AGs, industry groups sue feds over new water rule
A group of attorneys general and industry organizations are suing the federal government over a new water protection rule that went into effect last month. The lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to vacate the 2023 rule, which went into effect on Nov. 27, and block the EPA from enforcing it, leaving a Trump-era rule in place. The EPA says the final rule under the Clean Water Act “enhances certification review and provides regulatory certainty to advance federally permitted projects” by creating a 6-month default timeframe for certification agreements with a one-year maximum for review. “The rule emphasizes that states, territories, and Tribes may only consider the adverse water quality-impacts from the activity,” the EPA said in September. “To limit delays, the rule also provides a clear approach to defining the required contents in a request for certification.” The plaintiffs argue the changes are “sweeping and unlawful.” “The 2023 Water Quality Certification Rule is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of the EPA’s discretion, exceeds the statutory authority on which it relies and is otherwise contrary to law,” the complaint says. The American Petroleum Institute, Interstate National Gas Association of America, and National Hydropower Association are listed as plaintiffs, along with attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. “The Trump administration’s reforms preserved the role of states in protecting their water quality while stopping states acting in bad faith and abusing the process to achieve unrelated policy goals and stopping or delaying nationally important projects and critical infrastructure,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said in a statement. “In its new rule, [Joe] Biden’s EPA has once again turned the Clean Water Act on its head, ignoring congressional intent and exceeding its authority.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Farmers are disappointed with Biden Administration revisions to water regulation rules
On Tuesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “waters of the United States.” According to original reporting by the Alabama Cattlemen’s Association, the amendments conform with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sackett v. EPA. The agencies had to amend their rule to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court decision while still following the law and implementing the Clean Water Act, which provides essential protections that safeguard the nation’s waters from pollution and degradation. The final action is intended to finally provide the clarity needed to advance these goals while moving forward with infrastructure projects, economic opportunities, and agricultural activities. Specifically, the amendments include: · Eliminates “interstate wetlands” from the list of jurisdictional waters. · Limits jurisdictional tributaries to features “that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water.” · Redefines “adjacent” as “having a continuous surface connection.” · The rule wholly removes the significant nexus test from consideration when identifying tributaries and other waters as federally protected. · It also revises the adjacency test when identifying federally jurisdictional wetlands. · It clarifies that interstate wetlands do not fall within the interstate waters category and clarifies the types of features that can be considered under the “additional waters” category. It is important to note that this amendment does not affect any other aspects of the 2023 rule, including agricultural exclusions. In the Sackett decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a [Joe] Biden rewrite of the waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS) that would have given the federal government strict oversight over every creek, tributary, pond, or drainage ditch in the country. The Alabama Farmers Federation is still opposed to the Biden Administration’s rewrite. The Alabama Farmers Federation’s Mitt Walker said the revisions, while technically in line with a May Supreme Court ruling, are discouraging. “It’s disappointing to see the EPA again hamper farmers’ rights to manage water on their land,” said Walker, who leads national affairs for Alabama’s largest general farm organization. “We have been fighting for clear, concise rules since the 2015 WOTUS rule was released. This is a small step in the right direction, but EPA must make more changes to roll back regulatory overreach.” EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers made the revisions without public notice and comments in response to the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court ruling. The rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register. The Sackett case concerned two Idaho landowners, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who contended wetlands on their property were not “adjacent” under the Clean Water Act. Zippy Duvall is the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “EPA had a golden opportunity to write a Waters of the U.S. Rule that’s fair to farmers and stands the test of time but instead chose to continue government overreach and revise only a small slice of the rule that was rejected by the Supreme Court,” said Duvall, a farmer from Georgia. “We’re pleased the vague and confusing ‘significant nexus’ test has been eliminated as the Supreme Court dictated. But EPA has ignored other clear concerns raised by the justices, 26 states, and farmers across the country about the rule’s failure to respect private property rights and the Clean Water Act. Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the resources they’re entrusted with. They deserve a rule that respects farmers as partners in that effort.” The current WOTUS dispute has now spanned three presidential administrations, beginning with President Barack Obama. This will potentially have had enormous economic impact for farmers, ranchers, developers, and even many residential communities. Anyone who interacts with water in the country. The Obama administration originally rewrote the existing rule, that applied to only navigable bodies of water. The Trump Administration overturned the Obama Administration rule change. Biden then reversed the Trump rule and reinstated the Obama rule. “The Biden Administration in two years has racked up more regulations than the Obama Administration did in eight years,” U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) said of the Biden rule earlier in the year before the Supreme Court ruling. “They’re continuing their red tape regime with yet another reckless rulemaking decision that would prioritize their leftwing political agenda at the expense of hardworking Americans. This type of job-killing overregulation would strangle Alabama farmers, cattlemen, manufacturers, energy producers, builders, landowners, and small businesses.” “Alabamians have tended to our own land, waterways, and resources for generations, and we remain best positioned to preserve and utilize them for generations to come,” Britt said. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Steve Marshall sends letter critical of an EPA proposed new rule on Power Plants
Americans are complaining that their power bills are too high. Those bills could be a lot higher if a controversial new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed new on existing coal, natural gas, and oil-fired power plants goes into effect. On Thursday, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall signed a 21-state coalition letter opposing the new EPA proposed rule. The controversial EPA proposal, Marshall claims unlawfully, attempts to use a narrow regulatory provision in the Clean Air Act to force existing power plants into retirement en masse. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the EPA in a similar scheme just last year in the West Virginia v. EPA decision. “Just as our coalition was successful before the Supreme Court, this letter reminds the EPA that its authority is subject to authorization from Congress,” said Marshall. “As the last line of defense, I will continue to combat these out-of-control agencies who set illegal standards that will lead to devastating economic consequences for our great state.” The letter explains how the authors believe the EPA’s proposal violates the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision. They claim that Congress has not given the EPA statutory authorization to remake the electricity grids. In its latest proposal, the EPA tries to sidestep that decision by forcing a massive shift in electricity production indirectly: by setting standards reliant on theoretical technology that, as it exists today, cannot be used by the regulated power plants to meet the criteria. The result is intended: the plants will close, and the nation’s electrical grid will be transformed without Congress’s input or State involvement in the regulatory process, both of which the Clean Air Act requires. Nationwide, nearly 30 million American households struggle to pay their energy bills and qualify for federal subsidies for impoverished people. According to the latest, preliminary federal data, less than 3% receive it for their summer bills because supply is less than the demand for the program. In May, EPA proposed new regulations for power plants’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, like carbon dioxide. Under the new rules, coal- and gas-fired plants that wanted to stay open would have to lower their GHG output by 90 percent within the next decade or otherwise switch to alternative forms of energy production. The rules are part of President Biden’s pledge “to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.” The U.S. electric industry has told the EPA that its rules are counterproductive and based on unproven technology. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is a trade association that “represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies,” providing “electricity for nearly 250 million Americans” across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Tom Kuhn is the EEI President and CEO. “EEI and our member companies support regulations for GHG emissions,” Kuhn said. “We share EPA’s long-term clean energy vision for our sector.” Kuhn said EEI member companies had significantly lowered their carbon outputs below 2005 levels “not because they are forced to by federal regulation, but instead because they are committed to delivering resilient clean energy to their customers.” The EEI expressed concerns that complying with the new rules would be difficult. “Electric companies are not confident that the new technologies EPA has designated to serve as the basis for proposed standards for new and existing fossil-based generation will satisfy performance and cost requirements on the timelines that EPA projects,” the EEI said. “This will impact electric companies’ efforts to deliver affordable and reliable electricity to customers.” It is estimated that the new rules will cost consumers over $900 million in additional electricity costs by 2030 and, if implemented, will make the U.S. electric grid less reliable. The EPA and the Biden Administration insist that the new rules are needed to fight climate change. Attorney General Marshall joined attorneys general from Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia in the West Virginia-led letter. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Terri Sewell announces $52 million in EPA funding to expand access to clean drinking water
Congresswoman Terri Sewell announced that the State of Alabama will receive $52,638,000 in federal grant dollars from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address emerging contaminants in drinking water. This funding was made possible by the Biden Administration’s Build Back Better Infrastructure Act. This is part of the EPA’s Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities (EC-SDC) Grant Program, designed to promote access to safe and clean water in small, rural, and disadvantaged communities. “I am thrilled that the Environmental Protection Agency is providing over $52 million to Alabama communities to expand access to clean water in our rural and underserved communities,” said Rep. Sewell. “I am proud to be the only member of the Alabama Congressional Delegation to vote in favor of President [Joe] Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law because grant programs like this will make a world of difference in the lives of Alabamians. Every American deserves access to safe and clean water, and this investment is a transformative step forward.” Specifically, there is a concern by the federal government that there may be excessive Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water across Alabama. It is possible that ingesting PFAS could cause increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzymes, hormone disruption and increased risk for thyroid disease, decreased odds of women becoming pregnant, and/or high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. The infrastructure bill invests $5 billion over five years to help communities reduce PFAS in drinking water. EPA announced that the funds are part of an allotment of $2 billion to states and territories that can be used to prioritize infrastructure and source water treatment for pollutants like PFAS and other emerging contaminants and to conduct water quality testing. “EPA’s Emerging Contaminants Grant Program is a solid community investment for the Southeast region,” said EPA Region 4 Administrator Daniel Blackman. “The expansion of safe and clean water access to small, rural, and disadvantaged communities is crucial to the protection of human health and the environment.” EPA is also releasing the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Implementation document. The implementation document provides states and communities with the information necessary to use this funding to address local water quality and public health challenges. These grants will enable communities to improve local water infrastructure and reduce emerging contaminants in drinking water by implementing solutions such as installing necessary treatment solutions. In addition to this new grant, EPA is also working to propose a PFAS NPDWR in the coming weeks. The draft proposed rule is currently undergoing interagency review, and EPA will issue the proposed rule for public comment when it clears the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The agency anticipates finalizing the rule by the end of 2023. The infrastructure bill, the American Rescue Plan Act and the 2023 omnibus spending bill passed in December all have new funds to address water systems. Access to clean drinking water has been an issue in many communities in rural Alabama, including in the Black Belt. Terri Sewell is in her seventh term representing Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Solar farms in 3 states cited for environmental violations
Four companies that developed solar energy facilities in Alabama, Idaho, and Illinois have agreed to pay a total of $1.3 million for violating construction permits and rules for handling groundwater, authorities said Monday. A statement by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency said the companies used a common construction contractor. In each case, the government alleged companies failed to take steps to control runoff water. In Alabama and Idaho, sediment from construction sites got into nearby waterways, the government said. The cases involved AL Solar A LLC, which built a solar farm near LaFayette, Alabama; American Falls Solar LLC, which owned a site near American Falls, Idaho; Prairie State Solar LLC, owner of a development in Perry County, Illinois; and Big River Solar LLC, which had a development in White County, Illinois, according to the statement. The solar farm owners are all subsidiaries of large international companies, the government said. AL Solar will pay $500,000 in civil penalties to state and federal regulators, it said, and American Falls will pay a civil penalty of $416,500 to the federal government. The Illinois sites remain under construction, and officials there have to follow the rules for the remainder of the work. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
EPA civil rights case targets Mississippi over Jackson water
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it is investigating whether Mississippi state agencies discriminated against the state’s majority-Black capital city by refusing to fund improvements for its failing water system. The announcement came days after leaders of two congressional committees said they were starting a joint investigation into a crisis that left most homes and businesses in Jackson without running water for several days in late August and early September. Heavy rainfall in late August exacerbated problems at Jackson’s main water treatment facility. Republican Gov. Tate Reeves declared an emergency August 29, and the state health department and the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency have been overseeing operations and repairs at the facility since then. About 80% of Jackson’s 150,000 residents are Black, and about a quarter of the population lives in poverty. By the time Reeves issued the emergency order, Jackson residents had already been told for a month to boil their water to kill possible contaminants. NAACP President Derrick Johnson, who lives in Jackson with his family, called the EPA investigation a step in the right direction after years of the state withholding federal funds needed to avert the city’s water system. “We believe we gave compelling evidence that the state of Mississippi intentionally starved the city of Jackson of the resources to maintain its water infrastructure,” Johnson told The Associated Press on Thursday. “We want the EPA and this administration to put forth a course of action to prevent the state of Mississippi from ever doing this again.” Johnson was named among several resident complainants in the NAACP’s civil rights complaint against Mississippi. He said the state’s inaction and record of divestment in Jackson amounts to “systemic neglect.” “We believe that all citizens of this country should be entitled to clean, fresh drinking water,” Johnson said. “Unfortunately, we live in a state that is still dealing in racial politics. And as a result of that, you have state leaders who seek to penalize African American residents of the city of Jackson in a very discriminatory way.” Reeves said Thursday that the state took control of Jackson’s water system because of “absolute and total incompetence” of Jackson’s Democratic mayor and administration. The governor’s latest remarks are an escalation of a dispute between him and Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba over whether the state or the city will decide on a private firm to operate Jackson’s water system. ADVERTISEMENT “They have proven that they have no ability to manage the water system,” Reeves told reporters during an event at the Governor’s Mansion, according to a video of the event by WLBT-TV. In a federal complaint on September 27, the NAACP said Mississippi officials “all but assured” a drinking water calamity in Jackson by depriving the state’s majority-Black capital city of badly needed funds to upgrade its infrastructure. The organization asked the EPA to investigate the state’s alleged pattern of steering money to white communities with less need. The group said the state’s refusal to fund improvements in Jackson culminated in late August when the water system suffered a near-total collapse after a heavy rainstorm. Over 25 years, it said, Jackson received funds from an important federal program only three times. When Jackson tried to fund improvements itself, those efforts were repeatedly blocked by Mississippi state political leaders, according to the complaint. The NAACP wants the EPA to make sure that from now on, federal funds are distributed equitably. Reeves said Thursday that the state has bought chemicals and hired workers for the water plant since he declared the emergency after the city failed to do both of those things. The NAACP filed its complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids recipients of federal funds from discriminating based on race or national origin. While previously the law was rarely used to pursue environmental matters, the Biden administration has increased its enforcement efforts in communities overburdened by pollution. Recently, the EPA said it had preliminary evidence that Louisiana state officials allowed air pollution in an industrial stretch of Louisiana to remain high and downplayed the threat to Black residents that live in the industrial section of the state commonly referred to as cancer alley. The agency has also opened up an investigation into Colorado’s air permitting program and into state and local officials in Alabama over chronic wastewater problems in majority-Black Lowndes County. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
In towns plagued by raw sewage, EPA promises relief
When there’s heavy rain, human waste from the pond of sewage across the street from Charlie Mae Holcomb’s home covers her front yard in rural Alabama. She can’t remember how many times she’s had to rip the flooring out of her small brick house because raw sewage backed up out the pipes. Holcomb lives in Hayneville, a community in Lowndes County of fewer than 1,000, where roughly one-third of people live in poverty, and about 85% are Black. The 73-year-old has become an unofficial spokeswoman for people living with poor drainage and disgusting sewage problems that go back generations. “It’s not just mine; it’s almost all the people. They just won’t talk,” said Holcomb. The heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture came to Lowndes County to announce Tuesday a pilot program to help rural communities that face serious sewage problems like those here. Inferior sewage systems allow waste to back up and pool, threatening public health and degrading basic dignity. Federal officials said the new pilot will help 11 communities assess their sewage problems, plan improvements and receive the financial and technical help to make those plans real. In addition to Lowndes County, the effort will help two West Virginia counties and the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona, among other areas. “The America that we all believe in is a land of opportunity. But for historically marginalized communities from Alabama to Alaska, that opportunity is stolen when basic sanitation doesn’t work – exposing adults and children to backyard sewage and disease,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement. More than 2 million people in the U.S. don’t have indoor plumbing, and even more live with inadequate systems for carrying away human waste and stormwater, the agency said. The EPA said places that have been “left behind for far too long” will be the program’s focus. The Biden administration said billions of dollars from the infrastructure law will help provide grants and loans for water improvements, and it wants to expand this help. President Joe Biden said the infrastructure law will help communities that face unacceptable sewage conditions. “This is the United States of America: no one should have raw sewage in their backyards or seeping into their homes,” Biden said. Lowndes County was a lush cotton country where plantation owners got rich off the labor of enslaved Black people before the Civil War; sharecropping ensnared the descendants of the freed slaves in the decades after. The county, where old plantation homes still dot the landscape, became a center of the struggle for voting rights and civil rights in the 1960s. Now, Lowndes is a poor place in a poor state. The same sewage problems have been cropping up ever since Holcomb moved to Pine Street in 1987, and she’s sick of the government’s inaction. “I want them to fix it. I would love to see them move that lagoon. Find somewhere else to put it,” she said. “If you have all the windows down, sometimes it’s just like the sewage system is in your house.” Many residents in the county aren’t connected to a centralized sewer system. Regular septic systems often don’t function properly because the soil is so dense. In some places, sewage stands outside of homes, and the smell of waste permeates the air at times. Native Americans and people of color are particularly likely to live without proper sanitation services, according to a 2019 report by the nonprofit DigDeep. The head of the EPA’s office of water, Radhika Fox, was previously CEO of the U.S. Water Alliance, which worked on the report. She has long focused on inadequate infrastructure. The report said many communities didn’t benefit from the infrastructure investments the U.S. made previously, creating a “hidden water and sanitation crisis.” The problem is a multi-billion dollar burden, the group says. Catherine Flowers, founder of the Center for Rural Enterprise and Environmental Justice, who has focused on how sewage issues disproportionately impact poor, rural areas, said the new pilot program is a big step for people who live in places like Lowndes County. “Hopefully, out of what is getting ready to happen, we’re going to find remedies so these things will not continue to happen,” she said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Gary Palmer applauds SCOTUS decision to limit EPA authority to reduce plant emissions
Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision to limit actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law, The Clean Air Act, can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. Rep. Gary Palmer applauded the decision, arguing that the EPA is abusing its authority. “Today’s Supreme Court decision to rein in the EPA in regard to the agency’s overreach in regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is a long-overdue recognition by the Court that there are limits to the EPA’s authority to legislate through regulation,” Palmer stated. Palmer introduced legislation in 2017 to limit EPA overreach. “Former Rep. John Dingell, the Democrat who helped write the Clean Air Act, stated the EPA was outside of its authority by imposing new rules on greenhouse gas coming from power plants during the Obama Administration. This ruling is consistent with my Stopping EPA Overreach Act I introduced in 2017, which would make it clear the EPA does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and that would reassert the responsibility of Congress to make law.” Palmer concluded, “American families are struggling with inflationary regulatory costs imposed by unelected bureaucrats at the EPA and other federal agencies. Americans didn’t elect the bureaucrats at the EPA to issue inflationary regulations that destroy jobs, increase energy prices and drive up the cost of living. I am grateful for the Supreme Court’s decision reining in the EPA’s overreach.” President Joe Biden called the ruling “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he would “not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.”
Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions
In a blow to the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court on Thursday limited how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The decision, said environmental advocates and dissenting liberal justices, was a major step in the wrong direction — “a gut punch,” one prominent meteorologist said — at a time of increasing environmental damage attributable to climate change amid dire warnings about the future. The court’s ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change. Its detailed proposal to regulate power plant emissions is expected by the end of the year. Though the decision was specific to the EPA, it was in line with the conservative majority’s skepticism of the power of regulatory agencies, and it sent a message on possible future effects beyond climate change and air pollution. The decision put an exclamation point on a court term in which a conservative majority, bolstered by three appointees of former President Donald Trump, also overturned the nearly 50-year-old nationwide right to abortion, expanded gun rights, and issued major religious rights rulings, all over liberal dissents. President Joe Biden aims to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and to have an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Power plants account for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide output. “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court. But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject. “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.” Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. She said, “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.” Biden, in a statement, called the ruling “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he would “not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.” And EPA head Michael Regan said his agency will move forward with a rule to impose environmental standards on the energy sector. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the legal challenge to EPA authority, said the “EPA can no longer sidestep Congress to exercise broad regulatory power that would radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally shift their energy portfolios away from coal-fired generation.” But University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd, a past president of the American Meteorological Society, said of the decision: “It feels like a gut punch to critical efforts to combat the climate crisis which has the potential to place lives at risk for decades to come.” Richard Revesz, an environmental expert at the New York University School of Law, called the decision “a significant setback for environmental protection and public health safeguards.” But he also said in a statement that EPA still has authority to address greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. EPA Administrator Regan said the agency “will move forward with lawfully setting and implementing environmental standards that meet our obligation to protect all people and all communities from environmental harm.” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the consequences of Thursday’s decision “will ripple across the entire federal government, from the regulation of food and drugs to our nation’s health care system, all of which will put American lives at risk.” The court held that Congress must speak with specificity when it wants to give an agency authority to regulate on an issue of major national significance. Several conservative justices have criticized what they see as the unchecked power of federal agencies. Those concerns were evident in the court’s orders throwing out two Biden administration policies aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ended a pause on evictions over unpaid rent. In January, the same six justices blocked a requirement that workers at large employers be vaccinated or test regularly and wear a mask on the job. Underlying all these issues is a lack of action from Congress, reflecting bitter, partisan disagreements over the role of the federal government. On the environment, Biden’s signature plan to address climate, a sweeping social and environmental policy bill known as Build Back Better, is all but dead amid united opposition from congressional Republicans and conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin from coal state West Virginia. Under a trimmed-down version, the legislation backed by Democrats would offer tax credits and spending to boost renewable power such as wind and solar and sharply increase the number of electric vehicles. The justices heard arguments in the case on the same day that a United Nations panel’s report warned that the effects of climate change are about to get much worse, likely making the world sicker, hungrier, poorer, and more dangerous in the coming years. The power plant case has a long and complicated history that begins with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. That plan would have required states to reduce emissions from the generation of electricity, mainly by shifting away from coal-fired plants. But that plan never took effect. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, with conservatives
Daniel Sutter: Identifying What Ails Us
This year has seen high-profile litigation involving different products and carcinogens.
Shutdown suspends federal cleanups at Birmingham, other Superfund sites
The government shutdown has suspended federal cleanups at Superfund sites around the nation and forced the cancellation of public hearings, deepening the mistrust and resentment of surrounding residents who feel people in power long ago abandoned them to live among the toxic residue of the country’s factories and mines. “We are already hurting, and it’s just adding more fuel to the fire,” says 40-year-old Keisha Brown, whose wood-frame home is in a community nestled among coking plants and other factories on Birmingham’s north side. The mostly African-American community has been forced to cope with high levels of arsenic, lead and other contaminants in the soil that the Environmental Protection Agency has been scraping up and carting away, house by house. As President Donald Trump and Congress battle over Trump’s demand for a wall on the southern U.S. border, the nearly 3-week-old partial government shutdown has stopped federal work on Superfund sites except for cases where the administration deems “there is an imminent threat to the safety of human life or to the protection of property.” EPA’s shutdown plans said the agency would evaluate about 800 Superfund sites to see how many could pose an immediate threat. As an example of that kind of threat, it cited an acid leak from a mine that could threaten the public water supply. That’s the hazard at Northern California’s Iron Mountain mine, where EPA workers help prevent an unending flow of lethally acidic runoff off the Superfund site from spilling into rivers downstream. Practically speaking, said Bonnie Bellow, a former EPA official who worked on Superfund public outreach at the agency, the impact of the stoppage of work at sites across the nation “wholly depends” on the length of the shutdown. “Unless there is immediate risk like a storm, a flood, a week or two of slowdowns is not going to very likely affect the cleanup at the site,” Bellow said. In north Birmingham, Brown said it’s been a couple of weeks since she’s spotted any EPA crews at people’s houses. It wasn’t clear if state workers or contractors were continuing work. But long before the shutdown began, Brown harbored doubts the cleanup was working anyway. “My main concern is the health of the people out here,” said Brown, who has asthma. “All of us are sick, and we’ve got to function on medicine every day.” In terms of time, the federal government shutdown is a chronological blip in the long history of the site — which includes ethics charges in a local bribery scandal to block federal cleanup efforts — but adds to the uncertainty in an area where residents feel forgotten and betrayed. At the EPA, the shutdown has furloughed the bulk of the agency’s roughly 14,000 employees. It also means the EPA isn’t getting most of the daily stream of environmental questions and tips from the public. Routine inspections aren’t happening. State, local and private emails to EPA officials often get automated messages back promising a response when the shutdown ends. In Montana, for instance, state officials this month found themselves fielding calls from a tribal member worried about drinking water with a funny look to it, said Kristi Ponozzo, public-policy director at that state’s Department of Environmental Quality. The EPA normally provides tribes with technical assistance on water supplies. With most EPA colleagues idled, Ponozzo said, her agency also had to call off an environmental review meeting for a mining project, potentially delaying the project. But it’s the agency’s work at Superfund sites — lessening the threat from old nuclear-weapons plants, chemical factories, mines and other entities — that gets much of the attention. Absent imminent peril, it would be up to state governments or contractors to continue any cleanup during the shutdown “up to the point that additional EPA direction or funding is needed,” the EPA said in a statement. “Sites where cleanup activities have been stopped or shut down will be secured until cleanup activities are able to commence when the federal government reopens,” the agency said. For federal Superfund sites in Michigan, the shutdown means there are no EPA colleagues to consult, said Scott Dean, a spokesman for that state’s Department of Environmental Quality. At Michigan Superfund sites, day-to-day field operations were continuing since private contractors do most of the on-the-ground work, Dean said. Bellow, the former EPA official, said the cancellation of hearings about Superfund sites posed immediate concerns. In East Chicago, Indiana, for example, the EPA called off a planned public hearing set for last Wednesday to outline how the agency planned to clean up high levels of lead and arsenic in the soil. The EPA has proposed a seven-month, $26.5 million cleanup that includes treating and removing tainted soil from the area, where a lead smelter previously was located. During a public meeting Nov. 29, some residents complained that the EPA’s approach would leave too much pollution in place. But others didn’t get a chance to speak and were hoping to do so at the meeting this week, said Debbie Chizewer, a Northwestern University environmental attorney who represents community groups in the low-income area. The EPA announced the cancellation in an online notice and gave no indication that it would be rescheduled. Leaders of the East Chicago Calumet Community Advisory Group asked for a new hearing date and an extension of a Jan. 14 public comment deadline in a letter to the EPA’s regional Superfund division. Calls by The Associated Press to the agency’s regional office in Chicago this week were not answered. Local critics fear the EPA will use the delay caused by the shutdown as justification for pushing ahead with a cleanup strategy they consider flawed, Chizewer said, even though the agency has designated the affected area as an “environmental justice community” — a low-income community of color that has been disproportionately harmed by pollution. The EPA has a “special obligation” when dealing with such communities, Chizewer said. “This would be an example of shutting them out for no good reason.”
What they’re saying: Alabama reactions to Trump’s new water proposal
When President Donald Trump took office, he began a process to remove and replace what he deemed to be regulatory burdens put in place by the Obama Administration. One of those rules he endeavored to change was Obama Administration’s 2015 Waters of the United States rule and on Tuesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army presented a new proposal to do just that. Under the proposal, federally regulated areas include traditional navigable waters, tributaries to those waters, some ditches, certain lakes and ponds, impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters. The proposal also details non-waters of the U.S., such as areas that only contain water during or in response to rainfall; many ditches, including most roadside or farm ditches; prior converted cropland; stormwater control features; and waste treatment systems. “Our proposal would replace the Obama EPA’s 2015 definition with one that respects the limits of the Clean Water Act and provides states and landowners the certainty they need to manage their natural resources and grow local economies,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “For the first time, we are clearly defining the difference between federally protected waterways and state protected waterways. Our simpler and clearer definition would help landowners understand whether a project on their property will require a federal permit or not, without spending thousands of dollars on engineering and legal professionals.” The agencies’ proposal is the second step in a two-step process to review and revise the definition of “waters of the United States” consistent with President Trump’s February 2017 Executive Order entitled “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” The Executive Order states that it is in the national interest to ensure that the nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of Congress and the states under the Constitution. Here’s what Alabama politicians and groups are saying about the proposed rule: Attorney General Steve Marshall: I applaud the Environmental Protection Agency for the release of a commonsense approach to the protection of America’s waterways. The new EPA Waters of the United States definition clearly delineates whether a waterway is covered by the federal government, thus simplifying the process for landowners in seeking permits for use of their property. This new definition will be especially welcome to our farmers, timberland owners and others who use land for commercial purposes and who were unfairly targeted under the old Obama administration Waters of the United States rule. Alabama Farmers Federation President Jimmy Parnell: The proposed rule is good news for Alabama farmers and restores common sense to Clean Water Act enforcement. For several years, farmers, businesses and homeowners have lived under the threat of government intrusion and costly penalties due to overaggressive actions of the Obama-era EPA. We appreciate the Trump administration, current EPA administration, Alabama’s congressional delegation and our state attorneys general for standing by farmers and landowners as we’ve fought back against the WOTUS rule. Alabama Agriculture Commissioner John McMillan: This user-friendly amendment will restore landowners rights. The prior rule greatly expanded Washington’s control over local land use. These necessary changes will assist landowners in understanding whether a project needs federal permits, thus saving our producers both time and money. Alabama Rivers Alliance: BREAKING: The Trump Administration just dropped a rule aiming to gut clean water protections which have been in place for generations. Alabama 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne: Farmers who depend on the land and fresh water to do their jobs deserve policies that protect our environment without placing burdensome and confusing requirements on them. I applaud the Trump Administration for rolling out this new rule. As Alabama Farmers Federation President Jimmy Parnell said: this rule “restores common sense to Clean Water Act enforcement. *This article will be updated as more reactions come in.
