According to this article (which is from the Daily Mail, so it might be a little exaggerated) HALF of U.S. rivers are so polluted that they can't support aquatic life.
I would have thought that true of China, but here in the U.S.A? Really?
So I looked around and found an article about the EPA report from the more reputable Washington Post. What even the Daily Mail article says is that 55% of the U.S. rivers are classified in "poor" condition, many of them in the heavily populated and heavily paved East Coast, where I live. And a lot of that poorness is mainly due to excess nutrients running off from lawns and farms. "Poor" means that they are unable to support healthy populations of "aquatic insects and other creatures". Which is not exactly not supporting any aquatic life -- just not enough and not enough of the right kinds, i.e., organisms sensitive to water quality that is significantly less than clean and pristine.
So -- it isn't good. Probably not as bad as the Daily Mail painted it, but still not good.
This article from Media Matters has some graphics and summaries about the report, but is mainly about dickhead conservative "news"person John Stossel claiming that everything has been cleaned up nicely and we don't need to spend any more money on piddling little matters like water pollution.
Stupid. But I expect no less from ignorant Republican conservative "news"persons.