy depressions left behind by glaciers. They may not look connected to a river on the surface, but they still play an important role in how water moves through the landscape. Today, because of several major Supreme Court decisions (CRC has previously written about the Sackett vs. EPA decision when that ruling was issued), many of these wetlands may receive less federal protection than they once did. That means states, towns, land trusts, and watershed groups are becoming more important than ever. From Navigation to Wetlands Protection Federal water law did not begin with environmental protection; one of its foundations began with navigation. In the early years of the United States, rivers were the nation’s highways. Moving goods, people, and commerce depended on keeping waterways open and unobstructed. Because of this, federal authority over water was rooted in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [1], which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. If a river could be used for trade, it fell under federal oversight. This early focus was reflected in laws like the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [2] which prohibited activities that would block or alter “navigable waters.” At the time, the concern was straightforward: prevent obstructions to boats and shipping. Wetlands were not the focus—they were often seen as obstacles to be drained or filled. But over time, a deeper understanding began to emerge. Water does not stay in one place. Pollution released upstream does not remain there. Sediment, nutrients, and contaminants move through entire river systems. And the landscapes surrounding rivers—especially wetlands—play a critical role in shaping what happens downstream. By the mid-20th century, it had become clear that protecting only the main channels of rivers was not enough. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972, it marked a fundamental shift in thinking. The goal was no longer just to keep waterways open for navigation, but to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This broader purpose recognized that water quality, ecosystem health, and human well-being are tightly connected. To achieve this, the law needed to reach beyond large rivers. It needed to address tributaries, wetlands, and headwater systems—places where water is stored, filtered, and transformed before it ever reaches a navigable river. Wetlands, once dismissed as marginal land were increasingly understood as essential parts of the aquatic system: slowing floodwaters, trapping sediment, cycling nutrients, and supporting biodiversity. And yet, the CWA retained a key phrase from its earlier roots in the Rivers and Harbors Act: navigable waters. At first glance, the term seems clear. But in practice, it hinges on a deeper and more difficult question: What counts as “navigable”? Does it mean waters that are literally navigable by boat? Or does it include smaller streams, wetlands, and seasonal waters that influence those navigable rivers? This question has shaped decades of legal debate. Because while science points to a connected system where wetlands and headwaters influence downstream waters, law has often struggled to define how far that connection must extend to justify federal protection. Over time, the meaning of “navigable waters” has expanded and contracted through court decisions, regulatory changes, and shifting interpretations. Each change has redrawn the boundary of federal authority—sometimes including wetlands as part of a larger system, and sometimes excluding them if their connection is not obvious on the surface. By the late 20th century, it had become clear that a navigation-based definition of waters of the United States was no longer sufficient. The Clean Water Act of 1972 was Congress’s attempt to reconcile this gap between law and ecological reality. Clean Water Act (CWA): The Arbiter By the early 1970s, it was becoming clear that clean water could not be achieved without maintaining the ecological integrity of the landscapes through which it flows. Congress passed the Clean Water Act [3] in 1972 to protect the nation’s waters from pollution. The law was meant to do more than protect shipping routes or major rivers. It was written broadly so that pollution could be addressed across entire water systems. The stated goal of the Act is: “…water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water...[4]” One of the most important parts of the CWA is Section 404, which regulates the filling or dredging of wetlands and streams. If someone wants to fill a wetland for development, build a road across it, or alter a stream channel, federal permits may be required. Whether those permits apply depends on where the wetland is and thus, determines whether the CWA applies and protects it. Section 401 has also provided an important basis for protecting wetlands that not are not directly connected to navigable waters, due to their role in improving downstream water quality. By requiring states to ensure water quality standards under section 401, wetland integrity could be considered where federal permitting is required, such as the relicensing of hydroelectric dams on the Connecticut River. The Clean Water Act expanded the federal focus from navigation to water quality and ecosystem health. That broader purpose raised a central question: How far should federal wetland protection reach? At the center of the Clean Water Act is a short definition: “The term navigable waters mean the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” These few words carry a great deal of weight informing four major cases brought before the Supreme Court. If a wetland qualifies as a water of the United States, it may be protected under federal law. If it does not, that protection may fall away. Supreme Court Steps In Although the Clean Water Act set out a broad vision for protecting water quality and ecological integrity, it left one critical question unresolved: how far that protection should extend across the landscape. Over time, that question has been answered not by Congress alone, but by the Supreme Court. In a series of landmark cases—Riverside Bayview (1985), SWANCC (2001), Rapanos (2006), and Sackett (2023)—the Court has interpreted what qualifies as “waters of the United States,” shaping the boundary between federally protected and unprotected wetlands. As the following section shows, each decision has shifted that boundary, at times recognizing the ecological connections that tie wetlands to downstream waters, and at other times narrowing protection to those with more visible, surface connections. Riverside Case (1985) States v. Riverside Bayview Homes (1985) [5] was the first major Supreme Court case that put the protection of wetlands under the purview of the Clean water Act to the test. A developer in Michigan filled wetlands next to Lake St. Clair without a federal permit. The defendant’s argument was straightforward: wetlands were not listed by name in the statute, so they were not covered under the CWA. The Supreme Court disagreed. The justices recognized that wetlands next to rivers and lakes are often part of the same aquatic system. They store water, filter runoff, and help protect water quality. This Court decision established what became known as the adjacency standard [6]. Essentially, it meant that wetlands could be federally protected if they were next to, bordering, or closely located to neighboring rivers, lakes, or streams. The wetland did not have to be connected by surface water or hold water the entire year. For years, this provided a fairly broad basis for wetland protection. SWANCC CASE (2001) The next major change came in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001)[7] usually called SWANCC. This case involved abandoned sand and gravel pits that had been excavated down to the water table, and had subsequently developed a wetland that was used by migratory birds [8]. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency, developed the Migratory Bird Rule [9] in the 1980s as an administrative interpretation of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act to include certain isolated wetlands whose ecological functions extended beyond state boundaries. The legal basis for this interpretation rested on the Commerce Clause [10], which grants Congress authority to regulate activities affecting interstate commerce; the ACOE reasoned that wetlands used by migratory birds—species that move across state and national borders—support interstate economic activities such as hunting, recreation, and birdwatching, thereby justifying federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court said no. The SWANCC decision held that the Clean Water Act does not extend to isolated, non-navigable wetlands based solely on their use by migratory birds, thereby limiting federal jurisdiction and signaling a more constrained interpretation of “waters of the United States.” This was a major shift. It meant that many wetlands without proximity, or obvious connection to navigable waters, might no longer be federally protected. Due to this Court decision, an estimated tens of millions of acres of wetlands could potentially fall outside federal jurisdiction nationwide, dependent upon how narrowly the ruling was interpreted within the revised regulations promulgated by federal environmental agencies. Rapanos Case (2006) Then came Rapanos v. United States (2006) [11], one of the most confusing cases in modern wetland environmental law. The Court split badly, and no single opinion clearly controlled how wetlands were federally protected. Two different tests emerged. Justice Scalia’s opinion said federal jurisdiction should reach only relatively permanent waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to them, harkening back to the strict definition of navigable waters of the United States. Justice Kennedy proposed a different test, the significant nexus [12] test. Under that approach, wetlands could be protected if they significantly affected the health of downstream navigable waters, even if the connection was less obvious, which gave a nod to the adjacency standard. For years after Rapanos, federal environmental agencies mostly relied on the significant nexus interpretation. That allowed protection for wetlands connected through groundwater, flood pulses, seasonal overflow, or other ecological relationships. In practice, the Rapanos decision did not provide clarity. It created years of uncertainty. Sackett (2023) The most recent and most significant definition was a result of the case Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) [13]. In Sackett, the Court rejected the significant nexus approach and adopted a narrower standard. Under the new rule, wetlands must have a continuous surface-water connection [14] to relatively permanent waters so that the wetlands would be hard to distinguish from those waters. That sounds technical, but the effect is easy to understand: if a wetland is not visibly and directly connected to a river, stream, or lake, it is less likely to be federally protected. Wetlands connected only through subsurface flow or deeper groundwater, intermittent streams, or seasonal flooding, may no longer qualify. For sure, isolated wetlands in the Connecticut River’s watershed, such as vernal pools, bogs, fens, headwater wetlands, and maybe some beaver impoundments, would fall out of federal jurisdictional protection. Depending on how the Sackett ruling is interpreted, recent studies suggest that up to 90 million acres [15] of non-tidal wetlands could fall outside federal protection due to the Sackett decision. This translates to approximately 80% of the wetland acreage in the lower 48 states. Sackett Decision: Death Knell for Wetlands? The wetlands most likely to lose federal protection are often the ones that matter most at the watershed scale. These wetlands may not sit right beside a major river, or have water flowing through them year-round, but they still hold water, store nutrients, support biodiversity, and shape streamflow downstream. For watershed managers, the narrowing of federal wetland jurisdiction does not change the ecological importance of wetlands, but it does change the policy framework governing their protection. Many wetlands that support watershed health—particularly vernal pools, headwater wetlands, forested depressional wetlands, and beaver wetlands—may increasingly depend on state law and local land-use planning rather than federal regulation. In regards to federal protection, the current status is summarized in the following table. All of the wetland types listed above, and no longer protected by the Clean Water Act, are classified by the federal government as Palustrine [16] wetlands. These are the wetlands in the states along Connecticut River that do not directly bound a lake or a river. Individually the loss of these particular wetland types may appear minor, but these Palustrine wetlands are by far the most numerous wetland type found within the Connecticut River watershed. Collectively they have a major role in regulating watershed processes such as: flood attenuation, groundwater recharge nutrient retention and sediment trapping. Now, just as the previous mention estimates for loss of wetland protection across the country, most being Palustrine designated wetlands. This impact will also be seen in the states bounding the Connecticut River. By using a rapid, albeit coarse, visual-assessment approach that categorizes Palustrine wetlands associated with perennial flow versus those that don’t, a rough estimate can be made of the percentage of wetlands in a watershed that would fall out of being federally protected. This approach assumes that wetlands, which are not perennial flowing water and not directly touching what the Sackett decision determined were the waters of the United States are assumed to be Palustrine and thus fall out of federal protection under the Clean Water Act. Using a visual method [17] approach for four sub-watersheds, it provides some hint of what the potential impact that the Sackett decision may have on the entire in the Connecticut River Basin. The loss of such Palustrine wetlands from federal protection under the Clean Water Act will negatively impact the ecosystem services [18] which not only support, but provide an economic benefit, to the communities within the Connecticut River watershed. Examples of ecosystem services provided by the Connecticut River watershed uplands wetlands includes: Headwater Wetlands: Wetlands at the top of a watershed influence what happens downstream. These wetlands help regulate streamflow due to bedrock groundwater being discharged at many of these locations. They can also remove nitrogen and phosphorus before these pollutants enter larger streams and rivers. Protecting these upper-watershed wetlands helps maintain water quality throughout the entire river system. Isolated Wetlands: These are depressions scattered across the landscape, often surrounded by forest or upland soils. They provide important habitat that increases species diversity and richness. They also help slow flood waves in downstream tributaries and improve water quality by capturing sediment from heavy precipitation flows of water, followed by a slow release of that water over time. Concurrently, these wetlands trap sediments and nutrients such as phosphorus that can trigger algal and cyanobacteria blooms downstream. Vernal Pools: New England’s vernal pools support wood frogs, spotted salamanders, and Jefferson salamanders. These small seasonal pools are often easy to overlook, but they provide irreplaceable breeding habitat for amphibians. Because they often lack visible surface connections to streams, many most likely fall outside federal jurisdiction. Beaver-Created Wetland: Wetlands created by beavers are increasingly recognized as natural climate-impact mitigation infrastructure. Beaver impoundments slow runoff, spread water across floodplains, reduce erosion, and hold water on the landscape during dry periods. However, under narrow jurisdictional definitions, some of these wetlands may not qualify for federal protection. Peatlands: Bogs are peat-forming wetlands that receive most of their water from rainfall rather than flowing groundwater or streams. Because they are low in nutrients and often acidic, they support rare and endangered species adapted to this specialized habitat. Over time, peat accumulates and stores large amounts of carbon, making bogs important for long-term climate regulation. Fens are fed primarily by groundwater moving slowly through mineral soils. Like bogs they provide a mitigating impact on a changing climate by accumulating peat. But unlike bogs, they slowly release groundwater and filtering nutrients which help regulate streamflow and protect downstream water quality. Riparian Wetlands For riparian wetlands that lie within the broader floodplain, where groundwater, seasonal flooding, and overbank flows periodically saturate the soil, the outlook is unsure. They may not be protected due to the Sackett decision, even if they hydrologically and ecologically remain closely tied to river processes. Beneficially, they do store water across the floodplain, slow the movement of runoff, and trap sediments and nutrients before they return to the river. Thus, these threatened wetland systems moderate floods, improve water quality, and provide important habitat for wildlife moving along river and stream corridors. No-Net Loss: States to the Rescue? The idea of no-net- loss of wetlands - maintaining the total extent and function of wetlands despite development - is more of a policy to influence decision-making rather than a uniformly adopted legal standard. The roots of this policy targeting wetlands is primarily federal [19] rather than at the state level. However, this federal framework - centered on avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for wetland impacts - has strongly influenced how New England states structure their own regulations, even where the phrase itself does not appear in statute. Among the Connecticut River states, Massachusetts comes closest to fully implementing this concept through its Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131 §40; 310 CMR 10.00), which requires replacement of lost flood storage and often mandates compensatory mitigation, effectively operating as a no-net-loss system. Vermont applies a similar avoid–minimize–mitigate framework under its Vermont Wetland Rules (10 V.S.A. Chapter 37). But with recent legislation [20] there is more of an emphasis on restoration and enhancement, moving toward a “net gain” of wetland functions rather than simply maintaining existing levels. New Hampshire, through its Wetlands statutes (RSA 482-A), regulates dredge and fill activities within wetlands and may require mitigation as a requirement of a permit. Although, there is no formal statewide no-net-loss standard in the statutes, the State has set up the Aquatic Resource Mitigation Fund (ARM), dedicated to restoring or creating wetland acreage using monies paid by developers who have ben unable to avoid a negative environmental impact to a wetland. In Connecticut, wetlands are regulated under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 22a-36 to 22a-45), which focuses on controlling activities that may impact wetlands. But the State does not have an explicit no-net-loss mandate. Instead, Connecticut’s program relies on its strong, locally administered, regulatory framework. State Oversight, Uneven Ground As federal jurisdiction has narrowed, state wetland laws become more important. The states that border the Connecticut River have already developed some of the stronger wetland protection programs in the country. These laws, and the resultant regulations, often protect wetlands based on ecological importance, whether or not federal law happens to apply. In many environmental laws, the federal government sets a basic level of protection—a kind of minimum standard that applies across the country. But states are often allowed to go further. This is sometimes described as a “floor, not a ceiling,” meaning the federal law is an established baseline, but states can adopt stronger rules if they choose. In practice, this allows states to protect specific types of wetlands, which may require wider buffer zones, or apply stricter permitting standards than found under federal law. This is especially important for the protection isolated Palustrine wetlands, including vernal pools. Particular to vernal pools, the most overt regulations protecting isolated wetlands is seen within the State of Massachusetts. If a formal state-mandated certification has been completed, vernal pools become highly protected. Also, Massachusetts’ 100 ft buffer around such a certified wetland, helps protect the habitat of migrating vernal pool amphibian species that spend most of the year in the surrounding upland. Connecticut reflects an ecological approach to wetland protection, but does so indirectly by relying on a definition of hydric soils as the key indicator for whether a wetland is present. The ecological reasoning for this field metric assumes that the presence of water drives what is considered a wetland. When soil stays saturated for long periods, air can’t easily reach it. Saturated soils have soil oxygen significantly reduced. In this low oxygen (anerobic) state, saturated soil changes color, texture, and chemistry, forming what scientists call hydric soils [21] which have very specific observable field-based characteristics. It is then assumed that these identified hydric soil conditions can stress most plants, except for hydrophytes (wetland plants) adapted to survive in low oxygen soil. These hydrophytes will out-compete typical “dry-land” plants, shaping the unique plant communities we see in wetlands. In short, if hydric soil conditions are identified, the attest to the existence, or subsequent development, of a robust wetland ecosystem. Vermont’s regulations are clearly function-based for the protection of wetlands. For vernal pools and isolated wetlands, protection occurs if the waterbody meets a metric for “ecological significance”. Through this lens, the State has created a classification system for the State’s wetlands based on the richness of the wetland community, presence of rare or endangered species, flood storage potential, and water quality. They even consider the potential of such systems for education and recreation. New Hampshire’s wetland protection is activity-based. The regulations are triggered based on actively dredging and filling in, or near, a wetland. Once the process is triggered, the wetland boundary is delineated by a state certified wetland scientist, who uses hydrological, hydric soils and wetland plants to determine what is in and out of the wetland regarding dredge and fill activities. Crucially, under State regulations there is an additional protection for those wetlands that have been declared significant to protect by local municipalities. Where Protection Really Happens Local governments matter too. Municipal wetland ordinances, a planning board's Master Plan and associated regulations, conservation commissions oversight, and land trust protection decisions may determine the fate of wetlands that are no longer clearly covered by federal law. Local (municipal) laws can be stricter than state laws, depending on how much authority the State gives to its towns and cities. In many cases, states allow local governments to adopt more protective regulations, especially for land use and natural resources. This is why some towns have stronger wetland buffer requirements or additional protections for vernal pools. How much local governments can go beyond State wetland laws varies by states along the Connecticut River, creating a mix of strong local authority in some places and more state-controlled systems in others. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, local conservation or local conservation commissions play a central role. These towns often have the authority to adopt stricter protections than the State baseline, such as wider buffer zones or additional safeguards for vernal pools and isolated wetlands. As a result, protection can be quite strong—but it may also vary from town to town. In Vermont, wetland regulation is more state-centered with the State setting the primary standards through its wetland rules and classification system. While municipalities can support protection through zoning and planning, they generally have less direct regulatory authority to exceed state wetland permitting requirements. New Hampshire falls somewhere in between. The state runs the core permitting program, but towns can adopt local ordinances that add an extra layer of protection designate. Also, a town can opt to establish a Prime Wetlands [22] ordinance, where specific wetlands have been formally identified by a municipality as having exceptional value and significance and as such receives greater protection under state statutes. Where Small Decisions Shape Big Outcomes For river conservancies, watershed groups, and local conservation organizations, this is a moment for needed transition. Federal law still matters, and state law matters greatly, but the future of many wetlands is increasingly shaped closer to home. Decisions made at the local and regional level - often subtly, in planning meetings, site visits, and community discussions - are becoming the determining factor in whether these threatened wetland ecosystems persist or are altered. That may sound like a burden, but it also creates an opportunity. It means organizations like the Connecticut River Conservancy could play a larger role in shaping the future not only of their rivers but the integrity of a healthy watershed. This shift places greater importance on everyday decisions, such as whether a town chooses to protect or strengthen wetland buffer zones; whether a land trust prioritizes the conservation of a small headwater wetland that may not appear significant at first glance; whether a watershed group restores a floodplain to reconnect a river with its natural storage capacity; or whether a community recognizes the ecological and hydrological value of a beaver complex rather than viewing it as a nuisance to be removed. Individually, these decisions may seem small. Taken together, they shape how water moves through the landscape, how nutrients are filtered, how floods are moderated, and how wildlife persists. In this way, local stewardship is no longer simply complementary to federal and state protections—it is becoming essential to sustaining the health and resilience of the watershed. Wetland definitions matter because legal definitions now determine whether many ecologically important wetlands receive protection at all. If federal coverage continues to narrow, the future of these wetlands will increasingly depend on state laws, local ordinances, land trusts, conservation commissions, and watershed groups. The Connecticut River Conservancy, and the Connecticut River states, each provide important backstops in different ways, but it is also clear that local stewardship is becoming indispensable. The stewards of the Connecticut River should realize the law may change how wetlands are classified, but it does not change how much they matter to the health, resilience, and economy of the watershed. Seeing What Matters: A Call to Stewardship Wetlands have not changed. They still slow floodwaters after heavy rains. They still filter pollutants before they reach our rivers. They still provide habitat for amphibians, birds, and countless unseen organisms. They still shape the health, stability, and resilience of entire watersheds. What has changed is whether we choose to see them—and protect them. As federal definitions narrow, many of the wetlands that quietly sustain the Connecticut River watershed are no longer guaranteed protection. The small forest pools, the headwater seeps, the beaver-shaped wetlands, the peatlands accumulating carbon over centuries—these are the systems now most at risk. Not because they have lost their value, but because they may no longer fit within a legal definition. That shift places the future of wetlands closer to home. It now rests in decisions made by states, towns, conservation commissions, land trusts, and watershed organizations. It lives in local zoning bylaws, buffer protections, restoration projects, and land conservation priorities. It depends on whether communities recognize that the “insignificant” wetland down the road may be doing essential work for the river miles away. This is not just a regulatory gap—it is an opportunity. An opportunity to align how we manage the landscape with how it actually functions. An opportunity to protect wetlands not because they meet a narrow legal test, but because we understand their role in sustaining clean water, reducing flood risk, and supporting life. An opportunity for local stewardship to become the driving force behind watershed resilience. The question is no longer simply What is a wetland under the law? The question should be: What kind of landscape do we want to live in—and are we willing to protect the systems that make it possible? Because in the end, wetlands do not need us to define them. But they do need us to recognize their value. And now, more than ever, the future – and the future of the Connecticut River watershed – depends on whether we act. _________________________________ [1] The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). This authority has historically provided the constitutional foundation for federal regulation of navigable waters and, over time, broader water resource protections. [2] Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 401–413. This law prohibited the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters without federal authorization and represents one of the earliest federal statutes asserting control over activities affecting the nation’s waterways. [3] United States Congress. (1972). Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387 [4] Clean Water Act §101(a)(2) [5] United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/474/121 [6] Following this decision, federal regulatory agencies—primarily the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency—interpreted “adjacent wetlands” broadly when implementing Clean Water Act §404 permitting. In practice, adjacency did not require a continuous surface-water connection; wetlands could be considered jurisdictional if they were bordering, contiguous, or neighboring jurisdictional waters, including those separated by natural features (e.g., berms, dunes) or man-made barriers (e.g., roads, levees). [7] Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001).https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1178.ZS.html [8] Clean Water Act §502(7) [9] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1986). Final rule for regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers (51 Fed. Reg. 41,206). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1986-11-13/pdf/FR-1986-11-13.pdf [10] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause). https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-3/ [11] Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).https://www.epa.gov/wotus/rapanos-v-united-states-carabell-v-united-states [12] The significant nexus test originated in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos v. United States (2006). Under this approach, wetlands could fall under federal jurisdiction if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of downstream navigable waters. This test allowed federal protection of wetlands connected through ecological processes such as floodplain flow, groundwater exchange, or nutrient transport, even if they lacked a continuous surface-water connection. [13] Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf [14] The continuous surface connection test was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA (2023). Under this interpretation, wetlands fall under federal jurisdiction only when they are adjacent to relatively permanent waters and have an ongoing surface-water connection that makes them difficult to distinguish from the adjacent waterbody. Wetlands separated from rivers or lakes by uplands, banks, berms, roads, or other barriers generally fall outside federal jurisdiction under this standard. [15] The range from difference sources is 30 million to 90 million acres. [16] Palustrine wetlands are inland wetlands that are not part of rivers, or lakes They include marshes, swamps, bogs, fens, and many forested wetlands where water is usually shallow and slow-moving or temporarily present. In the classification system used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, palustrine wetlands are typically smaller than about 20 acres and lack strong wave action or deep open water, thus, distinguishing them from lake (lacustrine) or river (riverine) wetlands. [17] A visual method compares the apparent share of mapped wetlands that lie directly along perennial-flow corridors versus wetlands that occur as depressional, headwater, pond-fringe, beaver, floodplain-backwater, or other off-channel settings. Analysis of the four tributaries within the CT River Watershed are documented by the boundaries of USGS’ Hydrologic Unit (HUC-8 level), combined with USFWS’ National Wetland Inventory ((NWI) maps that identify palustrine Wetlands within such a boundary not adjacent to streams, lakes or rivers. For a better estimation of the loss of protection of the palustrine wetlands in the Connecticut River Valley would be a task for a GIS polygon analysis using layers from NWI maps, USGS HUCs, soil overlays and land-use codes polygons. But even then, the NWI maps often miss the smaller isolated wetlands situated on the landscape. [18] Ecosystem services (are the natural benefits that wetlands provide to people and the environment through their normal biological and hydrological functions. These include storing floodwaters, filtering pollutants from water, recharging groundwater, supporting fish and wildlife habitat, and storing carbon. In effect, wetlands perform many of the same functions as built infrastructure—such as flood control and water treatment—but they do so naturally as part of a healthy ecosystem. [19] At the national level, the concept was formalized in 1989 under President George H. W. Bush, who established “no net loss” as a guiding goal for federal agency wetland policy under the Clean Water Act §404 program. [20] Vermont’s recently passed Flood Safety Act (2024). By using a watershed-wide approach to mitigating flood risk across the state, the Act takes a watershed-wide approach to mitigating flood risk across the state, by mandating the increase in statewide flood resilience and protection public safety from flood damage. A particular section of this act[1] specifically targets increasing floodwater storage by establishing for every acre of wetland loss, there must be 2 acres of wetlands restored. [21] Hydric soils are identified by looking for physical and chemical signs that the soil has been saturated long enough to develop low-oxygen conditions. One of the most noticeable indicators is color. When soils remain wet, iron in the soil is reduced and leached away, leaving behind gray or bluish colors known as gleying. You may also see mottling—patches of orange, red, or brown—where oxygen occasionally re-enters the soil and iron re-oxidizes. Another key indicator is the presence of organic matter. In saturated conditions, decomposition slows, allowing dark, mucky material—sometimes called muck or peat. [22] In New Hampshire, Prime Wetlands are locally designated under RSA 482-A as wetlands of exceptional ecological and community value. Municipalities identify and map them through scientific review and public input, with state approval required. Once designated, these wetlands receive stronger protection—proposed impacts such as dredging or filling face stricter review by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and are rarely approved without clear public benefit and no reasonable alternatives. This process allows communities to strengthen protection within the state framework. Selected References Adler, R. W. (2015). The Clean Water Act and the Constitution: The commerce clause and the limits of federal authority. Environmental Law Reporter. https://www.eli.org/eli-press-books/clean-water-act-and-constitution-legal-structure-and-publics-right-clean-and Brinson, M. M. (1993). A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/7194 Calhoun, A. J. K., & deMaynadier, P. (2008). Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/Science-and-Conservation-of-Vernal-Pools-in-Northeastern-North-America-Ecology-and-Conservation-of-Seasonal-Wetlands-in-Northeastern-North-America/Calhoun-DeMaynadier/p/book/9780849336751 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act Clean Water Act Section 404, 33 U.S.C. §1344. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404 Clean Water Act Section 401, 33 U.S.C. §1341. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-401 Cohen, M. J., Creed, I. F., Alexander, L., Basu, N., Calhoun, A. J. K., Craft, C., D’Amico, E., DeKeyser, E., Fowler, L., Golden, H. E., Jawitz, J. W., Kalla, P., Kirkman, L., Lane, C. R., Lang, M., Leibowitz, S. G., Lewis, D. B., Marton, J., McLaughlin, D., & Walls, S. C. (2016). Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(8), 1978–1986. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4776504/ Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act. (2024). Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 22a-36 to 22a-45.https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/pub/chap_440.htm Dahl, T. E., & Stedman, S. (2013). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004–2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-in-the-Conterminous-United-States-2004-to-2009.pdf Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Waters of the United States (WOTUS). https://www.epa.gov/wotus Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/chapter-26 Gold, A. C. (2024). How wet must a wetland be to have federal protections in the post-Sackett United States? Science. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39325904/ Golden, H. E., Lane, C. R., Amatya, D. M., Bandilla, K. W., Raanan-Kiperwas, H., Knightes, C. D., & Ssegane, H. (2014). Hydrologic connectivity between geographically isolated wetlands and surface water systems: A review of select modeling methods. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 50(2), 291–310. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/46482 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ Lang, M. W., Ingebritsen, S., & Griffin, R. (2024). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2009–2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/wetlands-status-and-trends-2009-to-2019.pdf Leibowitz, S. G., Mushet, D. M., Newton, W. E., Alexander, L. C., Cohen, M. J., Creed, I. F., Golden, H. E., Jawitz, J. W., Kalla, P., Lane, C. R., & McLaughlin, D. L. (2018). Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters: An integrated systems framework. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6071435/ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. (2025). 310 CMR 10.00: Wetlands Protection Act Regulations.https://www.mass.gov/regulations/310-CMR-1000-wetlands-protection-act-regulations Meltz, R. (2015). The wetlands coverage of the Clean Water Act: Rapanos and beyond. Congressional Research Service. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL33263.pdf Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2015). Wetlands (5th ed.). Wiley. https://books.google.com/books?id=SPkwBgAAQBAJ National Research Council. (1995). Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. National Academy Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/4766/wetlands-characteristics-and-boundaries Natural Resources Defense Council. (2025). New report reveals massive loss of wetland protections after Sackett. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Wetlands_Report_R_25-03-B_05_locked.pdf RSA 482-A Fill and Dredge in Wetlands Act. (2024). N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 482-A.https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-l/chapter-482-a/ Odum, E. P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders. https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsofec0000odum Pollock, M. M., Beechie, T. J., & Jordan, C. E. (2014). The beaver restoration guidebook: Working with beaver to restore streams, wetlands, and floodplains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/media/beaver-restoration-guidebook Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). https://www.epa.gov/wotus/rapanos-v-united-states-carabell-v-united-states Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §403. https://www. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-5399/pdf/COMPS-5399.pdf. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1178.ZS.html Union of Concerned Scientists. (2024). Sackett decision puts wetlands at risk. https://www.ucs.org/about/news/sackett-decision-puts-30-million-acres-wetlands-risk United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/474/121 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1987). Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. https://www.sac.usace.army.mil/portals/43/docs/regulatory/1987_wetland_delineation_manual_reg.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2012). Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual: Northcentral and Northeast region. https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/handle/11681/10107 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Adjacency Standard). (1986). Final rule for regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers and EPA (33 CFR Parts 323 and 328; 40 CFR Part 230). Federal Register, 51(219), 41206–41260. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1986-11-13/pdf/FR-1986-11-13.pdf U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause). https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-3/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=296414& U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). National wetlands inventory. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2009–2019. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/wetlands-status-and-trends-2009-2019-signed.pdf Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (2020). Vermont wetland rules. https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/vermont/12-056-Code-Vt-R-12-004-056-X

“What do you think watershed means?” Kathy Urffer, CRC River Steward, asked 5th graders in Bridget Cole’s class at Dover School in Vermont. On a cloudy Monday in late January, with snow piled high outside the school, Kathy and Alden Dumas, an ECO Americorps member serving with the CRC, facilitated a lively presentation about the Connecticut River watershed featuring the 3D EnviroScape model. Kathy broke the word down into “water + shed” and asked students what happens when dogs shed? “What if your dog was made of water and it shed?” Everyone laughed when Aleah responded, “It would disappear.” Students contributed ideas about water moving downhill and bringing stuff with it. Alden confirmed their concepts with a definition of watershed – “an area of land within which water flows into the same body of water” – and projected maps of the Deerfield and Connecticut River watersheds. Watershed neighbors and stories Colorful slides provided a vivid backdrop to the question and answer format of learning about the watershed. Students shared stories about storm drains (Where do you think the water goes?) and fish living in the Connecticut River watershed. Miles observed that “two trout live under the rock” in the stream behind his house, and another student once saw a sea lamprey stuck onto a fish they caught in the river. They were spellbound by Kathy’s stories of American eels leaving their babies out in the ocean to find their way home: "Could you do that? No! We’re human!” Working with the 3D Model Alden invited students over to the 3D watershed model and asked them what people put on the land and where will it end up when it rains? Students called out: Cow manure! Gasoline! Trash! Salt! Sewage! Pesticides! Fertilizers! With each suggestion, Alden and Kathy sprinkled substances. Everyone pointed to the basin of water at the bottom of the landscape as the place where it would all end up. One student exclaimed, “I would not drink anything from that town!” Point Source Pollution Kathy and Alden used the “factory” building with sludge flowing out from a pipe to explain “point source pollution” (“you can point to it!”). Kathy explained how it is restricted by federal and state regulations. Students seemed surprised and indignant that factories are allowed to put any “sludge” into the water. “When you get older, how can you help to solve this problem?” Kathy asked the 5th graders, who were examining the mess on the model watershed. “Pull the plug!” was the first suggestion – but Alden and Kathy said it would go straight to the ocean. Students chimed in with other possible solutions: “Use giant squeegees to remove the dirty water” “Make people who live in the town use the water for cooking, so they realize” “Maybe in the future, instead of gasoline we could use orange juice” “Make people use this water – we would give them clean drinking water – but if they want to fill their pool, they have to use it” Alden shared a solution from the Rich Earth Institute that ECO Americorps friends of his are developing- a project to pasteurize pee to reuse the nitrogen to fertilize crops. Kathy showed students on the model where and how planting trees could protect streams and filter run-off before it reached our rivers. Takeaways and reflections The session closed with thank-yous from Alden and Kathy for students’ interest in learning about water problems and solutions. Students each shared one word that stuck with them from the presentation: “dinosaur fish, sturgeon, cow manure, eels leave their babies in the ocean, sludge, sea lamprey, loon, pollution.” Their words capture the excitement of learning about the challenges, complexities and wonders of our watershed. Fifth grade teacher Bridget Cole reflected on the lesson,“What a great presentation! I think it’s so important for the youth to learn about what is going on in their environment. I want them to know as much as possible so they are better able to make changes for a better future.” CRC staff is glad to come present in your classroom. Don’t hesitate to reach out to our river stewards in each state. Teachers are also welcome to borrow CRC’s Enviroscape pollution model: Enviroscape Watershed Model Request.

Sea lamprey nest survey conducted with volunteers on the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. This article was originally published by the Cheshire County Conservation District and is reprinted here with permission. Each spring as the snow turns to rain and the land starts to warm up, heralding the arrival of snowdrops, crocuses, and spring peepers, my mind starts to turn to gardening… and fish! In my role as the Aquatic Ecologist at the Connecticut River Conservancy I think about fish a lot, but in spring that kicks into high gear as our native anadromous fish species begin heading upstream to spawn, and I prepare to head out and help collect data about where they are and how many are there. Alewives lead the charge, moving from Long Island Sound into the river beginning in March or April and are soon followed by blueback herring, shad, sturgeon, stripers, and sea lamprey. Catadromous American eel juveniles are also coming upstream, but to feed rather than to breed. Not all of those migratory fish species travel as far upstream as New Hampshire. In Cheshire County, we no longer see Atlantic salmon in the river as they were sadly extirpated by overfishing, habitat degradation, and dams restricting spawning site access. But we typically do see American eel, sea lamprey, and American shad in the mainstem and NH tributaries like the Ashuelot and Cold rivers. These species play a unique and important role in shaping and nourishing the river ecosystems, from reorganizing the riverbed substrate while building nests (see photo of sea lamprey), to being important components of both aquatic and terrestrial food webs, to acting as a conduit for marine derived nutrients into these ecosystems, thereby allowing the whole community to thrive and be more resilient than it would without the presence of these fish. Sea lamprey use their suction mouths to move rocks while building a nest. In the process they shape habitat and shelter for other organisms. So, what’s the connection to farming in Cheshire County? That very concept of nourishing our ecosystems leading to higher productivity, biodiversity, and resilience applies on land too. As you may know, the fertile floodplain soils that support much of our farming community exist because of how water shaped our landscape. Glacier formation and retreat ground up the land and spread the ground up rocks around. When glacial Lake Hitchcock drained about 13,000 years ago, it left behind layers of sediment deposited over its existence, from varves of clay that enabled Keene’s brick factories, to terraced sand and gravel banks supporting today’s commercial pits and filtering our groundwater. Seasonal flooding as the lake retreated into the Connecticut River we are familiar with deposited nutrient rich lake-bottom soils, which form the basis of the prime farmland in our river valleys. And in more recent times, the river continues to enrich the farmland. The spring freshet brings water downstream and where it is able to, the river overflows the banks and continues the cycle of sediment and nutrient deposition on the floodplains. As the spring high waters carry their load downstream, the fish bring their nutrients upstream as well. American shad arrival coincides with the blooming of the shadbush (see photo of shad and shadbush blossoms). Shad were once so plentiful in the Connecticut River that it seemed we could never run out. A 1921 article in the Brattleboro Daily Reformer refers to an historical anecdote indicating that “about the year 1803 shad at times were so abundant in West River at its mouth that it looked as though one could walk across the river on them.” Shad fed people directly, including both indigenous Native Americans as well as early colonists to our area. But they fed people indirectly as well, being so abundant that they were easily caught and utilized as fertilizer on crop fields in the lower river even as their eggs, young, and carcasses (though not all shad die after spawning) fed the river system. Image 1 Credit: James Garner (permission granted). Shad in the Connecticut River, one with a lamprey hitchhiker! Image 2 Credit: Kate Buckman. Trees in the Amelanchier genus, like the shadbush, bloom in early spring before leaf out. Sadly, that abundance did not last. Overfishing, habitat alteration, pollution, and especially, the construction of dams on the Connecticut River all detrimentally affected the spawning runs and survival of shad and other migratory fish species. As early as 1867 New Hampshire passed a law prohibiting the catching or killing of shad and salmon in the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers (see detail from the newspaper) and efforts to stock shad throughout the river occurred throughout the mid to late 1800s, which were largely thwarted by the construction of new or higher dams. In more recent years, shad (and other migratory fish) have benefited from management efforts directly aimed at increasing population numbers, including improving or building fish passage facilities, removing barriers that are no longer serving a function, preventing overfishing, improving water quality, and more. Yet other factors, particularly climate change, will impact migratory fish populations in ways that we cannot control. Another familiar point of connection with farms! Detail from the Aug 2, 1867 edition of the NH Statesman. In 2025, a total of 324,172 shad passed upstream through the fishway at the dam in Holyoke, MA, the first barrier on the mainstem. That’s well under the fish population goals set in a watershed-wide recovery plan, but a dramatic improvement from the 5,900 shad counted in 1955. I, for one, am grateful for every fish swimming upstream against the current to join in the spring emergence of new life and growth. They feed our waters, which feed our soils, which feed us humans. I am also grateful to support an organization like CCCD that recognizes these vital connections between water and land, wildlife and people, and works to ensure our agricultural lands are stewarded in a manner that allows them to continue to thrive, much like I endeavor to do for the watershed which helped make those farms possible. Dr. Kate Buckman (left) points out aspects of a sea lamprey redd while conducting a survey on the Ashuelot River with community volunteers.

D.F. Riley Grist Mill Dam in Hatfield, MA The Connecticut River Conservancy is working with the private dam owners, The Nature Conservancy, Tighe & Bond, and other partners on the removal of the D.F. Riley Grist Mill dam in Hatfield, MA. This project is currently underway and this page is updated regularly as new information becomes available. The presentation from the public meeting on May 7, 2026 can be found here. An FAQ with project details and objectives is available here. Background Summary: Like many old mill dams, the D.F. Riley Grist Mill dam no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended. The current structure was built in 1881 although there has been a dam at this site since 1661. The dam initially served as a grist mill/sawmill and later powered the manufacturing of various other products. The condition of the dam has deteriorated over time, and it blocks fish from accessing valuable upstream habitat. It is the only standing dam on the mainstem Mill River. Its removal will benefit migratory species such as American shad, sea lamprey, and many others, and improve the overall ecological health of the river system as well as its resilience to climate change. Removal would also eliminate a safety hazard for the community and the maintenance and liability burden for the dam owners. 2024 Grant Award Announcement: In 2024 the Healey-Driscoll Administration announced over $13.9 million in grants to support the repair of dams and coastal infrastructure across Massachusetts. The funding, provided through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ (EEA) Dam and Seawall Program, will help 23 municipalities and nonprofit organizations – including Connecticut River Conservancy – to address critical repairs and safely remove outdated structures in their communities. This provided the first round of funding for exploring removal of the D.F. Riley Grist Mill Dam. The Dam and Seawall program focuses on enhancing the safety and functionality of essential infrastructure, which protects residents and supports local economies. Prioritizing repairs and removals will help mitigate risks associated with severe weather events and rising sea levels. The investment demonstrates the administration's dedication to helping communities adapt to climate change. By restoring and removing aging infrastructure, public safety will improve, and local ecosystems will be protected. This will also increase resilience in coastal areas. The grants will fund fourteen design and permitting projects and nine construction projects to advance designs and permits as well as to construct the projects. Since the program began in 2013, the Dam and Seawall Program has provided $134 million in grants and loans to address deficient dams, seawalls, and levees with these new grants. More details available here. Sign up for our newsletters to get more river news and Connecticut River watershed updates directly in your inbox.

Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) refers to systems and practices that mimic natural processes to manage stormwater runoff, improve water quality, and enhance community resilience. These projects encompass a variety of techniques such as rain gardens, vegetated swales, green roofs, and permeable pavers designed to manage stormwater in a sustainable manner. Unlike traditional gray infrastructure, which relies on concrete channels and pipes to quickly divert water away, GSI aims to capture, absorb, and filter rainwater where it falls. This approach can help to reduce flooding, improve water quality, mitigate urban heat islands, enhance biodiversity, restore natural hydrology in urban environments, enhance tourism and recreational opportunities, increase property values, create jobs, and improve human health and well-being. Lys Gant (Save the Sound), and Charles Soucy (CRC) present in this LiveStream on projects throughout the Connecticut River watershed. Recorded 05/13/2026

Cyanobacteria bloom at Nashawannuck Pond in July 2025 Program Overview Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) began monitoring cyanobacteria in Hampshire County, Massachusetts in 2023 and has since increased the number of sample sites and sampling frequency. This program was started due to concern from community members about potential cyanobacteria blooms at existing aquatic invasive species removal sites. Monitoring as of June 2025 includes 13 sample locations at eight water bodies, and each site is monitored on a biweekly basis from May through October. All results are emailed to interested stakeholders following sampling events. Additionally, town health departments are notified if a public water body tests positive for a bloom. CRC is not responsible for any cyanobacteria-related signage at water bodies and does not have the authority to enforce regulations regarding water usage. Please consult with local town governments for issuing or lifting advisories related to cyanobacteria blooms and water usage. What is Cyanobacteria? Cyanobacteria is a phylum of photosynthetic bacteria that produce chlorophyll as well as another pigment called phycocyanin. Some cyanobacteria also produce cyanotoxins. Cyanotoxins can have a wide range of health effects on humans and animals dependent on species and concentration. A ‘bloom’ is said to occur when the ratio of chlorophyll to phycocyanin reaches a certain threshold. Anthropogenic climate change may increase the frequency and duration of blooms, and this may lead to increased health risks. The presence of a bloom does not necessarily indicate the presence of cyanotoxins, and additional testing is needed to determine the presence of toxins and the species of cyanobacteria present. Different species may emit different toxins that are harmful at different concentrations and have different health impacts. Additionally, a cyanobacteria bloom does not always have a particular appearance, smell, or other indicator. As a result of these varied possibilities, it is best practice to avoid a water body with a confirmed or suspected cyanobacteria bloom. Monitoring Results This cyanobacteria monitoring project is still in its early phases, so the results presented below are not definitive. We now have data from two complete monitoring seasons, 2024 and 2025. Both years were hot and dry, with drought conditions observed late in the season. Collecting data for complete seasons under a variety of conditions will help to build a more complete picture about each individual water body as well as any impacts that land use or mitigation strategies have on cyanobacteria blooms. A total of 356 data observations were made across the three years and the various water bodies sampled: 2023 had 48 observations, 2024 had 143 observations, and 2025 had 165 observations. Based on the information collected, this program has grown substantially since the first year of data collection. Data from these three years at the sites do not show any clear trends. This is a small-scale study in a limited geographic region and may not be representative of larger data trends. Temperature, eutrophication, and other factors impact the likelihood and frequency of blooms seen in recent years (WHOI 2019). Additionally, increasing reports may be indicative of increased bloom occurrence, increased awareness of cyanobacteria blooms, and/or increased reporting capacity. Blooms Detected by Site and Year In 2023, blooms were only detected in Swimming Pond and Kayak Pond. In 2024, blooms were detected in Swimming Pond, Kayak Pond, Lower Great Pond, Triangle Pond, Rubber Thread Pond, and at Pine Island Lake (sampling location 1). In 2025, blooms were detected at Swimming Pond, Kayak Pond, and at all three sampling locations on Nashawannuck Pond. In the figures below, blooms by sampling site are shown in green (bloom detected) vs. blue (bloom not detected). Blooms Detected by Month and Year In 2023, blooms were only detected in July and August. In 2024, blooms were detected in July, September, and October. In 2025, blooms were detected in June, July, and August. In the figures below, blooms by month are shown in green (bloom detected) vs. blue (bloom not detected). Data by Site Group and Land Use Hockanum Road Ponds The Hockanum Road Ponds group is comprised of two small ponds on private property in Hadley called Kayak Pond and Swimming Pond (named by the landowner). This is the smallest watershed in the project at 0.11 square miles. Due to its small size, the entirety of the watershed is considered forested by the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). At a finer resolution than we can calculate, there is some development (housing) and open green space (lawn) within the watershed. Lake Warner Lake Warner is an impoundment near the mouth of the Mill River in Hadley. It is the largest watershed in this project at 31.7 square miles. The Mill River watershed has a large variety of land uses. In addition to a significant amount of forest, primarily in the headwaters, it also includes significant agricultural use, and most of the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. Lake Warner is preserved by the nonprofit Friends of Lake Warner and the Mill River. Great Pond Great Pond, located in Hatfield, is divided into two sections which we informally call “Upper Great Pond” and “Lower Great Pond.” Water flows out of lower Great Pond into Cow Bridge Brook and then into the Connecticut River. The 2.91 square mile watershed is primarily agricultural land use followed by wetlands and forests. Northampton Ponds Triangle Pond and Magnolia Pond are two hydrologically connected ponds just off the Oxbow and the Connecticut River within the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge in Northampton. They are frequented by paddlers and anglers. This is a small watershed at 0.22 square miles that is split nearly equally between open water, wetland, and agricultural use. Nashawannuck Pond Nashawannuck Pond is in the center of Easthampton. It has a 10.2 square mile watershed which includes Rubber Thread Pond, and it is part of the Manhan River watershed. The watershed is about half forested and a little over a quarter developed. It is preserved by the Nashawannuck Pond Steering Committee, an all-volunteer group of Easthampton residents. Rubber Thread Pond Rubber Thread Pond is a small pond located to the west of Nashawannuck Pond in Easthampton. Its watershed is a 1.25 square mile subsection of the Nashawannuck Pond watershed. This portion of the watershed is nearly half developed and only about one-quarter forested. Compared to Nashawannuck Pond, Rubber Thread Pond is more immediately affected by urban runoff. Pine Island Lake Pine Island Lake is located in Westhampton, as part of the Manhan River watershed. It is within and has a small, mostly forested 0.72 square mile watershed. It is also within the Manhan River watershed. It is privately owned and preserved by the Pine Island Lake Association and has strict controls in place to prevent the introduction of invasive aquatic species. Discussion Factors impacting blooms include temperature, nutrient abundance (particularly phosphorus in freshwater systems), wind and weather, past and present land use, and more. Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change exacerbates risk factors for cyanobacteria blooms. In particular, higher temperatures and increased nutrient inputs may contribute to trends in blooms. Land uses that contribute to higher nutrient inputs may generally pose greater risks for blooms; however, this does not appear to be the case at the locations tested. A group of concerned community members organize barley straw deployment to help manage cyanobacteria blooms. Barley straw is being studied as a cyanobacteria bloom mitigation strategy that may reduce the time for which a bloom is present. As it decomposes, barley straw slowly releases a low dose of compounds (the exact chemical pathway is not entirely clear) that interrupt the reproductive cycle of the cyanobacteria. For this reason, barley straw is considered a bacteriostat as it does not kill the cyanobacteria. Barley straw has been deployed in Nashawannuck Pond, Pine Island Lake, Hadley Swimming Pond, and Hadley Kayak Pond. The volume of barley straw deployed at each site has differed depending on the monitoring year but is generally calculated based on the surface area of the water body. Overall, land use and barley straw presence do not show clear impacts on the presence of blooms. Hadley Kayak and Hadley Swimming Ponds have had blooms in each monitoring year, but the presence of blooms at other sites has differed year to year. More data is needed to better understand the factors contributing to blooms at these sites. Cyanobacteria bloom at Hockanum Road Ponds in July 2025 Data use and next steps CRC submitted all 2025 observations to the Environmental Protection Agency’s water quality database (WQX) in December 2025. This data is now available to the public through the EPA’s water quality portal. These data are preapproved by the EPA due to CRC’s Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) designed for this monitoring project. CRC plans to continue cyanobacteria monitoring at the same sites from May-October 2026 and, as of March 2026, has received funding from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for the 2026 season to continue this work. A note from Melissa (Water Quality Program Manager) and Jodie (Water Quality Monitoring Assistant) We had a blast this year out on the water! We spotted whirligig beetles, water striders, great blue herons, double-crested cormorants, kingfishers, a green heron, dozens of painted turtles and red eared sliders, eastern newts, frogs, grackles, ducks, bald eagles, dragonflies and damselflies (including a dragonfly larva clinging to a twig!), aquatic snails, and more! We both saw our first beaver paddling on Magnolia Pond, lots of bryozoan (a colonial invertebrate reminiscent of coral) that we were able to look at under a microscope, and a new-to-us insect called a woolly alder aphid. We are so grateful to everyone involved in this program and everyone who supports CRC. Most of all, we are grateful for our stunning watershed and the many creatures and treasures within it. Putting our feet up in the middle of a busy monitoring day at Triangle Pond Support the Water Quality Monitoring Program

Aquatic invasive plants are reshaping our rivers and waterbodies across the region. In this Live Stream webinar, we explore the Connecticut River’s aquatic invasive plants with a focused look at water chestnut and hydrilla. We discuss how to recognize them, mechanisms that result in their spreading, and the short- and long-term impacts they have on our native ecosystems. We also cover practical ways you can get involved, from adding intention to your own recreational equipment management practices to hand pulling opportunities throughout the watershed. Our lead speaker is Kelly Beerman, the Connecticut River Conservancy’s (CRC) Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager. Kelly is responsible for directing, coordinating, and executing CRC’s work regarding hydrilla, water chestnut, and all aquatic invasives throughout the Connecticut River watershed. This includes current community education & outreach initiatives as well as designing and implementing future projects. We were also joined by Toni Stewart and Jim Straub from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Lakes and Ponds Program . Recorded on 04/15/2026 _____________________ About Live Stream : CRC brings your rivers to you! Join CRC staff and partners for a series of live lunchtime presentations, on select Wednesdays from Noon-1pm. You get to learn more about the rivers you love, ask questions, and interact with a river-loving community all from the comfort and safety of your home (or wherever you may be). LiveStream will be hosted via Zoom. Please register for each presentation to receive meeting information.

Film still from Between Moon Tides, one of the films that will will be shown at the Wild & Scenic Film Festival in Bellows Falls, VT on April 30, 2026. A CELEBRATION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT! The Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) is excited to once again host the Wild & Scenic Film Festival at the Bellows Falls Opera House on Thursday, April 30 th .   The tour event will feature a range of river-focused environmental films from across the globe, including one made by CRC right here in the Connecticut River watershed. The film selection will cover a range of topics with a common thread of human connection and stewardship of the natural world. These films highlight inspiring stories of resilience, research, and community. In addition to the films, the event will include speakers and raffle prizes. "The Wild and Scenic Film Festival is a great opportunity to reflect on our place in the natural world and dream about the adventures that warmer weather can bring,” says Kathy Urffer, Director of Policy and Advocacy, and Vermont River Steward. “The films inspire you to get out there to connect with life and protect what sustains and nourishes us - our planet." This will be the second year of the Conservancy’s hosting of the Wild and Scenic Film Festival in Bellows Falls, with a turnout of over 100 guests at last year’s event. Similar events occur in other parts of the watershed, but with each organization hosting a unique selection of films—and CRC contributing an original short film this year related to migratory fish research—no two Film Festival events are ever the same.   The Festival is a natural extension of CRC’s work to restore and advocate for clean water, healthy habitats, and resilient communities throughout the region. Attendees will learn about upcoming river restoration projects, and opportunities to get involved with community science, river cleanups, and more. CRC is hosting the Wild & Scenic Film Festival event in hopes that guests will leave with a renewed interest in the natural world just as spring begins to bloom. Local sponsors for the event include the Savings Bank of Walpole, 802 Credit Union, Chroma, Ottauquechee Natural Resources Conservation District, Lawson’s Finest Liquors, Reuter Foundation Repairs, Northern Woodlands Magazine, and many others listed on the event page here. The Connecticut River Conservancy is looking forward to seeing you at the Wild & Scenic Film Festival!    EVENT DETAILS:  Date: Thursday, April 30 th , 2026 Time: Doors open at 6:00pm and films start at 6:30pm  Ticket Prices: $10 for children, $12 for adults, $15 at the door  Tickets can be purchased in advance or at the door. For more information, visit www.ctriver.org/wild-scenic-films .   About the Connecticut River Conservancy: The Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) restores and advocates for clean water, healthy habitats, and resilient communities to support a diverse and thriving watershed. Through collaborative partnerships in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, CRC leads and supports science-based efforts for natural and life-filled rivers from source to sea. Learn more at  ctriver.org . About the Wild & Scenic Film Festival: The Wild & Scenic Film Festival was started by the watershed advocacy group, the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) in 2003. The festival’s namesake is in celebration of SYRCL’s landmark victory to receive “Wild & Scenic” status for 39 miles of the South Yuba River in 1999. Proceeds from the flagship festival each year go directly to fostering the science, advocacy, activism and education that are crucial to keeping their river healthy and beautiful. Learn more at wildandscenicfilmfestival.org .

Connecticut River in Northfield, MA In February 2026, the Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) submitted comments to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on proposed updates to the state’s Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.0). These standards are a cornerstone of clean water protections under the federal Clean Water Act and determine how clean rivers, lakes, and coastal waters must be to support uses such as drinking water, swimming, boating, and aquatic life. CRC supports many of MassDEP’s proposed improvements, including stronger recreational protections and the removal of outdated classifications. However, we also recommended several important changes to ensure the standards reflect today’s environmental challenges and provide stronger protection for Massachusetts waters. One key recommendation is to protect water quantity alongside water quality. Low river flows, caused by drought or excessive withdrawals, can concentrate pollution, raise water temperatures, and increase harmful algal blooms. Neighboring states, such as Vermont and Connecticut, already include requirements to maintain adequate flows to protect water quality. CRC urged MassDEP to adopt similar language, apply standards to hydrologic changes such as dams and water withdrawals, and use the most recent thirty years of hydrologic data when determining low-flow conditions. CRC also called on the state to adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. Nutrient pollution fuels algae blooms that degrade lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Massachusetts currently lags behind other New England states in establishing statewide numeric limits. CRC recommends adopting EPA nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs now and developing criteria for rivers, streams, and estuaries during the next review cycle. Another priority is establishing water quality standards for PFAS and cyanobacteria. Both are considered toxic pollutants and are growing concerns for public health and aquatic ecosystems. CRC recommended adopting EPA cyanobacteria criteria and developing PFAS standards aligned with federal guidance so that communities have enforceable protections rather than advisories alone. CRC also recommended strengthening bacteria monitoring requirements. MassDEP proposes using a 30-day assessment window for bathing beaches but a 90-day window for other waters. CRC urged the state to apply a consistent 30-day window for all waters, consistent with EPA guidance, to better capture short-term contamination spikes that pose risks to swimmers and boaters. Additional recommendations include strengthening coldwater fisheries protections, clarifying and actively designating Special Resource Waters, and improving public engagement and transparency during the triennial review process. Surface Water Quality Standards determine whether it is safe to swim, whether fish populations thrive, and how resilient our rivers are to climate change. As drought intensifies and emerging contaminants spread, Massachusetts must ensure its standards remain modern, science-based, and protective. CRC remains committed to working with MassDEP, municipalities, and community partners to safeguard clean water for current and future generations. You can read the proposed amendments here !