New BLM Appointee Believes Founding Fathers Wanted All Public Lands to Be Sold off
31 July 2019
Politics
Vermilion Cliffs National Monument in Arizona is among the public lands which could be threatened by the appointment of William Perry Pendley. Bureau of Land Management
By Julia Conley
Control over nearly 250 million acres of public lands was placed Monday in the hands of a former Reagan administration official who has argued that all federal lands should be sold to fossil fuel and other corporate interests in accordance with the goals of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
<p>Interior Secretary David Bernhardt <a href="https://time.com/5638829/william-perry-pendley-bureau-land-management/" target="_blank">appointed</a> attorney William Perry Pendley as acting head of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), sending fears throughout <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation" target="_self">conservation</a> groups that many of the country's minerals and resources will soon be handed over to oil and gas companies.</p><p>Pendley <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/federal-government-should-sell-western-land-follow-constitution/" target="_blank">wrote</a> in 2016 that "the Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold," and as recently as this month he <a href="https://twitter.com/Sagebrush_Rebel/status/1148664155525664768" target="_blank">lauded</a> fossil fuel extraction as an "energy, economic, and environmental miracle."</p><p>"This appointment shows Trump and Bernhardt are only interested in selling off public lands to the highest bidder," said Chris Saeger, executive director of the Western Values Project, in a statement. "Pendley is an outspoken advocate for the transfer of public lands to the state. Anything they've ever said about not selling off public lands has just been a political smokescreen to distract from their real intentions: handing over public lands to their special interest allies."</p><p>Pendley's appointment comes on the heels of the Interior Department's <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/07/16/top-trump-officials-tell-bureau-land-management-staff-most-them-must-leave-dc-by-end-next-year/?utm_term=.c7e58fabb1ef" target="_blank">decision</a> to spread the BLM's Washington, DC-based headquarters across a number of western states, a move which critics say is aimed at giving the agency less control over federal decision-making about federal lands.</p><p>The news of Pendley "ascending to the top of BLM just as it is being reorganized strongly suggests the administration is positioning itself to liquidate our shared public lands," Phil Hanceford, conservation director for The Wilderness Society, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/opponent-of-us-public-lands-picked-to-oversee-them_n_5d403a87e4b0d24cde05e6ac?utm_hp_ref=ca-us-politics" target="_blank">told</a> the Associated Press<em>.</em></p><p>During his tenure in the Interior Department during the Reagan administration, the Western Values Project noted in a statement, Pendley frequently called for a repeal of the Antiquities Act, which preserves archeological sites, historic structures, and cultural landscapes across the country.</p>
<p>Under the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_self">Trump</a> administration, Pendley has been critical of the Interior Department's <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/12/04/ignoring-local-tribes-and-public-outcry-trump-carves-national-monuments-mining-and" target="_blank">shrinking</a> of Bears Ears and Grand Escalante National Monuments — because he feels the president has not been aggressive enough in offering the public lands for what he views as their sole purposes: "ranching, mile, oil and gas, or energy activities," <a href="https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/conservationists-concerned-over-new-blm-leaders-support-public-lands-sales#stream/0" target="_blank">according to</a> a 2016 interview.</p><p>"We now have someone in charge of the BLM who would prefer to sell those places off rather than doing the job of caring for them on behalf of all Americans," <a href="https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1156215226817228801" target="_blank">said</a> Kayje Booker, policy and advocacy director for Montana Wilderness Association, in a statement.</p><p>Upon learning of Pendley's appointment, the environmental law group Earthjustice <a href="https://www.mtpr.org/post/enviro-groups-call-out-blm-appointees-conflict-interest" target="_blank">called</a> on the incoming BLM chief to recuse himself from any decision-making regarding one area in Montana, regarding which the group said he has a conflict of interest.</p><p>Pendley's former legal client, Solenex, lost its oil and gas lease for the Badger-Two Medicine area in Montana in 2016 when BLM canceled the agreement.</p><p>The lease for the area, near Glacier National Park and the Blackfeet Nation reservation, was reinstated by a district judge last year and Earthjustice is currently fighting that decision in an appeals court.</p><p>Pendley has "moved from one side of the case to the other, and he's obviously in a position to influence BLM's decision making regarding this important case and that's totally inappropriate," Preso said. "There's a huge conflict of interest there."</p><p>"It's hard to imagine anyone in this position more dangerous than William Perry Pendley," <a href="https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1156215226817228801" target="_blank">said</a> Booker.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Americans will die because of this. <a href="https://t.co/SrIeOy06Pu">https://t.co/SrIeOy06Pu</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ActOnClimate?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ActOnClimate</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KeepItInTheGround?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KeepItInTheGround</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PublicLands?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PublicLands</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ClimateCrisis?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ClimateCrisis</a></p>— Enviro Voter Project (@Enviro_Voter) <a href="https://twitter.com/Enviro_Voter/status/1151908722219855872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/30/new-blm-appointee-brings-conflicts-interest-and-plans-sell-public-lands-agency?cd-origin=rss" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Feds to Sell Even More Public Land for Fracking Near Sacred Park ... ›
- Trump Auctions Off 150,000 Acres of Public Lands for Fracking Near ... ›
- Trump Pulls Nomination of William Pendley to Head Nation's BLM - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
New Trump Admin Plan for Bears Ears National Monument 'Recklessly Weakens Protections'
29 July 2019
Insights + Opinion
The Interior Department on Friday released its management plan for Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah. Bob Wick / Bureau of Land Management
By Jessica Corbett
Conservation groups and congressional Democrats slammed the Trump administration Friday over its destructive new management plan for the "illegally reduced" Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.
<p>In December of 2017, the administration provoked mass outrage with its <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/12/04/ignoring-local-tribes-and-public-outcry-trump-carves-national-monuments-mining-and" target="_blank">decision</a> to reduce Bears Ears by about 85 percent. The Bureau of Land Management — an agency of the U.S. Interior Department — published in the Federal Register on Friday <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/26/2019-15905/notice-of-availability-of-the-bears-ears-national-monument-indian-creek-and-shash-ja-units-proposed" target="_blank">a management plan</a> for, as one critic <a href="https://www.npca.org/articles/2235-trump-administration-issues-flawed-plan-for-bears-ears-national-monument" target="_blank">put it</a>, "the meager remnants of the original monument."</p><p>"This administration's management plan only reinforces its illegal action to steal huge swaths of land from the national monument so that oil and gas and mining companies can exploit the land," Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.) <a href="https://rubengallego.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reps-ruben-gallego-and-deb-haaland-statement-trump-administration-s" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Friday. "It puts sacred sites at risk of being lost forever."</p><p>Haaland is an original co-sponsor of the Bears Ears Expansion and Respect for Sovereignty<a href="https://congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/871/text" target="_blank"> (BEARS) Act</a>. The bill, introduced by Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) in January, would not only protect the original land designated by former President Barack Obama, but also expand the monument to the full 1.9 million acres encompassing sacred artifacts and cultural resources that local tribes wish to protect.</p><p>The administration's new plan, Gallego warned, "recklessly weakens protections even for the land that remains in the monument, failing to protect important sites from threats like ATV use, looting, vandalism, and damage from target shooting — which would be permitted within monument boundaries."</p><p>"This proposed management plan confirms what we already knew," he declared. "The Trump administration has no interest in protecting the thousands of cultural and archeological sites in Bears Ears Monument or in seriously consulting with tribes on how best to manage their sacred ancestral lands."</p><p>Environmental groups and tribes have challenged the administration's move to reduce the monument in court. Heidi McIntosh, managing attorney of the nonprofit law firm <a href="https://earthjustice.org" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>'s Rocky Mountains office, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/07/26/trump-administration-releases-new-plan-whats-left-bears-ears" target="_blank">said</a> Friday that "if we win the legal fight to restore Bears Ears National Monument, this plan will just be 800 pages of wasted effort."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump released his new plans for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BearsEars?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BearsEars</a> today, but they’ll be useless if we win the battle to restore the iconic monument: “If we win the legal fight to restore Bears Ears, this plan will just be 800 pages of wasted effort.” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StandWithBearsEars?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StandWithBearsEars</a> <a href="https://t.co/wMXAP57AaB">https://t.co/wMXAP57AaB</a></p>— Earthjustice (@Earthjustice) <a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/status/1154778378865696770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Responding to the administration's plan for the monument, McIntosh added that "even in the parts of Bears Ears that President Trump left intact, he's planning on putting destructive activities before the American public's interests. Bears Ears is not the kind of place for chaining thousands of acres of forest or stringing up utility lines."</p><p>Other conservation groups quickly piled on with criticism Friday.</p><p>Katherine Malone-France, chief preservation officer at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, <a href="https://www.npca.org/articles/2235-trump-administration-issues-flawed-plan-for-bears-ears-national-monument" target="_blank">called</a> the proposal "fundamentally flawed and premature," while Tim Peterson of Grand Canyon Trust said that the way the Trump administration has "added the insult of this detestable plan to the injury of slashing Bears Ears is deeply disturbing, and it cannot stand."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: The Trump Administration's new plan for Bears Ears will not sufficiently protect cultural resources and sacred sites, leaving them more vulnerable to destruction than ever before. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StandWithBearsEars?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StandWithBearsEars</a> <a href="https://t.co/RiyGy2PjRB">https://t.co/RiyGy2PjRB</a></p>— National Parks Conservation Association (@NPCA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NPCA/status/1154748625404211200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Chris Saeger, executive director of the Western Values Project, raised concerns about the timing.</p><p>"The release of this management plan days before Congress leaves for a month is dubious at best and reckless at worst," Saeger <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/07/26/trump-releases-management-plan-illegally-reduced-bears-ears-national-monument" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement. "The Trump administration continues to prove its utter disregard of our public lands and outdoor heritage through its strong-armed attempts to illegally shrink this sacred and culturally-critical place."</p><p>"There is a lack of respect for the law, the courts, and the mass public concern that illegally shrinking Bears Ears has evoked," he added. "Stealing land away from the public in order to reward their special interest allies seems to be the only priority of this administration."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump Administration Sells Oil and Gas Leases Near Utah National Monuments <a href="https://t.co/XptLS04waz">https://t.co/XptLS04waz</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/renewable?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#renewable</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/solar?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#solar</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wind?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#wind</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PV?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PV</a> <a href="https://t.co/zIUy1q0977">pic.twitter.com/zIUy1q0977</a></p>— Renewable Search (@RenewableSearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RenewableSearch/status/976130946977026048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/26/critics-charge-new-trump-plan-recklessly-weakens-protections-what-remains-illegally?cd-origin=rss" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
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 by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><em><br></em>
<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" data-width="710" data-height="959" /><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" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><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" data-width="800" data-height="800" /><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" data-width="600" data-height="600" /><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" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><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 ›
- Full Spectrum CBD Oil: What To Know - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Waters: Plus All You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
- The Best Water Soluble CBD Available Online - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD for Sleep (Lab-Tested, Person-Tested Oils) - EcoWatch ›
- Strongest CBD Oils to Buy in 2021? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oils For Pain: Top 3 Brands of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- 8 Science-Based Benefits of CBD Oil - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Vape Pen: Top Brands of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
- Because Price Matters: Most Affordable CBD Oils of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A worker in California sprays pesticides on strawberries, one of the crops on which chlorpyrifos is used. Paul Grebliunas / The Image Bank / Getty Images Plus
President Donald Trump's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not ban the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos, a toxic pesticide that the EPA's own scientists have linked to brain damage in children, The New York Times reported Thursday.
<p>The <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/PrePubCopy_9997-06_FR%20Document_Signed_2019-07-18.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a>, announced Thursday, was a response to a petition from public health and environmental groups who had pushed for a ban. The agency ruled that "critical questions remained regarding the significance of the data" on the pesticide's health effects, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/18/epa-chlorpyrifos-ban-children-brain-damage-trump" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Trump's <a href="https://twitter.com/EPA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPA</a> announced the brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos is safe and can still be used on food, although mainstream science says this pesticide is unsafe for children and farmworkers. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BanChlorpyrifos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BanChlorpyrifos</a> <a href="https://t.co/rzfwPovUL9">https://t.co/rzfwPovUL9</a></p>— Earthjustice (@Earthjustice) <a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/status/1151934775634071552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The ruling is the latest in a series of Trump EPA decisions that weaken <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemical</a> safety rules, The New York Times pointed out. In April, it <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-rule-2634944150.html" target="_self">opted against a full ban</a> on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a> in favor of restrictions that critics say could usher in new uses. Also this year, it issued restrictions on a paint-stripping chemical that were weaker than a ban proposed during the Obama years. Finally, just last week, it widely expanded the use of the pesticide sulfoxaflor, which its own scientists have shown can harm <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bees" target="_self">bees</a>, as <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sulfoxaflor-epa-honeybee-colonies-usda-data-200-million-acres_n_5d2bf580e4b0060b11eeb5f1" target="_blank">HuffPost reported</a>.</p><p>"Siding with pesticide corporations over the health and well-being of kids is the new normal at the EPA," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> President Ken Cook said in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/epa-s-wheeler-keeps-brain-damaging-pesticide-legal-use-foods-kids-eat" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Today's decision underscores the sad truth that as long as the Trump administration is in charge, this EPA will favor the interests of the chemical lobby over children's safety."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/EPA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPA</a>’s Wheeler Keeps Brain-Damaging Pesticide Legal for Use on Foods Kids Eat | <a href="https://twitter.com/ewg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ewg</a> | <a href="https://t.co/01HR1n5bOg">https://t.co/01HR1n5bOg</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/chlorpyrifos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#chlorpyrifos</a></p>— Alex Formuzis (@AlexFormuzis) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlexFormuzis/status/1151948995847233538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The EPA's decision came after a federal court ordered the agency to make a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-chlorpyrifos-court-2635261283.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">final call</a> on the ban by mid-July. Chlorpyrifos has been banned for home use since 2000, but farmers have continued to spray it on crops like apples, strawberries, broccoli and corn. The Obama administration had initiated a ban on agricultural uses of the pesticide, but Trump's EPA reversed it, setting off a legal battle with environmental advocates. In the absence of federal action, states have moved against the pesticide on their own. Hawaii <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/hawaii-ban-pesticides-chlorpyrifos-2565244742.html" target="_self">became the first state</a> to ban chlorpyrifos in 2018, and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-chlorpyrifos-ban-2636704080.html" target="_self">California announced</a> it would ban the chemical in May. New York is also moving towards a ban, The New York Times reported.</p><p>Research has linked chlorpyrifos exposure to lower IQ, memory loss, breathing problems and increased risk of autism in babies born to mothers who lived near farms where it was sprayed, according to The Guardian.</p><p>"What we have with chlorpyrifos is multiple academic research projects that have shown that actual children who actually live in California are being harmed by this chemical," <a href="https://www.ceh.org/" target="_blank">Center for Environmental Health</a> senior scientist Caroline Cox told The Guardian. "It's pretty rare that you have that kind of evidence for any toxic chemical."</p><p>So how was the EPA able to decide that the science wasn't conclusive? The New York Times explained that the ruling was a direct consequence of former EPA administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a>'s decision to limit the kinds of studies that regulators could use to make decisions:</p><blockquote>Under Mr. Pruitt, the agency proposed a rule saying it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html?module=inline" target="_blank">could not consider scientific research</a> unless the raw data behind it was made public, saying the issue was a matter of transparency. Scientists argued that studies measuring human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals often rely on confidential health information and argued the E.P.A.'s real motivation was to restrict the ability to develop regulations.<br><br>In opting not to ban chlorpyrifos, the E.P.A. rejected a major study conducted by Columbia University on its effects on children in New York City. The E.P.A. said because it was unable to obtain the raw data and replicate that study, which <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OI-A1C1ZeP0IgKSSc1lHZU00F71DefIk/view" target="_blank">linked the insecticide to developmental delays</a>, it could not independently verify the conclusions.</blockquote><p>The 12 groups who brought the petition against the EPA vowed to keep fighting.</p><p>"We will continue to fight until chlorpyrifos is banned and children and farmworkers are safe from this dangerous chemical," they said in a joint <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-keeps-brain-damaging-pesticide-in-fruits-and-vegetables?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">statement</a> reported by <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>, the legal organization that represented the groups.</p><p>Former senior EPA attorney Kevin Minoli thought that federal courts would ultimately rule in favor of a ban.</p><p>"To me, this starts the clock on the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops in the US," he told the <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/18/epa-chlorpyrifos-pesticide-brain-damage/1773300001/" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a>'s Pick to Head <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Interior?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Interior</a> Blocked Report Warning of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Pesticide?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Pesticide</a> Risk to 1,000+ Endangered Species <a href="https://t.co/qL6qLKJvoC">https://t.co/qL6qLKJvoC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/bpncamp?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@bpncamp</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLiptonNYT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EricLiptonNYT</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1111055370338922496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 28, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- Entire Pesticide Class Must Be Banned to Save Children's Health ... ›
- California, Nation's Top User of Chlorpyrifos, Announces Ban on ... ›
- Trump White House Pushes to Let Minors Spray Brain-Damaging ... ›
- Trump EPA Won’t Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That Harms Children’s Development - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Bees and Beekeepers Feel the Sting of Trump Administration’s Anti-Science Efforts
17 July 2019
Insights + Opinion
Beekeeper Jeff Anderson works with members of his family in this photo from 2014. He once employed all of his adult children but can no longer afford to do so. CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE
By Jessica A. Knoblauch
It's been a particularly terrible summer for bees. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it is allowing the bee-killing pesticide sulfoxaflor back on the market. And just a few weeks prior, the USDA announced it is suspending data collection for its annual honeybee survey, which tracks honeybee populations across the U.S., providing critical information to farmers and scientists.
<p><em>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_self">Trump</a> administration pushed for these two anti-bee actions, even though our </em><a href="https://earthjustice.org/features/the-perfect-crime" target="_blank"><em>nation's honeybee populations have been nosediving for years</em></a><em>. Last winter, </em><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/06/19/733761393/more-bad-buzz-for-bees-record-numbers-of-honey-bee-colonies-died-last-winter" target="_blank"><em>beekeepers reported a record 40 percent loss of their colonies</em></a><em>.</em></p><p><em>Longtime beekeeper Jeff Anderson, owner of California-Minnesota Honey Farms, says the picture is even grimmer if you look at bee losses across the entire year, particularly in the spring and summer when farmers are spraying <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" target="_self">pesticides</a>. It's not just bees that are suffering, he says. Beekeepers are also feeling the sting of the Trump administration's anti-bee and anti-science efforts. And consumers of healthy, fresh foods are next.</em></p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTkzNDUyMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MTMzMDk2Nn0.v4olbgEtLHATcNY9zb-wsaWUICVErfc4VPS188o0r3g/img.jpg?width=980" id="bd622" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a452a9f497b00cf2d8d4c2ddfac5e6c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A honey bee alights on a cherry blossom in Stockton, California.
CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE
<p><strong>Were you surprised to learn that the USDA pulled its honeybee colonies report? </strong></p><p>No. The USDA quit doing the honeybees survey because they absolutely don't want to document what's happening, because then they'd have to do something about it.</p><p><strong>How do you feel about the EPA reregistering sulfoxaflor?</strong></p><p>One thing that stood out to me in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-registers-long-term-uses-sulfoxaflor-while-ensuring-strong-pollinator-protection" target="_blank">EPA's notice</a> is that it said it's "providing long-term certainty for U.S. growers to use an important tool to protect crops and avoid potentially significant economic losses, while maintaining strong protection for pollinators. The wording, "long-term certainty <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pollinators" target="_self"></a>… to use," seems totally wrong for a regulatory agency to make a promise like that. It predisposes a defensive position for all decisions going forward.</p><p>Basically, the EPA's buddies at Dow AgroSciences want to make billions on this pesticide, and the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a> is going to let them. But please don't lie to us and say that sulfoxaflor is somehow <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pollinators" target="_self">pollinator</a> safe. I'm not buying.</p><p><strong>Why do bees get such short shrift by regulators and legislators? <br><br></strong>Beekeeping has always been the ugly stepchild in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture" target="_self">agriculture</a>. Agriculture needs us, but not <em>everybody</em> in agriculture needs us. Corn growers and wheat growers don't need my bees. Cherry, almond and blueberry growers need my bees. Any of the healthy <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">foods</a> that are in our diet need insect pollination, and if you want to eat chicken, beef, whatever, most of that doesn't need my bees. But when it comes to our healthy, nutritious foods like nuts and fruits, almost all of those need insect pollination.</p><p>Farmers know that pesticides are a problem. In Minnesota, the standard question I get from farmers when I walk into a room or get gas at a gas station is, "How are the bees doing?" I tell them, "Well, not so good." And it's getting to be that most farmers these days will say, "It's all these chemicals, isn't it?" I tell them, "It should give you some pause to think about that because you and I are next. We just haven't started coughing as much yet."</p><p>Our environment is sick and our bees are a good indicator when that's the truth. When my beehive gets sick, there's something not right within the flight range of those bees. But the chemical industry is the one who speaks for everybody on the Hill, so it doesn't matter what farmers think. That's the reality.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTkzNDUyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1ODI2MDEyMX0.CDVMamT5ne6cN93CUxSx9UuXUFoB8OyP8Y8GxJFW_Zs/img.jpg?width=980" id="466aa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1098a2a433c601265de3e7958bc8484a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Beekeeper Jeff Anderson says the Trump administration's anti-bee and anti-science efforts are hurting his business.
CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE
<p><strong>How are your honeybees faring this year?</strong></p><p>I've had about 90 percent honeybee loss between last spring and this spring. I typically run about 3,000 colonies in our spring count and we instead we had 300.</p><p>If you want to look at my winter losses, they were probably about like what the <a href="https://beeinformed.org/" target="_blank">Bee Informed Partnership</a> survey is claiming, around 40 percent. And that is almost exclusively painted up in the press like that's the annual number that the industry is losing, which is absolute hogwash because it isn't the full story. The spring losses are greater than the winter losses because generally most things die when they're most exposed to pesticides. Is that rocket science? No. It's just that nobody talks about it.</p><p><strong>Has the bee die-off impacted your ability to do business? <br><br></strong>I used to have all of my adult children working for me. My oldest, Jeremy, has worked with bees ever since he got out of diapers. He's been my foreman for 20 years. Now, with honey production way down, he's barely getting paid enough to put food on the table. Things are getting tight because our honey crops are way off. The most barrels of honey I ever produced was about 450. Last year, I had about 68 barrels. Sick bees don't make honey.<br><br>That's the other part of the bee story. I run a family operation and I can't keep my kids employed anymore. When you can't keep hives alive, you can't keep income coming in. We all talk the demise of bees, but the demise of the beekeepers gets overlooked a lot of times. Beekeepers all have a form of PTSD. We just don't get it in the military.</p><p><strong>Is climate change impacting your bees? <br><br></strong>Yes, but not like you're thinking, where it's too hot in the summer or too cold in the winter.</p><p>Neonicotinoid pesticides like sulfoxaflor <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30409882" target="_blank">cause problems</a> with thermoregulation in affected insects. One of the problems we have with overwintering our bees is that the cold will now kill a beehive. That didn't used to be normal. Before, most of the bees in the Midwest stayed all winter. The beekeeper would wrap them with insulation and give them a top entrance, so they could ventilate the moisture out of the colony. And the bees would be just fine, coming out in the spring big enough to split into separate hives. If you try to do that with a bee colony now, it's dead by November.</p><p>It's not the extreme temperatures. It doesn't even have to get that cold. They have bee mortality in Florida at 40 degrees. The hive simply can't thermoregulate.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTkzNDUyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDU5NTA3OH0.t6X8r12D-uNqYUTzZs6m8f7zD1Jjs0IkZXwMbfu7zpw/img.jpg?width=980" id="6859c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c29753a0513541649f31490cd06408ce" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Anderson minds his colonies in a California cherry orchard.
CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE
<p><strong>Do you plan on continuing as a beekeeper? </strong></p><p>My plan today should have been to go up to Fargo, North Dakota, for the bee convention with a for sale sign for anyone who wants my operation. That's what I should have been doing.</p><p>My parents' generation, they would have stuck with it because they knew you might have a bad year, but it was an anomaly, and the next year was going to be better. That's what farmers always think. For the most part, that's true. In the grand scheme of things, you've usually got one year in 20 that's down, so it really wasn't a stupid decision to dip into your savings to push things forward.</p><p>But in year after year after year we keep setting records for low honey production in the U.S. This year, we were down to 300-some hives. You don't just take 300-some hives and magically sneeze and all of a sudden you've got 3,000. You work your tail off, you buy bees from other beekeepers, you get extra queens, etc. It costs a lot of money, and I decided I'm not gonna throw good money after bad in this operation. If Honey Farms can't pay its way, then it's going to cease to exist. I see no reason to put the 50 cents I have set aside for retirement into trying to manage a bee operation when I'm 62.</p><p><strong>What can people do to support bees?<br><br></strong>Consumers are starting to understand that what they put in their mouth has a great deal to do with how often they see their doctor. There's a direct connection between your health and what you eat. It's not rocket science. Vote with your checkbook. The chemical industry is in charge on the Hill, unless we can un-buy Congress.</p><p>Editor's note: In 2015, the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/sulfoxaflor-opinion" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals</a> determined that sulfoxaflor could not be used in the United States, following an Earthjustice lawsuit. The court found the EPA violated the law by approving sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide would have on honeybee colonies.</p><p>"At a time when honeybees and other pollinators are dying in greater numbers than ever before, Trump's EPA decision to remove restrictions on yet another bee-killing pesticide is nothing short of reckless," <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-puts-bee-killing-pesticide-back-on-the-market" target="_blank">said</a> Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie, who litigated the sulfoxaflor case. "Scientists have long said pesticides like sulfoxaflor are the cause of the unprecedented colony collapse. Letting sulfoxaflor back on the market is dangerous for our food system, economy, and environment."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/EPA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPA</a> just okayed "emergency" use of bee-killing pesticides on nearly 14 million acres of land known to attract bees.<br><br>40% of insect species are on the brink of extinction. This is inexcusable. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaveTheBees?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SaveTheBees</a><a href="https://t.co/ga60bZMvEI">https://t.co/ga60bZMvEI</a></p>— Friends of the Earth (@foe_us) <a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/status/1148690832985403393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- National Butterfly Center: Trump's Border Wall Threatens Pollinators ... ›
- Trump's USDA Suspends Honeybee Survey - EcoWatch ›
- Rare Blue Bee Is Not Extinct, Scientists Confirm - EcoWatch ›
- Biden Urged to Help Save American Bumblebees From Extinction - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Coal ash has contaminated the Vermilion River in Illinois. Eco-Justice Collaborative / CC BY-SA 2.0
By Jessica A. Knoblauch
Summers in the Midwest are great for outdoor activities like growing your garden or cooling off in one of the area's many lakes and streams. But some waters aren't as clean as they should be.
That's in part because coal companies have long buried toxic waste known as coal ash near many of the Midwest's iconic waterways, including Lake Michigan. Though coal ash dumps can leak harmful chemicals like arsenic and cadmium into nearby waters, regulators have done little to address these toxic sites. As a result, the Midwest is now littered with coal ash dumps, with Illinois containing the most leaking sites in the country.
<p><br/></p>
<p>Thankfully, Illinois policymakers have just <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/illinois-house-and-senate-pass-landmark-legislation-to-clean-up-coal-ash" target="_blank">passed a coal ash bill</a> that will finally help address the coal ash problem. If signed into law, the new protections signal hope for those who have been impacted by toxic coal ash for far too long.</p><p>The landmark legislation comes after years of advocacy by community groups such as <a href="https://ecojusticecollaborative.org/" target="_blank">Eco-Justice Collaborative</a> and the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CentralIllinoisHealthyCommunityAlliance/" target="_blank">Central Illinois Healthy Communities Alliance</a>, as well as legal work by Earthjustice, <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/home" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> and others.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTYwMzM3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDk2NzY4MX0.DJHOM5IMewCI4pGcORPGEMW_L7sRGNYNHOKxdh8Oj6Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="50ce5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="73a7beac224660e3683db214bf5cd7aa" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Children enjoy tubing along the Vermilion River, which is polluted by coal ash.
Photo courtesy of Pam Richart / Eco-Justice Collaborative
<p>The momentum for stronger coal ash protections began to build in 2014, after Earthjustice won a court settlement that forced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) to <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/epa-agrees-to-deadline-for-first-ever-u-s-coal-ash-regulations" target="_blank">enact the first-ever federal safeguards on coal ash</a>. The new protections were a huge win for impacted communities at risk of coal ash disasters, like the one that hit Kingston, Tennessee, where <a href="https://www.epa.gov/tn/epa-response-kingston-tva-coal-ash-spill" target="_blank">dozens of homes were destroyed in 2008</a>.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_self">Trump administration</a>, however, was determined to carry out the coal industry's bidding. So in 2018, it <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2017/trump-administration-bows-to-polluters-and-cuts-first-ever-national-safeguards-for-nation-s-no-2-toxic-pollution" target="_blank">announced</a> it was weakening the coal ash rule. Earthjustice quickly sued the administration for its illegal action. At the same time we were defending the rule, Earthjustice attorneys were also arguing that the original 2015 protections should be even stronger. In August 2018, a court <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/federal-appeals-court-orders-epa-to-strengthen-rule-on-toxic-power-plant-wastewater" target="_blank">agreed</a>, forcing policy makers and coal companies to accept the reality that they would eventually have to address this problem nationwide. Illinois alone, for example, has more than 80 impoundments, including more than 50 that must close in the next few years under the current federal rule.</p><p>While the cases played out in court, coal companies began reporting groundwater monitoring data required under the 2015 safeguards. According to industry's own data, almost all coal ash ponds nationwide — 91 percent based on the first year of data reported — <a href="https://earthjustice.org/features/map-coal-ash-contaminated-sites" target="_blank">are contaminating groundwater</a> with toxins above levels that the federal EPA deems to be safe.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="81e660dc847acb312698bd12660c7587"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uuB3hb95ma0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>Armed with that <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/National%20Coal%20Ash%20Report%203.4.19.pdf" target="_blank">damning data</a>, which came to light thanks to analysis by Earthjustice and the <a href="https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Integrity Project</a>, advocates banded together to push their legislators to address the contamination. With <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2018/new-report-reveals-severe-groundwater-contamination-at-illinois-coal-ash-dumps" target="_blank">22 of Illinois' 24 coal-fired power plants</a> shown to have contaminated groundwater with unsafe levels of one or more toxic pollutants, state politicians and regulators could no longer avert their eyes to the dangers of coal ash. In Danville, Illinois, for example, local groups like <a href="https://prairierivers.org/dynegy-vermilion-middle-fork/" target="_blank">Prairie Rivers Network</a> brought the data to legislators like <a href="http://www.senatorbennett.com/" target="_blank">State Senator Scott Bennett</a> (D-Champaign), who had long been concerned about nearby <a href="https://earthjustice.org/blog/2018-september/illinois-only-national-scenic-river-is-polluted-with-coal-ash-but-there-s-reason-for-hope" target="_blank">coal ash ponds contaminating his constituency's prized gem, the Vermilion River</a>.</p><p>Now the coal industry's defenses are beginning to fail in both Illinois and around the country. Earlier this year, <a href="https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/after--year-fight-over-coal-ash-governor-signs-new/article_ec5eea64-889c-11e9-8859-d3400fe0cebc.html" target="_blank">Virginia passed bipartisan legislation</a> requiring a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/costco-walmart-and-other-big-retailers-try-to-break-dominion-energys-grip-in-virginia/2019/06/01/41857212-83d2-11e9-95a9-e2c830afe24f_story.html" target="_blank">powerful utility</a> to recycle at least 25 percent of its coal ash and move the rest to lined landfills that won't leak into nearby waters. In addition, North Carolina passed its own coal ash legislation, requiring another major coal player <a href="https://earthjustice.org/blog/2019-april/coal-ash-victory-in-north-carolina-serves-as-a-model-for-the-nation" target="_blank">to completely excavate and close all of its toxic ponds in the state</a>.</p><p>Now, all eyes are on Illinois, as the bill goes to Gov. Pritzker's (D-IL) desk for signing. Key aspects of the proposed Illinois bill include:</p><ul><li><strong>Financial assurances</strong> that the cost of coal ash cleanup will be borne by the coal companies, not taxpayers.</li><li><strong>Public participation</strong> in the form of opportunities for public review, comment and hearings on proposed permits for closing and cleaning up ash ponds. Previously, more than 20 closure plans for coal ash sites in Illinois have been approved entirely behind closed doors. Now, the community has a voice.</li><li><strong>Regulations as protective as the federal rules</strong> <strong>as well as mandates</strong> that go above and beyond the federal rules. Those include requiring ash pond owners to evaluate closing the ponds by getting rid of the source of the pollution – i.e., digging up the ash – and prioritizing closure of high risk sites and those affecting environmental justice areas.</li></ul><p>"After years of inaction, Illinois will finally be taking steps to protect the public from the environmental and financial threats posed by coal ash ponds," says Andrew Rehn of Prairie Rivers Network, which played a critical role in organizing, lobbying, grassroots work and media.</p><p>Earthjustice attorney Jenny Cassel adds that pushing the coal ash bill through has been a "fantastic team effort," with Earthjustice playing a leading role in drafting, negotiation, legal analysis and communications.</p><p>"The bill and the issue were relatively unknown in the House and we needed 60 votes to pass it," said Cassel. "We ended up getting 77 votes, a clear sign that the bill's bipartisan measures appealed to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What a Real Coal Ash Cleanup Looks Like <a href="https://t.co/zeM62JKP7e">https://t.co/zeM62JKP7e</a></p>— Lakota Law Project (@lakotalaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/lakotalaw/status/1115710944146067456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- Groups Sue Utility Company for Leaking Coal Ash Into National ... ›
- New Report Reveals Severe Groundwater Contamination at Illinois ... ›
- Top 10 Most Contaminated Groundwater Sites Revealed in First ... ›
- All Coal-Fired Power Plants in Texas Found Leaking Toxins Into ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Homes in Washington, DC's Brookland neighborhood were condemned to clear room for a highway in the 1960s. The community fought back. Brig Cabe / DC Public Library
By Teju Adisa-Farrar & Raul Garcia
In the summer of 1969 a banner hung over a set of condemned homes in what was then the predominantly black and brown Brookland neighborhood in Washington, DC. It read, "White man's roads through black men's homes."
Earlier in the year, the District attempted to condemn the houses to make space for a proposed freeway. The plans proposed a 10-lane freeway, a behemoth of a project that would divide the nation's capital end-to-end and sever iconic Black neighborhoods like Shaw and the U Street Corridor from the rest of the city.
<p>Today, Brookland is not home to an interstate. The community's protest forced the government to cancel its construction plans. And the activists' efforts helped spur the passage of a law that gives all people the right to weigh in on projects that affect their communities — a right that is now under attack from the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration and its allies.</p><p>Residents taking a stand in Brookland were the latest participants in the "Freeway Revolts," a multi-decade effort to force federal planners to consider the impacts of large development projects on communities and ecosystems. During and after World War II, 6 million Black people moved from the South to cities in the Midwest and California, drawn by employment opportunities and driven by the violence and poverty of the Jim Crow South. Following this demographic shift and growth in cities across the U.S., planners rewrote municipal zoning ordinances and separated residential, commercial and industrial development. These policies promoted urban sprawl and white flight, which fed the culture of automobile dependency.</p><p>The Freeway Revolts formed alliances across lines of race and socioeconomic status. In DC, wealthy white residents of Takoma Park and Georgetown allied with middle-class black and brown residents in Brookland. In Seattle, the Black Panthers aligned with the Sierra Club in opposition to highway widening proposals. In San Francisco, Latinx communities joined hands with white residents to protest the Central Freeway's devastation to homes and communities. These various communities realized how disruptive and destructive these large urban planning projects are to neighborhoods and communities.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTU5OTM2MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTEzODUyMH0.WdrM8WZooRG3fkB6rGmm4wO6p0nKACEOyx_WpIDXARM/img.jpg?width=980" id="c04ec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8ebcdc3daa188fc215a39dfd2d11f4d9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Activists demonstrate against proposed freeway construction in San Francisco in 1960.
Image courtesy of San Francisco History Center
<p>Lacking a voice in the development process, residents and community members in cities across the country used tactics that ranged from picketing, petitioning and leafleting to directly occupying facilities. In each case, however, the central message was the same: Government should not ransack homes, divide areas and introduce new sources of smog and noise pollution without the consent of those affected.</p><p>In many places, the protests forced city governments to change their plans, or even led to the removal of freeways that had already been built. At the federal level, the protests helped inspire a law that ensures the people get to weigh in on projects that affect their health, homes and neighborhoods: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This law has become one of the most important tools to protect communities and our environment — and now, it's under attack by the Trump administration.</p><p>In 1969, after over a decade of relentless pressure and public activism, Congress passed NEPA in a nearly unanimous vote. The aim of the law was to create a national environmental policy that equally weighed environmental impacts and the voices of communities when federal agencies developed infrastructure projects. NEPA was the first law to require the federal government to conduct an environmental impact study (EIS) when embarking on a project. It required the federal government to tell the public what it wanted to develop and establish time for communities to comment and offer environmentally friendlier or less disruptive alternatives; alternatives the government must consider under NEPA.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTU5OTM2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NjA4MTU5MX0.aYpZbyQKS9o7Y3U-7bakIyQ_soZXkSXbjiXB8VrLyAQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="0624c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e715d4a3e674a1f7bd37fe3050876b64" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Community leaders heightened the national consciousness of the effects of environmental degradation on communities throughout the second half of the 20th century.
Photo courtesy of U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
<p>Over the years, it is communities of color — whose efforts made NEPA possible — that have invoked the law when seeking justice. After all, more than half of the people living less than two miles from a toxic waste site in the U.S. are people of color. Children of color are disproportionately more likely to face the dangerous health effects of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead">lead</a> poisoning. Indigenous communities like the Navajo Nation have been face-to-face with toxic water thanks to the legacy of uranium mining in the Southwest. In the Northern Mariana Islands, indigenous and low-income U.S. citizens are using NEPA to compel the U.S. Navy to consider the effects that artillery, rockets and bombardment will have on their tropical homeland and sacred sites. According to Cinta Kaipat, a resident of the island Saipan, NEPA allows communities to "fight this fight without firing a shot. The military will sit up and hear our voices."</p><p>Right now, communities of color are using NEPA to challenge the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/keystone-xl">Keystone XL</a> pipeline, President Trump's illegal border wall, waste incinerators in Puerto Rico, intrusive transit plans in Los Angeles and pollution from the KCI Airport in Kansas City. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe in Montana successfully used NEPA to thwart Trump administration's plans to reopen coal-mining leases on public lands. Ill-conceived development along the I-70 Corridor near Denver stopped thanks to NEPA. It is community voices, not those of polluting and profit-driven corporations with armies of well-paid litigators and lobbyists that are most likely to be excluded or ignored in the decision-making process. And it is their voices that can help stop further division and destruction in our environments if they are made a part of the planning process.</p><p>Put simply, the National Environmental Policy Act is a tool to help uplift the people's environmental voice. That's why it's no wonder that the Trump administration and its allies <a href="https://earthjustice.org/features/nepa" target="_blank">want to stifle it</a>, either by exempting certain proposals from oversight, limiting the length of public comment periods or eliminating public comment altogether.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTU5OTM2My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3NDcwMDMyOH0.7tNdeD18OL6D8FbOS03Wgveuc1n4j1iQhVrXnyCLRM0/img.jpg?width=980" id="e71a1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d2c29c8905e6ab556872f0678b2a6f80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Communities in the Northern Mariana Islands are using NEPA to challenge the U.S. Navy's plan to conduct live-fire training on the island of Pågan.
Photo courtesy of Dan Lin
<p>The spirit that drove communities of color and neighborhood residents throughout the U.S. to hang banners, picket, sit in and stand up in the 1950s and 1960s is alive today. Even though several communities of color across the nation have been displaced and burdened by pollution because of freeway development projects in the 1960s, NEPA helps to fight against exclusionary and environmentally disruptive planning processes.</p><p>As we fight to end environmental racism, we cannot allow the Trump administration and its allies in Congress to retrench the people's tools for access to justice. We cannot allow them to limit public comments and continue to shut communities out of the NEPA process. It is through direct action and community engagement that NEPA came to be; safeguarding it gives people more power to be a part of the decisions that determine what happens in their communities.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"These findings confirm what most grassroots environmental justice leaders have known for decades." In my last <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EcoWatch</a> piece today, a groundbreaking study from <a href="https://twitter.com/jdhill?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jdhill</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/ctessum?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ctessum</a> shows a racial gap betwen who causes and suffers from air pollution: <a href="https://t.co/l8pC0tHPis">https://t.co/l8pC0tHPis</a></p>— Olivia Rosane (@orosane) <a href="https://twitter.com/orosane/status/1105534928077406209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://earthjustice.org/blog/2019-june/how-freeway-revolts-helped-create-the-people-s-environmental-law" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 3 Reasons Why Plastic Pollution Is an Environmental Justice Issue ... ›
- 'Another Blow to the Black Community': Trump Waives Environmental Law That Gives Public a Voice in Infrastructure Projects - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Maria Gunnoe Flight, courtesy of southwings.org
By Julia Conley
Green groups on Saturday celebrated the latest federal ruling aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from rolling back environmental regulations that were put in place by his predecessor.
<p>Judge Brian Morris <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/climate/court-trump-coal-mining-setback.html" target="_blank">issued a ruling</a> late Friday stating that the Interior Department broke federal law when it lifted former President Barack Obama's moratorium on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> mining in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands">public lands</a>.</p>
<p>Former Interior Secretary <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ryan-zinke" target="_self">Ryan Zinke</a>, who resigned last December due to multiple ethics scandals, did not order adequate studies of the environmental impact of coal, Morris said. The Trump administration had claimed the plan was "a mere policy shift" in order to avoid having to order such reviews.</p><p>Morris refuted this claim, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/judge-resumption-of-us-coal-sales-by-trump-needs-review/2019/04/19/319ea436-6316-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?utm_term=.62cf330215ce" target="_blank">saying</a> Trump had initiated a "major federal action" without taking the necessary precautions required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970.</p><p>The judge said he would hand down another ruling in the coming months on whether to reinstate Obama's 2016 moratorium.</p><p>"This is a victory for communities whose land, water, and way of life is threatened by new coal mining," said Jenny Harbine, an attorney with Earthjustice, who argued the case on behalf of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and several climate action groups. "It's time we put their health and safety ahead of coal industry interests."</p>
<div id="023a6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="I8T64H1576663674"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1119654448324857858" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">ICYMI: Major victory last night! This is a win for our climate, our health, and our public lands. https://t.co/53ncy5nQBn</div> — Earthjustice (@Earthjustice)<a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/statuses/1119654448324857858">1555781397.0</a></blockquote></div>
<div id="36158" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="73GKVG1576663674"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1119620868953518080" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The courts just declared Trump’s coal mining on public lands illegal! Keep up the fight!
https://t.co/y3Cz0JGjUH</div> — Jamie Henn (@Jamie Henn)<a href="https://twitter.com/Agent350/statuses/1119620868953518080">1555773391.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The decision is just the latest defeat of Trump's efforts to roll back his predecessor's attempts to curb emissions from the coal industry and other fossil fuel businesses, ignoring <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/14/17853884/utilities-renewable-energy-100-percent-public-opinion" target="_blank">public opinion</a> and scientists who agree that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> extraction is contributing to the rapid <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">warming</a> of the planet.</p><p>About 40 rulings have now denied Trump the authority to follow through on his key energy plans, including his plan to<a href="https://westernlaw.org/landmark-climate-victory-federal-court-rejects-sale-public-lands-fracking/" target="_blank"> sell fracking leases</a> on public lands and his <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/30/huge-victory-our-oceans-trump-effort-open-arctic-oil-and-gas-drilling-ruled-illegal" target="_blank">lifting</a> of Obama's ban on oil and gas extraction in the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/arctic" target="_self">Arctic</a> and Atlantic Oceans.</p><p>"The court held clearly that the Trump administration needs to rationally consider the consequences of its decision," said Harbine in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/judge-resumption-of-us-coal-sales-by-trump-needs-review/2019/04/19/319ea436-6316-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?utm_term=.62cf330215ce" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Those include dire impacts to clean water, public health and our climate."</p>
<div id="d7f06" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="R2FO7L1576663674"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="978666970601095173" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Court Halts Illegal Coal Leasing in Powder River Basin https://t.co/Jl9l0cUuGs @NRDC @UCSUSA @greenpeaceusa… https://t.co/PDMtEdjZjc</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/978666970601095173">1522167363.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/20/ruling-coal-mining-federal-judge-issues-latest-rebuke-trumps-attack-public-lands?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Administration Sells Oil and Gas Leases Near Utah National ... ›
- Great American Outdoors Act Passes House With Bipartisan Support - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Signs Great American Outdoors Act Into Law - EcoWatch ›
- Great American Outdoors Act Passes House With Bipartisan Support - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Signs Great American Outdoors Act Into Law - EcoWatch ›
- Will Coal Miners Stand by Trump as Jobs Disappear? ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Flooding at Duke Energy's H.F. Lee Energy Complex in Goldsboro, North Carolina on Oct. 10, 2016 after Hurricane Maria. Travis Graves, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper
By Emilie Karrick Surrusco
The toxic mess left behind from burning coal is a growing, nationwide problem. But we're seeing that state governments can be convinced to do the right thing and clean it up. Recently, North Carolina joined its neighboring state to become a trendsetter in the proper disposal of coal ash waste.
<p>Following on the heels of similar news in Virginia, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on April 1 ordered Duke Energy to completely excavate and close all of its coal ash ponds in the state.</p><p>This is no less than "momentous news," according to Earthjustice attorney <a href="https://earthjustice.org/about/staff/lisa-evans" target="_blank">Lisa Evans</a>, for a state that is the nation's ninth largest producer of coal ash — a toxic byproduct from burning coal. For states across the nation where federal regulations are forcing companies to submit closure and cleanup plans for coal ash contamination, North Carolina's plan provides an example of what safe closure looks like. For states that are formulating their own coal ash rules, like Illinois, the North Carolina plan is a blueprint.</p><p>"The state decided that protection of human health and the environment must be placed above the convenience of Duke Energy," Evans said. "It's a great moment when the state government has the courage to make the right decision for the people of North Carolina. This is truly a model for the nation."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTM1OTQ0NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3NjIxODM0OH0.-Qo1kVJssujuqVF93hjC8qiY3DxIGkQHT6wlAWFZ9dk/img.jpg?width=980" id="e78bc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="10db6412f18b19ecc2c1739f6ad13c9d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Coal ash spilled by Hurricane Florence coats a turtle in North Carolina. (Riverkeepers cleaned and released the turtle.)
PETE HARRISON / EARTHJUSTICE
<p>For decades, utilities have disposed of toxic coal ash dangerously, storing it in unlined pits that allow the coal ash to leak into groundwater and spill into nearby lakes, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a> and streams. The true implications of this improper disposal are only beginning to be understood. After federal coal ash regulations required utilities to publicly report groundwater monitoring data, Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project released a report last month that <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/first-comprehensive-national-study-of-coal-ash-pollution-finds-widespread-groundwater-contamination" target="_blank">analyzes groundwater monitoring data at 265 power plants across the country</a> for the first time.</p><p>The report shows that groundwater near 91 percent of power plants with monitoring data contained unsafe levels of one or more of the pollutants in coal ash — including arsenic, a known carcinogen, and lithium, which is associated with neurological damage, among other pollutants. In many cases, the contamination is significant enough that coal plant operators must submit cleanup plans. In the next six months alone, we are expecting about 100 such plans.</p><p>"The modus operandi of this industry from 1900 to today is to dispose of its toxic waste as cheaply as possible. This has had disastrous consequences," said Evans. "The long-term remedy is to stop producing the dangerous waste, but short of that, if you have ash in groundwater, you have to excavate."</p><p>This report also listed the nation's most contaminated sites — including Duke Energy's Allen Steam Station in Belmont, North Carolina.</p><p>Duke Energy, which has 14 former power plant sites in North Carolina, has consistently tried to cover up the problem of coal ash contamination and dispose of its toxic stew improperly — its actions resulted in a $102 million fine and a guilty plea to nine criminal violations of the Clean Water Act stemming from activities at multiple North Carolina coal plants.</p><p>The Southern Environmental Law Center, along with tenacious activists across the state, have spent the past seven years fighting Duke Energy, resulting in victories that forced the nation's largest utility to clean up its mess at eight plant sites. Now, thanks to the state's order, Duke Energy is required to file a plan by Aug. 1 that explains how it will empty and close its six remaining plant sites in the state, which include 11 coal ash ponds.</p><p>"Public meetings were held at the six sites, and local communities came out in force. They were unanimous in demanding that Duke Energy remove the coal ash from unlined pits," said Frank Holleman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. "Duke has several weeks to decide if they are going to accept this decision, or instead if it's going to continue to litigate and lobby to put off dealing with its coal ash pollution."</p><p>While the state's order is a significant victory for the people of North Carolina, it's been a long time coming for activists and community leaders who have watched as beloved lakes and rivers have become increasingly polluted and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> wells became undrinkable.</p><p>In 2014, North Carolina experienced a grim wake-up call when 39,000 tons of coal ash spilled from Duke Energy's Dan River plant — sending 27 million gallons of sludge filled with toxic chemicals into a river that supplies drinking water to surrounding communities. Following that spill, the state legislature passed the Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA), which required the DEQ to evaluate coal ash disposal at each of Duke Energy's plant sites.</p><p>At the same time, hurricanes and increasingly heavy rains have caused coal ash pits across North Carolina and the southeastern U.S. to overflow. During Hurricane Florence, when 35 inches of rain fell over four days in North Carolina, coal ash from the Duke Energy plant in Goldsboro spilled into the Neuse River, and a coal ash lagoon at the L.V. Sutton Power Station in Wilmington was flooded.</p>
<p>"From climate change-fueled storms to industry spills, a perfect storm of disasters was enough to make a state like North Carolina do the right thing when communities demanded protection," said Evans.</p><p>Unfortunately, the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) is intent on keeping that from happening at the national level. Turning a blind eye to the mounting evidence of contamination from coal ash dumps and the increasing intensity of storms that cause coal ash spills, the Trump EPA has moved to weaken the 2015 coal ash rule rather than strengthen it. Despite a court order from the DC Circuit Court to expand and strengthen the federal rule, EPA abides by its industry-friendly agenda to gut federal protections.</p><p>However, as North Carolina and Virginia have shown, state governments can be convinced to take action where the Trump administration won't.</p><p>In Illinois, progress is happening piecemeal, with hopes that the state will soon take comprehensive action. The Coal Ash Cleanup and Storage Act was recently introduced in the state legislature to address the fact that 22 of the state's 24 coal-fired power plants have contaminated groundwater with unsafe levels of one or more toxic pollutants. In addition, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Prairie Rivers Network, recently filed a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/Final%20Complaint%20%28as%20filed%29.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit against Dynegy</a>, a local utility that has been allowing toxic waste from its coal-ash pits to leach into groundwater and the Middle Fork of the Vermilion River, Illinois' only Wild and Scenic River.</p><p>"The public wants protection from coal ash and coal ash pollution," said Holleman. "The only place in the country where there is backward movement on this is in the Trump administration and the EPA. I have never encountered a person who wanted less protection from coal ash pollution and this includes in communities that voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump."</p><p>Despite EPA's lack of action, communities across the nation are stepping forward to demand that polluters clean up their toxic mess — state governments are starting to listen and pick up where the federal government left off. </p>
<div id="76c9f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="GWUEQI1576663676"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1069350656367108098" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New Report Reveals Severe #Groundwater Contamination at Illinois #CoalAsh Dumps https://t.co/kAM9ixJyRk @BeyondCoal @Coal_Ash</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1069350656367108098">1543788038.0</a></blockquote></div>
From Your Site Articles
- All Coal-Fired Power Plants in Texas Found Leaking Toxins Into ... ›
- Coal Ash Was a Disaster in North Carolina Well Before Hurricane ... ›
- EPA Allows Coal Ash Ponds to Stay Open Despite Court Order - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Top 10 Most Contaminated Groundwater Sites Revealed in First Major Coal Ash Pollution Study
04 March 2019
Energy
The San Miguel Power Plant, the groundwater beneath a family ranch is contaminated with at least 12 pollutants leaking from coal ash dumps at concentrations more than 100 times above safe levels. Ari Phillips, Environmental Integrity Project
An examination of monitoring data available for the first time concludes that 91 percent of U.S. coal-fired power plants with monitoring data are contaminating groundwater with unsafe levels of toxic pollutants.
The study by the Environmental Integrity Project, with assistance from Earthjustice, used industry data that became available to the public for the first time in 2018 because of requirements in federal coal ash regulations issued in 2015.
<p>The report found that found that the groundwater near 242 of the 265 power plants with monitoring data contained unsafe levels of one or more of the pollutants in coal ash, including arsenic, a known carcinogen, and lithium, which is associated with neurological damage, among other pollutants.</p><p>"At a time when the Trump <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a> — now being <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/andrew-wheeler-epa-confirmed-2630358470.html">run by a former coal lobbyist</a> — is trying to roll back federal regulations on coal ash, these new data provide convincing evidence that we should be moving in the opposite direction: toward stronger protections for human health and the environment," said Abel Russ, the lead author of the report and attorney with the <a href="http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Integrity Project</a> (EIP).</p><p><strong>"</strong>This is a wake-up call for the nation," said Lisa Evans, senior counsel with <a href="https://earthjustice.org" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>. "Using industry's own data, our report proves that coal plants are poisoning groundwater nearly everywhere they operate. The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> Administration insists on hurting communities across the U.S. by gutting federal protections. They are making a dire situation much worse."</p><p>The data came from more than 4,600 groundwater monitoring wells located around the ash dumps of 265 coal-fired power plants, which is roughly three quarters of the coal power plants across the U.S. The rest of the plants did not have to comply with the federal Coal Ash Rule's groundwater monitoring requirements last year, either because they closed their ash dumps before the rule went into effect in 2015, or because they were eligible for an extension.</p><p>EIP's analysis of the data found that a majority of the 265 coal plants have unsafe levels of at least four toxic constituents of coal ash in the underlying groundwater. Fifty-two percent had unsafe levels of arsenic, which can impair the brains of developing children and is known to cause cancer. Sixty percent of the plants have unsafe levels of lithium, a chemical associated with multiple health risks, including neurological damage.<br></p><p>Many of the coal ash waste ponds are poorly and unsafely designed, with less than 5 percent having waterproof liners to prevent contaminants from leaking into the groundwater, and 59 percent built beneath the water table or within five feet of it.</p><p>The report lists and ranks the sites across the U.S. with the worst groundwater contamination from coal ash. Below are the "Top 10" most contaminated sites, according to the monitoring data reported by power companies in 2018:</p><ol class="ee-ol"><li><strong>Texas</strong>: An hour south of San Antonio, beside the San Miguel Power Plant, the groundwater beneath a family ranch is contaminated with at least 12 pollutants leaking from coal ash dumps, including cadmium (a probable carcinogen according to EPA) and lithium (which can cause nerve damage) at concentrations more than 100 times above safe levels.</li><li><strong>North Carolina</strong>: 12 miles west of Charlotte, at Duke Energy's Allen Steam Station in Belmont, the coal ash dumps were built beneath the water table and are leaking cobalt (which causes thyroid damage) into groundwater at concentrations more than 500 times above safe levels, along with unsafe levels of eight other pollutants.</li><li><strong>Wyoming</strong>: 180 miles west of Laramie, at PacifiCorp's Jim Bridger power plant in Point of Rocks, the groundwater has levels of lithium and selenium (which can be toxic to humans and lethal at low concentrations to fish) that exceed safe levels by more than 100 fold.</li><li><strong>Wyoming</strong>: At the Naughton power plant in southwest Wyoming, the groundwater has not only levels of lithium and selenium exceeding safe levels by more than 100 fold, but also arsenic at five times safe levels.</li><li><strong>Pennsylvania</strong>: An hour northwest of Pittsburgh, at the New Castle Generating Station, levels of arsenic in the groundwater near the plant's coal ash dump are at 372 times safe levels for drinking.</li><li><strong>Tennessee</strong>: Just southwest of Memphis near the Mississippi River, at the TVA Allen Fossil Plant, arsenic has leaked into the groundwater at 350 times safe levels and lead at four times safe levels. Recent studies show a direct connection between the contaminated shallow aquifer and the deeper Memphis aquifer, creating a threat to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> for thousands of people.</li><li><strong>Maryland</strong>: 19 miles southeast of Washington, DC, at the Brandywine landfill in Prince George's County, ash from three NRG coal plants has contaminated groundwater with unsafe levels of at least eight pollutants, including lithium at more than 200 times above safe levels, and molybdenum (which can damage the kidney and liver) at more than 100 times higher than safe levels. The contaminated groundwater at this site is now feeding into and polluting local streams.</li><li><strong>Utah</strong>: South of Salt Lake City, at the Hunter Power plant, the groundwater is contaminated with lithium at concentrations 228 times safe levels and cobalt at 26 times safe levels.</li><li><strong>Mississippi</strong>: North of Biloxi, at the R.D. Morrow Sr. Generating Station, the groundwater is contaminated with lithium at 193 times safe levels, molybdenum at 171 times safe levels, and arsenic at three times safe levels.</li><li><strong>Kentucky</strong>: At the Ghent Generating Station northeast of Louisville, lithium is in the groundwater at 154 times safe levels and radium at 31 times safe levels.</li></ol><p>The researchers of this report could not determine the safety of drinking water near the coal ash dumps analyzed in this study because power companies are not required to test private drinking water wells.</p><p>However, the report contains examples of several well-documented instances of residential tap water contaminated by coal ash. For example:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>At the Colstrip Power Plant in Colstrip, Montana, unsafe levels of boron, sulfate and possibly other pollutants migrated into a residential neighborhood. The owners of the plant had to provide clean water, and settled a lawsuit with 57 local residents for $25 million in damages.</li><li>At the Oak Creek Power Plant in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, contamination with elevated levels of molybdenum seeped from ash landfills into at least 33 nearby drinking water wells. Wisconsin Energy purchased at least 25 homes around the site and demolished several of them.</li><li>At the Yorktown Power Station in Yorktown, Virginia, gravel pits were filled with fly ash, contaminating the water supply for 55 homes with arsenic, beryllium, chromium, manganese, selenium and other pollutants.</li><li>At Battlefield Golf Course in Chesapeake, Virginia, about 25 drinking water wells had elevated levels of boron, manganese or thallium that may have leaked from coal ash used as a construction material beneath a golf course.</li><li>At a coal ash landfill in Gambrills, Maryland, ash dumped in an old sand and gravel quarry caused unsafe levels of arsenic, beryllium, lithium and other pollutants in multiple residential wells. Constellation Energy settled a lawsuit with impacted residents for $54 million.</li></ul><p>Additional examples of contamination of residential drinking water outlined in the report are in Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin and North Carolina.</p><p>"This report is yet another example of why we must require full cleanup of these unlined and leaking coal ash pits," said Amy Brown, a resident of Belmont, North Carolina, who lives near coal ash waste sites of the Duke Energy Allen Steam Station.</p><p>"The findings of this report are disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising," said Jennifer Peters, National Water Programs Director for Clean Water Action. "For decades, coal utilities have been dumping their toxic waste in primitive pits — often unlined, unstable and near groundwater — while state and federal regulators have mostly looked the other way. These dangerous coal ash ponds should have been closed and cleaned up years ago."</p><p>The report details steps that EPA should take to more effectively protect public health and the environment from coal ash pollution. A more successful regulatory program would: regulate all coal ash dumps, including those that are inactive; require the excavation of dumps within five feet of the water table; require more monitoring, especially of nearby residential wells and surface water; and mandate more transparency and public reporting.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="76c9f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="STKKGO1576779556"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1069350656367108098" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New Report Reveals Severe #Groundwater Contamination at Illinois #CoalAsh Dumps https://t.co/kAM9ixJyRk @BeyondCoal @Coal_Ash</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1069350656367108098">1543788038.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- All Coal-Fired Power Plants in Texas Found Leaking Toxins Into ... ›
- Groundwater Sustainability Is Needed More Than Ever ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Proposed Detention Center for Child Migrants Contaminated With Lead and Other Pollutants
13 February 2019
Politics
The Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas is near four Superfund sites. Don Barrett / Flickr
A site that the Trump administration proposed as a migrant detention center for unaccompanied children is contaminated with several pollutants that could harm the children's health, a report released by EarthJustice on Tuesday found.
In June 2018, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said that the government was preparing to house unaccompanied children at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas, as Reuters reported. However, EarthJustice said that the base was near four Superfund sites.
<p>"Public records show the migrant detention site proposed for Goodfellow will be built atop a former landfill, in an area riddled with lead, benzene and other chemicals particularly hazardous to children," EarthJustice attorney Lisa Evans said in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/report-migrant-children-detention-center-to-be-built-on-chemical-riddled-landfill" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="fb2b1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="MQ1WRM1576663118"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1095338904339734528" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: Trump wants to hold migrant kids in toxic cages. Earthjustice uncovered disturbing new details of Trump’s… https://t.co/AFcFSdEsua</div> — Earthjustice (@Earthjustice)<a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/statuses/1095338904339734528">1549984119.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>The potentially hazardous sites include:<br></p><ol class="ee-ol"><li>A landfill that has leached <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead" target="_self">lead</a>, arsenic and other solid waste into the soil and groundwater</li><li>An aqueous film forming foam release area contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas" target="_self">PFAS</a>)</li><li>A firing range where soil is contaminated with lead</li><li>A carbon tetrachloride spill where there are volatile organic chemicals (VOCs)</li><li>A fuel storage and spill area where there are arsenic and high levels of VOCs, including benzene, toluene, chlorobenzene, trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, methylene chloride, chloroform and carbon tetrachloride in the groundwater</li></ol><p>The report found that lead levels in the soil have previously surpassed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) safe levels for play areas by 27 times and that lead in the groundwater surpassed EPA safe levels by more than 20 percent.</p><p>The findings come three months after EarthJustice sued the Trump administration for failing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for information on the government's plans for the detention center at Goodfellow. EarthJustice reports that 7,500 children could be housed there.</p><p>A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said that fact-finding visits had been taken to Goodfellow and other potential detention sites, but that "none of these properties are under active consideration at this time," Reuters reported.</p><p>In July, a draft environmental assessment of the base undertaken by the Air Force found that there were no significant environmental impacts to construction there, meaning it could begin without in-depth review.</p><p>But EarthJustice warned that much would have to be done to make the base safe for children. </p><p>"Before housing for children is built at the Air Force Base, soil may have to be removed, groundwater tested, waste sites thoroughly removed or covered, and the commercial/industrial restrictions will need to be lifted to allow residential housing for children," the organization said.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="0e52f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8J7K091576663118"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1045310386134749184" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#EPA Places Children’s Health Leader on Unexplained Leave
@cleanairmoms #DrRuthEtzel #RuthEtzel
https://t.co/9tGK5ilVyj</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1045310386134749184">1538056391.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
- Toxic Tents | Sierra Club ›
- Concerns Mount Over Toxic Wastes at Migrant Detention Centers ... ›
- Bases for Migrant Detention Contain Nuclear Waste, Other Toxins ... ›
- US Is Locking Immigrants in Toxic Detention Centers :: Earth Island ... ›
- Immigrant detention camp proposed for Concord is also Superfund ... ›
Read More
Show Less
Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate that comes from the same chemical family as sarin nerve gas, is used on foods such as strawberries. bluecinema / Getty Images
Health and labor organizations will have to argue again in court that chlorpyrifos, a brain-damaging pesticide, must be banned from all food uses, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. The decision comes four months after Andrew Wheeler's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the court to rehear the case either by the three-judge panel that originally banned chlorpyrifos in 2018, or by a panel of 11 judges.
<p>The court will schedule proceedings that will likely include further briefings and argument.</p><p>"EPA's own scientists have said for more than two years that chlorpyrifos is harmful, particularly to children," said Patti Goldman, the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> managing attorney handling the case. "Any delay to ban this toxic chemical is a tragedy. Chlorpyrifos should be banned based on the agency's own scientific conclusion, and the law."</p><p>Last year, <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/chlorpyrifos%20opinion%208.9.2018.pdf" target="_blank">the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA</a> to finalize its proposed ban on chlorpyrifos based on undisputed findings that the pesticide is unsafe for public health, and particularly <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/childrens-health">harmful to children</a> and farmworkers. That court ruling happened nearly two years after the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump">Trump</a> administration reversed EPA's own proposal to ban this pesticide. </p><p>Chlorpyrifos is a widely-used agricultural pesticide linked to reduced IQ, attention deficit disorder and other developmental damage in children. Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate that comes from the <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=dT4wYTpGDNAC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=chlorpyrifos+sarin+nazi&source=bl&ots=Tg7FxdSV_l&sig=vh5mxcVii7O8L4e73NHWKEkNy8o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij8-HZ_vTTAhVHx1QKHVoBAkAQ6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=chlorpyrifos%20sarin%20nazi&f=false" target="_blank">same chemical family</a> as sarin nerve gas, is used on staple foods, such as strawberries, apples, citrus, broccoli and more. Weeks after former EPA boss Scott Pruitt <a href="https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb" target="_blank">met</a> with the head of the largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, Dow Chemical (now DowDuPont), <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Pruitt</a> falsely claimed in 2017 the science is "<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/documents/chlorpyrifos3b_order_denying_panna_and_nrdc27s_petitition_to_revoke_tolerances.pdf" target="_blank">unresolved</a>" and decided EPA would study the issue until 2022.</p><p>First developed by the Nazis for chemical warfare, organophosphates like chlorpyrifos were later repurposed for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">agriculture</a>. <a href="https://earthjustice.org/features/what-you-need-to-know-about-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">Chlorpyrifos</a> has been banned from home use for about two decades, as it is too toxic to children.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="4b36d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="94XQ2M1576662185"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1055595409798782977" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Entire #Pesticide Class Must Be Banned to Save Children’s Health, Landmark Study Says @children @mamavation… https://t.co/RGU0iCPNFA</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1055595409798782977">1540508532.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Hawaii Bans Use of Toxic Pesticide Chlorpyrifos - EcoWatch ›
- Children in Greener Urban Neighborhoods Have Higher IQs - EcoWatch ›
- Children in Greener Urban Neighborhoods Have Higher IQs - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona is a biodiversity hotspot. Bureau of Land Management
Conservation groups filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approval of a permit that allows a huge master-planned sprawl development project near Benson, Arizona to proceed. The Villages at Vigneto would transform 12,167 acres of largely undeveloped habitat into 28,000 residences, 3 million square feet of commercial space, four golf courses, fountains, lakes and a resort.
<p>The development would rely solely on groundwater, draining the San Pedro River and harming millions of migratory birds, including threatened and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species">endangered species</a>. Yet the Corps refused to analyze these staggering impacts, confining its analysis to a small fraction of the development.</p><p>The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Tucson, says the Corps failed to prepare a comprehensive environmental analysis of the entire development in violation of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The groups are asking the court to invalidate the permit and order the Corps to complete the necessary environmental analysis.</p><p>"The San Pedro River is the last remaining intact natural river ecosystem in southern Arizona—an oasis in the desert that supports a rich array of species, including millions of migratory songbirds," said Peter Else, chair of the <a href="http://www.lowersanpedro.org" target="_blank">Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance</a>, a landowner-based conservation association. "It is essential that we take every step to preserve this critical resource, protect <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> habitat and migration corridors, sustainable rural lifestyles, and valuable recreation opportunities."</p><p>The proposed development would depend solely on groundwater to satisfy the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water">water</a> needs of approximately 70,000 people. That would dramatically increase demand on groundwater resources from approximately 800 acre-feet per year to a projected 8,427 acre-feet per year. </p><p>This magnitude of pumping would deplete surface flows along the San Pedro River and at the St. David Cienega, a groundwater-fed marsh within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. The development would also transform thousands of acres of upland habitat into impervious surfaces, increasing storm-water runoff, flooding and destructive sediment accumulation in the river.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTEzOTI0MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDA2MDQyMn0.Jwitufd-LWfEBjCptCNFa_016d_vH2k7Jdxyj9Llkys/img.jpg?width=980" id="4be5c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a06b5354a200c3406247b2e8c2a79b5c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">The San Pedro riparian area contains about 40 miles of the upper San Pedro River.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blmaz/26699461675/in/album-72157665367858893/" target="_blank">Bureau of Land Management</a></small></p>
<p>"Hydrology studies show that this development would suck the St. David Cienega dry and have a devastating impact on wildlife that depend on it for their survival," said Robin Silver, cofounder of the <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>. "The science is clear that this level of water pumping would irreversibly degrade the riparian habitat and harm migratory birds, including multiple endangered and listed species. The Corps has abdicated its responsibility to consider these significant impacts."<br></p><p>The San Pedro River depends on groundwater contributions from the regional aquifer, especially during the driest times of the year. In 1988 Congress expressly reserved water rights for the conservation area to protect the river's aquatic and riparian resources, including the St. David Cienega.</p><p>Reports already show that groundwater pumping is depleting the aquifer at an unsustainable rate, threatening the future of the river and riparian habitat that is essential to wildlife.</p>
<div id="a328d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KFD8MX1576662461">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" data-context="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mypubliclands/20359080895/in/album-72157656736946885/">
<img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/314/20359080895_2f267c3c93.jpg" width="640" height="426">
</a>
<script async="" src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p>"What is most alarming about this proposal for those along the Lower San Pedro River is that a new upstream city of 70,000 people will be pulling water from the ground in an unsustainable way. Most of that water will never be replaced. It's a potential death sentence for the Lower San Pedro," said Pearl Mast, board member of the <a href="https://cascabelconservation.org" target="_blank">Cascabel Conservation Association</a>.<br></p><p>The Corps did not analyze the potential harm to the river or the conservation area caused by the development, claiming they are outside its "scope of analysis." The Corps confined its analysis to 1,919 acres, a small fraction of the proposed development. </p><p>"There is no rational basis for the Corps' refusal to consider the full impacts of the Vigneto development on these unique and critical resources," said Stu Gillespie, a staff attorney with <a href="https://earthjustice.org" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>. "This is a clear example of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration trying to game the system and shirk its duty to consider and disclose the impacts of its decisions."</p><p>"The San Pedro River is this incredible asset to our state, providing habitat for a diversity of species, a flyway for migratory birds and a wildlife viewing paradise for people from around the world," said Sandy Bahr, director of <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/home" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>'s Grand Canyon Chapter. "Several species that are dependent on the river are also threatened or endangered due to habitat loss. Arizona has allowed development and other diversions to dry up and destroy several important rivers. We cannot, we must not, allow the San Pedro to join that list."</p><p>"The San Pedro River was the first Global Important Bird Area for the United States and both birds and birders continue to flock to the critical and unique habitat the river provides," said Nicole Gillett, a conservation advocate with <a href="http://tucsonaudubon.org" target="_blank">Tucson Audubon</a>. "A development of this scale and design is unsustainable and will damage not only the environment but the economy built around it." </p><p>The lawsuit was filed by the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson Audubon Society, <a href="https://www.maricopaaudubon.org" target="_blank">Maricopa Audubon Society</a> and Cascabel Conservation Association. The groups are represented by Earthjustice.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="25e7f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="WYRAWX1576662461"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="998951355200008192" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Trump Opens Door to Dangerous Fracking in Northern Arizona https://t.co/TOV5ngCmu9 #fracking #Arizona #publiclands… https://t.co/xPu1aUGS8G</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/998951355200008192">1527003537.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less