Produced water from gas drilling in the Marcellus shale. Tara Lohan
By Tara Lohan
We're living beyond our means when it comes to groundwater. That's probably not news to everyone, but new research suggests that, deep underground in a number of key aquifers in some parts of the U.S., we may have much less water than previously thought.
"We found that the average depth of water resources across the country was about half of what people had previously estimated," said Jennifer McIntosh, a distinguished scholar and professor of hydrology and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona.
<p>McIntosh and her colleagues—who published a <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae6d8/meta" target="_blank">new study</a> about these aquifers in November in <em>Environmental Research Letters—</em>took a different approach to assessing groundwater than other research, which has <a href="https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/applications/groundwater/" target="_blank">used satellites</a> to measure changes in groundwater storage. For example, a <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015WR017349" target="_blank">2015 study</a> looked at 37 major aquifers across the world and found some were being depleted faster than they were being replenished, including in California's agriculturally intensive Central Valley.</p><p>McIntosh says those previous studies revealed a lot about how we're depleting water resources from the top down through extraction, such as pumping for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">agriculture</a> and water supplies, especially in places like California.</p><p>But McIntosh and three other researchers wanted to look at groundwater from a different perspective: They examined how we're using water resources from the bottom up.</p><p>The study may help close the gap about what we know and don't know regarding how much water is available deep underground, as well as its quality.</p><p>It also rings some alarm bells.</p><h2>A Different Approach</h2><p>Instead of examining how fast water tables were falling, as in previous studies, the researchers looked at water chemistry to determine how deep underground you could drill for freshwater or brackish water before that water became too salty to use.</p><p>"We looked at the bottom limit of groundwater resources," said McIntosh.</p><p>The researchers used information from the U.S. Geological Survey on the quality of groundwater across the country and looked specifically at salinity—how salty the water is. "We looked basin by basin at how that depth of fresh and brackish water changes across the United States," said McIntosh.</p><p>The results were about half as much usable water as previous estimates. That means that deep groundwater reserves are not nearly as plentiful as we'd thought in some places.</p><p>That's important because when shallow groundwater reserves become depleted or polluted, the strategy so far has been to drill deeper and deeper wells to keep the water flowing.</p><p>But we may not always be able to drill our way out of water shortages. "Tapping into these deep waters works for now, but the long-term prospects for using these waters are quite concerning," said the report's lead author, <a href="https://www.usask.ca/water/about/profiles/people/grant-ferguson.php" target="_blank">Grant Ferguson</a>, an associate professor in the department of Civil and Geological Engineering at the University of Saskatchewan.</p><p>The problem isn't evenly distributed across the country. While a number of aquifers in the West have deep freshwater reserves, the water in parts of the eastern and central U.S. becomes salty at much shallower depths. "Drilling deeper water wells to address groundwater depletion issues represents no more than a stopgap measure in these areas," the researchers concluded in their paper. One area of particular concern the researchers noted was in the Anadarko and Sedgwick basins underlying parts of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, which has particularly shallow freshwater reserves.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA4NTMwMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTY3NDI1OX0.1hRXCMwTh5LNWxenwTgxkUtSnvsKF4piq2hWCexqGpw/img.jpg?width=980" id="814bf" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1c96c3e74348404bebd73ad293444387" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Depth to water with total dissolved solids (a) <3000 and (b) <10 000 mg l−1 based on median values in 100 m bins. (c) TDS distribution relative to the 50th and 95th percentile of water well depths</small></p><h2>Oil and Water<br></h2><p>The study looked at a total of 28 sedimentary basins across the U.S. that were chosen because they're known to contain oil and gas reserves.</p><p>The researchers found that the oil and gas industry uses fresh and brackish water, both of which are drawn from the bottom up. And that's another element of the research that could raise concern.</p><p>In some cases the industry pumps out brackish water as part of its drilling operations. Industry waste is then injected back underground into deep aquifers. As a result, water reserves are depleted from pumping and possibly contaminated during re-injection, the researchers found.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA4NTMwMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTE1MzI1MX0.GzKF-FX4rccOvkqWOdcUe3wSVKPEC38p6G4s8bHmXaQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="884c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="faf292e10b4f91901e815a3c4c1bd9a1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Deep groundwater resources can be threatened by oil and gas production or injection wells.</small></p><p>The depth between oil and gas activities and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> reserves varied greatly across the country. Wyoming and the Michigan basin were two places where oil and gas activities are relatively shallow and in close proximity to fresh and brackish water, which could increase the chances of contamination of water resources. Water contamination from <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032016/fracking-study-pavillion-wyoming-drinking-water-contamination-epa" target="_blank">oil and gas activity</a> has already been documented in Pavillion, Wyoming.<br></p><p>The authors suggest that carefully monitoring for potential contamination or overexploitation of water reserves may be crucial in these areas with minimal separation between groundwater and oil and gas wells used for either production or disposal.</p><h2>The Future Is … Saltier </h2><p>While brackish water can be used for some types of agriculture and by oil and gas activities, it hasn't been used much yet for drinking because it requires desalination (although not as intensively as seawater). But as water resources become more constrained, particularly in the arid West where some communities and farms rely exclusively on groundwater, brackish water may be a more valuable future resource and a larger part of the water supply.</p><p>"I think of it in terms of water security. Both fresh and brackish aquifers are part of our potential water source into the future," said McIntosh.</p><p>But further utilizing these deep-water resources will have "all kinds of policy and economic consequences because they aren't going to be replenished as quickly as other waters" closer to the surface, said Ferguson. And that may mean better monitoring of oil and gas activity is needed in those regions, along with a possible rethinking of how we permit and manage drilling into those deep waters. "That would change the nature of how we're using water in a lot of places," he said.</p><p>While this research adds to our growing knowledge of groundwater resources, there is still a lot we don't know about the chemistry of these deep aquifers beyond just salinity, said McIntosh. Addressing that knowledge gap, she said, will be important as we work to match water resources to our varying needs for drinking, industry and agriculture.</p><p>"This 'bottom up' approach is a novel one and will find great utility, but it does depend upon the availability of deep groundwater data," said <a href="https://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/" target="_blank">Michael Campana</a>, a professor and hydrogeologist at Oregon State University who did not participate in the study. And the deeper we go, the less data we have, said Ferguson.</p><p>Both the researchers and outside experts suggest that more research is needed. This is particularly true in areas not associated with oil and gas activity that weren't part of the study, Campana points out. But the authors say their results may still show the need for important changes on policy or behavioral levels regarding how we use our nation's groundwater.</p><p>"There was this idea that deeper groundwater would be more pristine, and it is to a point, but there are all kinds of natural salinity and hydrocarbon problems once you get into deeper and deeper groundwater systems," said Ferguson. "So we're working with that idea that maybe the window of freshwater is not as big as we thought and it's probably getting even smaller in a lot of areas."</p><p>In an age of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a>, that's something that may play out sooner rather than later.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d7408" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="SCBYAH1576779568"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1058448717865455619" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">An Aquifer From the #IceAge Becomes a Battleground in New Mexico https://t.co/Sco9rnOlqA @greenpeaceusa @Sierra_Magazine</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1058448717865455619">1541188814.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Tara Lohan is deputy editor of The Revelator.</em><br></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://therevelator.org/shrinking-groundwater/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River. Sharon Mollerus, CC BY 2.0
By Tara Lohan
In the last few weeks of 2018, the Trump administration set the stage for a big battle over water in the new year. At stake is an important rule that defines which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act. The Trump administration seeks to roll back important protections for wetlands and waterways, which are important to drinking water and wildlife.
<p>This is just one of the upcoming water battles that could serve to define 2019. It's also poised to be a year of reckoning on the Colorado River, which supplies water to 40 million people and 5.5 million acres of farmland. A long-anticipated multi-state agreement is close to completion after an ultimatum from the federal government. And it could also be a landmark year for water management in California, with several key issues coming to a head.</p><p>Big things may also happen on the water infrastructure front and in efforts to address clean-water concerns. Of course, underlying many of the water issues is the specter of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a>, which is bringing both severe <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought">droughts</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/flooding">floods</a> and exacerbating water-supply problems.</p><p>Let's dive into some of the issues experts say we need to keep an eye on in the coming year.</p><h2>Clean Water Rule Change</h2><p>The biggest looming water issue this year has to do with a law passed nearly 50 years ago.</p><p>On Dec. 12 the Trump administration unveiled a proposal to redefine the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule" target="_blank">Waters of the U.S. Rule</a>, also known as the Clean Water Rule, which was adopted in 2015 by the Obama administration to set clear guidelines on how certain waterways and wetlands are regulated under the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act" target="_blank">1972 Clean Water Act</a>. The action came after two Supreme Court <a href="http://legal-planet.org/2017/07/03/the-epa-sets-in-motion-its-plan-to-rescind-the-waters-of-the-united-states-rule/" target="_blank">rulings</a> in the early 2000s created some uncertainty about what the Clean Water Act protects.</p><p>Obama's rule slightly widened what was protected under the Clean Water Act (much to the chagrin of many industry groups and developers). For example, the 2015 rule included automatic protections for wetlands and ponds that are "within 100 feet or within the 100-year floodplain of a protected waterway," Vox reporters Brad Plumer and Umair Irfan <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/2/28/14761236/wotus-waters-united-states-rule-trump" target="_blank">explained</a>. And they wrote last month, "In the past, tributaries of navigable rivers were evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But under the new rule, they're automatically protected if they have a bed, a bank and a high-water mark." Overall the change amounted to clarifying protections for about 3 percent of waterways.</p><p>The newly proposed Trump administration rule, however, would swing widely in the other direction, limiting protections to only major waterways, tributaries and adjacent wetlands. As written now, the new rule would strip protections from 18 percent of streams and just over half of the country's wetlands, but there's concern the final rule could be even more restrictive.</p><p>Industry officials praised the Trump plan. Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, called the Trump administration's proposal, "The Christmas present of a lifetime!"</p><p>Environmental groups had a very different opinion. The loss of protections, they said, threatens drinking water and wildlife, with the western U.S. poised to be affected most. In Nevada 85 percent of streams would lose protections, as would more than half in New Mexico and Arizona.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA1OTY5Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5ODcwNzIzNn0.lTD7oPytas9lo1tCwHVgvsitRhuEsHu9PakNsjam-ms/img.jpg?width=980" id="edb21" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c50915d1555c1e9c334e057953497ea2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Cyndi Souza / USFWS)</small></p> <p>"The rollbacks to the Clean Water Act the Trump administration is proposing are the greatest threat to this nation's waterways in 50 years," said Dan Estrin, <a href="https://waterkeeper.org/" target="_blank">Waterkeeper Alliance</a> general counsel and advocacy director. This <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5410914-WAC-Comments-on-WOTUS-Repeal-9-27-17.html" target="_blank">industry-supported</a> proposal would "incentivize polluters to move pollution upstream, where they won't have to worry about federal or citizen enforcement," he said.<br></p><p>A 60-day <a href="https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/step-two-revise" target="_blank">public comment period</a> on the proposed regulation is underway. Meanwhile Republicans in the legislature are already attempting to push through <a href="https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/12/19/stories/1060110073" target="_blank">their own version</a> of what kind of wetlands and waterways should be protected by the Clean Water Act—in this case, it would only cover permanently "navigable" waters.</p><p>It's not clear what will happen on this front, but however things move forward it will be critically important. "The Waters of the United States law will be tested, implemented, suspended or revoked," said Peter Gleick, president emeritus of the global water think-tank the <a href="http://pacinst.org/" target="_blank">Pacific Institute</a>. Expect the debate over the rule change to be contentious and the final product legally contested.</p><h2>Colorado River Agreement</h2><p>2019 will be a year of reckoning for the Colorado River. It has to be—both nature and the federal government have issued ultimatums.</p><p>First, nature's part: With the basin in a drought for nearly two decades, the river's flow has dropped almost 20 percent (human-caused <a href="https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2017/06/22/climate-change-is-shrinking-the-colorado-river" target="_blank">warming is responsible</a> for at about a third of this reduced flow). By 2020 Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the watershed, could fall low enough to <a href="http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2018/12/dcp-by-the-numbers/" target="_blank">trigger shortages</a> to Arizona, Nevada and eventually California. In 2020 the water users must also begin a massive renegotiation of how the Colorado River is managed and how we prepare for a future with less water—an epic task that needs to be completed by 2026, when the current agreement expires.</p><p>The three states have been busy working on a <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2018/12/14/climate-change-looms-over-talks-colorado-river-drought-plan/2317125002/" target="_blank">drought contingency plan</a> to slow the decline of Lake Mead, a process that will need to be completed before the larger negotiations begin in 2020. One major snag has come from Arizona, which is trying to resolve <a href="https://www.azpm.org/p/home-articles-news/2018/12/28/143410-a-look-back-at-water-negotiations-at-years-end/" target="_blank">in-state disputes</a>.</p><p>Things are about to get even more interesting, though. At a recent meeting of Colorado River water users, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman set a deadline of Jan. 31 for the three states to settle their plan or else the federal government will step in, which would be a widely unwelcome scenario.</p><p>"This could be very messy," John Fleck, director of the University of New Mexico's Water Resources Program, wrote recently on his <a href="http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/" target="_blank">blog about Colorado River water</a> issues. "It suggests that either voluntarily (through interstate agreement) or imposed by the feds, we'll have new shortage guidelines in place by 2020 to slow the decline of Lake Mead."</p><p>Even if a new shortage agreement is reached in the next month, Gleick said we're still likely to see political conflict among basin water users as water levels in Lake Mead continue to fall. It's not just California, Nevada and Arizona duking things out—the river is also shared with upstream states Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, as well as with Mexico downstream. What happens to the Colorado affects much of the West, including cities like Denver, Phoenix and Los Angeles.</p><p>And the drought contingency plan is also only a stopgap measure to give all the water users time to pause the crisis until the elephant in the room needs to be officially addressed: The Colorado River simply doesn't have enough water for all the claims made to it.</p><p>"Now, whether through ignorance or malfeasance, we now have communities that have come to expect that fictionally large supply, and few rules to determine who gets less, and how much," <a href="http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2018/12/beyond-the-colorado-river-drought-contingency-plan/" target="_blank">wrote Fleck</a>.</p><p>This year's work will be a crucial one for setting the stage for these future talks and better understanding the new climate reality.</p><h2>Climate Change</h2><p>2018 ended with some momentum on climate action. International climate talks in December at COP24 in Poland limped to a close with an agreement in hand, but one that fails to meet the urgency and scale of the problem.</p><p>And while the U.S. was conspicuously absent from international dealings, more movement to address climate challenges are afoot on the home front, with increasing calls for political action and a <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez" target="_blank">Green New Deal</a>.</p><p>Significant climate legislation will likely be out of reach with a Republican Senate and White House, but climate change impacts will continue to make a mark, regardless, and could help to motivate more public action and pressure on elected officials and corporations.</p><p>"Somewhere in the U.S. we'll see unprecedented flooding and somewhere else, unprecedented drought, as climate change continues to worsen extreme hydrologic events," said Gleick. "Temperatures will continue to rise." And all of this will compound water woes like declining flows in the Colorado River, <a href="https://therevelator.org/trump-drinking-water/" target="_blank">harmful algal blooms</a> across the country, the vulnerability of our croplands and declining groundwater levels.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA1OTcwMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDM2MjU2NX0.T9bnex72qQa6iFxSEorhCnRYYu338fttqfTsjXlblm0/img.jpg?width=980" id="0903c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d48b922834af5b5e391044da1e6b81b6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Drought-impacted forests in California's Sierra Nevada</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Photo by USGS</small></p>
<p>"I think that the overall story is that catastrophic times are here," said Kimery Wiltshire, CEO and director of <a href="http://www.carpediemwest.org/" target="_blank">Carpe Diem West</a>, a nonprofit that tackles water and climate issues. We need to accelerate the pace and scale of restoration to meet our ecological challenges, she said. "Fortunately, there are a number of communities taking smart, positive steps for water resiliency in the face of climate change."<br></p><h2>California's Grand Bargain</h2><p>In California several long-term and contentious decisions over future water management will be headline-generating in the coming year, and we could see either compromise or conflict between the state and the Trump administration.</p><p>California's Water Resources Control Board has been working on a plan that would increase the amount of water left in key rivers that drain to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the linchpin in California's vast water infrastructure network, to try to protect water quality and wildlife. It's a move that has made municipal and agricultural water users concerned.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA1OTcwNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ3MDQxMH0.Yv26CW4tpnu-65wyJvEzCvO1YSHQF7Ea0QO5vaWmY1Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="8cfb8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="024e1692cfa3f5b8507414a033820e29" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Snow geese take flight above a field on Twitchell Island in the California Delta. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Kelly M. Grow/ California Department of Water Resources</small></p>
<p>But just before 2018 closed out a new "grand bargain" was beginning to emerge between state agencies, federal agencies, irrigation districts and urban water agencies.<br></p><p>If the deal comes to fruition, "it could be revolutionary" in terms of the region's water management, said Ellen Hanak, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California and director of the <a href="https://www.ppic.org/water/" target="_blank">PPIC Water Policy Center</a>. The parties have committed to hammering out the agreement in 2019. "Federal, state and local parties are on the threshold of something really different and potentially much more impactful than what the regulatory situation can do on its own," said Hanak.</p><p>The plan would provide a funding stream for habitat restoration projects for ailing fish populations and also trim water exports from the watershed by urban and agricultural water users. Environmental groups, which were not part of the negotiations, think those water cuts are not nearly enough to protect fish, some of which are endangered.</p><p>"It appears that California's <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/salmon">salmon</a>, thousands of fishing jobs and the health of the Bay Delta estuary are the sacrificial lambs in these series of agreements between the Trump and the Brown administrations," Doug Obegi, a lawyer for the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, told <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article223114775.html" target="_blank">The Sacramento Bee</a>.</p><p>As the possible settlement is further negotiated this year, the Trump administration could throw another wrench into the plan as it attempts to roll back environment regulations for the delta in an effort to appease the agriculture industry.</p><p>"What's the state water board going to do if they enact stricter regulations just as Trump is undoing a bunch of environmental protections?" asked Chris Austin, publisher of <a href="https://mavensnotebook.com/" target="_blank">Maven's Notebook</a>, which chronicles California's water issues.</p><p>There are also two other major infrastructure issues where California may butt heads with the Trump administration (and others) in the new year. The first is an effort to raise the height of Shasta dam. Another is a $17 billion project to construct new water conveyance tunnels. Both will also be big decisions for the future of imperiled species.</p><h2>Infrastructure and Clean Water</h2><p>There's one more key issue that should dominate water discussions and policy in the next year: Many Americans still don't have access to safe drinking water. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our nation's water infrastructure a <a href="https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking-water/" target="_blank">D grade</a>, and billions are needed to upgrade aging pipes, pumps and plants.</p><p>Hanak thinks that more progress will be made in efforts to address <a href="http://toxictaps.newsdeeply.com/" target="_blank">water inequities</a> in California, where hundreds of thousands of people, mostly in low-income and communities of color, have chronically contaminated drinking water.</p><p>Issues abound elsewhere, too.</p><p>"The ongoing saga of Flint, Michigan, will go on, and the discussion about the country's failing water infrastructure will continue, with new urban water quality challenges," said Gleick.</p><p>Will there be any progress this year? "There is a chance for some bipartisan action on water infrastructure as part of the broader push to pass infrastructure funding in the U.S. Congress," said Gleick. Like all of these issues, though, that could evaporate quickly as the Trump administration continues its attacks against environmental regulation and protection.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="29098" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0LL8PR1576662461"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1072190235403042816" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New EPA Rule Would Sabotage Clean Water Act https://t.co/HpPkePSyYy</div> — Enviro Voter Project (@Enviro Voter Project)<a href="https://twitter.com/Enviro_Voter/statuses/1072190235403042816">1544465047.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>What water issues do you think will matter most in the coming year? Share your thoughts on Twitter using the hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%23water2019" target="_blank">#Water2019</a>.</em><br></p><p><em>Tara Lohan is deputy editor of The Revelator.<br></em><em><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://therevelator.org/water-2019/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em></em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A federal judge on Thursday halted the first Yellowstone-area grizzly bear trophy hunts in four decades.
Wyoming and Idaho's grizzly hunt was set to begin this Saturday, Sept. 1 and would have allowed a potential kill of 23 bears outside of Yellowstone National Park.
<p>
<span></span>But U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana granted a 14-day restraining order on the hunt, siding with wildlife advocates and Native American tribes who sued U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) after its June 2017 decision to delist grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone area from protections under the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species-act" target="_blank">Endangered Species Act</a>.
</p><p>
Christensen
<a href="https://t.co/QJqyHfo5Z5" target="_blank" title="https://ejus.tc/2LBofQZ">wrote</a> that the hunt would cause irreparable harm to the animals "because once a member of an <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered">endangered species</a> has been injured, the task of preserving that species becomes all the more difficult."
</p><p>
<a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>, an environmental law nonprofit, filed the temporary restraining order on behalf of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>, <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> and <a href="https://www.npca.org" target="_blank">National Park Conservation Association</a>.
</p><p>
"As we explained to the judge today, the removal of protections for Yellowstone's iconic grizzlies was illegal. The bears should not be killed in a hunting season made possible by an illegal government decision," said Earthjustice attorney Tim Preso in a
<a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2018/judge-grants-temporary-restraining-order-halting-grizzly-hunt?utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">press release</a>.
</p><p>
As EcoWatch
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/grizzly-bear-hunt-wyoming-2571671329.html" target="_blank">previously reported</a>, more than 200 tribal nations opposed the hunt, saying the bears are sacred to their culture, and want to move the bears to tribal lands.
</p><p>
"It's essential to protecting our religious and spiritual freedoms, and treaty rights in Yellowstone," Stan Grier, chief of the Piikani Nation and president of the Blackfoot Confederacy Chiefs told
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yellowstone-grizzlies/first-yellowstone-area-grizzly-hunt-in-40-years-blocked-by-federal-judge-idUSKCN1LG00L" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. "This sacred being is considered to be a deity by many tribes, not a rug."
</p><p>
The restraining order allows the judge time to decide whether the federal government should reinstate federal protections for the bears.
</p><p>
Grizzlies were given federal protection in 1975, when their numbers dropped to only several hundred, compared to an historic high of 100,000 in the lower 48 states. Thanks to the Endangered Species Act, their numbers today have risen slowly to around 700.
</p><p>
USFWS delisted the bears last year, saying that their numbers have recovered to a point where federal protection is no longer needed.
</p><p>
But scientists say that the iconic animals are not ready for delisting because
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank">climate change</a> and other human-caused factors have threatened their food sources.
</p><p>
In May, 58 prominent scientists and experts, including renowned naturalist and primatologist
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=Jane+Goodall" target="_blank">Dr. Jane Goodall</a>, signed a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Ec-KrsWzt4LTNNeXJvbmU5bnc/view" target="_blank">letter</a> asking USFWS to retain federal protections for the bears.
</p><p>
"Their future isn't secure yet because they face so many threats to survival," Goodall
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAPnvZ_q-EE" target="_blank">said</a> then. "Two of their four major foods have all but been wiped out due to climate change, disease and invasive species. And they may be killed if they prey on livestock in their increasingly difficult search for food."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="88e6a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="I8Y9JG1576662707"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="905174996758269953" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Battle Begins to Restore Protections for Greater Yellowstone Grizzly Bears https://t.co/X8DQxHLNQ6 @greenpeaceusa @Sierra_Magazine</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/905174996758269953">1504645511.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Love Wildlife? Check Out These 11 Stunning Photos From ... ›
- Yellowstone Grizzlies Win Reprieve From Trophy Hunt as Court Restores Endangered Species Protections - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Neal Herbert / Yellowstone National Park
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved an expanded wolf hunting season Wednesday, with a goal of reducing the population to the bare minimum required to keep it off the endangered species list, Defenders of Wildlife reported.
<p>The 2018 season expands on 2017's season, which was the first in Wyoming since a 2017 appeals court removed Wyoming wolves from protections under the Endangered Species Act and allowed the state to take control of the population, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/apxwyoming-game-commission-oks-increased-wolf-hunting-season/" target="_blank">The Associated Press (AP) reported</a>.</p><p>"The Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Commission continue to focus on reducing the wolf population toward the bare minimum. Wolves are an important component of Wyoming's natural heritage, and should be managed toward achieving healthy and abundant populations across large landscapes so that they may perform their important natural role," Rockies & Plains Director at Defenders of Wildlife Jonathan Proctor said in a statement.</p><p>The 2018 season will allow hunters to kill a total of 58 wolves, a 14 wolf increase from the 2017 allowance of 44. It will also start one month earlier, in September, and allow individual hunters to kill up to two wolves, AP reported. </p><p>There are currently around 350 wolves in Wyoming, 210 of which live in areas of the state where hunting is permitted. The remaining wolves live in Yellowstone and Grand Teton <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/national-parks" target="_self">national parks</a>, the National Elk Refuge and the Wind River Indian Reservation, where hunting is prohibited.</p><p>State officials want to reduce the 210 wolves in their jurisdiction down to 160, citing concerns about wolves preying on livestock. </p><p>Game and Fish wolf biologist Ken Mills said that bringing the number down to 160 would be consistent with the state's commitment to maintain at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs, according to AP.</p><p>But Defenders of Wildlife argued that culling wolf populations is not a scientifically sound strategy for limiting livestock killings. It also disrupts pack structure and is more expensive than other, non-lethal means of protecting livestock. </p><p>"Rather than increase the number of wolves to be killed, Wyoming should improve outreach on the important role of wolves in the state and further promote the use of coexistence techniques that prevent conflicts," Proctor said.</p><p>Defenders of Wildlife also pointed out that Wyoming has created no buffer zones around the national parks, meaning some wolf packs wonder between protected and unprotected areas. </p><p>Wolves were originally reintroduced to the Northern Rockies in the 1990s. Neighboring states of Idaho and Montana also allow wolf hunts, according to AP. </p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Twenty-nine uncontained wildfires are blazing in the Western U.S. right now, raising concerns that 2018's fire season could rival 2017's record-breaking season for devastation, The New York Times reported Monday.
The fast-moving County Fire in Northern California, which started Saturday and has burnt more than 60,000 acres of land as of late Monday, has belched smoke into the skies over San Francisco, Napa, Sonoma and San Mateo counties, National Public Radio (NPR) reported.
<p>It has created dramatic images, as Bay Area residents woke up to smoke and ash over the weekend.</p><p>"The sky is very dark, even in the middle of the day. It's a little scary," a Sausalito Shell station employee Sergio Garcia told the Associated Press, according to NPR.</p><p>For residents of California's wine country, it is also bringing back memories of the fires that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-wildfires-2495161478.html" target="_blank">ravaged the area last fall</a>. </p><p>"A lot of friends and family were texting today and saying they were having some PTSD," Savannah Kirtlink told the Associated Press, according to NPR.</p><p>So far the County Fire has forced 300 people from their homes and threatened 700 buildings, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/wind-spreads-california-fire-states-battle-blazes-56315670" target="_blank">ABC News reported</a>. It is only three percent contained and growing, according to NPR, fueled by dry weather and southwesterly wind. </p><p>"We didn't really get a lot of rain this year, so the fields dried out quickly," Captain Mark Bailey told The New York Times. "A big fire like this in early July is the new normal for California."</p><p>The County Fire isn't the only one raging in California. The nearby <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-wildfires-summer-2018-2581218464.html" target="_self">Pawnee Fire</a>, which began a week before, is still burning, though CalFire told NPR it is 75 percent contained. </p><p>Dry conditions in other Western states are also fueling flames. In Colorado, there are currently more than a half dozen fires which have forced 2,500 homes to be evacuated, ABC News reported. Most of the evacuations were due to a fire accidentally started by a Danish man named Jesper Joergensen.</p><p>"We've never seen any fires like this. Ever," grocery store owner Felix Romero, whose business is a few miles south of the blaze, told The New York Times. "We're just afraid the fire will start heading south. If it does, we're in deep trouble."</p><p>Firefighters have also been battling a blaze in Wyoming, near the Colorado border, since June 10, according to ABC News. It is about 80 percent contained.</p><p>In Utah, a fire near Strawberry Reservoir, a popular fishing destination, has forced evacuations from seven to 10 summer cabins. </p><p>And in New Mexico, a fire forced authorities to order the entire town of Cimarron, home to around 1,000 people, to evacuate in June, The New York Times reported.</p><p>The National Interagency Fire Center said the Southwest could see some relief from fire-causing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought" target="_self">drought</a> conditions in early July, as rain is expected. However, hot, windy weather is projected to maintain fire risk in parts of California, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington through the end of the month, ABC News reported.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="e7516" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="867MUB1576662923"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1004120803296862208" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">California Wildfire Risk Grows as Cloud Cover Is 'Plummeting' https://t.co/TdMEz69PTb @ClimateCentral @YaleClimateComm</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1004120803296862208">1528236029.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A grizzly bear at Montana Grizzly Encounter in Bozeman, MT, a rescue and educational sanctuary. jerseygal2009 / CC BY-ND 2.0
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to approve the largest grizzly bear hunt in the lower 48 states, despite opposition from environmental groups, tribal nations and wildlife photographers, The Washington Post reported.
<p>The vote comes less than a month after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/yellowstone-grizzly-bears-2564657776.html" target="_self">affirmed</a> its June 2017 decision to delist grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYE) from protections under the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species" target="_self">Endangered Species</a> Act and pass management of the bears' population off to the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. This will be the first grizzly bear hunt in Wyoming since 1974. </p><p>"Allowing a trophy hunt of these majestic animals—the second-slowest mammal to reproduce in North America—so soon after they lost Endangered Species protections does nothing to build public confidence in state management of grizzly bears," <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> representative Bonnie Rice said in a statement reported by The Washington Post. </p><p>There is still a chance the hunt will not take place. A U.S. District Court judge will decide several lawsuits challenging the delisting of the GYE bears this summer.</p><p>If the bears remain delisted, the hunt will occur this fall and will allow hunters to kill one female or 10 male bears in a "demographic monitoring area" of prime habitat and an additional 12 male or female bears in a more "human dominated landscape," for a potential kill of 22 bears. Montana decided not to allow a bear hunt in February and Idaho has permitted a hunt of one male bear, also this fall.</p><p>More than 200 tribal nations opposed the hunt, saying the bears are sacred to their culture, and want to move the bears to tribal lands. One-hundred and seven <a href="https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/8d4727cd-fc49-4672-a784-91305626ac5a" target="_blank">wildlife photographers</a> and 75 scientists also wrote letters condemning the hunt to Wyoming's Republican Governor Matt Mead.</p><p>"To be in the presence of a bear for the first time or the hundredth, is something to be savored for a lifetime. Allowing a bear hunt will change their numbers and their demeanor, making them skittish and much harder to see. It will take away that experience from countless people and Wyoming will lose a part of the wildness that is its hallmark," filmmaker and photographer Trip Jennings said in a <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/05/107-photographers-call-wyoming-reject-proposed-grizzly-bear-trophy-hunt" target="_blank">statement</a> about the photographers' letter.</p><p>"Yellowstone's bears are national treasures. Hunting them is like defacing the Statue of Liberty or filling in the Grand Canyon," Endangered Species Director at the <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> (CBD) Noah Greenwald agreed in a <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/yellowstone-grizzly-bear-05-23-2018.php" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Millions of people come to see these bears every year. It's so disturbing that Wyoming thinks they're more valuable dead than alive."</p><p>According to the CBD, 125,000 people sent comments opposing the hunt.</p><p>No hunting will be allowed in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/yellowstone-national-park" target="_blank">Yellowstone National Park</a> itself, or in the nearby Grand Teton National Park or the road between them. A bear-favored region east of Grand Teton will also be off limits to hunters.</p><p>According to The Washington Post, federal biologists say the population has recovered enough to support a hunt, a view shared by Mead.</p><p>"The question is not whether you hunt grizzly bears or not," Mead told C-SPAN, according to The Washington Post. "The question is whether grizzly bears have grown enough in terms of population and in habitat that they can be a sustainable species. And clearly they have." </p><p>However, the scientists who opposed the hunt expressed concerns that it could prevent Yellowstone grizzlies from connecting to a still-protected population in northwest Montana. Further, they said that the population, which has rebounded in GYE from 136 when it was first classified as endangered in 1975 to around 700 today, is still vulnerable due to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>, which is threatening food sources like white bark pine.</p><p>The CBD pointed out that the bears still occupy less than four percent of their historic U.S. range.</p><p><a href="https://defenders.org" target="_blank">Defenders of Wildlife</a> also issued a statement arguing that too many grizzly bears in the GYE already die due to human activity to justify a hunt. These deaths occur when bears are killed when they get into garbage or attack livestock, are run over by cars or trains or are poached illegally. </p><p>"This hunt will add unnecessary mortality to a population already experiencing high human-related grizzly bear deaths. [The Wyoming Game and Fish Department] should instead focus on minimizing human caused mortality through proactive conflict prevention, outreach and education while allowing the Yellowstone grizzly bear population to expand into historic habitat," Rockies & Plains director at Defenders of Wildlife Jonathan Proctor said in a statement. </p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Aerial view of the port of Oakland, CA. Robert Campbell / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / CC BY-SA 3.0
A federal judge Tuesday struck down the city of Oakland's ban on coal shipments through a planned export terminal.
U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ridiculed the city for violating its contract with the developer of the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal in its 2016 ban, writing in his opinion that there is no "substantial evidence" that coal shipments "would pose a substantial health or safety danger" to Oakland residents.
<p>"This is a fight for environmental justice and equity," Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said in a statement. "Oakland's most vulnerable communities have unfairly suffered the burden of pollutants and foul air for too long." The terminal's developers plan to source coal from the Powder River Basin region to store in Oakland before shipping overseas, and the judge's ruling was celebrated by local officials in coal-producing towns in Wyoming and Utah.</p><p>As reported by <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/coal-at-record-is-latest-pressure-to-weigh-on-utility-earnings" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">As demand for coal in the U.S. declines, miners depend increasingly on overseas markets. Yet Wyoming and Montana's Powder River Basin, home to the nation's largest reserves, is largely cut off from the world market without West Coast ports.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Oakland is among several terminals in California and the Pacific Northwest that environmentalists have pushed to close to miners in an effort to keep U.S. coal off the international market. Reversing the ban could increase exports by as much as 19 percent, according to the <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="84ba7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BI0Y091576662929"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="990017785123233792" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Renewable Energy Dominates Early 2018 Power Plant Construction https://t.co/52VSzo9jID @RenewablesNews @cleantechnica</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/990017785123233792">1524873608.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong><br></p><p><a href="https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Federal-judge-overturns-Port-of-Oakland-coal-ban-12916650.php#item-85307-tbla-10" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>, <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/16/judge-overturns-oaklands-ban-on-coal-shipments-through-its-port/" target="_blank">Salt Lake Tribune</a>, <a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/11668412/federal-judge-throws-out-oaklands-coal-ban" target="_blank">KQED</a>, <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article211178809.html" target="_blank">AP</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/oakland-port-ban-on-coal-shipments-blocked-by-u-s-judge" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="https://psmag.com/economics/federal-judge-sides-against-oaklands-ban-on-coal-shipments" target="_blank">Pacific Standard</a></p><p> <em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Shutterstock
By Joe McCarthy
Wyoming produces 40 percent of the U.S.'s coal, nearly quadruple the amount produced by West Virginia, the second highest producer.
So far this year, production in the state has increased by 15 million tons.
Yet Wyoming hasn't opened a new coal mine in decades—long-standing mines are filling the demand.
<p>And it looks like the state might not open a new mine anytime soon.</p><p>Ramaco Carbon, a Chinese-owned company, was cleared by state regulators to begin construction of a new mine near the town of Ranchester earlier this year.</p><p>Then local landowners <a href="http://trib.com/business/energy/panel-finds-deficiencies-in-plan-for-first-new-wyoming-coal/article_b5c26c07-e934-5393-83a9-080c2dcd6d74.html" target="_blank">stepped in and lobbied a regional council</a> to block the permit, arguing that the proposed mine had deficiencies that would ultimately harm the local environment.</p><p>They said that the proposed mine could pollute water wells, it lacked blasting limits and it would increase the likelihood of sinkholes. They also said that the plan approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to collect data on the area and that the company neglected to consult residents who would be impacted.</p><p>Lawyers for the <a href="http://www.powderriverbasin.org/" target="_blank">Powder River Resource Council</a>, a regulatory body, said that the plan submitted by Ramaco was "wholly inadequate."</p><p>On Tuesday, the plan was rejected in a 4-1 vote.</p><p>"You don't just go into Wyoming with people who've lived here for generations and think you're gonna throw your weight around and tell us how it's gonna be," Jill Morrison, director of Powder River Basin Resource Council, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wyoming-coal-mine_us_598229dce4b0fa1575fbc4f6" target="_blank">told The Huffington Post</a>. "It don't work like that here."<br></p><p>Now either the mine will be abandoned or Ramaco will have to devise a new plan that addresses the complaints and resubmit it for approval.</p><p>Either way, the rejection is symbolically profound and speaks to Wyoming's larger struggle for economic sustainability.</p><p>The state has been <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/01/25/automation-guarantees-a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners/" target="_blank">hemorrhaging coal jobs for years</a> as the industry shifts to automation and appetite for coal declines following the surge of natural gas.</p><p>All across the world, meanwhile, countries are giving up coal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="deb3c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BX640E1501859398"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="884954232566284289" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Coal vs. Wind in the Cowboy State https://t.co/ChFbyVrPev @worldresources @RenewablesNews</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/884954232566284289">1499824505.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p>
<p>While Wyoming isn't giving up coal, it's finding that its flat, open landscapes are ideal for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> and that renewable energy, in turn, is <a href="http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=8736" target="_blank">ideal for job growth</a>.<br></p><p>The state currently produces the fourth most <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind">wind energy</a> in the country and 100 percent of all new energy in capacity in Wyoming will come from renewable energy between 2016-2019, according to a <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/increase-renewable-energy/momentum#.WP4Y-WeGMcA" target="_blank">report by the Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</p><p>This progress is being slowed by <a href="http://trib.com/business/energy/new-wind-puts-wyoming-top-of-the-list-for-renewables/article_e52050d0-73f6-5a53-b5f6-946d8107aee4.html" target="_blank">policies that tax wind power</a> at high rates and by attempts to flat-out ban new renewable energy projects in the state.</p><p>But as citizens continue to see the benefits of wind energy through more jobs and the environmental hazards of coal energy, the calculus of state legislators could change.</p><p>Blocking a new coal mine shows the power of the public. Pushing for more wind energy would do the same. </p><p>"Wyoming is at a bit of a crossroads, where if it doesn't get on board soon it's going to miss out on an incredible economic development opportunity for the state," John Hensley, a wind energy expert, <a href="http://trib.com/business/energy/new-wind-puts-wyoming-top-of-the-list-for-renewables/article_e52050d0-73f6-5a53-b5f6-946d8107aee4.html" target="_blank">told the Star Tribune</a>. "It's an opportunity that is going to go elsewhere in the country if [Wyoming] doesn't move forward."</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/wyoming-coal-mine-blocked-citizens-wind-power/" target="_blank">Global Citizen</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Wind turbines at the F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. United States Air Force
By Jeremy Deaton
There's the Wyoming you see on postcards—the snow-dusted mountains and caramel-colored prairies where movie stars build their second homes. But there's another Wyoming—the one that powers America's homes and businesses. The Cowboy State churns out more coal than all of Appalachia, and it's home to some of the strongest winds on the continent. The Rocky Mountains funnel air across flat, open prairies, producing winds that rival the most powerful ocean gales.
<p><span></span>In Carbon County, Wyoming—so named for its abundant reserves of coal—conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz is building the country's largest <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind">wind</a> farm. Its 1,000 turbines could generate enough electricity to power every home in Los Angeles and San Francisco—electricity that will be shipped to California by way of a brand new 700-mile transmission line.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy85OTcwODM2L29yaWdpbi5qcGciLCJleHBpcmVzX2F0IjoxNjM3NTgzMTAwfQ.-XTNfnaJWVfVSaf8L_sDqAtf3D0fcjgJ68QNOWmfg3c/img.jpg?width=980" id="3be3a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="61643891ccbf19a111fb6c6dfc0a7dcc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">This map shows the average wind speed 30 meters above the ground. Wyoming sees exceptionally strong winds at this altitude.</small><small placeholder="add photo credit..." class="image-media media-photo-credit"><a href="http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/30m_US_Wind.jpg" target="_blank">NREL</a></small></p><p>Anschutz, who owns the conservative news outlets The Weekly Standard and The Washington Examiner, has given <a href="https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/philip-anschutz.asp?cycle=16" target="_blank">millions</a> to Republican politicians. But, despite his political leanings, and the promise of <a href="http://www.powercompanyofwyoming.com/about/frequently-asked-questions.shtml" target="_blank">hundreds</a> of construction jobs in Carbon County, his project—and others like it—have faced persistent headwinds in the Republican-dominated state legislature.<br></p><p>Earlier this year, legislators tried to <a href="https://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/SF0071.pdf" target="_blank">prevent</a> Wyoming utilities from selling wind power. The bill went nowhere, but it points to an undercurrent of hostility toward wind. Wyoming is currently the only state to tax wind power, and legislators have pushed to raise the wind tax from $1 per megawatt hour to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-wyoming-wind-tax-20160926-snap-story.html" target="_blank">$3</a> or <a href="http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/house-committee-votes-down-wind-taxagain" target="_blank">$5</a>. Anschutz's business fought both proposed tax hikes, which died in committee.</p><p>Republican legislator Mike Madden, who championed these measures, made his feelings clear. "These wind guys," he said, "they feel that they are just too good to be taxed."</p><p>Madden, like his colleagues, is trying to fill a hole in the state budget. Wyoming has no income tax. Oil, gas and coal royalties supply most of the state's revenue. Now, coal is in decline. Consumption is waning, and workers are losing their jobs. This has produced a budget shortfall for which there is no easy fix.<br></p><p>Under the current system, Wyoming effectively imports its tax revenue. Most coal is shipped to power plants out of state, meaning ratepayers in Texas, California and elsewhere pay the tax on coal. If you buy electricity from a power plant anywhere in the U.S. that burns Wyoming coal, you are helping to put Wyoming teachers in Wyoming schools and lay Wyoming asphalt on Wyoming roads.</p><p>In recent years, falling demand for coal has starved the state of essential revenue. Legislators need to fill the budget gap, but there is little interest in imposing an income tax. So they are slashing expenditures and looking to other sources of revenue.</p><p>Together, Wyoming's powerful winds and budget woes have produced a peculiar cast of characters—in Anschutz, a conservative media magnate pushing for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a>, and in Madden, a pugnacious libertarian furiously trying to raise taxes.</p><p>Madden says he harbors no ill feelings toward wind. His motives are ideological. Asked if he felt a responsibility to protect coal jobs—which are fleeing the state in <a href="http://trib.com/business/energy/wyoming-s-two-largest-coal-mines-announce-layoffs/article_0d217a3a-5a9d-5b1d-8d0d-8a5081724bb2.html" target="_blank">droves</a>—he said, "I'm not interested in picking one of our resources and protecting it. That obviously is not my philosophy at all. I want the free market to pick it, not to have government politicians pick it."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy85OTcwODQwL29yaWdpbi5qcGciLCJleHBpcmVzX2F0IjoxNjI3MDUzMTI0fQ.2NMjsRHC7YN4miWHNIec0m71AEx6WCewHCb1Yj2KMaY/img.jpg?width=980" id="03fe2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ef1aa4be7d68061b1fc30f72307182c3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">The Black Thunder coal mine in Wyoming. </small><small placeholder="add photo credit..." class="image-media media-photo-credit"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/beyondcoalandgas/9304137145" target="_blank">Max Phillips</a></small></p><p>Madden is nothing if not consistent, and his approach to tax policy would strike many as reasonable. But experts warn against raising the wind tax at a time when the state is trying to attract developers and create new jobs.</p><p>"Wyoming is perceived by many wind developers to be kind of anti-wind," said University of Wyoming economist Robert Godby. "Suddenly the state is suggesting that we might raise the tax by four or five times? That's not conducive to economic development. Tax uncertainty is almost as bad as having high taxes."</p><p>Wind is a multi-billion dollar opportunity for Wyoming. Anschutz's wind farm and transmission line come with an $8 billion price tag. Renewable energy developer Viridis Eolia is building a $3 billion wind project. And Rocky Mountain Power is spending $3 billion in Wyoming on another wind farm and transmission line.</p><p>Godby fears the state's perceived hostility toward wind could ward off future projects: "Imagine you're in the board room of a major wind developer, and you're suggesting a billion-dollar investment, and you say I'm going to put it in New Mexico or Nevada or Wyoming. The board might say, 'Well, we're not putting it in Wyoming.'"</p><p>Notably, Wyoming's attitudes toward wind are about more than just money. Many in the Cowboy State see turbines as a blight on the landscape. Wyoming is defined by its jagged mountains and open prairies. Wind farms threaten to mar its most treasured vistas.</p><p>"You can be camping on the plains, maybe a sleeping bag rolled out on the ground, not even a tent over your head, and you can feel like you are on the same plains that Native Americans have experienced for millennia," said Godby. "But then you turn around and look behind you, and the entire horizon might be red blinking lights from the wind turbines, and those really kind of infuriate people."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy85OTcwODQ3L29yaWdpbi5qcGciLCJleHBpcmVzX2F0IjoxNjUzNTU3NDUxfQ.6009CAzNvZH7VisTj1zoX8vuDV4hdQuPKnzpfQHrDJI/img.jpg?width=980" id="05242" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a90fb9323d4fae865c2a7cb14505ac43" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">A Wyoming wind farm. </small><small placeholder="add photo credit..." class="image-media media-photo-credit"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/paleololigo/" target="_blank">Penny Higgins</a></small></p><p>A wind developer, who asked to remain anonymous, recalled a trip to the state capital: "One legislator in particular said, 'We don't want more wind. We want you to burn more coal.' They say, 'I hate wind. I hate seeing those turbines. They're killing our landscape, and I just don't like it.'"<br></p><p>Of course, attitudes may change. Wind turbines, now regarded as an eyesore, may come to represent industry, security and prosperity. To that end, Godby said legislators should leverage tax policy to attract more wind jobs.</p><p>"We could say, 'Hey, If you build a wind facility, and the manufacturing of some of those components occurs in Wyoming, we will give you a tax break,'" he explained. This would draw new wind projects and manufacturing outfits, delivering a wealth of jobs and tax revenue. Wind energy, said Godby, "is the biggest opportunity presenting itself to the state."</p><p>Wyoming finds itself in an unusual place. Nationwide, the shift to clean energy will likely create <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18112015/low-carbon-economy-may-create-2-million-jobs-study-finds-clean-energy" target="_blank">millions</a> of jobs, but there will be winners and losers. Wind-rich Iowa will cash in on demand for cheap, low-carbon power, while coal-dependent West Virginia stands to lose more jobs than it gains. Wyoming straddles both sides of the energy divide.</p><p>Coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin is among the cheapest and purest around. Decades from now, when the final shipment of American coal heads to the last remaining coal-fired power plant, it will depart from a Wyoming mine. Along the way, that train will pass some of the most productive wind farms in the country.</p><p>How fast will the future come? It's hard to say. Reflecting on the fate of wind in Wyoming, Rep. Madden conceded, "It's a resource in a like manner to coal and natural gas and so on." He then paused for a moment before returning to his favorite talking point: "I just think that it's fair not to pick a favorite."</p><p><em><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/the-winds-above-wyoming-9c73f86e0282" target="_blank">Nexus Media</a>.</em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint last week on behalf of a Wyoming resident in an attempt to stop an upcoming coyote-killing contest. The "Wyoming Best of the Best" involves teams of hunters vying to kill as many coyotes as possible from sunup to sundown.
Non-hunting participants place bets on the teams they think will kill the most coyotes. The complaint alleges the event constitutes a nuisance in the form of illegal gambling, since participants wager money and the outcome is based predominantly on chance. Illegal gambling is a violation of the state nuisance statute, designed to prevent activities that put the moral integrity and safety of the community at risk.
The Rock Springs event is scheduled for this coming weekend, Feb. 3 – 4. The rules encourage people of all ages and experience to enter, including children.
Wyoming Best of the Best involves betting opportunities for most coyotes killed, biggest coyote killed, littlest coyote killed, a rifle raffle and a Calcutta—a form of betting pool where participants pick winners and the pool of funds is distributed according to a prearranged scale of percentages, to those who selected winners. Hunting participants wager $50 per person for the chance to win cash prizes and advance to the state championship for killing the most coyotes. Teams may also wager an extra $20 per team to enter the "Big Dog/Little Dog" contests, for the chance to win extra cash prizes for killing the biggest and/or littlest coyote.
OMG! #Trump Sons Auctioning Off $1 Million #Hunting Trip to Celebrate Inauguration https://t.co/05pOgnH1JS @CenterForBioDiv @PETA @NWF @NRDC— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1482243854.0
The killing contest is not regulated by any government agency, hunting licenses are not required in Wyoming to kill coyotes and there is no limit on the number of coyotes a hunter may slaughter. The plaintiff worries the influx of hunters, whose goal is to win cash prizes for the indiscriminate and uncontrolled killing of coyotes, will negatively impact Sweetwater County's wildlife.
The contest also causes a serious disruption in the ecosystem leading to an unbalanced and unhealthy natural system. When coyote populations are disrupted by lethal means, younger pups have no adults to help them acquire food. This in turn causes many pups to prey on sheep and livestock. The disruption can also affect smaller predator populations by destabilizing entire ecosystems.
"Killing contests are simply blood sports," said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. "They are completely inconsistent with appropriate conservation goals or effective wildlife management. Coyotes are essential members of healthy ecosystems, not targets to be killed for 'fun.'"
Republican lawmakers in Wyoming have introduced a bill that would block the use of renewable energy in the state. If passed, utilities that use wind or solar to produce power for Wyoming residents would be penalized with a costly fine of $10-per-megawatt-hour.
Under Senate File 71, only six resources—coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, oil, natural gas, and net metering systems such as rooftop solar or backyard wind projects—are considered "eligible" generating resources. Electric utilities will have one year to be 95 percent compliant with the approved resources and 100 percent compliant by 2019.
As InsideClimate News pointed out, the bill was filed last Tuesday on the first day of the Wyoming's 2017 legislative session. Its sponsors, who largely come from top coal counties, include climate change deniers such as Rep. Scott Clem who once said, "I don't believe that CO2 is a pollutant, and am furious of the EPA's overreach."
How deeply embedded are the Koch brothers in the Trump administration? @EcoWatch’s take: https://t.co/ExLEOYsiE9— EDF (@EDF)1484135926.0
Wyoming is by far the nation's largest coal producer and a major producer of natural gas and crude oil. But the state also has some of the best on-shore wind resources the U.S., with wind power constituting 8 percent of the state's energy.
Still, Wyoming has waged a quasi-war on wind. Wyoming is the only state in the country that taxes wind energy production, and a proposed tax increase has effectively stalled a Wyoming power company's plans to build the largest wind farm in the country. Like most of the wind power already generated by the state, the power generated by the massive Carbon County wind farm will head to other states. While this new bill would allow out-of-state wind power sales to continue, it certainly discourages future renewable energy development.
"Wyoming is a great wind state and we produce a lot of wind energy," bill co-sponsor Rep. David Miller explained to InsideClimate News about the motivation behind the bill. "We also produce a lot of conventional energy, many times our needs. The electricity generated by coal is amongst the least expensive in the country. We want Wyoming residences to benefit from this inexpensive electrical generation."
"We do not want to be averaged into the other states that require a certain [percentage] of more expensive renewable energy," Miller continued.
Miller, however, is not confident the bill will pass, putting its chances at "50 percent or less." Still, Republicans overwhelmingly outnumber Democrats 51-9 in the state House and 27-3 in the Senate.
Opponents have called the bill "baffling," as renewable energy is becoming cheaper and out-performing fossil fuels on a large scale.
It's Official: Solar Is Becoming World's Cheapest Form of New Electricity https://t.co/xOQV304pca @votesolar @solarcity— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1482186306.0
"Why would [legislators] try to drag down solar and wind, two potentially successful industries that could make a home in the state?" editors at the Casper Star-Tribune asked, adding that the lawmakers are "shutting out potential sources of revenue."
Others have remarked that this law is completely unsound and even unprecedented.
"It would be very difficult to implement, difficult to regulate," Shannon Anderson, lawyer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council, told the Star-Tribune. "It goes against longstanding precedent to choose least-cost resources, and it ignores the reality of a multi-state grid."
Anderson also told told InsideClimate News, "I haven't seen anything like this before. This is essentially a reverse renewable energy standard."