|
Laura Gregory, KWA's Watershed Program Director, joined the The Friends of the Tug Fork River (FOTTFR) for a Tire Tug of War cleanup event in August.
Dolly, a River, and a Tire Tug of War The mountains got steeper and taller, the kudzu thicker, as I drove through the winding roads of Eastern KY. In the light of a clear blue morning, I was singing along with Dolly Parton as the fog settled high in the hilltops when I crossed the bridge over the beautiful Tug Fork River from South Williamson KY to Williamson, WV where I would join the Friends of the Tug Fork River behind the flood wall for a Tire Tug of War. I was welcomed with friendly smiles, handshakes, and hugs. People were already lowering john boats down the bank to the riverside. John Burchett, a Friends of the Tug Fork River (FOTTFR ) leader, came over to me with the news, “The water’s up about six inches higher than we usually do these cleanups. The hydratrek is not working. Bogged down. Overheating. They’re working on it and hopefully it will be up and running soon. For now, we’ll stage the tires and use the john boats to get them back to this bank.” I admit, I was disappointed because the hydratrek is one of the unique aspects of FOTTFR cleanups, and was the main attraction I’d gone to see in action. The hydratrek is a heavy duty, multi-purpose, amphibious vehicle (MPAV) built with rubber tracks and a marine-grade aluminum body. It drives across rugged land, sticky mud, and seamlessly floats into deep water using integrated bronze propellers. This machine can remove tires, huge tires, heavy equipment tires, that cannot be safely removed by human power alone. This equipment is owned and operated by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) who works closely with FOTTFR on their tire removal efforts. Using this type of equipment, FOTTFR and WV DEP have been able to remove almost 20,000 tires in 7 years. If Kentucky could add this type of equipment and supporting personnel, we could accomplish larger, more difficult, waterway tire removal efforts across the commonwealth. So, we removed the tires the old fashioned way. Volunteers (12) used handmade tire hooks to pry 251 tires from less than a .3 mile section of the Tug Fork River. The hydratrek never got back to operational on this day, so we lugged the tires on the john boats to the bank where WV DEP wrapped them with a cable and used a tractor to wench them up the steep bank. They then used the tractor to move the tires into a box truck where they will later be transported to their tire dump while the rest of the volunteers enjoyed lunch in the shade of the flood wall. Before I started my drive back home, worn out and proud of the work that we just accomplished together, I took a moment to marvel at the beautiful Tug Fork River, freshened up, running swift and clear, with fish striking the water surface and a green heron perched on a branch. I thought about the new friends I just made during this one-of-a-kind, type two fun, and a Dolly quote came to mind, "If your actions create a legacy that inspires others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, then, you are an excellent leader." KWA is incredibly grateful for watershed stewards, leaders, and groups like FOTTFR that do the hard work that makes a positive improvement on our water, environment, and human health and inspires others to do the same. The Friends of the Tug Fork River is a grassroots nonprofit organization dedicated to restoring and protecting the Tug Fork watershed, preserving local history, and boosting adventure ecotourism. Since founding their signature "Tire Tug of War" cleanup initiative in 2019, this volunteer-driven group has battled decades of illegal dumping to revitalize the river. Partnering with local volunteers, community groups, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, they have pulled nearly 20,000 waste tires out of the river mud and banks, clear-cutting a path toward a cleaner, healthier waterway for generations to come. The Tug Fork River is a 159-mile waterway that flows through the rugged Appalachian Mountains of southwestern West Virginia. Part of the Big Sandy River basin, the river twists northwest to form a natural border between West Virginia and Kentucky before merging with the Levisa Fork to form the Big Sandy River.
0 Comments
 Comment on EPA’s September 2026 WOTUS Proposal by October 9
EPA and the Army Corps are considering another significant narrowing of the waters protected by the Clean Water Act. The September 2026 Supplement to its 2025 Proposal focuses on which streams qualify as “relatively permanent” and when wetlands have a sufficient “continuous surface connection.” What EPA Is Considering
Why This Matters in Kentucky Kentucky is especially vulnerable because state law now ties much of Kentucky’s water jurisdiction to the federal WOTUS definition. Kentucky’s Division of Water has already warned EPA “relatively permanent waters should not be limited to [strictly] perennial waters” in Kentucky and that further federal narrowing will almost certainly result in a significant loss of protection for Kentucky waters and wetlands. Kentucky DOW’s analysis of the 2025 proposal estimated that only about 24,869 of Kentucky’s 93,776 stream miles could remain protected under one continuously flowing-stream scenario. A narrower alternative fell to 13,093 miles. DOW also estimated only 44,285 of 324,233 existing wetland acres would remain protected under the wetland approach it analyzed. Those figures do not estimate the new September 2026 supplement. However, the National Resources Defense Council estimates only 6% of wetlands would retain protection nationally, including only 692 acres of Kentucky wetlands. For Kentucky, the concern is straightforward. Our headwaters, intermittent streams, wetlands, springs, and karst groundwater systems function together. Water does not stop moving through a watershed simply because surface flow temporarily stops. Make Your Voice Heard: Comments are due October 9, 2026. The National Wildlife Federation has created an easy Action Alert you can use to submit a comment. Please personalize your comment. Explain why a particular Kentucky stream, wetland, drinking-water source, fishing area, community, or watershed matters to you. The EPA treats identical and near-identical submissions as mass-mail campaigns and may post only one representative comment with the campaign total. EPA also advises that specific comments supported by facts, reasoning, and personal experience are more likely to inform its decision. Use the NWF Action Alert, but make the comment your own. Ideas to Make Your WOTUS Comment Personal and Effective: 1.Why does clean water matter to you? Name a Kentucky river, creek, lake, wetland, spring, or watershed you fish, paddle, hunt, swim, farm near, or rely on for drinking water. 2.Protect the whole watershed. Explain that headwaters, intermittent streams, wetlands, springs, and groundwater are connected. A stream does not stop affecting downstream water simply because it stops flowing for part of the year. 3.Kentucky is especially vulnerable. Kentucky has more than 93,000 miles of rivers and streams, and a large share are intermittent or ephemeral. EPA acknowledges most intermittent streams would fail the new proposed standard. 4.Kentucky has already lost most of its wetlands. Roughly 80% of Kentucky’s historic wetlands are gone. Explain why the wetlands that remain matter for flood storage, water quality, wildlife, and groundwater. 5.Kentucky cannot easily replace lost federal protections. State law now ties much of Kentucky’s water jurisdiction to WOTUS. When federal protection shrinks, Kentucky’s protection can shrink with it. 6.Make a clear request. Ask EPA and the Army Corps to reject the new perennial-flow and perennial-surface-water tests and maintain a WOTUS definition that protects connected waters and downstream communities. Choose two or three points and make them your own. Personal comments about places, experiences, and concerns are more useful than identical form comments.  Clean Water, Strong Communities: Your Water. Your Community. Your Vote. Water can’t vote. Protecting Kentucky’s waterways requires people to participate in the decisions that affect them. Healthy waters depend on informed and engaged communities. Public notice, transparent decision-making, accurate information, and meaningful opportunities to participate give Kentuckians a voice in decisions our elected leaders are making about our rivers, drinking water, health, and communities. Your vote is your voice. Nonpartisan. Informative. Accessible. Caring for Kentucky’s waterways means more than cleanups and restoration. Universal stewardship means staying informed, showing up, and participating in the public decisions that shape our communities. KWA’s civic engagement work is strictly nonpartisan and focused on helping people participate with clear, reliable information and trusted resources. In 2026, KWA is partnering with National Wildlife Federation and Our People Our Vote to expand this work ahead of the November elections. Together, we will share accurate election information, key deadlines, and practical resources to help Kentuckians register, verify their information, make a voting plan, and participate.
KWA Trusted Partner Voting Guides: What to Do: 1. Check or update your registration
Kentucky’s 2026 General Election is November 3. No-excuse early in-person voting will be available October 29–31, with additional absentee options available for eligible voters. Important Dates
Election Protection Hotline If you have trouble voting, ask a poll worker for help. Kentucky voters have rights on Election Day, including the right to ask questions about election procedures and, in certain circumstances, vote provisionally. For immediate, nonpartisan assistance, contact the Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683). Trained volunteers can help answer voting questions and address problems at the polls. Election Protection 866 Our Vote Website.
Care. Know. Participate. Participation is part of stewardship. Caring for Kentucky’s waterways means staying informed and participating in the decisions that shape the future of our communities. 
The new supplemental proposed rule (updated from the initial November 2025 proposed rule) would strip the few remaining federal protections of U.S. wetlands and streams, many of which help feed drinking water systems. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates this new rule could strip federal protections from 94 percent of U.S. wetlands and streams that do not flow continuously. This is a gutting of the Clean Water Act as we have known it.
What KWA is recommending you do by October 10: Submit comments to the EPA voicing your support of federal protections of wetlands, streams, and clean drinking water. Submit comments here. Kentucky Waterways Alliance Comments on the Proposed Definition of “Waters of the United States” Kentucky Waterways Alliance (“KWA”) opposes EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ September 2026 Supplemental proposal to further narrow the definition of “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) under the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act was designed to protect the integrity of the Nation’s waters. This requires recognizing a basic hydrologic reality that rivers, tributaries, headwaters, wetlands, springs, and groundwater connections function together as watersheds. Pollution or destruction upstream does not stop there simply because a stream periodically stops flowing or a wetland lacks a permanent surface-water connection. Federal jurisdiction has already been substantially narrowed by the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, and EPA and the Corps implemented those limits through the amended 2023 WOTUS rule. That framework shows the agencies can comply with the Court while preserving meaningful protection for connected water systems. What the New Proposal Would Do The September 2026 Supplemental proposal does not replace the broader November 2025 WOTUS proposal. Instead, it adds narrower alternatives focused primarily on two key jurisdictional concepts: what qualifies as a “relatively permanent” water and what constitutes a “continuous surface connection” for wetlands, in an effect to establish a new “perennial” standard. The remainder of the November 2025 proposal, including proposed changes involving interstate waters, ditches, prior-converted cropland, waste-treatment systems, groundwater, and other jurisdictional categories remains under consideration but is not substantively revised by the September supplement. The most consequential new alternatives include:
WOTUS determines the reach of major Clean Water Act protections governing pollution discharges, dredging, and filling. When a water falls outside WOTUS, those protections no longer apply. Protect the Whole Watershed KWA’s principal concern is the proposal narrows Clean Water Act protection in ways that do not reflect how water moves through a watershed and go beyond what is required by the Sackett decision. Streams, wetlands, headwaters, springs, and groundwater are connected parts of the same system. The amended 2023 rule already demonstrates that Sackett can be implemented while recognizing those connections. Further narrowing definitions would exclude waters that still affect downstream water quality, drinking-water supplies, flood resilience, and aquatic habitat. Protecting downstream water requires protecting the whole watershed that sustains them. Why This Matters Especially in Kentucky Kentucky has more at stake in this debate than most states. The Commonwealth contains more than 92,000 miles of rivers and streams, and approximately 65% of Kentucky’s stream system is intermittent or ephemeral. Those waters are especially important in Kentucky’s karst landscape, where water moves between streams, sinkholes, caves, groundwater, and springs. Kentucky has also lost roughly 80% of its historic wetlands, leaving about 360,000 acres. Those remaining wetlands filter pollution, store floodwater, replenish water supplies, and support fish and wildlife. At the same time, Kentucky’s water quality is already strained. The Commonwealth’s 2024 Integrated Report found approximately 70% of assessed river miles and 87% of assessed lake acres impaired. The proposal therefore places additional pressure on the very waters Kentucky relies on to sustain downstream rivers, drinking-water sources, flood resilience, wildlife, recreation, and economic activity. Kentucky Cannot Simply Replace Lost Federal Protections The impact is amplified by Kentucky law. In 2025, Senate Bill 89 substantially tied Kentucky’s definition of protected state waters to federal WOTUS jurisdiction. As a result, Kentucky does not have the same independent state-law backstop available in states that retain broader state-based authority. When federal jurisdiction contracts, Kentucky jurisdiction contracts with it. The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet previously estimated that alternatives in the November 2025 proposal could leave approximately 74% to 86% of Kentucky stream miles outside the protections at issue. Those figures do not measure the September supplemental proposal, but they demonstrate the scale of Kentucky’s exposure to further narrowing. Kentucky is also downstream of numerous interstate watersheds. Pollution does not stop at state boundaries, making a meaningful federal baseline especially important to the Commonwealth. The Costs Do Not Disappear When Regulation Does Narrowing Clean Water Act jurisdiction does not eliminate the consequences of pollution, flooding, or waterway destruction. It shifts those costs. Drinking-water utilities and customers will bear higher treatment costs. Communities will bear greater flood and recovery costs. Fisheries, wildlife, recreation, agriculture, tourism, and water-dependent industries will bear the consequences of declining water quality. Clean water is not simply an environmental benefit. It is infrastructure and an economic asset. Maintain a Strong and Workable Definition of WOTUS KWA supports clear and predictable rules. But clarity should not be achieved by excluding functioning parts of watersheds from protection. The amended 2023 rule already demonstrates the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision can be implemented while maintaining a workable federal definition. EPA and the Corps should retain that framework rather than adopting additional restrictions that would exclude most intermittent streams and the majority of currently protected adjacent wetlands. More broadly, the United States needs a durable WOTUS definition that protects a meaningful federal baseline, reflects how watersheds actually function, and allows states to provide additional protections. Kentucky’s major rivers are built from smaller waters. Because Kentucky has tied much of its own authority to WOTUS, further federal narrowing has an amplified effect here at home. KWA urges EPA and the Corps to retain the strongest workable definition of WOTUS permitted by the Clean Water Act and protect the watershed as a whole. Public Comment Deadline: September 30, 2026
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has proposed changes to 301 KAR 1:001, the regulation containing definitions used in Kentucky’s fishing regulations. The proposal follows legislation enacted during the 2026 General Assembly that established specific treatment for certain qualifying “private lakes or ponds.” The proposed regulation appropriately defines a “private lake or pond” using several specific criteria: it must be on private land, have no surface-water connection to public waters, be inaccessible to fish from other public waters, and be outside the 100-year floodplain. Those limitations recognize an important reality, a truly isolated farm pond is fundamentally different from a stream, wetland or other water that is physically connected to Kentucky’s broader aquatic system. KWA’s concern is with a separate new definition. The regulation would define “private waters” as “any water body that is not a public water or a private lake or pond.” That distinction matters because Kentucky law defines “public waters” for purposes of the Fish and Wildlife chapter as waters flowing in a natural stream channel or waters impounded on a natural stream. Under the proposed regulation, therefore, virtually any water body falling outside that definition and outside the newly defined category of a private lake or pond could potentially fall into a broad residual category called “private waters.” KWA is concerned that this creates a category that is far broader than ordinary Kentuckians would understand the words “private waters” to mean. Waters do not become ecologically isolated simply because they fall outside a particular regulatory definition of “public waters.” Wetlands, springs, karst features, headwater areas, floodplain waters and other aquatic resources can be physically and biologically connected to downstream rivers and streams even when they do not neatly fit within the statutory definition being used for fish and wildlife purposes. There is also a basic clarity problem. Calling a water body “private” can imply something about ownership, public rights, access, or the government's authority over that water, even though those questions may be governed by entirely different laws. A regulatory definition adopted for administering fishing laws should not unintentionally create confusion about the broader legal status of Kentucky waters. KWA believes Kentucky can implement the General Assembly’s specific exemption for genuinely isolated private lakes and ponds without creating an unnecessarily broad new category of “private waters.” The broader point is that “not a public water under KRS 150.010” is not the same thing as “private.” The statutory definition of “public waters” was written for a specific Fish and Wildlife purpose and does not comprehensively capture every waterbody that is publicly owned, publicly used, or functionally part of a public water system. That is the risk of the proposed definition: it turns a narrow statutory definition into a default rule that everything outside it is private, potentially reclassifying waters that have traditionally been understood or managed as public resources without the General Assembly ever making that policy choice. What KWA is asking you to do: Ask the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources to remove the proposed definition of “private waters.” The General Assembly authorized the Department to address a specific category of qualifying private lakes and ponds; it did not direct the Department to create a broad new definition of all “private waters,” and such a definition is not necessary for Fish and Wildlife to carry out its mission. At a minimum, before adopting any broader definition, the Department should conduct a fuller analysis of what “public waters” and “private waters” mean under Kentucky law and how those concepts interact with ownership, public rights, fish and wildlife management, and other state water laws. Any future definition should be based on that analysis and should not simply classify every water that does not meet the definition of a public water or a qualifying private lake or pond as “private.” Written comments are due September 30, 2026, and may be submitted to Jenny Gilbert, Legislative Liaison, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, at [email protected]. A public hearing is also scheduled for September 30 at the KDFWR Administration Building in Frankfort; anyone wishing to speak must notify the agency in writing at least five working days beforehand. Your Voice Matters Public comment periods are one of the most direct opportunities Kentuckians have to influence how regulations are written before decisions become final. Comments do not need to be long or technical to be useful. Personal experience such as where you hunt, fish, paddle, hike, obtain drinking water, own land, or have seen the effects of erosion and poorly managed roads, can help agencies understand what these decisions mean on the ground. For each of these proposals, KWA encourages commenters to explain why the issue matters to them, identify the specific concern they want the agency to address, and clearly state what they want the agency to do. Public Comment Deadline: September 23, 2026 The Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule establishes the basic system for deciding where cars, trucks, ATVs, dirt bikes and other motorized vehicles may travel on National Forest lands. Under the existing framework, motorized use is generally limited to roads, trails and areas that the Forest Service has specifically designated for that use. That system gives individual National Forests a way to provide motorized access while also protecting streams, wildlife habitat, sensitive areas and opportunities for nonmotorized recreation. The Forest Service is now beginning a rulemaking that would substantially change that approach. Among other changes, the proposal would establish a national policy favoring increased access and create a presumption that existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads and other access routes are open to public use unless there is a documented reason to close or restrict them. Existing travel-management maps would initially remain in effect, but the new framework would guide future decisions and revisions. In simpler terms, KWA is concerned that the proposal could begin shifting the system from “motorized travel occurs where it has been specifically designated” toward “routes are presumed open unless the Forest Service can justify closing them.” Conservation, recreation and even some motorized-user organizations have raised concerns about substantially weakening the existing travel-management framework. For waterways, the consequences matter. Poorly located or unmanaged vehicle routes can increase erosion and sedimentation, damage stream crossings and riparian areas, fragment wildlife habitat, and create new pathways into previously quieter portions of the forest. The existing rule is intended not simply to regulate recreation, but to provide a process for balancing access with resource protection and the many different ways Americans use their National Forests. KWA supports appropriate public access to National Forest lands, including responsible motorized recreation. Access and conservation do not have to be opposing goals. Our concern is that the Forest Service should not discard a system that requires thoughtful, place-specific decisions about where motorized vehicles belong and where protecting streams, habitat, public safety or other recreational experiences requires limits. What KWA is asking you to do: Ask the Forest Service to retain the core protections of the existing Travel Management Rule, including the designated route system and meaningful consideration of water quality, erosion, wildlife habitat and conflicts among different recreational uses. The agency should improve access where appropriate without making motorized use the default everywhere. Comments are due September 23, 2026. Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov under Docket FS-2026-0100. The Forest Service says this comment period will help shape the environmental review and eventual proposed rule, making early public participation particularly important. Your Voice Matters Public comment periods are one of the most direct opportunities Kentuckians have to influence how regulations are written before decisions become final. Comments do not need to be long or technical to be useful. Personal experience such as where you hunt, fish, paddle, hike, obtain drinking water, own land, or have seen the effects of erosion and poorly managed roads, can help agencies understand what these decisions mean on the ground. For each of these proposals, KWA encourages commenters to explain why the issue matters to them, identify the specific concern they want the agency to address, and clearly state what they want the agency to do.  Photo of the Wild & Scenic Red River Public Comment Deadline: October 6, 2026.
For more than 25 years, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule has provided nationwide protection for largely undeveloped portions of our National Forests, and in Kentucky this includes Wolfpen roadless area and a stretch of the Red River that is part of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers system," KWA has worked for years to protect and restore the Red River Watershed and opposes the new Roadless Rule. The rule generally prohibits new road construction, reconstruction of roads, and certain timber harvests within designated inventoried roadless areas. The Forest Service is now proposing to eliminate the rule entirely and instead rely primarily on individual National Forest management plans to determine how these areas are managed. These roadless areas matter for much more than whether a road gets built. Intact forests protect headwater streams, reduce erosion and sediment entering waterways, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and support hunting, fishing, hiking and other forms of outdoor recreation. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could create additional opportunities for roads, timber management and access for mineral or energy development in areas where existing forest plans would allow those activities. KWA is particularly concerned about what removing a national baseline of protection could mean for water quality and forested watersheds. Roads are one of the most significant sources of erosion and sediment on forest lands, and once an undeveloped area becomes fragmented by roads, the consequences can extend well beyond the road itself. National Wildlife Federation has likewise raised concerns that repeal could fragment wildlife habitat and threaten clean and reliable water supplies as well as hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation. This proposal does not immediately authorize logging or road construction in every roadless area and future projects would still be subject to applicable forest plans and other environmental laws. But it would remove the nationwide protection that currently prevents many of those activities in the first place and shift those decisions to forest-by-forest management. What KWA is asking you to do: Tell the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Rule and its nationwide protections for inventoried roadless areas. Comments can emphasize the importance of intact headwaters and forested watersheds to clean drinking water, healthy streams, fish and wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing, and Kentucky’s outdoor recreation economy. Comments are due October 6, 2026. Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov HERE. Your Voice Matters Public comment periods are one of the most direct opportunities Kentuckians have to influence how regulations are written before decisions become final. Comments do not need to be long or technical to be useful. Personal experience such as where you hunt, fish, paddle, hike, obtain drinking water, own land, or have seen the effects of erosion and poorly managed roads, can help agencies understand what these decisions mean on the ground. For each of these proposals, KWA encourages commenters to explain why the issue matters to them, identify the specific concern they want the agency to address, and clearly state what they want the agency to do. KWA's Policy Director, Nick Hart, testified to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committing regarding Senate Bill 39, which raises significant concerns for the long-term health of Kentucky fisheries by declaring F1 largemouth bass not invasive and limiting Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) authority to regulate stocking F1 bass and fish in private lakes and ponds. KWA fully respects private property rights, but for years, KDFWR biologists have cautioned against the use of F1 bass due to concerns about the impacts on native bass populations. The desire for F1 bass lead KDFWR to develop its Thoroughbred Bass Program a hackery and stocking program designed to breed and provide genetically superior and KY-native bass as a high quality alternative to F1.
SB 39 also sets a troubling precedent by shifting fisheries management decisions away from scientific expertise and into statute. Decisions about what species should be stocked and where, require ongoing evaluation, technical knowledge, and adaptability. These are the kinds of decisions that should be made by the KDFWR Commission and guided by department biologists, not fixed through legislation. Effective fishery management depends on science-based decision-making that can respond to changing conditions. Removing that flexibility risks unintended ecological consequences and undermines the systems in place to protect Kentucky’s native fisheries and waterways. KWA’s testimony led to House Amendments 1 and 4 which were adopted into the bill, ensuring that private lakes and ponds with unrestricted stocking are not connected to other public waters, and that KDFWR still maintained authority to limit stocking of private lakes and ponds in the 100 year flood plan. The 2026 legislative session has kept KWA extremely busy. The last day to file bills has passed, so the no new legislation can be proposed. Below is a listing on bills we are supporting, opposing and monitoring. We encourage you to speak up in support or opposition to legislation. Your calls and emails make a difference! Here is how to reach your elected legislators in Frankfort:
03/31/2026 - Concurrence (Concurrence occurs when both chambers (House and Senate) agree on the final version of a bill.) 04/01/2026 - Concurrence 04/02/2026 - 10 Day Veto Period Begins 04/13/2026 - Last Day of Veto Period 04/14/2025 - First Day of Over Turn Period 04/15/2025 - Sine Die ( Last day of session) House Bills: House Bill 166
Why KWA Supports: Climate change and extreme weather events (e.g., floods) directly affect Kentucky waterways. A dedicated resiliency officer could improve coordinated planning for floodplain management and watershed protection, potentially reducing storm-related erosion and pollution risks. House Bill 196
Why KWA Supports: PFAS contamination is a widespread water quality concern. Establishing reporting and accountability measures could help identify sources and improve monitoring of PFAS in rivers, streams, and drinking water supplies. House Bill 197
Why KWA Supports: Healthy soils play a key role in reducing runoff, sedimentation, and nutrient loading into waterways. By supporting soil restoration and conservation, this bill could indirectly improve watershed resilience and water quality across agricultural landscapes that drain into Kentucky rivers and lakes. House Bill 221
Why KWA Supports: Early and reliable severe weather alerts can help communities prepare for flood events and heavy rainstorms that threaten water quality and riverine ecosystems. A structured alert system supports public safety and could complement floodplain outreach and hazard mitigation efforts tied to KWA’s water protection goals. - KWA does have a concern about abandoning existing systems and ensuring alert systems can and will communicate with other operating systems. House Bill 371
Economic Development to coordinate and promote the state’s outdoor recreation economy. The office would serve as a central point for policy development, interagency coordination, and engagement with communities and businesses tied to outdoor recreation, formally embedding this role in state statute. Why KWA Supports :Many of Kentucky’s outdoor recreation opportunities depend directly on healthy rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands, making water quality and habitat protection foundational to recreation-based economic development. KWA has an interest in ensuring that growth in outdoor recreation is paired with strong environmental safeguards and collaboration with natural resource agencies so that increased use and investment do not come at the expense of Kentucky’s waterways. House Bill 397
Why KWA Supports: While this bill focuses on fish management, it affects river ecosystems and recreational fishing on a major waterway. Regulating trophy catfish harvesting and transport could have implications for river health, species balance, and sediment disturbance, issues relevant to water quality stewardship and sustainable use of aquatic resources. House Bill 530
Why KWA Opposes: HB 530’s sweeping changes to permitting deadlines, reviews, and judicial standards would weaken environmental and water quality safeguards by curtailing meaningful review of permits, especially if environmental regulators are forced to approve projects or have decisions deemed automatically approved after tight deadlines. In the context of collapsing federal water protections and recent state actions narrowing water jurisdiction, this bill could further limit opportunities to scrutinize permits for impacts on groundwater, stream health, and connected aquatic ecosystems, undermining KWA’s efforts to protect comprehensive water protections and maintain strong state oversight of activities that threaten water quality. House Bill 552
Why KWA Supports: This Bill will reverse the impacts of 2025’s Senate Bill 89, which stripped Kentucky of its longstanding authority to define and protect its own waters by tying state jurisdiction to a narrowed federal standard. That change left many streams, wetlands, and especially groundwater resources vulnerable at a time when federal water protections are being rolled back. Restoring Kentucky’s ability to define “waters of the Commonwealth” is essential to protecting drinking water sources, headwaters, and interconnected surface and underground waters. Reasserting state authority ensures Kentucky can respond to local water quality threats rather than relying on shifting and increasingly limited federal protections. House Bill 723
Why KWA Supports: The Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund helps protect important natural areas, wildlife habitat, and watersheds throughout the state. Stable funding for land conservation can support watershed protection, preserve riparian areas, and improve access to outdoor recreation tied to Kentucky’s rivers and streams. By linking conservation funding to outdoor recreation sales, the bill could strengthen long-term investment in the natural landscapes and waterways that support Kentucky’s outdoor economy and environmental health. House Bill 856
Why KWA Supports: Data centers can require large volumes of water for cooling and other operational needs, which can place pressure on local water supplies and watersheds. Requiring feasibility studies and annual water-use reporting can improve transparency and help state agencies and communities better understand potential impacts on local water resources before facilities are built or expanded. For the Kentucky Waterways Alliance, these requirements are important tools for ensuring that new industrial development considers water availability and protects the long-term health of Kentucky’s rivers, streams, and drinking water sources. Senate Bills
Senate Bill 8
such as electric, gas, and water providers. The bill establishes new rules for the commission’s membership, qualifications, and appointment process, including having five commissioners with some appointments made by the Auditor of Public Accounts. It also sets term limits, establishes a process for electing the commission chair, and gives the commission more authority over staffing and compensation. In addition, the bill restricts who may intervene in PSC cases, designates the Attorney General as the sole advocate for residential consumers in those cases, raises the threshold for when transmission line projects require a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and shifts the PSC’s administrative attachment away from the Energy and Environment Cabinet. Why KWA Opposes: The Public Service Commission oversees decisions that shape Kentucky’s energy infrastructure, utility investments, and major projects that can affect land, water, and communities. SB 8 would significantly restrict who can intervene in PSC proceedings and require that residential consumer interests be represented solely by the Attorney General, preventing intervening groups from selecting their own legal representation. These changes could limit the ability of community groups, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders to directly participate in decisions that affect their communities and watersheds. For KWA, this raises concerns about reduced public participation and fewer independent voices in regulatory decisions that can have lasting impacts on Kentucky’s waterways and landscapes. Senate Bill 39
Why KWA Is Monitoring: While this bill affects private land rights, changing fishing regulations could influence fish populations, habitat conditions, and fishing pressure on waterways connected to private waters. Protecting broader ecological integrity of streams and tributaries remains crucial for water quality, especially where private ponds drain into public waters. Senate Bill 60
Why KWA Supports: Improperly managed waste tires can trap water and become sources of mosquito habitat, toxins, and sediment runoff. Strengthening waste tire regulation reduces environmental hazards and improves watershed health, aligning with KWA’s interests in comprehensive pollution prevention. Senate Bill 88
Why KWA Supports: While framed as a utility policy, preventing water and utility disconnections during declared disasters is fundamentally an issue of access, equity, and community resilience. Continuous access to water and essential utilities during extreme heat, cold, or other emergencies ensure vulnerable residents, especially low-income, seniors, and medically vulnerable people, can safely shelter in place. Protecting water access during disasters reduces preventable injuries and deaths, supports public health and emergency response efforts, and strengthens a community’s ability to withstand and recover from increasingly frequent climate-driven events. Senate Bill 178
Why KWA Opposes: Because SB 178 would apply across environmental and public health regulatory programs, the bill could significantly complicate how Kentucky agencies develop and update safeguards that protect waterways and public health. By placing new evidentiary and technological thresholds on rulemaking, the legislation could make it more difficult for state agencies to adopt stronger protections when emerging science, local conditions, or environmental risks indicate they may be needed. By requiring direct links to manifest human harm, the bill removes the risk model used by all regulatory entities to prevent harm before it occurs. For organizations like the Kentucky Waterways Alliance, the bill raises concerns about whether Kentucky will retain the flexibility to respond to water quality threats and protect communities that rely on clean rivers, streams, and lakes. Senate Bill 330
Why KWA Supports: Large data centers can have significant impacts on energy demand, water withdrawals, wastewater systems, and local infrastructure. SB 330 would improve transparency by ensuring that key information about these impacts, including water use, utility demand, and public subsidies, is available to the public and decision-makers. For Kentucky Waterways Alliance, this transparency is important for understanding how large industrial developments may affect water resources, watersheds, and local infrastructure, and for ensuring communities have access to the information needed to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their environment.  Kentucky Waterways Alliance strongly opposes this legislation.
🚨Makes federal minimum standards the maximum Kentucky can adopt. Turns federal "floor" standards into a "ceiling," banning KY from passing stronger protections for our own air and water. If federal standards do not exist, the bill imposes new proof requirements that make it harder to establish new protections. 🚨Waits for People to Get Sick: Requires proof of present, diagnosable human illness before human health protections can be adopted. KY would need to demonstrate a direct causal link between exposure to a pollutant and existing human disease before acting. 🚨Redefines How Scientific Evidence Can Used to Block Action: The bill invokes “best available science” but narrowly defines acceptable evidence and imposes new thresholds that could make preventive regulation more difficult. Kentucky agencies already rely on peer-reviewed science, federal research, and risk assessment when adopting safeguards. 🚨Leaves Us Vulnerable to New Toxins: Creates massive red tape that prevents KY from responding quickly to emerging chemical threats. 🚨Abandons Prevention for Reaction: Longstanding public health practice focuses on reducing risk before harm occurs. Stops KY from reducing risks early, forcing us to wait for confirmed harm before we can protect the public. 🚨Increases delays and lawsuits: New subjective scientific and technical thresholds make it easier to challenge and stall public health and environmental protections. This uncertainty affects not only regulators and communities but also permit holders who rely on predictable standards. What is the status of this legislation? Updated on 3/2/26: The bill passed KY Senate Standing Committee Natural Resources & Energy. The full Senate may vote on it as early as March 2.
KWA Executive Director Michael Washburn offered the following assessment: This bill repeatedly invokes the phrase ‘best available science,’ but in practice it does the opposite. SB 178 uses the rhetoric of science to limit the ability of scientists, regulators, and public health professionals to act on scientific evidence before people are harmed. This is not how science or public health works. Modern environmental and public health protections rely on risk assessment, toxicology, and accumulating evidence to prevent harm before it occurs. SB 178 would require proof that people are already sick before Kentucky can act to reduce exposure. This is not a technical adjustment to regulatory process. It is a fundamental shift away from prevention and toward a system that requires damage to occur before it can be addressed. Kentuckians expect their state to protect their water and their health. SB 178 would make that far more difficult. |
Archives
September 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed