Mining corporation Hudbay Minerals proposed to dig a mile-wide open-pit copper mine in the Santa Ritas, burying dozens of sites sacred to the tribes under 1.8 billion tons of toxic waste. The mine's construction would raze ancestral Hohokam burial grounds, a historic Hohokam village and vital mountain springs.
Represented by Earthjustice, the Tohono O'odham fought Hudbay's ill-conceived mine in court, joined by the Hopi and Pascua Yaqui tribes. This summer, a judge ruled in favor of the three tribes, halting the mine in its tracks and directing the Forest Service to protect these public lands from the devastating impacts of the mine.
"Our relationship to the land is first and foremost," said Austin G. Nuñez, chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation's San Xavier District in Tucson. "When our Hohokam ancestors' laid their loved ones in their final resting place, they never envisioned having them disturbed. We make every effort to not disturb them. We still feel their spirits today."
The proposed Rosemont Mine threatened Cienega Creek, where these children are playing. Thomas Wiewandt
Tohono O'odham families gather at the sacred sites to reinforce their connection to the desert that has sheltered them for generations. During these gatherings, tribal members will collect yucca, acorns, wild onion, plants for medicinal purposes, or bear grass for basket making.
"When our children were younger, we'd take them to the proposed Rosemont site and the desert to be with nature," said Nuñez. He laughs, remembering the calming effect of the environment. "It's amazing. When they were out there, the children wouldn't fight. They'd enjoy it. It's so peaceful."
The Santa Rita Mountains are one of Arizona's most biodiverse regions, with flora and fauna endemic to the Southwest. Undulating mountain ranges, part of the Sky Islands, frame a desert floor spotted with spiky yucca plants. The Santa Ritas are home to several endangered species, including the jaguar and southwestern willow flycatcher.
Critical to this desert ecosystem are freshwater streams, which nourish the land like capillaries through a body. The streams were the lifeblood of the Tohono O'odham's ancestors, and are considered holy by the tribe — making Hudbay's plans to pollute them with heavy metals and deplete the water table especially devastating.
The only way Hudbay could get away with creating a colossal mine on public lands was by an industry sleight-of-hand using an antiquated mining law.
The Mining Law of 1872 grants companies a right to use public lands on mining claims — if the land is discovered to contain a valuable mineral deposit. Hudbay filed patented claims overlying the proposed mine pit, which contained valuable minerals, including copper. They also filed hundreds of unpatented claims on adjacent lands with no mining value, where they intended to dump over a billion tons of toxic waste rock and tailings. The Forest Service acquiesced to this land grab, assuming Hudbay had a right to these unpatented claims without bothering to check whether Hudbay had discovered the requisite valuable mineral deposit on those claims.
This is a common abuse of the Mining Law, especially for gigantic open-pit mines like Rosemont. As mining companies began building massive industrial-scale operations in the 20th century, they twisted the law to fit their need for thousands of acres of additional public lands for waste dumps. The Forest Service has simply turned a blind eye on these baseless rights, letting companies run roughshod over our public lands.
In 2017, the Tohono O'odham turned to Earthjustice for help, after being sidelined by the Forest Service during the mine's development. Through this partnership, the tribe imparted the deep importance of the Santa Ritas to attorney Stu Gillespie.
"One of the most fulfilling parts of this case was sharing food with the Tohono O'odham leaders, [and] understanding their cultural ways of life and how important the sacred springs are," said Gillespie. People of all backgrounds can relate to the importance of preserving burial grounds, he noted, adding, "We wouldn't want someone building a mine in Arlington Cemetery."
The case moved slowly in the courts, but the company was moving quickly to start excavation. As Hudbay brazenly challenged the tribes by bringing machinery to the mine site, Gillespie could see that he needed to take the bold step of seeking a preliminary injunction to stop any digging from starting. Preliminary injunctions often aren't granted, because they're an exceptional remedy of last resort and parties must prove that they face immediate irreparable harm.
Adding to the urgency, Hudbay planned to hastily clear all of the lands that are burial grounds for the Tohono O'odham Nation's ancestors – the Hohokam. In the 1980s, another company prepared to mine the same site and encountered the burial grounds. The Anamax Mining Company soon went bankrupt and abandoned the site, leaving graves and the ancient village grounds open to the elements. Some of the tribes' ancestral remains were shipped to the University of Arizona, where they were warehoused for thirty years while the tribes fought to repatriate them. They were only returned to the Tohono O'odham Nation several years ago. The tribes were adamant about preventing a repeat of history.
Yellow-billed cuckoos are declining in number, but Cienega Creek provides a safe haven for them. Steve Baranoff
Instead of granting a preliminary injunction, the judge went a step further and definitively ruled on the merits of the tribes' case itself. The Court held that the Forest Service made a "crucial error" by assuming Hudbay had a right to use public lands without any evidence of a valuable mineral deposit, and that this error "tainted the Forest Service's evaluation of the Rosemont Mine from the start." With this argument, he prevented any mining activities from going forward, and called out the Forest Service for abdicating its duty to protect our public lands.
The judge in the case "identified the fatal flaw in the Forest Service's reasoning," said Gillespie. "He laid out an unbroken line of Supreme Court decisions, saying, 'No, you don't have rights under the Mining Law to pollute this land under billions of tons of waste rock, without evidence of valuable minerals.'"
The Santa Rita mountains loom over the desert in southern Arizona. Frank Walsh / Save the Scenic Santa Ritas
The judge's ruling could set a precedent among similar mining claims that abuse the Mining Law. By clearly identifying the Forest Service's obligation to regulate unpatented mining claims, this victory could make it harder for giant mining companies to exploit ancestral lands for Native American tribes and pollute precious ecosystems.
"The federal government and Hudbay tried to put up as many arguments as possible, but it was all smoke and mirrors," said Gillespie. "The judge cut through that really clearly. It's a powerful decision that stands for the proposition that nobody should get a free pass to wreak havoc on our public lands."
The victory is deeply felt among the Tohono O'odham, who see in this ruling a validation of Indigenous sovereignty over corporate schemes to desecrate their ancestral land.
"The judge's ruling shows that there is hope in the system," said Chairman Nuñez. "There are good people who believe in the sovereignty of Native nations, and their fundamental, inherent right to land and water. It has reinforced our vow to protect and enhance the lands we do have. We prayed that that mine would never be built. So it felt like our prayers had been answered."
- Beyond the Green New Deal: Eco-Socialism and Decolonization ... ›
- Ruby Mountains: A Push to Drill, a Failure to Consult Native Peoples ... ›
- How to Counter Trump's Disastrous Attack on Our Public Lands ... ›
- Climate Change Threatens Hopi Way of Life in American West - EcoWatch ›
If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.
Factors That Influence How Many Solar Panels You Need
To determine how many solar panels are needed to power a house, several factors must be considered. For example, if there are two identical homes powered by solar energy in California and New York, with exactly the same energy usage, the California home will need fewer solar panels because the state gets more sunshine.
The following are some of the most important factors to consider when figuring out many solar panels you need:
Size of Your Home and Available Roof Space
Larger homes tend to consume more electricity, and they generally need more solar panels. However, they also have the extra roof space necessary for larger solar panel installations. There may be exceptions to this rule — for example, a 2,000-square-foot home with new Energy Star appliances may consume less power than a 1,200-square-foot home with older, less-efficient devices.
When it comes to installation, solar panels can be placed on many types of surfaces. However, your roof conditions may limit the number of solar panels your home can handle.
For example, if you have a chimney, rooftop air conditioning unit or skylight, you'll have to place panels around these fixtures. Similarly, roof areas that are covered by shadows are not suitable for panels. Also, most top solar companies will not work on asbestos roofs due to the potential health risks for installers.
Amount of Direct Sunlight in Your Area
Where there is more sunlight available, there is more energy that can be converted into electricity. The yearly output of each solar panel is higher in states like Arizona or New Mexico, which get a larger amount of sunlight than less sunny regions like New England.
The World Bank has created solar radiation maps for over 200 countries and regions, including the U.S. The map below can give you an idea of the sunshine available in your location. Keep in mind that homes in sunnier regions will generally need fewer solar panels.
© 2020 The World Bank, Source: Global Solar Atlas 2.0, Solar resource data: Solargis.
Number of Residents and Amount of Energy You Use
Households with more members normally use a higher amount of electricity, and this also means they need more solar panels to increase energy production.
Electricity usage is a very important factor, as it determines how much power must be generated by your solar panel system. If your home uses 12,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year and you want to go 100% solar, your system must be capable of generating that amount of power.
Type of Solar Panel and Efficiency Rating
High-efficiency panels can deliver more watts per square foot, which means you need to purchase fewer of them to reach your electricity generation target. There are three main types of solar panels: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and thin-film. In general, monocrystalline panels are the most efficient solar panels, followed closely by polycrystalline panels. Thin-film panels are the least efficient.
How to Estimate the Number of Solar Panels You Need
So, based on these factors, how many solar panels power a home? To roughly determine how many solar panels you need without a professional assessment, you'll need to figure out two basic things: how much energy you use and how much energy your panels will produce.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average American home uses 10,649 kWh of energy per year. However, this varies depending on the state. For example:
- Louisiana homes have the highest average consumption, at 14,787 kWh per year.
- Hawaii homes have the lowest average consumption, at 6,298 kWh per year.
To more closely estimate how much energy you use annually, add up the kWh reported on your last 12 power bills. These numbers will fluctuate based on factors like the size of your home, the number of residents, your electricity consumption habits and the energy efficiency rating of your home devices.
Solar Panel Specific Yield
After you determine how many kWh of electricity your home uses annually, you'll want to figure out how many kWh are produced by each of your solar panels during a year. This will depend on the specific type of solar panel, roof conditions and local peak sunlight hours.
In the solar power industry, a common metric used to estimate system capacity is "specific yield" or "specific production." This can be defined as the annual kWh of energy produced for each kilowatt of solar capacity installed. Specific yield has much to do with the amount of sunlight available in your location.
You can get a better idea of the specific yield that can be achieved in your location by checking reliable sources like the World Bank solar maps or the solar radiation database from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
To estimate how many kW are needed to run a house, you can divide your annual kWh consumption by the specific yield per kilowatt of solar capacity. For example, if your home needs 15,000 kWh of energy per year, and solar panels have a specific yield of 1,500 kW/kW in your location, you will need a system size of around 10 kilowatts.
Paradise Energy Solutions has also come up with a general formula to roughly ballpark the solar panel system size you need. You can simply divide your annual kWh by 1,200 and you will get the kilowatts of solar capacity needed. So, if the energy consumption reported on your last 12 power bills adds up to 24,000 kWh, you'll need a 20 kW system (24,000 / 1,200 = 20).
So, How Many Solar Panels Do I Need?
Once you know the system size you need, you can check your panel wattage to figure how many panels to purchase for your solar array. Multiply your system size by 1,000 to obtain watts, then divide this by the individual wattage of each solar panel.
Most of the best solar panels on the market have an output of around 330W to 360W each. The output of less efficient panels can be as low as 250W.
So, if you need a 10-kW solar installation and you're buying solar panels that have an output of 340W, you'll need 30 panels. Your formula will look like this: 10,000W / 340W = 29.4 panels.
If you use lower-efficiency 250-watt solar panels, you'll need 40 of them (10,000W / 250W = 40) panels.
Keep in mind that, although the cost of solar panels is lower if you choose a lower-efficiency model over a pricier high-efficiency one, the total amount you pay for your solar energy system may come out to be the same or higher because you'll have to buy more panels.
How Much Roof Space Do You Need for a Home Solar System?
After you estimate how many solar panels power a house, the next step is calculating the roof area needed for their installation. The exact dimensions may change slightly depending on the manufacturer, but a typical solar panel for residential use measures 65 inches by 39 inches, or 17.6 square feet. You will need 528 square feet of roof space to install 30 panels, and 704 square feet to install 40.
In addition to having the required space for solar panels, you'll also need a roof structure that supports their weight. A home solar panel weighs around 20 kilograms (44 pounds), which means that 30 of them will add around 600 kilograms (1,323 pounds) to your roof.
You will notice that some solar panels are described as residential, while others are described as commercial. Residential panels have 60 individual solar cells, while commercial panels have 72 cells, but both types will work in any building. Here are a few key differences:
- Commercial solar panels produce around 20% more energy, thanks to their extra cells.
- Commercial panels are also more expensive, as well as 20% larger and heavier.
- Residential 60-cell solar panels are easier to handle in home installations, which saves on labor, and their smaller size helps when roof dimensions are limited.
Some of the latest solar panel designs have half-cells with a higher efficiency, which means they have 120 cells instead of 60 (or 144 instead of 72). However, this doesn't change the dimensions of the panels.
Conclusion: Are Solar Panels Worth it for Your Home?
Solar panels produce no carbon emissions while operating. However, the EIA estimates fossil fuels still produce around 60% of the electricity delivered by U.S. power grids.
Although the initial investment in solar panels is steep, renewable energy systems make sense financially for many homeowners. According to the Department of Energy, they have a typical payback period of about 10 years, while their rated service life is up to 30 years. After recovering your initial investment, you will have a source of clean and free electricity for about two decades.
Plus, even if you have a large home or find you need more solar panels than you initially thought you would, keep in mind that there are both federal and local tax credits, rebates and other incentives to help you save on your solar power system.
To get a free, no-obligation quote and see how much a solar panel system would cost for your home, fill out the 30-second form below.
The Trump administration pushed for these two anti-bee actions, even though our nation's honeybee populations have been nosediving for years. Last winter, beekeepers reported a record 40 percent loss of their colonies.
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 pesticides. 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.
A honey bee alights on a cherry blossom in Stockton, California.
CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE
Were you surprised to learn that the USDA pulled its honeybee colonies report?
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.
How do you feel about the EPA reregistering sulfoxaflor?
One thing that stood out to me in the EPA's notice 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 … 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.
Basically, the EPA's buddies at Dow AgroSciences want to make billions on this pesticide, and the EPA is going to let them. But please don't lie to us and say that sulfoxaflor is somehow pollinator safe. I'm not buying.
Why do bees get such short shrift by regulators and legislators?
Beekeeping has always been the ugly stepchild in agriculture. Agriculture needs us, but not everybody 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 foods 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.
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."
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.
Beekeeper Jeff Anderson says the Trump administration's anti-bee and anti-science efforts are hurting his business.
CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE
How are your honeybees faring this year?
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.
If you want to look at my winter losses, they were probably about like what the Bee Informed Partnership 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.
Has the bee die-off impacted your ability to do business?
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.
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.
Is climate change impacting your bees?
Yes, but not like you're thinking, where it's too hot in the summer or too cold in the winter.
Neonicotinoid pesticides like sulfoxaflor cause problems 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.
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.
Anderson minds his colonies in a California cherry orchard.
CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE
Do you plan on continuing as a beekeeper?
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.
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.
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.
What can people do to support bees?
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.
Editor's note: In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 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.
"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," said 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."
.@EPA just okayed "emergency" use of bee-killing pesticides on nearly 14 million acres of land known to attract bees.
— Friends of the Earth (@foe_us) July 9, 2019
40% of insect species are on the brink of extinction. This is inexcusable. #SaveTheBeeshttps://t.co/ga60bZMvEI
- 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 ›
Thankfully, Illinois policymakers have just passed a coal ash bill 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.
The landmark legislation comes after years of advocacy by community groups such as Eco-Justice Collaborative and the Central Illinois Healthy Communities Alliance, as well as legal work by Earthjustice, Sierra Club and others.
Children enjoy tubing along the Vermilion River, which is polluted by coal ash.
Photo courtesy of Pam Richart / Eco-Justice Collaborative
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 (EPA) to enact the first-ever federal safeguards on coal ash. The new protections were a huge win for impacted communities at risk of coal ash disasters, like the one that hit Kingston, Tennessee, where dozens of homes were destroyed in 2008.
The Trump administration, however, was determined to carry out the coal industry's bidding. So in 2018, it announced 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 agreed, 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.
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 — are contaminating groundwater with toxins above levels that the federal EPA deems to be safe.
Armed with that damning data, which came to light thanks to analysis by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project, advocates banded together to push their legislators to address the contamination. With 22 of Illinois' 24 coal-fired power plants 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 Prairie Rivers Network brought the data to legislators like State Senator Scott Bennett (D-Champaign), who had long been concerned about nearby coal ash ponds contaminating his constituency's prized gem, the Vermilion River.
Now the coal industry's defenses are beginning to fail in both Illinois and around the country. Earlier this year, Virginia passed bipartisan legislation requiring a powerful utility 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 to completely excavate and close all of its toxic ponds in the state.
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:
- Financial assurances that the cost of coal ash cleanup will be borne by the coal companies, not taxpayers.
- Public participation 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.
- Regulations as protective as the federal rules as well as mandates 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.
"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.
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.
"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."
What a Real Coal Ash Cleanup Looks Like https://t.co/zeM62JKP7e
— Lakota Law Project (@lakotalaw) April 9, 2019
- 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 ... ›
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 Trump administration and its allies.
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.
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.
Activists demonstrate against proposed freeway construction in San Francisco in 1960.
Image courtesy of San Francisco History Center
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.
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.
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.
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
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 lead 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."
Right now, communities of color are using NEPA to challenge the Keystone XL 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.
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 want to stifle it, either by exempting certain proposals from oversight, limiting the length of public comment periods or eliminating public comment altogether.
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
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.
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.
"These findings confirm what most grassroots environmental justice leaders have known for decades." In my last @EcoWatch piece today, a groundbreaking study from @jdhill and @ctessum shows a racial gap betwen who causes and suffers from air pollution: https://t.co/l8pC0tHPis
— Olivia Rosane (@orosane) March 12, 2019
Reposted with permission from our media associate Earthjustice.
- 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 ›
The report's findings come amid efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle the most powerful legal tool we have for protecting imperiled wildlife in the U.S.: the Endangered Species Act. The rollbacks, first proposed by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt last summer, would weaken protections that shield the biodiversity the report warns is critical to the survival of all life on Earth.
The administration's move directly contradicts the UN report's conclusion that biodiversity is essential to life as we know it. The proposed changes would incorporate economic considerations into decisions about whether to protect species on the brink of extinction. The proposal also dismantles protections against hunting and trapping for species newly listed as threatened. It also alters the requirement that agencies consult with scientists before approving potentially harmful permits for development, mining, clear-cutting and other destructive activities. These steps follow President Trump's agenda of prioritizing energy dominance and giving handouts to the fossil fuel industry, regardless of the damage to our nation's endangered biodiversity.
"The UN report shows that if we're serious about protecting species not just for their own worth, but in order to save ourselves, we need to increase protections rather than decrease them," said Drew Caputo, Earthjustice vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans. "The administration's attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act is, as this report shows, a full-speed-ahead course of action in exactly the wrong direction. It's also totally illegal. If they finalize those rollbacks, we'll see them in court."
Drew Caputo, Earthjustice vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans
Chris Jordan-Bloch / Earthjustice
The Endangered Species Act does more than ensure a legally binding safety net for animals and plants facing extinction. It enshrines in law the principle that economic prosperity cannot come at the cost of conserving our native species and the habitats they depend on. Since its passage in 1973, 99% of the animals protected under the Act have not perished. Those species include the American bald eagle, gray wolf and humpback whales. The Act is also crucial for restoring essential ecosystems: to date, more than 250 million acres of habitat are protected from harm under the law.
Our lawyers use the Endangered Species Act as the legal ground for countless cases to defend wildlife and wild lands, and to work toward securing a healthy environment for all species. Recent examples of how we've used the Endangered Species Act include:
- Stopping a trophy hunt and restoring federal protections for Yellowstone's grizzly bears;
- Denying a powerful agriculture lobby from employing a massive water grab in California;
- And a decades-long ongoing fight to restore a river in the Pacific Northwest to help save salmon and orcas.
Based on the draft of the Department of the Interior's planned Endangered Species Act rollbacks released last summer, the effect would be to weaken protections for imperiled wildlife and make cases like these harder to bring. Earthjustice attorneys are prepared to rapidly review the final rule when it is released, and are readying to take legal action if required.
By attempting to weaken our strongest wildlife protections, the Trump administration ignores not only scientific projections like the UN report, but also the will of the people: 90% of Americans support the Endangered Species Act. Instead of prioritizing short-term gains for the fossil fuel industry, the administration should heed the science, and reverse its policies on critically endangered species that destroy our planet's biodiversity.
The Biggest Issues for #Wildlife and Endangered Species in #2019 https://t.co/nbH3LdxRvF @Revelator_News @ConservationOrg
— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) January 12, 2019
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.
This is no less than "momentous news," according to Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans, 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.
"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."
Coal ash spilled by Hurricane Florence coats a turtle in North Carolina. (Riverkeepers cleaned and released the turtle.)
PETE HARRISON / EARTHJUSTICE
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, rivers 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 analyzes groundwater monitoring data at 265 power plants across the country for the first time.
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.
"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."
This report also listed the nation's most contaminated sites — including Duke Energy's Allen Steam Station in Belmont, North Carolina.
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.
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.
"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."
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 drinking water wells became undrinkable.
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.
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.
"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.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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.
However, as North Carolina and Virginia have shown, state governments can be convinced to take action where the Trump administration won't.
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 lawsuit against Dynegy, 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.
"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."
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.
New Report Reveals Severe #Groundwater Contamination at Illinois #CoalAsh Dumps https://t.co/kAM9ixJyRk @BeyondCoal @Coal_Ash— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1543788038.0
- 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 ›
That's why Earthjustice is helping them take the Trump administration to court and put a halt to this abuse of power. On March 14, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of border residents including the Ramirez family of San Juan, Texas, who own the property where the 154-year-old Eli Jackson Cemetery is located. If construction on the border wall proceeds, it may require the exhumation and desecration of remains within the cemetery.
"President Trump's so-called border 'emergency' would make it harder for our family, our children, and our children's children to visit our loved ones' final resting places," says Dr. Ramiro Ramirez. "For months now, we've lived with the uncertainty of what might happen to our home, our cemetery, and the land we've lived on for generations. Enough is enough."
Our clients in this lawsuit also include the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, whose ancestors inhabited the Rio Grande Valley for centuries and whose sacred sites would be disturbed by wall construction; Elsa Hall, a landowner on the border; the Rio Grande International Study Center (RGISC); and a number of local and national leaders representing affected communities.
Earthjustice senior legislative representative Luis Torres understands firsthand how additional miles of wall will rip apart communities. He grew up on the Texas side of the Rio Grande River, in a family that straddled the border. Here, he describes the border he knows and why we must fight Trump's wall.
Descendants of Eli Jackson stand in a 145-year-old Texan church that bears his name. Construction on Trump's border wall may desecrate a cemetery next to the church.
Sylvia Ramirez
The following are remarks Torres originally prepared for "Voices from the Border: the Social and Environmental Impacts of the Border Wall," a congressional briefing hosted by GreenLatinos, Earthjustice, and United We Dream Action.
I was born and raised on the border, in the city of Laredo, Texas, which sits on the Rio Grande River across from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
If members of Congress knew the border I know, they wouldn't be negotiating over funding for a massive, hateful, unnecessary border wall.
Like many border residents, my family lived on the U.S. side but also had family, friends, and business on the Mexican side — el otro lado, we called it. Living on the border means celebrating American and Mexican holidays; it means having a barbecue on the Fourth of July and also sitting by the Rio Grande to watch the carnival lights of the annual feria expomex, the annual fair to kick off Mexican independence day festivities; it means celebrating George Washington's birthday and also Día De Los Muertos.
Torres and his parents walk along the Rio Grande.
Luis Torres / Earthjustice
This is the border to me. This is what I call home.
I lived in Laredo for 18 years before I left for Washington, D.C., to study and work on Capitol Hill to make a difference for the people of my beloved border community. I quickly learned that many on the Hill don't know the border like we do. They don't see the border like we see it. They don't see Mexican people, and Mexican-Americans, tribes, and other communities the way we see them.
Politicians talk about an unsafe border: rampant with drugs, gangs, violence, and lawlessness. They talk about rapists, drug dealers, and criminals, midnight crossings, invasions, cartel shootouts, and anarchy. This is the insecurity narrative that radical right-wing politicians use to push their border agendas. But it isn't the border I know. It's not the border that raised me; where my family and friends live today.
Soon Congress will vote on whether or not to fund President Trump's border wall, and if so, how much money to give to it. But the fight over wall funding is about more than just the wall: It's about the fight to define the border, the people who live in border communities, and the lives of those who will come after them.
Members of Congress need to visit the border. They need to be vocal against the wall when they speak on the floors of the House and Senate. They need to fight every way they can against giving even a dime to the construction of this monument to division and hate. There are real human consequences to so-called "compromise" here — this isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. This is a fight for human lives.
This fight won't be easy. We certainly won't win if we talk about the border wall through a single-issue lens. If we talk about it comprehensively, we may have a chance. We need border residents; immigration and Latino advocates; environmental, wildlife, and conservation advocates; faith, indigenous, and community leaders — all of us — on the same page. Every one of us needs to remind Congress that:
Walls are lethal to humans and wildlife.
Walls cause flooding. They destroy nature, habitats, and resources.
Walls require the confiscation of private property. Walls cost billions to construct and billions to maintain.
Walls interfere with native sovereignty. Walls betray our values.
And walls have been totally, completely, and unequivocally rejected by the American public.
The author as a child at a party in Laredo.
Luis Torres / Earthjustice
The louder we speak up, the harder it is for our communities to be divided, pitted against each other, or used as bargaining chips in negotiations. And even if we fall short now, a new Congress is coming. Latinos have always struggled and fought to get Washington to take us seriously and stop treating us as second-class citizens — but we'll have a fighting chance in the new year.
But we need to make Washington hear us. We'll fight this wall now, we'll fight it next year, we'll fight it as long as Trump is in office, and we won't stop fighting, no matter what.
We won't quit until this wall is what and where it belongs — debris in the junkyard of history's worst ideas.
This post was originally published on Dec. 14, 2018. It has been updated to reflect the news of Earthjustice's lawsuit.
Luis A. Torres, MA.T. is a Senior Legislative Representative in the Policy & Legislation department at Earthjustice.
- Trump's 2020 Budget Calls for $8.6 Billion to Build Ecologically ... ›
- Senate Votes to Overturn Trump's Emergency Declaration to Fund ... ›
- Border Wall ›