The claim that the Kentucky Senate has approved a bill to help the coal industry by allowing pollution in more water sources can be disputed based on the specifics of the legislative process and the content of the bill itself, as described in recent web results:

Legislative Progress: According to multiple sources, including articles from LPM, Lexington Herald Leader, and WKMS, Senate Bill 89 (SB 89) has not been approved by the full Kentucky Senate as of the latest updates on February 12, 2025. Instead, it has only advanced from a Senate committee to the Senate floor for further consideration. This means the bill has not yet been passed into law but is in the process of legislative review.

• Content of the Bill: The bill proposes to narrow the definition of "waters of the Commonwealth" to match the federal definition of "navigable waters," following a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This change would mean that certain types of water bodies like groundwater, wetlands without a surface connection to navigable waters, and ephemeral streams would not be covered under state pollution control laws as they currently are.
  

  • Environmental Impact: Critics, including environmental advocates and former state environmental attorneys, argue this would lead to reduced oversight of pollution, particularly from coal industry activities. They warn that such a change could degrade water quality by removing protections from numerous water sources that are vital for ecological health and public use but are not classified as "navigable."

  • Proponents' Perspective: The bill's sponsor, Sen. Scott Madon, and supporters from the Kentucky Coal Association, argue that the current regulations impose "unnecessary red tape" and delays on the coal industry, which they see as critical for economic reasons. They frame this bill as a "common sense approach to energy policy" aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on coal mining without explicitly intending to increase pollution.

• Public and Political Reaction: There's been significant pushback from environmental groups who view this as a rollback of environmental protections. Posts on X (formerly Twitter) reflect public concern about the potential impacts on Kentucky’s water quality. However, the bill has garnered support from some senators, indicating a split in political opinion, with debates centering on economic benefits versus environmental costs.

Conclusion: The dispute here centers on the characterization of the bill. While it's true that SB 89 aims to reduce regulatory oversight which could indirectly benefit the coal industry, saying it "allows pollution in more water sources" might be an oversimplification. The actual impact would depend on how environmental regulations adapt to the new definitions and whether other compensatory measures are put in place to protect water quality. The bill hasn't been fully approved by the Senate yet, so its effects are still speculative.

Therefore, while the bill does potentially favor the coal industry by reducing regulatory burdens, the direct assertion that it allows pollution in more water sources should be nuanced with the understanding that it primarily changes the regulatory framework rather than explicitly authorizing increased pollution.