Clean Water Act & WOTUS

 

Mich. Bows Out Of WOTUS Litigation. According to E&E News, “Michigan is pulling out of litigation targeting the Obama-era Clean Water Rule. Dana Nessel, the state’s new Democratic attorney general, informed an Ohio federal court today that the Wolverine State will no longer challenge the regulation, also known as the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule. Michigan had been part of a coalition of mostly Republican-led states that sued over the joint EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regulation in 2015. The rule, which is in effect in Michigan and 21 other states, aimed to clarify which wetlands and waterways are subject to federal oversight. The Trump administration is working on a replacement version that would exclude more water from Clean Water Act protections. The Midwestern state has been extracting itself from several environmental cases since Nessel became attorney general in January. Michigan has also exited legal challenges to several Obama-era air regulations, and it left a coalition of states siding with Exxon Mobil Corp. in a climate-related investigation. ‘The safety of our air and water and the deep concerns with climate change are compelling reasons for us to withdraw from this case,’ she said about the Exxon case (Climatewire, Feb. 8). The conservative states in the WOTUS case have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio to blocked the Obama standards where they’re still in effect.” [E&E News, 3/13/19 (=)]

 

Montana Ag Network: Agriculture Working To Keep Water Clean And Ranchers In Business. According to KTVQ, “Farmers and ranchers are dependent on water to grow food and fiber. That’s why agriculture groups are working with others with diverse backgrounds to keep America’s waters healthy for everyone to enjoy. In recent years, government regulations created concern for agriculturalists and landowners. One regulation was the 2015 Waters of the U.S. Rule (WOTUS), which would have expanded the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. WOTUS was opposed by agriculture groups because of its vagueness on what waters fell under the rule. The Trump Administration’s EPA heard agriculture’s call for a common-sense approach to regulatory reform under the Clean Water Act that all could understand and follow. Scot Yager is chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Yager says though it has been a long road, WOTUS is in the homestretch. ‘We have the potential to have a good outcome for cattle producers across the country,’ said Yager. ‘Currently, the replacement WOTUS rule is in an open comment period, and that replacement rule is basically what is going to replace the disastrous and illegal 2015 WOTUS Rule.’” [KTVQ, 3/13/19 (=)]

 

Op-Ed: Clean Water Can’t Wait Any Longer. According to The Middletown Press, “The 1972 passage of the federal Clean Water Act put forward strong and ambitious goals for our waters. For the over four decades since the public has been patiently investing their taxes and utility rates to once again make our rivers clean, healthy and full of life. Among the work required by this landmark law was the upgrading of our sewage and storm water infrastructure. This work is expensive and takes time. And while we have made tremendous progress and seen the ecological, public health and economic benefits, there is still much to do. Every year as a result of rainfall over a billion gallons of untreated sewage mixed with polluted rainwater from combined sewers spills into the Connecticut River and its tributaries. The Hartford area’s water and wastewater utility, the Metropolitan District Commission, is responsible for discharging up to 800 million of those gallons. Year-in and year-out. In 1994 after 4 million gallons of raw sewage discharged into Wethersfield Cove, the state required the MDC to begin upgrading its 150-year-old sewer system. And then in 2006 thanks to a citizen lawsuit dissatisfied with progress, the DEP stepped in to require more robust and long-term improvements that would eventually reduce these overflow discharges to zero in a typical year of rainfall. That plan — now called the Clean Water Project — set out a 23-year series of improvements that will ultimately cost $2.5 billion. And the MDC has made significant strides in implementing this mandatory plan, including creating a 4-mile long storage tunnel located over 225 feet underground that will store over 41.5 million gallons of wastewater in order to prevent it from just overflowing into the river.” [The Middletown Press, 3/13/19 (+)]

 

PFAS

 

Pentagon Pushes For Weaker Standards On Chemicals Contaminating Drinking Water. According to The New York Times, “Facing billions of dollars in cleanup costs, the Pentagon is pushing the Trump administration to adopt a weaker standard for groundwater pollution caused by chemicals that have commonly been used at military bases and that contaminate drinking water consumed by millions of Americans. The Pentagon’s position pits it against the Environmental Protection Agency, which is seeking White House signoff for standards that would most likely require expensive cleanup programs at scores of military bases, as well as at NASA launch sites, airports and some manufacturing facilities. Despite its deregulatory record under President Trump, the E.P.A. has been seeking to stick with a tougher standard for the presence of the chemicals in question in the face of the pressure from the military to adopt a far looser framework. How the administration resolves the fight has potentially enormous consequences for how the United States is going to confront what a top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called ‘one of the most seminal public health challenges’ of the coming decades. An estimated five million to 10 million people in the country may be drinking water laced with high levels of the chemicals — known as Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or highly fluorinated chemicals — including thousands of people who live near military bases in states including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.” [The New York Times, 3/14/19 (+)]

 

Bill Spotlight. According to Politico, “Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz and Tonko introduced the Scientific Integrity Act in both chambers on Wednesday. The measure would protect public scientific research and reports from political and special interests by requiring agencies to establish and maintain clear scientific integrity principles. The pair said in a statement that ‘Trump has built a track record of distorting or suppressing science,’ citing ‘buried reports’ on PFAS chemicals as an example.” [Politico, 3/14/19 (=)]

 

Coal Ash

 

Cleanup Extension Remains In Place. According to E&E News, “The Trump administration and utility industry won a victory today as a federal appellate court opted against scrapping an extension to the original deadline for closing some coal ash dumps. In a brief order, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to leave the extension in place as EPA works on addressing the court’s ruling last August that the agency’s 2015 coal ash disposal regulations were flawed in part because they allowed unlined storage ponds to stay open indefinitely absent evidence of unsafe groundwater contamination. But shortly before that ruling, EPA had amended the regulations to give power producers until late 2020 to begin closing or retrofitting unlined ponds that lead to violations of groundwater standards. Under the original rules, producers had just six months. In a January filing, attorneys for Waterkeeper Alliance and five other environmental groups called the extension unlawful and urged the court to vacate it immediately. Power companies, backed by the administration, argued that a tighter schedule would force some plants to halt operations because they use the ponds to store other wastes besides coal ash and would need time to find alternatives. In today’s order, the three-judge panel agreed the consequences would be ‘disruptive’ and voiced confidence that EPA would move expeditiously to address the issue in working to fix the problems flagged in the court’s ruling from last summer.” [E&E News, 3/13/19 (=)]

 

Report: Unsafe Coal Ash Contamination Found In North Dakota Groundwater. According to The Bismarck Tribune, “Unsafe contamination from coal ash disposal sites at half a dozen power plants in western North Dakota has seeped into groundwater sources, according to a report from an environmental group. The Environmental Integrity Project collected industry monitoring data for its nationwide report, which found that six of seven coal-fired power plants in North Dakota leaked contamination into groundwater sources at levels exceeding those deemed safe — in one case, by a factor of 100. But state health officials and representatives of the utilities that run the coal-fired power plants say none of North Dakota’s ash disposal sites fail to comply with standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The report appears not to have used the requirement of logging ‘statistically significant increases’ that the EPA uses to determine whether higher monitoring readings reflect pollution or high background levels that occur naturally, said Chuck Hyatt, director of the waste management division of the North Dakota Department of Health. ‘Their methodology is significantly different than the methodology that the EPA recommends in its CCR rule,’ which governs disposal of coal combustion residuals, including ash, he said.” [The Bismarck Tribune, 3/13/19 (=)]

 

Confronting Puerto Rico’s Coal-Ash Crisis. According to The Nation, “Since 2002, when AES’s coal-fired electricity plant was opened under the auspices of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, AES has been littering the territory with poisonous coal ash waste. Over the past 17 years, the Virginia-based company, which produces 17 percent of the territory’s electricity, is responsible for roughly 400,000 documented tons of coal ash, dumped without adequate safeguards, exposing local communities to major public-health hazards. According to investigations by the local media outlet Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (CPI), there is significant evidence of a ‘cancer epidemic’ in the areas exposed to the coal ash, as well as respiratory diseases. Studies commissioned by the company have further revealed that because the plant has not been equipped with protective barriers, the toxic residues of the plant have leached into the soil and contaminated groundwater with toxins like arsenic and mercury. In addition, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (Junta de Calidad Ambiental ) allowed the company to dump over 2 million tons of the toxic ash in 12 municipalities across the territory from 2004 to 2011, also without structural safeguards. As CPI explains, the environmental dangers are deeply ingrained in the local landscape—not only because there are virtually no protections against ongoing contamination through rain and runoff, but because the pollution was literally engineered into the infrastructure of the impacted communities, ‘as landfill in residential and commercial projects, as well as roads and water retention ponds.’ A further 1 million tons of coal ash is simply unaccounted for. Environmental watchdogs have warned that Hurricane Maria aggravated the public-health crisis by churning up contaminants. [Disclosure: The author is an adjunct professor at City University of New York, which is part of the SUNY system.]” [The Nation, 3/14/19 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Consider Coal Ash Alternatives. According to The Virginian-Pilot, “COAL-FUELED power plants resulted in huge ash piles that are now a major environmental headache for Dominion Energy as it seeks to meet state and EPA requirements to close these stockpiles and the ash ponds that are associated with them. The Pilot’s Editorial Board favors recycling as much of the ash as possible, and then transporting the remainder to lined, ‘secure’ landfills. No one can argue with the goal of recycling or reuse of as much of this material as possible and the EPA has acquiesced to the use of coal ash if encapsulated in concrete and other building materials. It will require a considerable long-term commitment to remove the ash through safe and proven recycling practices. In evaluating alternatives for environmental impact, the goal is to choose the least damaging alternative. The solution must look not only to cost, but to sustainability and limiting further impacts to the environment, perhaps even constructive opportunities. The carbon footprint of excavating, loading, transporting, unloading and putting in landfills the millions of tons coal ash will be enormous. The consistency of coal ash complicates the hauling process, since it should not become airborne or substantially wet during transport. It will consume valuable landfill capacity or require newly constructed landfills.” [The Virginian-Pilot, 3/13/19 (+)]

 

Toxic Algae

 

Who’s To Blame For Florida’s Toxic Algae? Democrats, Republicans, Independents Disagree. According to WMFE, “Who is to blame for Florida’s toxic algae? A University of Florida survey on last year’s crisis shows the answer is different for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The survey found that Democrats were 80 percent more likely to blame state government, and Independents were 40 percent more likely to blame state leaders. UF environmental engineering professor David Kaplan, who worked on the survey, says respondents also blamed agricultural producers. The federal government, Florida residents and tourists shouldered the least blame. ‘Whether it’s about the way you manage your own lawn or the decisions you make at the polling booth, we all have a roll to play in mitigating these in the future.’ Only half of respondents described themselves as knowledgeable about the toxic blooms. More than 400 respondents participated in the telephone survey in December.” [WMFE, 3/13/19 (=)]

 

Misc. Waterways

 

Reclamation Drought Plan Would Nix Environmental Reviews. According to E&E News, “As the Trump administration moves toward a drought contingency plan for the Colorado River, the Bureau of Reclamation is pushing legislation that would exempt its work from environmental reviews. That includes potential impacts on what has emerged as a major sticking point in the drought negotiations: Southern California’s Salton Sea, a public health and ecological disaster. Draft legislation obtained by E&E News would authorize the Interior secretary to implement the drought plan ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law’ and ‘without delay.’ ‘When you combine those two phrases together, you are essentially trying to override laws to say it doesn’t matter what other laws say, you shall do ‘X,’ said Kim Delfino, an attorney with Defenders of Wildlife. Reclamation has sought to attach the authorizing language for the drought contingency plan, or DCP, to at least one bill that Congress passed. The language has raised red flags at the Imperial Irrigation District. IID is California’s largest Colorado River water user, accounting for more than half of California’s 4.4 million-acre-foot Colorado River allocation. (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, as much as three Los Angeles families use in a year.)” [E&E News, 3/13/19 (=)]

 

5 Governors Oppose Trump Plan To Cut Cleanup Spending. According to E&E News, “Governors of five states oppose President Trump’s call for a 90 percent spending cut for a Great Lakes cleanup program. The president’s 2020 budget proposal offers $30 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which gets $300 million most years (Greenwire, March 11). It removes toxic pollution, prevents algae blooms and species invasions, and restores wildlife habitat. The governors said today the cut would cost jobs, hurt tourism and jeopardize public health. They urged Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, a former Indiana governor, to fully fund the program. Issuing the statement were Democratic Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Tony Evers of Wisconsin, Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, along with Republican Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio. The Trump administration has said state and local governments should fund the program. The budget proposal also calls for spending $75.3 million toward construction of a new Great Lakes shipping lock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.” [E&E News, 3/13/19 (=)]

 

 

Please do not respond to this email.

If you have questions or comments please contact mitch@beehivedc.com