The Redwood City Salt Ponds on May 11, 2013. Kenneth Lu / Flickr
A federal judge in a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California vacated a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to dredge and fill salt ponds in Redwood City, a town on the San Francisco Bay, as the AP reported.
<p>The judge in the case, William Alsup, determined on Monday that the EPA made a miscalculation in how the Clean Water Act is applied when it decided that large developments on the salt ponds were exempt from the act's regulations, according to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/san-francisco-bay-salt-ponds-are-protected-us-waters-judge-rules/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Courthouse News</a>.</p>
<p>In arguments, the EPA made the bold claim that the Redwood City Salt Ponds were a unique case upon which the judge lacked the expertise to decide, and therefore should defer to the EPA's wisdom. The EPA also argued that it relied on previous federal court decisions to determine that the salt ponds were not protected. Those two arguments struck the judge as contradictory.</p><p>"Either there is precedent or there is not," Alsup wrote in a <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SFBaySaltPonds-SJRuling.pdf" target="_blank">21-page ruling</a>, as Courthouse News reported. "This order holds that there is precedent and that EPA headquarters misapplied that precedent."</p>
<p>The Redwood City Salt Ponds are south of San Francisco, between Palo Alto and San Mateo. They are 1,365 acres owned by the food giant Cargill. Cargill said it wanted to build a 12,000 unit housing development in 2009, but reversed course after a groundswell of opposition arose, as the AP reported.</p><p>The ponds are tidal pools and marshlands used for salt mining operations. If the Salt Ponds did not have protection under the Clean Water Act, they could be dredged, filled and developed.</p>
<p>Environmental activists, including Save the Bay, San Francisco Baykeeper, Committee for Green Foothills and Citizens' Committee to Complete the Refuge, joined California's attorney general in filing suit against the EPA, as Courthouse News and <a href="https://www.ktvu.com/news/court-vacates-epa-determination-regarding-redwood-citys-salt-ponds" target="_blank">KTVU</a> in Oakland reported.</p><p>"This is an important victory for protecting clean water in our communities. And it's a good reminder to the Trump Administration that it can't use the San Francisco Bay as its political playground," Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, as the AP reported. "The EPA can't ignore its own scientists and come up with an arbitrary rule that opens the door for development of a vital ecosystem."</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration had determined that the salt ponds were not "waters of the United States" since it was separated from the San Francisco Bay by a network of levees and dikes. That reversed a 2016 Obama-era EPA decision that the ponds should be covered by the Clean Water Act, according to the AP.</p><p>If the Trump-era EPA's decision had been upheld, then California would not have the right to review development plans to make sure that any new development was in compliance with the state's water quality regulations. It would have also restricted the state from requiring a developer to include public parks and protective wetlands, as Courthouse News reported.</p><p>In his decision, Alsup noted that much of the salt ponds would be inundated with water if there were not artificial barriers blocking the water. Since the water would be there, the ponds are part of the water owned by the U.S.</p><p>"Today's ruling makes clear that Cargill's future development of the salt ponds will be severely limited by Clean Water Act protections, resulting in a big legal win for San Francisco Bay," said Sejal Choksi-Chugh, executive director of San Francisco Baykeeper, in a statement on Monday, as Courthouse News reported.</p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
In a series of major wins for climate campaigners, New York regulators and Cuomo have repeatedly blocked construction of the $1 billion Williams Pipeline. Michael Brochstein / SOPA Images / LightRocket / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
With the nation focused on the coronavirus pandemic and protests against U.S. police brutality that have sprung up across the globe, the Trump administration continues to quietly attack federal policies that protect public health and the environment to limit the legal burdens faced by planet-wrecking fossil fuel companies.
<p>The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-final-rule-helps-ensure-us-energy-security-and-limits-misuse-clean-water-0" target="_blank">announced</a> a<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-06/documents/pre-publication_version_of_the_clean_water_act_section_401_certification_rule.pdf" target="_blank"> final rule</a> about the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process for energy infrastructure projects. The rule, first <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/09/egregious-handout-corporate-polluters-trump-epa-moves-accelerate-pipeline-approvals" target="_blank">proposed</a> in August 2019, sets a one-year deadline for permitting decisions and restricts the scope of what state and tribal officials can consider.</p><p>"Donald Trump and his administration are nothing if not vindictive, spiteful, and capricious," Food & Water Action executive director Wenonah Hauter <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/16/major-victory-climate-campaigners-ny-gov-cuomo-rejects-dangerous-williams-pipeline" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Tuesday. "This new rule from the EPA, which seeks to undermine a bedrock environmental law and hamstring the rights of states to protect communities from water contamination and climate change, is just the latest example."</p><p>The Trump administration has completed 66 rollbacks of climate and environmental policies and is pursuing 34 more, which brings the first term total so far to 100, according to a<em> New York Times</em> analysis <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?mtrref=www.google.com&assetType=PAYWALL" target="_blank">updated</a> on May 20. The greatest number of completed and in progress rollbacks relate to air pollution and emissions; 11 are about water.</p><p>Critics slammed the president and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/13/senate-confirms-coal-lobbyist-2-epa-trump-moves-slash-clean-air-rules" target="_blank">a former coal lobbyist</a>, for curbing states' power to protect residents and the planet by rejecting dirty energy projects—and for making yet another assault on national environmental safeguards in the midst of multiple global crises.</p>
<div id="18202" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b88aab098c5666a85c251e01b7a029bf"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1267581093349191680" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">And while attention is elsewhere, another Trump assault on the Clean #Water Act and the ability of states to protec… https://t.co/Utqe7IkGt9</div> — Peter Gleick (@Peter Gleick)<a href="https://twitter.com/PeterGleick/statuses/1267581093349191680">1591049857.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The administration's new rule, Hauter declared, "is a direct response to repeated actions by concerned local communities and responsible state officials in New York and elsewhere to reject dangerous fossil fuel projects that have no business being built where they're not wanted."</p><p>"Like so much of what Trump is pursuing now, this is a targeted strike against environmental justice and racial justice," she said. "It's a fact that people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by the air pollution, water contamination, and climate chaos produced by fossil fuel projects."</p><p>"As we're seeing so clearly now across society," Hauter added, "this president and this administration are at war with justice and well-being—particularly for the communities that lack these fundamentals the most."</p><p>Wheeler <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-final-rule-helps-ensure-us-energy-security-and-limits-misuse-clean-water-0" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Monday that new rule comes in response to an April 2019 <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-energy-infrastructure-economic-growth/" target="_blank">executive order</a> from Trump, and is intended to "curb abuses of the Clean Water Act that have held our nation's energy infrastructure projects hostage, and to put in place clear guidelines that finally give these projects a path forward."</p>
<p>Wheeler also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/climate/trump-clean-water-pipelines.html" target="_blank">reportedly</a> took aim at New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, calling the governor's rejection of the Constitution Pipeline "probably the worst environmental decision by an elected official last year." The canceled pipeline <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2020/02/25/constitution-pipeline-project-ends-as-builder-cites-diminished-return-on-investment/" target="_blank">would have </a>brought fracked gas from Pennsylvania to the New York's Southern Tier.</p><p>In a series of major wins for climate campaigners, New York regulators and Cuomo have also <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2020/05/15/governor-cuomo-rejects-the-williams-pipeline-cleanenergywillwin/" target="_blank">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/16/major-victory-climate-campaigners-ny-gov-cuomo-rejects-dangerous-williams-pipeline" target="_blank">blocked</a> construction of the $1 billion Williams Pipeline. Citing a longtime EPA employee, <em>HuffPost</em> <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/epa-pipeline-water-quality-limiting-states_n_5ed506aec5b617333aa0b93d" target="_blank">explained</a> how the new rule could impact state deliberations over projects including that one:</p><blockquote>Pipelines―like the Williams Pipeline, which aimed to carry gas from the fracking fields of western Pennsylvania to homes in New York City and beyond―"might cross 20, 30, 40 streams, and each stream requires permits," said Mark Ryan, who specialized in Clean Water Act enforcement and permitting during his 24 years as the former EPA regional counsel for the Seattle area.<br><br>"With these very, very complex permits like with pipelines, the states will say, 'OK, we want more information... but we don't want to deny certification, but you have to withdraw the permit application,'" he said. "This new rule says states can't do that."<br></blockquote><blockquote>That means states must either grant or deny permits within 12 months or the EPA will deem the state permit waived. This incentivizes pipeline companies to withhold information states would need to fully assess a projects' impacts on water "to try to force the state to certify the permit," Ryan said.<br></blockquote><p>Ryan told the <em>Times</em> the rule is "a pretty significant retreat from what they were doing the last 40 years" and could be "very vulnerable" to a legal challenge considering past rulings, including a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision. As he put it: "The EPA will have a very hard time convincing the Supreme Court that its current interpretation of the Clean Water Act is correct."</p>
<div id="17b4d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a0d99172630e2eaea81fb529e2c93c87"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1267802127273005056" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@epa’s rule change is a blatant attack on states’ rights and flies in the face of decades of Supreme Court rulings… https://t.co/k42d4AgTL5</div> — Environmental Protection Network (@Environmental Protection Network)<a href="https://twitter.com/EnvProtectioNet/statuses/1267802127273005056">1591102556.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Hauter vowed that Food & Water Action "will be pursuing all avenues available—legal, electoral, and otherwise—to ensure that states have the right to reject fossil fuels as they see fit, and support vulnerable communities everywhere seeking to protect themselves from this malicious administration."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's EPA Budget: 5 Critical Programs on His Chopping Block ... ›
- Trump's EPA Limits States' and Tribes' Rights to Block Pipelines ›
- States Sue Trump EPA for Suspending Environmental Regulations ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Clean Water Act Rollback: Trump's EPA Limits States’ and Tribes’ Rights to Block Pipelines
02 June
Politics
Workers clean up a crude oil leak from a pipeline in Minnesota in 2002. JOEY MCLEISTER / Star Tribune via Getty Images
The Trump administration has finalized a rule making it harder for states and tribal communities to block pipelines and other infrastructure projects that threaten waterways.
<p>The change concerns Section 401 of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-water-act" target="_self">Clean Water Act</a>, which essentially gives states and tribes veto power over projects that would hurt their water quality, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/500480-trump-rule-limits-states-from-blocking" target="_blank">The Hill explained</a>. The changes, announced by the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA) Monday, give states and tribes a one-year deadline for reviewing projects and narrow the scope of what they can consider to only water issues, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/climate/trump-clean-water-pipelines.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. They may no longer block projects because they would contribute to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"This is a dangerous mistake," director of federal water policy at the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) Jon Devine said in a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/epa-curbs-state-and-tribal-authority-block-projects-harm-waterways?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=tweet&utm_campaign=EJ" target="_blank">statement</a>. "It makes a mockery of this EPA's claimed respect for 'cooperative federalism.'"</p>
<p>In recent years, states have used Section 401 to block a number of high profile <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> projects, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/06/01/epa-limits-states-tribes-ability-protest-pipelines-other-energy-projects/" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. Last month, New York and New Jersey <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-york-rejects-williams-pipeline-2646023924.html" target="_self">blocked permits</a> for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Pipeline, which would have carried fracked <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" target="_self">natural gas</a> from Pennsylvania through both states. New York also blocked the Constitution pipeline that would have also moved gas from Pennsylvania. And Washington state blocked a $680 million <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> export facility in 2017.</p><p>Climate activists have seen Section 401 as a useful tool for keeping fossil fuels in the ground, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867224980/trump-administration-limits-states-power-to-stop-oil-and-gas-pipelines" target="_blank">NPR explained</a>. But industry groups and the Trump administration have accused states of abusing their veto powers, and President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> issued an executive order in April 2019 mandating federal agencies ease the completion of energy infrastructure projects, according to The Washington Post.</p><p>"Today, we are following through on President Trump's Executive Order to curb abuses of the Clean Water Act that have held our nation's energy infrastructure projects hostage, and to put in place clear guidelines that finally give these projects a path forward," EPA Administrator and former coal lobbyist <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> said in a statement reported by The Hill.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">EPA announced a final rule that will streamline the construction of modern infrastructure projects across the United States, while ensuring our nation’s waterways are protected. <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realdonaldtrump</a> is delivering on another promise! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PromisesMadePromisesKept?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PromisesMadePromisesKept</a> <a href="https://t.co/hFGqKzraO0">https://t.co/hFGqKzraO0</a> <a href="https://t.co/LcrGsm4si8">pic.twitter.com/LcrGsm4si8</a></p>— EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler (@EPAAWheeler) <a href="https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1267525012489146370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Fossil Fuel groups welcomed the change.</p><p>"We hope that EPA's action today will help end the abuse of the section 401 permitting process, which has been used to obstruct projects for reasons that had nothing to do with protecting water quality," National Mining Association President and CEO Rich Nolan told NPR.</p><p>Lawyer, former EPA employee and Clean Water Act expert Mark Ryan told The Hill that the changes were a major departure that would put states at a disadvantage.</p><p>"This changes the balance of power that has existed over the last 40 years from the states to the applicants," he said.</p><p>He explained that applicants would be incentivized to run down the clock on states by withholding information. However, he also thought it was unlikely the changes would hold up in court.</p><p>"The new rule will be very vulnerable to a legal challenge; the EPA will have a very hard time convincing the Supreme Court that its current interpretation of the Clean Water Act is correct," he said in a statement emailed to EcoWatch.</p>
<p>And a legal challenge looks likely.</p><p>"We won't stand idly by as they rip away our authority under the law to preserve water quality," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose state has sued the Trump administration <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-fuel-efficiency-rollback-lawsuit-2646114003.html" target="_self">82 times</a>, said in a statement reported by The Washington Post.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Budget Plan: A Push for Even Greater Environmental ... ›
- Trump Pushed for Mining Project That Could Destroy Alaska Salmon ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A green turtle swims over a coral reef in Maui, Hawaii. Reinhard Dirscherl / ullstein bild / Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration Thursday in a case Earthjustice called "the clean water case of the century."
<p>The case concerned a Maui, Hawaii wastewater treatment plant that pumped around four million gallons of sewage a day into groundwater, where some of it reached the Pacific Ocean, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/us/supreme-court-clean-water-act-hawaii.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. Maui County and the Trump administration argued that the plant did not need a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-water-act" target="_self">Clean Water Act</a> permit if the waste was passing through groundwater before entering protected waters, but the court rejected that narrow interpretation of the landmark environmental law six to three.</p><p>"We do not see how Congress could have intended to create such a large and obvious loophole in one of the key regulatory innovations of the Clean Water Act," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, as <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/decision-on-supreme-court-clean-water-case?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">Earthjustice reported</a>.</p>
<div id="8372b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ef156f1d8a2c509410799dea5834e172"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1253343448758980608" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: Huge win today in Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund v County of Maui! The Trump administration attempted to blow a ho… https://t.co/kMLTINJTGH</div> — Earthjustice (@Earthjustice)<a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/statuses/1253343448758980608">1587655338.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Earthjustice brought the case on behalf of Maui environmental groups <a href="https://www.wildhawaii.org/" target="_blank">Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund</a>, <a href="https://mauisierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club-Maui Group</a>, <a href="https://www.surfrider.org/" target="_blank">Surfrider Foundation</a> and <a href="https://www.savewestmaui.com/" target="_blank">West Maui Preservation Association</a>. Both the Hawaiʻi District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the county, but the Supreme Court case was high stakes.</p><p>"If the Supreme Court endorses the county's position, it would open a massive loophole for every polluter in the country to avoid regulation of their discharges by the law that protects the nation's waterways," arguing Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said in November 2019.</p><p>By backing up the county's case, the Trump <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">Environmental Protection Agency</a> was also reversing the agency's historic position, <a href="https://apnews.com/fcee565b9fed5b001e9b3fce9ed00c24" target="_blank">The Associated Press reported</a>. This is in keeping with other Trump administration attempts to weaken water protections, such as its rollback of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-admin-repeals-protections-for-smaller-streams-and-wetlands-2640338564.html" target="_self">Clean Water Rule</a> rule granting protection to small streams and wetlands.</p><p>"This decision is a huge victory for clean water," Henkin said. "The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration's effort to blow a big hole in the Clean Water Act's protections for rivers, lakes and oceans."</p>
<p>Henkin said it was likely the lower court would now order the Maui plant to get a permit for its activities and ensure they do not damage the ocean. They have already been found to have harmed a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coral-reefs" target="_self">coral reef</a>.</p><p>Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh joined Breyer in the majority opinion, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented, though Alito wrote his own dissent, The New York Times reported.</p><p>"Based on the statutory text and structure, I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable waters," Thomas wrote, according to The Associated Press.</p><p>In the majority ruling, the court did not go as far as the environmental advocates, who argued a permit was needed for any pollutants that "actually and foreseeably reach navigable surface waters," The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled entirely in favor of the environmental groups, but Breyer said that standard was too all-encompassing and would include things like "pollutants carried to navigable waters on a bird's feathers."</p><p>Instead, he argued that discharges into groundwater had to be regulated if they were the "functional equivalent" of a direct discharge.</p><p>But Earthjustice still touted the decision as a win, and CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck said it would boost water-protection efforts.</p><p>"Compared to the argument that it does not require permits for any groundwater pollution, which the county and the three dissenting justices all argued, this result will both empower the federal government to more aggressively regulate such pollution and allow private parties to sue when that regulation fails," Vladeck <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/23/politics/supreme-court-clean-water-act-maui/index.html" target="_blank">told CNN</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Maui Mayor Rejects Clean Water Act Settlement, Aims for Supreme ... ›
- U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Hawaii Clean Water Act Case ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A display commemorates the 25th Earth Day in Washington, DC on April 22, 1995. Jeffrey Markowitz / Sygma via Getty Images
This April 22, Earth Day turns 50.
The world's largest secular holiday approaches its golden anniversary in the shadow of two global crises. This year's day is dedicated to climate action, and the celebration has moved online in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
But Earth Day has a history of uniting people around the world to solve the major problems facing our planet. Here's a look back on some of the most important Earth Days in the celebration's 50-year history and what they helped accomplish.
<h3>1970: The First Earth Day Sprouts a Movement</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2a6fda52745554d7d5598e7c8b5f9413"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nEmARFci__I?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>By 1970, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/environmental-victories-2561818321.html" target="_self">decades of rampant pollution</a> had dirtied America's air, set rivers on fire and led to major disasters like the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/01/28/688219307/how-californias-worst-oil-spill-turned-beaches-black-and-the-nation-green" target="_blank">Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969</a>. So on April 22 of that year, <a href="https://www.earthday.org/history/" target="_blank">20 million Americans</a>, or 10 percent of the U.S. population, came out to demand a clean, healthy environment. The day had many organizers, but the idea came from Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, a staunch environmentalist.</p><p>"The objective was to get a nationwide demonstration of concern for the environment so large that it would shake the political establishment out of its lethargy," Nelson said, <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-earth-day" target="_blank">according to History</a>, "and, finally, force this issue permanently onto the national political agenda."</p><p>He succeeded. The day is widely credited with encouraging the formation of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> and the passage of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-air-act" target="_self">Clean Air</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-water-act" target="_self">Clean Water</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species-act" target="_self">Endangered Species Acts</a>.</p>
<h3>1990: Earth Day Spreads Earth-Wide</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4126e150c27a1d24627e48c1e05ef3a7"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lBqPIhRzOno?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>One of the original Earth Day organizers and <a href="https://www.earthday.org/" target="_blank">Earth Day Network</a> founder Denis Hayes was asked by a coalition of environmental leaders to organize a big event for the day's 20th anniversary. Hayes told <a href="https://time.com/5570269/earth-day-origins/" target="_blank">TIME in 2019</a> that the 1990 Earth Day was "probably the second most important Earth Day."<br></p><p>In some ways, Hayes conceded, the day was not a success. It tried to raise awareness about <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a> and the need for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a>, but without a groundswell of popular concern around those issues.</p><p>"We were trying to create a wave from basically nothing but intellectual discourse," Hayes told TIME. "Did we succeed? The answer to that nearly 30 years later is pretty obvious, though I'm not sure there was a way it <em>could </em>succeed."</p><p>However, the day did "[give] birth to what is known as the modern Earth Day movement," as <a href="https://theyearsproject.com/learn/news/the-evolution-of-earth-day/" target="_blank">The Years Project put it</a>. The day was celebrated by 200 million people in 141 countries, according to the Earth Day Network. It raised global awareness about <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/recycling" target="_self">recycling</a> and helped lead to the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.</p>
<h3>2010: Earth Day Launches a Billion Acts of Green</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b174a1124cc5366d67ad217fc5e1ad11"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZPZt0AEdhPA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>Earth Day continued to grow through the new millennium and continued to push for climate action and clean energy. On its 40th anniversary, it gathered more than 250,000 people in Washington, DC for a <a href="https://www.earthday.org/earth-day-network-announces-the-climate-rally-in-washington-dc-on-april-25/" target="_blank">climate rally</a>, according to the Earth Day Network. Internationally, the day was celebrated in 192 countries. It coincided with the <a href="https://pwccc.wordpress.com/support/" target="_blank">World People's Conference on Climate Change</a> held in Cochabamba, Bolivia and saw the first community trash pick-up in Kolkata, India, as <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/4/100422-earth-day-40-40th-anniversary/" target="_blank">National Geographic reported at the time</a>.<br></p><p>The Earth Day Network channeled that energy into launching <a href="https://www.earthday.org/billion/" target="_blank">A Billion Acts of Green®</a>, which it says is the "<a href="https://www.earthday.org/worlds-largest-environmental-service-campaign-reaches-halfway-point/" target="_blank">world's largest environmental service campaign</a>." The organizers asked participants to do "just one thing that will help our planet," from making their homes more energy efficient to biking to work. The initiative is still going strong, with now more than two billion acts registered.</p><p>"The idea that we can all belong to something is what's exciting people and what's making them want to join," Earth Day Network President Kathleen Rogers told National Geographic when the campaign was first launched.</p>
<h3>2016: The Paris Agreement Is Signed</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f8d9a7b968efd9b8d8d2548a5847890f"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/otD3ieuZa8M?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>In a testament to the symbolic power of Earth Day, then-United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/on-earth-day-150-world-leaders-to-sign-paris-climate-agreement-1891117805.html" target="_self"> chose it</a> as the day when world leaders would sign the landmark <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris climate agreement</a> at a ceremony in New York City.<br></p><p>The Paris agreement was the first international agreement pledging all countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374" target="_blank">BBC News reported when it was first announced in December 2015</a>. Countries committed to limiting global warming to "well below" two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, with an ideal aim of stopping warming at 1.5 degrees. The Earth Day ceremony saw 175 leaders sign the landmark agreement — the most to ever sign an international agreement in one day.</p><p>"The participation by so many countries today, and the attendance by so many world leaders, leaves no doubt that the world is determined to take climate action," Ban <a href="https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2016-04-22/secretary-generals-remarks-joint-press-conference-his" target="_blank">said at the time</a>.</p><p>While the agreement has been undercut somewhat by President Donald Trump's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-begins-withdrawal-paris-agreement-2641223963.html" target="_self">decision to withdraw the U.S</a>. and the fact that, if countries stick to their current pledges, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-climate-change-un-2641459291.html" target="_self">we will still see</a> 3.2 degrees Celsius of warming, its record-setting Earth Day signing is still an important reminder that world leaders can choose to come together for the sake of our common home.</p>
<h3>2020: Earth Day Fights for Climate Action on Lockdown</h3>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="aba2dbb167688f7b5cfe6827ba9e39ef"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KcDsRJJ5epg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>As Earth Day's 50th anniversary approached, organizers found themselves in a situation not unlike the one that led to the first Earth Day.<br></p><p>"The social and cultural environments we saw in 1970 are rising up again today — a fresh and frustrated generation of young people are refusing to settle for platitudes, instead taking to the streets by the millions to demand a new way forward. Digital and social media are bringing these conversations, protests, strikes and mobilizations to a global audience, uniting a concerned citizenry as never before and catalyzing generations to join together to take on the greatest challenge that humankind has faced," the Earth Day Network <a href="https://www.earthday.org/history/" target="_blank">reflected</a>.</p><p>Hayes <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/earth-day-will-fight-for-climate-action-on-its-50th-anniversary-2635345330.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4" target="_self">said</a> he wanted Earth Day 2020 to do for climate change what Earth Day 1970 had done for other environmental issues. But then organizers were faced with something they did not have to deal with 50 years ago — the coronavirus pandemic.</p><p>With <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-on-lockdown-coronavirus-italy-2020-3?r=US&IR=T" target="_blank">more than a third of the planet</a> under some form of lockdown order, Earth Day is going digital for the first time in its history, with <a href="https://www.earthday.org/campaign/digital-earth-day/" target="_blank">24 hours</a> of virtual talks, action calls, teach-ins and performances. Find an event <a href="https://www.earthday.org/earth-day-live/" target="_blank">here</a> or register your own to be part of Earth Day's ongoing history.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- What Is Earth Day Live? The Largest Online Mass Mobilization in ... ›
- 3 Ways to Celebrate Earth Day All Through April (on Lockdown, of ... ›
- Earth Day Will Fight for Climate Action on Its 50th Anniversary ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A sign posted at the Dixie Oil Processors Superfund site on September 4, 2017 in Friendswood, Texas after Hurricane Harvey. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
On Thursday, a federal district court required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue long-overdue protections against worst-case scenario spills of hazardous materials, like in the case of extreme storms, fires, or flooding. The decision approved a negotiated consent decree between the EPA and a coalition of community and environmental organizations, including NRDC, the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA), and Clean Water Action.
"This is a victory for the millions of people who live in fear of experiencing catastrophic chemical spills in their own backyards," says Kaitlin Morrison, an NRDC attorney.
<p>The EPA had failed to issue the protections for nearly 30 years, despite Congress's 1990 amendments to the Clean Water Act mandating it to do so. The coalition <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/nrdc-and-partners-sue-force-overdue-protections-against-chemical-spills" target="_blank">sued the agency</a> in March 2019 to force action. With today's legal victory, the agency must now issue proposed rules within two years and then finalize those rules two and a half years after that.</p><p>An estimated <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/06/climate/flood-toxic-chemicals.html" target="_blank">2,500 U.S. chemical facilities</a>, such as aboveground storage tanks holding hazardous substances, are subject only to worst-case spill-planning requirements at the state level—which, if they exist at all, are vulnerable to rollbacks. Fenceline communities—or communities living closest to chemical production and storage facilities—where most residents are low-income or people of color, are most at risk.</p><p>In 2017, that risk became abundantly clear when <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jon-devine/epa-ignores-lessons-chemical-spills-hurricane-harvey" target="_blank">Hurricane Harvey hit Houston</a>. The city's density of chemical facilities and susceptibility to flooding led to the release of harmful chemicals through numerous spills, leaks, and explosions—causing some first responders to be hospitalized.</p><p>"Fenceline communities know that it's not if, but when the next chemical leak, spill, or flooding event will happen, and the cumulative impacts of these tragic events are unjustly borne by people of color and low-income residents," says Michele Roberts, national co-coordinator of the EJHA. "It is way beyond time for EPA to exercise the moral and political courage to protect these overburdened communities from the daily assaults on their health and quality of life."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/court-requires-epa-protect-communities-against-worst-case-chemical-spills" target="_blank">NRDC</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- EPA Announces 20 Toxic Chemicals It Won't Protect Us From ... ›
- U.S. Steel Chemical Spill Exceeds Allowable Limit by 584 Times ... ›
- Chemical Spill Closes Four Lake Michigan Beaches - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA), testifies during a House Appropriations Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 4 in Washington, DC. Wheeler testified about the EPA's fiscal 2021 budget requests. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
By Vijay Limaye
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2018 censoring science proposal aimed to undercut the agency's application of landmark public health science by severely restricting its use in decision making. The proposal was a dangerous disaster that lacked any sound legal basis and threatened to impose draconian and hugely costly restrictions on the types of scientific information eligible for consideration by EPA in implementing laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act. Those laws have delivered major health and economic benefits to the American public over the past 50 years, and that progress was put in direct peril because of this transparent attempt to undercut the evidence-based approach that has made environmental protection so effective in the U.S.
<p>Because Pruitt's 2018 proposal was so <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/were-standing-against-epas-attempt-censor-science" target="_blank">ill-conceived</a>, it generated fierce opposition. The 600,000 public comments submitted to EPA included criticism from scientists and health experts (like doctors and nurses, epidemiologists, and toxicologists) and everyday citizens who understood its potential to fundamentally weaken our nation's public health safeguards by favoring industry-backed pseudoscience over consensus-based, peer-reviewed, established facts. NRDC submitted <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/nrdc_comments_on_pruitt_censoring_science_proposal.pdf" target="_blank">127 pages of comments</a> on the original proposal, outlining its numerous legal and scientific deficiencies—flaws that should've sent the proposal into the trash bin.</p>
<p>Instead, with former coal industry lobbyist <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stop-andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> now running the EPA, the agency Tuesday <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> to expand the scope of the censoring science rule. In a wandering supplemental proposal, EPA reveals that it now intends to greatly expand, not retreat from, its science censorship agenda in key ways:</p><ul><li>Broader definitions: EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">now says</a> that its science censorship rule would apply to any "data and models" used by the agency to craft regulations. This change is a significant expansion of the net cast in the original proposal, which was limited to "dose-response data and models," and it could weaken a wider range of current pollution controls across the country.</li><li>Arbitrary interference: The agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposes</a> to prioritize its consideration of certain scientific studies over others without clear criteria. That's a recipe for bias and chaos in future EPA rulemaking, because there's no clear explanation for how such important decisions will be made or implemented.</li><li>Veto power: The agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposes</a> to give the EPA administrator the authority to ignore the rule's restrictions and make exceptions to allow for an unlimited number of handpicked studies to be considered. Moreover, the administrator would not need to provide any robust explanation for such a run-around.</li><li>Retroactive restrictions: EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">now says</a> that it may apply the rule retroactively so that it could throw out the literally tens of thousands of studies that it has relied to craft environmental laws. This radical approach could upend the decades of gains we've made in national clean air and water protections and force us to start from scratch—meanwhile, restrictions on polluters could be significantly relaxed.</li></ul>
<p>Amazingly, nearly two years after it first proposed this idea, the agency still doesn't know what the legal authority it has to implement this fatally-flawed proposal. Instead, it's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">asking the public</a> to tell it what that is. This is absurd and, I believe, unprecedented. Agencies are supposed to be interpreting the law, not embarking on fanciful crusades and then trying to find a legal justification for their actions.</p><p>It's no secret that the Trump administration <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/trumps-pick-lead-his-new-climate-change-panel-says-co2-has-been-demonized" target="_blank">despises science</a>, whether it's the factual evidence of accelerating climate change or the significant health dangers posed by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/26/us/politics/ap-us-trump-virus-outbreak.html" target="_blank">COVID-19 outbreak</a>. Rather than accept scientific facts and do their jobs, EPA's political leaders prefer to close their eyes and reject established truths. By redoubling its efforts on science censorship and stacking the deck in favor of industry interests, the Trump EPA is putting the health of us all at risk.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/epa-doubles-down-its-attempt-censor-science" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/epa-doubles-down-its-attempt-censor-science" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a></p>From Your Site Articles
- EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants ... ›
- Trump's Hand-Picked Scientists Rebuke EPA Rollbacks - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Proposal to Restrict Science Panders to Polluters - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
'This Will Be the Biggest Loss of Clean Water Protection the Country Has Ever Seen': Trump Finalizes Clean Water Rule Replacement
23 January
Politics
Myakka River State Park outside of Sarasota, Florida on Dec. 30, 2016. The park is a small preserve of rare protected habitat along Florida's Gulf Coast, a region that has seen intense development and population growth. Andrew Lichtenstein / Corbis via Getty Images
Today, the Trump administration will finalize its replacement for the Obama-era Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule in a move that will strip protections from more than half of the nation's wetlands and allow landowners to dump pesticides into waterways, or build over wetlands, for the first time in decades.
<p>President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> has been working to undo the 2015 rule since he took office, but his replacement goes even further, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/climate/trump-environment-water.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1roTH9vFuerkgo5Oa06NuFrjy10T3gZfIrApaMhgtX8WQZA4wZveAmWeM" target="_blank">The New York Times explained</a>. In addition to rolling back protections for some wetlands and streams that run intermittently or temporarily underground, it will also get rid of a requirement that landowners seek permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>), which had considered permits on a case-by-case basis before 2015.</p><p>"This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen," <a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/" target="_blank">Southern Environmental Law Center</a> lawyer Blan Holman told The New York Times. "This puts <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a> for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution. This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the '70s and '80s that Americans have relied on for their health."</p><p>The administration <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-admin-repeals-protections-for-smaller-streams-and-wetlands-2640338564.html" target="_self">announced the repeal</a> of the WOTUS rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule, in September of 2019. That rule had expanded the definition of "waters of the United States" under the 1972 Clean Water Act from larger bodies of water to include streams and wetlands. The rule was controversial before Trump took office. Many farmers and businesses thought it gave the federal government too much power, and court rulings had suspended it in 28 states.</p>
<p>Trump appealed to this logic when he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-american-farm-bureau-federation-annual-convention-trade-show/" target="_blank">touted his repeal</a> Sunday at the American Farm Bureau Federation Annual Convention and Trade Show in Austin, Texas.</p><p>"I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration's disastrous Waters of the United States rule," he said. "Thank you. It's gone. That was a rule that basically took your property away from you."</p><p>However, the rule was also based on a review of 1,200 scientific studies that found that streams and wetlands were connected to waters downstream. And legal experts say Trump's replacement goes even further than repealing the 2015 rule to deny decades-old protections to smaller headwaters.</p><p>"This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it's ever been before," Vermont Law School environmental law professor Patrick Parenteau told The New York Times "Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act."</p>
<p>The science behind Trump's new rule is already being challenged, including by some of Trump's own appointees.</p><p>Late in 2019, the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, which is staffed with many Trump picks, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-science-panel-rollbacks-2643546700.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">questioned the science</a> behind three of the administration's deregulatory moves, including its WOTUS repeal. The board wrote that the administration's proposed replacement "neglects established science" by "failing to acknowledge watershed systems," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/climate/epa-science-panel-trump.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported at the time</a>. The board also said it found "no scientific justification" for denying protections to certain bodies of water.</p><p>The board's comments will likely prove useful to environmental groups and the attorneys general of several states, who are expected to sue to block the new rule, The New York Times reported.</p><p>"The legal standing all has to do with whether you have a rational basis for what you're doing," Parenteau told The New York Times. "And when you have experts saying you're not adhering to the science, that's not rational, it's arbitrary."</p>
<p>The rule is also already being challenged by <a href="https://www.peer.org/" target="_blank">Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility</a>, which has called for an investigation into how it was finalized, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062132563" target="_blank">E&E News reported Monday</a>.<br></p><p>"The writing of the final Rule was controlled solely by [EPA] Headquarters political appointees," the complaint, signed by 44 current and former EPA employees, said. "The final Rule contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus on the connectivity of wetlands and waters, and the impacts that ephemeral streams and so-called 'geographically isolated' wetlands have on downstream navigable waters."</p><p>The group filed the complaint with the EPA's Office of Inspector General and asked it to determine if the rule violated the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy.</p><p>The final rule is due to be announced in Dallas, Texas today by EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials, as well as Texas Republican Representatives Louie Gohmert and Ron Wright, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-rolls-back-protections-of-streams-and-waterways/" target="_blank">Courthouse News Service reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Misleading Speech on His Environmental Record Is a 'True ... ›
- Wheeler Signs Proposal for Pipeline Projects to Bypass Clean Water ... ›
- 'Absolutely Unconscionable': Trump EPA Refuses to Limit Toxic ... ›
- States Sue Trump EPA for Suspending Environmental Regulations During Pandemic - EcoWatch ›
- 'Unfathomable Cruelty': Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to Invalidate Affordable Care Act - EcoWatch ›
- Legionnaire's Bacteria Found in Drinking Water at Nine Reopened Schools - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Formosa Plant May Still Be Releasing Plastic Pollution in Texas After $50M Settlement, Activists Find
21 January
Popular
Diane Wilson holds up a bag full of nurdles she collected from one of Formosa's outfall areas on Jan. 15. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
On the afternoon of Jan. 15, activist Diane Wilson kicked off a San Antonio Estuary Waterkeeper meeting on the side of the road across from a Formosa plastics manufacturing plant in Point Comfort, Texas.
After Wilson and the waterkeeper successfully sued Formosa in 2017, the company agreed to no longer release even one of the tiny plastic pellets known as nurdles into the region's waterways. The group of volunteers had assembled that day to check whether the plant was still discharging these raw materials of plastics manufacturing.
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5Njc4Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTkwNzc2Nn0.myKFl3TqelaQUFVN9LWc9v6j_V6YeDN6uLvuaJVtkRk/img.jpg?width=980" id="f1eab" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="14d30371db21d2cd9a732c2cf45eb55e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Diane Wilson kayaking to the fence line of Formosa's Point Comfort plant to check for nurdles newly discharged from the plant on Jan. 15. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>Their suit against <a href="http://www.fpcusa.com/" target="_blank">Formosa Plastics Corp. USA</a> resulted in a $50-million-dollar <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b58f65a96d455e767cf70d4/t/5de5306c5fb6fb30a7bdd7dc/1575301231792/Final+consent+decree.pdf" target="_blank">settlement</a> and a range of conditions in an agreement known as a consent decree. Key among the conditions was the company's promise to halt releasing the nurdles it manufactures into local waterways leading to the Texas Gulf Coast by Jan. 15.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5Njc0NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTgwOTczMH0.GkgAdBwQkQGpiO37p51fkViXCNNZBLZ2_7ykpLe8xDs/img.jpg?width=980" id="46952" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7a721d76b78c5bd5f40930046cb4fbc0" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Formosa's plastics plant is seen dominating the landscape in Point Comfort, Texas. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>Wilson described the occasion as "day one of the zero discharge settlement." As of that date, Formosa could be fined up to $15,000 a day if it were found still discharging nurdles. That would put the multi-billion-dollar plastics maker in violation of the court settlement made after <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> District Judge Kenneth Hoyt determined the company had violated the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Clean-Water-Act" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clean Water Act</a> by discharging plastic pellets and <span style="background-color: initial;">PVC</span> powder into Lavaca Bay and Cox Creek in a June 27 ruling last year.</p><p>The deal, signed by Judge Hoyt in December, represents the U.S.'s largest settlement in a Clean Water Act lawsuit brought by private individuals against an industrial polluter. The settlement mandates that both Formosa and the plaintiffs agree to a monitor, remediation consultant, engineer, and trustee for ongoing monitoring of the plant.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5Njc1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDA0MTAzMn0.sNqZM389puva8q9LLkUiemwRj7Og989PHyre9XP38qc/img.jpg?width=980" id="6f75f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="70d8bd3bff6955a090ce1851121d9f34" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Diane Wilson is seen with volunteers before their meeting across the street from Formosa's Point Comfort manufacturing plant. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>After calling the group's meeting to order, Wilson gave an update on how requirements of the consent decree were progressing. The volunteer team of nurdle monitors, who have been collecting nurdles discharged by the plant for the last four years, listened eagerly. Wilson said that Formosa had missed the Jan. 15 deadline to deliver the waivers they needed to sign, which would grant them permission to monitor on the company's property along the fence line. Without the signed forms, the group put off their on-the-ground monitoring trip. Instead, they headed for the banks of Cox Creek, where Wilson set off in a kayak to check on one of the plant's outfalls.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1f40856107e736007429ddc949d8173d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2OdKqqhfTuw?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Within 10 minutes she collected an estimated 300 of the little plastic pellets. Wilson says she will save them as evidence, along with any additional material the group collects, to present to the official — and yet-to-be-selected — monitor.</p><p>Wilson received the waiver forms from Formosa a day after the deadline. The group planned to set out by foot on Jan. 18, which would allow them to cover more ground on their next monitoring trip. They hope to check all of the facility's 14 outtakes where nurdles could be still be escaping. Any nurdles discharged on or after Jan. 15 in the area immediately surrounding the plant would be in violation of the court settlement.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5Njc2MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDkyNzg5N30.x3sDoC01icTEA7G76_ZK-g9kCXRRMa6NqXmYbISKu_8/img.jpg?width=980" id="634ef" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4aa16628ef0164f443ddd4188f4f0995" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Ronnie Hamrick picks up a mixture of new and legacy nurdles near Formosa's Point Comfort plant. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>Pointing along the creek's edge, Ronnie Hamrick, a member of the San Antonio Estuary Waterkeeper and former Formosa employee, showed me how to distinguish new plastic pellets from the legacy nurdles from past discharges. The new ones are brighter and white compared to the older ones, which take on a dull gray color. Old nurdles were plentiful along the creek's banks despite cleanup crews deployed by Formosa in that area. Newer ones were easy to find in the water after Hamrick pushed a rake into the marsh, stirring them up from below the water's surface in Cox Creek.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5Njc3Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2OTI1MTgzNn0.CCsDXhXzHNfnR3HVYzJEovTryhAmfHnTwgzVzApxuWM/img.jpg?width=980" id="dafae" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2d02d89a970f89dfeb2361ee401032f4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Ronnie Hamrick holds a few of the countless nurdles that litter the banks of Cox Creek near Formosa's Point Comfort facility. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>When Wilson returned from her kayak, she showcased her find: The nurdles she had just collected from the Formosa outfall were bright white, making them easy to distinguish from the older ones littering the bank where she had launched her kayak. She plans to turn them over as evidence of newly discharged nurdles to the official monitor once one is selected in accordance to the consent decree.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="515f09c9cdad671cbafb86ed86c66ee7"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d8Sghej0PMY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Lawsuit Against Formosa’s Planned Louisiana Plant
<p>On that same afternoon, Wilson learned that conservation and community groups in Louisiana had sued the Trump administration, challenging federal environmental permits for Formosa's planned $9.4 billion plastics complex in St. James Parish.</p><p><a href="https://www.wwltv.com/article/tech/science/environment/environmental-groups-challenge-formosa-permit/289-7189b6e0-9b09-4c02-b2c9-8b197f80b1da" target="_blank">The news</a> made Wilson smile. "I hope they win. The best way to stop the company from polluting is not to let them build another plant," she told me. </p><p>The lawsuit was filed in federal court against the Army Corps of Engineers, accusing the Corps of failing to disclose environmental damage and public health risks and failing to adequately consider environmental damage from the proposed plastics plant. Wilson had met some of the Louisiana-based activists last year when a group of them had traveled to Point Comfort and protested with her outside Formosa's plastics plant that had begun operations in 1983. Among them was <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/07/formosa-sunshine-plastics-sharon-lavigne-environmental-justice" target="_blank">Sharon Lavigne, founder of the community group Rise St. James</a>, who lives just over a mile and a half from the proposed plastics complex in Louisiana.</p><p>Back then, Wilson offered them encouragement in their fight. A few months after winning her own case last June, she gave them boxes of nurdles she had used in her case against Formosa. The Center for Biological Diversity, one of the environmental groups in the Louisiana lawsuit, transported the nurdles to St. James. The hope was that these plastic pellets would help environmental advocates there convince Louisiana regulators to deny Formosa's request for air permits required for building its proposed St. James plastics complex that would also produce nurdles. On Jan. 6, Formosa received those permits, but it still has a few more steps before receiving full approval for the plant.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5Njc5Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MjYxMzgzNn0.7u3A98Q0JzENyeEuWoUgAPhPXv4ZDDkg3PPQbWQb4JI/img.jpg?width=980" id="902fb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fe50ce3cb00a88b812d7ef974547f65b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Anne Rolfes, founder of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, holding up a bag of nurdles discharged from Formosa's Point Comfort, Texas plant, at a protest against the company's proposed St. James plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on Dec. 10, 2019. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>In their Jan. 15 lawsuit, the groups, which also include Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Healthy Gulf, point out that a <a href="https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/counties/calhoun/federal-judge-describes-formosa-as-serial-offender-in-ruling/article_8c6187b0-9964-11e9-a9d9-930b3ae798e8.html" target="_blank">Texas judge called Formosa's Point Comfort plant a "serial offender"</a> of the Clean Water Act. They also cite another Formosa facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which has been in violation of the Clean Air Act every quarter since 2009. </p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5NjgwNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNzg4MTgxMH0.UM_6q9n7TT6C5Fpj7WsVqCCqcaLTZ_eXYWSr7A84V7k/img.jpg?width=980" id="def77" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3d0a599c4544e8dcddeb6870c12c17ef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Construction underway to expand Formosa's Point Comfort plant. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>The new plant slated for St. James Parish "is expected to emit and discharge a variety of pollutants, including carcinogens and endocrine disrupters, into the air and water; [and] discharge plastic into the Mississippi River and other waterbodies," the lawsuit alleges.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5NjgwOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTQzMDIyMH0.z4LX-Ku93K6j5lcEbzD_KUZj3XzpuBJmYaIx7o1wSJA/img.jpg?width=980" id="c0096" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a8896389ad62bf779308317a2b988a69" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Silhouette of Formosa's Point Comfort Plant looming over the rural landscape. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/08/gas-oil-plastics-lng-refining-climate-emissions-50-new-coal-plants" target="_blank">DeSmog's Sharon Kelly reported</a> that out of all the new or expanding <span style="background-color: initial;" rel="background-color: initial;" data-verified="redactor" data-redactor-tag="span" data-redactor-style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> refineries, liquefied natural gas (<span style="background-color: initial;" rel="background-color: initial;" data-verified="redactor" data-redactor-tag="span" data-redactor-style="background-color: initial;">LNG</span>) export projects, and petrochemical plants seeking air permits, Formosa's St. James plant would top the list of air polluters.</p><p>"Wilson's victory against Formosa was very encouraging," Sharon Lavigne told me over the phone. She plans to cite it as one of the many reasons why the St. James Parish Council should reverse its 2018 decision to grant Formosa a land use permit for the sprawling plastics facility. She and others will address the council over a multitude of issues at its upcoming Jan. 21 meeting.</p>From the Gulf Coast to Europe
<p>Just a day after Wilson found apparently new nurdles in Point Comfort, <a href="https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/2020/01/plastic-soup-foundation-takes-legal-action-against-structural-plastic-pollution/?fbclid=IwAR2y6oYqp-hOEZdjCJTVZf2Tl9B0U_NiCSS2Oliy8ecREKSzLObxmWWL8ac" target="_blank">the Plastic Soup Foundation, an advocacy group based in Amsterdam, took legal steps to stop plastic pellet pollution in Europe</a>. On behalf of the group, environmental lawyers submitted an enforcement request to a <a href="https://www.dcmr.nl/en" target="_blank">Dutch environmental protection agency</a>, which is responsible for regulating the cleanup of nurdles polluting waterways in the Netherlands.</p><p>The foundation is the first organization in Europe to take legal steps to stop plastic pellet pollution. It cites in its enforcement request to regulators Wilson's victory in obtaining a "zero discharge" promise from Formosa and is seeking a similar result against Ducor Petrochemicals, the Rotterdam plastic producer. Its goal is to prod regulators into forcing Ducor to remove tens of millions of plastic pellets from the banks immediately surrounding its petrochemical plant.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5NjgxMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODgzNTUxMX0.y5y08gB4N7t_yU-vWlSFLfERnz0-QIeFMv1kqKdFMAE/img.jpg?width=980" id="aac75" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="12bd2a0efa05c79fcc56a77add4ad093" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Detail of a warning sign near the Point Comfort Formosa plant. The waterways near the plant are polluted by numerous industrial facilities in the area. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>Besides polluting waterways, the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/28/petrochemical-industry-america-rust-belt-plastics-fracking-climate" target="_blank">ongoing build-out of the petrochemical and plastics industry</a> doesn't align with efforts to keep global warming in check.</p><p>Wilson and her fellow volunteers plan to keep monitoring the Point Comfort plant until it stops discharging the tiny plastic pellets into Texas waters entirely. </p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5NjgxMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDk3NjgwOH0.oC6ELlrsTeSo_yEq_Mr6BjN26E1Yv1vD24fWB5CI71w/img.jpg?width=980" id="c6fa2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6e868cd3c869b691f926fcf16bb93296" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Nurdles on Cox Creek's bank on Jan. 15. Wilson hopes her and her colleagues' work of the past four years will help prevent the building of more plastics plants, including the proposed Formosa plant in St. James Parish. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p>I reached out to Formosa about whether it was aware its Point Comfort plant was apparently still discharging nurdles but didn't receive a reply before publication.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5NjgxNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTQ4MzQ2NH0.b3J2GfsTIHe24293CG6Q8uoDMu6GDIqJQpVkdM-X8oE/img.jpg?width=980" id="7ef61" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8f699dff323afceed3db01c8a4c9b059" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A sign noting the entrance to the Formosa Wetlands Walkway at Port Lavaca Beach. The San Antonio Estuary Waterkeeper describes the messaging as an example of greenwashing. Julie Dermansky / DeSmogBlog
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/18/diane-wilson-formosa-point-comfort-texas-plastic-pollution-settlement" rel="noopener noreferrer">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- New U.S. Oil and Gas Emissions Could Nearly Erase Environmental ... ›
- Plastics Plant Will Bulldoze Over Black History in 'Cancer Alley ... ›
- Fire at Plastics Plant Sends Toxic Smoke Over North Texas - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Maui Mayor Rejects Clean Water Act Settlement, Aims for Supreme Court Hearing
25 October 2019
Popular
The Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility is located near Kaanapali beach, on the west side of Maui. Falco Ermert / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
By Brett Walton
Defying a vote of the County Council, Maui Mayor Michael Victorino said on Oct.18 that he will not settle a Clean Water Act lawsuit that holds national implications for water pollution permitting.
<p>Instead of the <a href="https://mauicounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7709495&GUID=0174EF38-01B7-4BCC-9E3B-ED3672699E7F" target="_blank">settlement</a> that the council authorized last month, Victorino prefers to have the nation's highest court decide whether a wastewater treatment facility on the island requires a federal pollution permit for disposing its effluent. Currently injected underground, the nutrient-rich effluent eventually seeps into coastal waters where it has contributed to algal blooms around coral reefs.</p><p>The case is closely watched because it could determine whether pollution of groundwater that is connected to rivers, lakes and oceans is covered by the nation's primary water-protection law.</p><p>"There are strong opinions on both sides of this important issue," Victorino wrote <a href="https://www.circleofblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/VictorinoStatement101819.png" target="_blank">in a statement</a> that was posted online. "But leadership is not about making easy, popular decisions. I believe the best interests of our residents, our visitors, and the environment will be best served by having this case settled by the Supreme Court."</p><p>The politics within Maui County, however, are far from settled.</p><p>The council, believing that it has the power to authorize the settlement with the four conservation groups that brought the lawsuit, is preparing to vote on a resolution to ask a Hawaii state court to intervene. That vote will be taken on Oct. 29. If the resolution is approved, the state court will be asked to interpret the county charter to determine which branch — the mayor or the council — has authority to approve the settlement, David Raatz of the Maui County Office of Council Services told Circle of Blue.</p><p>Victorino's announcement and the council's potential counter move are the latest twists in a seven-year legal confrontation. The case centers around the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility, a wastewater treatment plant on the west side of Maui. The legal concept being tested is known as the conduit theory — whether a facility that discharges pollutants into groundwater that then flows to streams, lakes, or oceans requires a Clean Water Act permit.</p><p>If the concept is applied broadly to groundwater that is hydrologically linked to surface waters, it would expand the number of facilities that need federal pollution permits. Because of that, business and industry organizations such as the National Association of Home Builders, Chamber of Commerce, National Mining Association and American Petroleum Institute and municipal government groups like the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, City of New York, and National League of Cities filed briefs supporting Maui County.</p><p>During the Obama administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sided with the conservation groups. But the agency recently changed course under President Trump. In a non-binding <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/interpretive_statement_application_of_cwa_npdes_memo_-_signed.pdf" target="_blank">guidance document</a> released in April, agency officials interpreted the Clean Water Act to "exclude all releases of pollutants to groundwater" from water pollution permitting.</p><p>Federal appeals courts are split. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Lahaina facility does need a permit, supporting the conduit theory. A similar case in the Fourth Circuit has also been appealed to the Supreme Court. But the Sixth Circuit, in a case involving disposal of coal waste, came to the opposite conclusion. It determined that a permit for a coal ash pond in Kentucky was not necessary.</p><p>The Maui County Council <a href="https://www.circleofblue.org/2019/world/clean-water-act-showdown-at-supreme-court-might-be-avoided-for-now/" target="_blank">voted 5 to 4</a> in September to settle the lawsuit brought by Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Surfrider, and West Maui Preservation Association. The upcoming vote presents a higher bar for approval. A two-thirds vote of the council is required to forward the complaint to the state court, Raatz said. Accordingly, a council member who voted against the settlement would have to flip their vote next week for the measure to pass.</p><p>If the settlement is not approved, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled is hear oral arguments in the case on November 6.</p><p>In his statement, Victorino suggested that he made his decision based on economics and legal clarity.</p><p>"This issue must be clarified once and for all, not re-litigated endlessly at county taxpayers' expense," Victorino wrote.</p><p>When asked for additional information, Brian Perry, the mayor's spokesperson, referred to the statement.</p><p>The settlement addresses legal clarity, as well as other issues. The county agreed to seek a federal pollution permit for the facility, invest at least $2.5 million in projects that recycle wastewater in order to reduce reliance on injection wells, and pay a $100,000 fine. The plaintiffs agreed not to pursue additional penalties or legal action as long as the country is making a "good faith effort" to fulfill its obligations.</p><p>David Henkin is the Earthjustice attorney representing the plaintiffs. He said that the groups are prepared to make their case to the Supreme Court.</p><p>"It's unfortunate that the Mayor has chosen to side with the Trump Administration and the nation's worst polluters, rather than listen to the will of the people of Maui, who spoke out overwhelmingly in favor of settling the case and focusing on addressing the harm the Lahaina injection wells are inflicting on Maui's priceless coral reef every day," Henkin wrote in an email to Circle of Blue.</p><p><em>Brett writes about agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and the politics and economics of water in the United States. He also writes the <a href="https://www.circleofblue.org/water-tap/" target="_blank">Federal Water Tap</a>, Circle of Blue's weekly digest of U.S. government water news.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.circleofblue.org/2019/world/maui-mayor-rejects-clean-water-act-settlement-aims-for-supreme-court-hearing/" target="_blank">Circle of Blue</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Maryland wetlands near Nanticoke Wildlife Management Area. Farmers, developers or landowners will no longer need a permit to pollute the streams and wetlands. NRDC / Matt Rath / Chesapeake Bay Program / Flickr
The Trump administration repealed the 2015 Clean Water Rule rule Thursday, a rule intended to protect 60 percent of the nation's waterways from pollution, The New York Times reported.
<p>At stake is the definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The Obama-era rule expanded that definition from larger bodies of water to include streams and wetlands. Thursday's repeal will return the country to more-limited 1986 water-protection standards, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/administration-finalizes-repeal-of-2015-water-rule-trump-called-destructive-and-horrible/2019/09/11/fddfa49a-d4aa-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. The administration will also announce a new definition within months.</p><p>"Today, EPA and the Department of the Army finalized a rule to repeal the previous administration's overreach in the federal regulation of U.S. waters and recodify the longstanding and familiar regulatory text that previously existed," Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) Administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> said in a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-us-army-repeal-2015-rule-defining-waters-united-states-ending-regulatory-patchwork" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Today's Step 1 action fulfills a key promise of President Trump and sets the stage for Step 2—a new WOTUS definition that will provide greater regulatory certainty for farmers, landowners, home builders, and developers nationwide."</p>
<div id="14e20" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="VFHMKW1576661471"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1172220252379373571" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today @epa and @USACEHQ repealed the 2015 WOTUS Rule--ending a regulatory patchwork and uncertainty across the Unit… https://t.co/5LYOWsmmnM</div> — U.S. EPA (@U.S. EPA)<a href="https://twitter.com/EPA/statuses/1172220252379373571">1568314061.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Because court rulings have suspended the rule in 28 states, while keeping it in place in 22 others, Wheeler argued that a new rule would provide regulatory certainty across the board.<br></p><p>"We want to make sure that we have a definition that once and for all will be the law of the land in all 50 states," Wheeler told The Washington Post.</p><p>But environmental advocates say the repeal will endanger wetland <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a> and national <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a>.</p><p>"By throwing out the Clean Water Rule, Andrew Wheeler is acting like the former coal lobbyist that he is, putting the drinking water for one in every three Americans at risk just so he can placate corporate polluters who don't want to be held accountable," Dalal Aboulhosn, <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>'s Deputy Legislative Director for Land and Water, said in a statement provided to EcoWatch. "We will fight Wheeler's rollback to not only protect our communities from dangerous water pollution, but also restore order and common sense as to how we go about protecting our water in the future."</p>
<div id="61e5f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="W5OLZF1576661471"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1172239096611266561" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@EPAAWheeler announced the final plan to wipe out protections for streams, wetlands, and drinking water at the hea… https://t.co/0koJdt5Ced</div> — Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)<a href="https://twitter.com/SierraClub/statuses/1172239096611266561">1568318554.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Wheeler made the announcement at the headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the industry groups that opposed the Clean Water Rule. Critics argued it gave the federal government too much power over the actions of developers and farmers. Farmers were prohibited from planting certain crops near streams or wetlands, or using certain pesticides without an EPA permit, The New York Times explained.<br></p><p>"When you take private property rights from a man who's worked all his life," American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall told The New York Times, "that is very intrusive to him and it's something he just can't stand for."</p><p>President Donald Trump singled it out for repeal in a Feb. 2017 executive order, in which the President asked the EPA to start a review process that would lead to "the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule," The Washington Post explained.</p><p>Its repeal means that farmers, developers or landowners will no longer need a permit to pollute the streams and wetlands now excluded from protection, according to The New York Times. When finalized, the new Waters of the United States definition is likely to include streams that feed into larger bodies of water and wetlands directly adjacent to them, but exclude streams that run only during rainfall or wetlands not directly connected to larger waterways.</p><p>But the 2015 rule was based on a review of 1,200 scientific studies that showed how important these streams and wetlands are to downstream waters, according to <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/trump-administration-kicks-clean-water-protections-out-door?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=PolicyFed&fbclid=IwAR1Nphs0UpuSFAOtGpEiVXTVyl0-FCAT3V9gFlUjeY-7aew5Y5pbkDhs8nw" target="_blank">The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)</a>.</p><p>"The Trump administration's wild-eyed attempts to reward polluters knows no bounds, so it is repealing these important protections without regard for the law or sound science," NRDC Director of Federal Water Policy Jon Devine said.</p>
<div id="22b35" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EO0FKN1576661471"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1172213140475564033" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: Another day, another environmental rollback. Today, it's the Trump admin.'s repeal of the Clean Water Rul… https://t.co/NBfPp6kljD</div> — NRDC 🌎 (@NRDC 🌎)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1172213140475564033">1568312366.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The Clean Water Rule repeal is the latest in a growing number of environmental rollbacks initiated by the Trump administration. Others include the repeals of the Obama-era <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan" target="_self">Clean Power Plan</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-fuel-efficiency-proposal-2592345279.html" target="_self">tailpipe emissions standards</a>. Wheeler said Thursday that the Trump EPA had finalized 46 deregulatory actions, and that an additional 45 were in the works, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/760203456/epa-makes-rollback-of-clean-water-rules-official-repealing-2015-protections" target="_blank">NPR reported</a>. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Administration Seeks to Gut Water Pollution Safeguards ... ›
- New EPA Rule Would Sabotage Clean Water Act - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Tara Lohan
It was 1985 and privatization, deregulation and free trade were in the air. Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan were negotiating a free trade deal — a precursor to NAFTA. Among the goods it would cover: "Water, including … mineral waters … ice and snow."
<p>That set off alarm bells for Canadian activist Maude Barlow, as she explains in her new book <em><a href="https://ecwpress.com/products/whose-water-is-it" target="_blank">Whose Water Is It, Anyway? Taking Water Protection into Public Hands</a></em>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>I asked myself, Who owns water and who is making decisions about this precious resource? I had always assumed that water belongs to us all. But I was about to learn that the world was straining its water resources even then and that a number of private corporations and interests were moving in to take control of and profit from growing water scarcity.</em></p><p>That year Barlow helped found the <a href="https://canadians.org/about" target="_blank">Council of Canadians</a>, a nonprofit focused on democracy, trade and environmental issues, and jumped headlong into a global battle to protect public control of water resources — a fight in which she's been a leading voice ever since.</p><p>Among her accomplishments, Barlow was instrumental in the United Nations' decision to declare access to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water">clean water</a> a human right in 2010. She's also received accolades for her efforts including the Right Livelihood Award and the Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship Award. She's currently the honorary chair of the Council of Canadians, chair of the board of <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food and Water Watch</a> and a councilor with the Hamburg-based <a href="http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/" target="_blank">World Future Council</a>.</p><p>In <em>Whose Water Is It, Anyway?</em> she writes not just about the hazards of water privatization but about proactive efforts that communities are taking to protect water resources, including the <a href="https://canadians.org/content/booklet-blue-communities-project-guide" target="_blank">Blue Communities Project</a>, which started in Canada in 2009 and has spread to cities, universities, unions and faith-based organizations around the world. Blue Communities commit to defending water as a human right, protecting water resources for the public trust and banning bottled water from municipal facilities and events.</p><p>We spoke to Barlow about the different forms that water privatization can take, the solutions offered by Blue Communities and our biggest water threat.</p><p><strong>Q. </strong>What are some of the threats that water privatization poses to communities?</p><p><strong>A. </strong>Water privatization has been proven in many studies and in real experience to be a terrible mistake. Handing control of water services to private companies removes public oversight of a crucial source of life and of what should unquestionably be a public service.</p><p>Private water and wastewater services employ fewer staff, cut corners on source protection, provide poorer customer service and charge higher rates. More recently, pro-privatization proponents have argued that public-private partnerships (P3s) are better than full privatization in that they maintain government control over the water source. However, in practice, there is little difference between the older forms of full water privatization and P3s, as both have to incorporate the profit motive into providing water services. So public funds that should go into delivery of services and water protection instead go to investors.</p><p><strong>Q. </strong>You've worked with a lot of communities that have fought back against water privatization. What have you learned?</p><p><strong>A.</strong> Since 2000 some 267 municipalities around the world that had tried water privatization — including some big cities such as Paris and Berlin — have returned the management of their water services to public control. In many cases, the fight was long and intense and it cost the public money to buy back their water systems.</p><p>But there are many examples of increased quality control, more funding for water source protection and lowered water rates for the public once private investors are no longer a part of the equation.</p><p><strong>Q. </strong>Beside corporations controlling public water or wastewater systems, what are some other forms of water privatization?</p><p><strong>A.</strong> Water is bought and sold under water market regimes in California and other parts of the world. Water becomes privately controlled when a foreign investor, company or government gets control of local land and water in what are called "land grabs."</p><p>In other cases, when water is bottled for commercial sale, it is privately owned and many of the wells and water sources used by the big water bottling companies are under multi-year contracts.</p><p>Water is also considered a tradable good in "free trade" agreements and subject to the market disciplines of trade rules. Foreign investors can and have claimed ownership of water sources they use to produce their product in another country.</p><p>There is a mighty contest taking place in our world: Is water a commodity to be put on the open market like oil and gas or a public trust and a human right to be guarded as a commons for all time? This has been the fight of my life.</p><p><strong>Q.</strong> What's gained by becoming a Blue Community?</p><p><strong>A.</strong> A Blue Community is an act of hope. Instead of being against the many threats to water, a Blue Community offers a vision for the future based on the belief that water is a human right and a public trust. It also tackles the growing crisis of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics">plastic pollution</a> by committing a municipality (or university or place to worship, etc.) to phasing out <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bottled-water" rel="noopener noreferrer">bottled water</a> on its premises.</p><p>Some Blue Communities take it a lot further. Berlin set aside a fund to promote safe tap water more broadly to the public and to provide <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" rel="noopener noreferrer">drinking water</a> refilling stations throughout the city.</p><p>A Blue Community realizes that we cannot protect source water and watersheds if we turn the decision-making about local water sources over to private investors. The Blue Community Project is also a wonderful educational opportunity to teach about water, why it matters and how we have to care for it.</p><p><strong>Q. </strong>What keeps you up at night?</p><p><strong>A.</strong> The declining state of the planet's water sources. We humans are polluting, mismanaging, diverting and over-extracting water at an unprecedented rate and the supply of clean water is dramatically dropping just as the demand is skyrocketing.</p><p>We have made serious inroads toward fulfilling the 2010 United Nations resolution recognizing the human right to water but it cannot be realized if there is no clean water to be found. The water crisis, just like the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>, is a visceral threat to human rights as the competition for water is pitting rich against poor, urban against rural, industrial development against Indigenous survival, and region against region.</p><p>Only if we come together to protect water and share it more justly will we avoid the conflict that is hovering at the edges of our lives.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://therevelator.org/barlow-water-privatization/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
- Inside Baltimore's Fight Over Water Privatization - Pacific Standard ›
- As Big Beer Moves In, Activists in Mexicali Fight To Keep Their Water ›
- Stand Up To Water Privatization: Take the Pledge | Story of Stuff ›
- Water Privatization | Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund ›
- The Global Fight Over Our Drinking Water Is Just Getting Started ... ›
Read More
Show Less