Minnesota may add climate impacts to environmental review:
“Large projects in Minnesota — from new highways to industrial plants to big housing developments — are required to go through an environmental review that examines the project’s
potential risks to the land, air, water and wildlife. But despite widespread concern over rising global temperatures, proposers haven’t typically been required to examine a project’s contributions — and resiliency — to climate change: How many greenhouse gases
will a proposed asphalt plant or hog feedlot release into the atmosphere? How might a new highway or wastewater treatment plant withstand the effects of heavier rainfalls and higher temperatures? Now, several state agencies are recommending significant changes
to Minnesota's environmental review program that would require proposers to add up their project’s carbon footprint — and consider ways to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change. The state Legislature passed the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act,
which created the review process, nearly 50 years ago. At the time, the state’s environmental priorities were different than they are today. "Climate change wasn't on people's radar. That wasn't a big priority issue,” said Katie Pratt, executive director of
the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, which oversees the state's review program. Pratt said since the 1970s, people’s priorities have shifted, and now the board, made up of state agency leaders and citizens, frequently hears from Minnesotans who are
concerned about the impact climate change will have on the state. “They're really looking to their governments, to state governments and other entities and institutions to say, ‘What are our tools here? What can we do about this issue?’ she said.”
[Minnesota Public Radio, 3/22/21]
http://bit.ly/3lIAYVt
Ariz. governor urges USDA to complete copper mine land swap: “Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R)
asked the Department of Agriculture last week to reverse its decision to freeze a land swap with copper miners in the state. USDA suspended a land exchange earlier this month that would give 2,422 acres in the Tonto National Forest to mining companies Rio
Tinto PLC and BHP Group Ltd. Oak Flat, the land in question, is sacred to the San Carlos Apaches and other Native American tribes. The two Anglo-Australian mining firms want to mine copper beneath it. Ducey said in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack
that the "unprecedented retroactive step" of revoking the Resolution Copper mine's environmental review would hold back Arizona's economy. "Discretionary retroactive decisions such as this one will cast a shadow on any large infrastructure project in the state
and create uncertainty for these projects. Such actions cannot continue," Ducey wrote in the March 16 letter. Mila Besich, the mayor of Superior, Ariz., and other local officials have also asked the Biden administration to advance the land exchange, which
Congress mandated in 2014. Rio and BHP would give 5,344 acres in Arizona to the federal government to be conserved. The San Carlos Apache Tribe is against the land swap. Mining at Oak Flat would mean creating a nearly 2-mile-wide crater at the holy site, where
many Apaches go to pray and hold ceremonies. The tribe, a coalition of conservation groups and the nonprofit Apache Stronghold have each sued to stop the exchange.”
[E&E News, 3/22/21]
http://bit.ly/3tNTz5k
Bill would increase burden of proof for eminent domain: “Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
of New Jersey introduced legislation last week to make it harder for natural gas companies to take private land through eminent domain. The bill, H.R. 2115, would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which permits large-scale natural gas infrastructure,
to increase the burden of proof for companies to demonstrate a proposed project is in the public interest. Currently, the independent agency grants certificates of public convenience and necessity, which confers eminent domain rights, to companies that have
contracts with buyers. Critics have questioned whether contracts, especially those between a company and a subsidiary of that company, adequately demonstrate that a project is essential enough to justify taking private property to construct it. Gas companies
have defended the practice, saying they work collaboratively with landowners to ensure mutual respect and adequate compensation. Watson Coleman has been an outspoken critic of the practice. She, along with Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), has urged the Biden
administration to reverse course on the PennEast pipeline's ability to take land owned by the state of New Jersey. The case is pending before the Supreme Court. "[T]he Eleventh Amendment expressly bars private companies, like PennEast, from condemning state-owned
land for their own private use," the lawmakers said in a statement. "New Jerseyans should not have to live in fear that their land will be taken and irrevocably altered to make way for a pipeline project that our state doesn't want or need.’”
[E&E News, 3/23/21]
http://bit.ly/3cW0nHy
Lawsuit: BLM approval of Calif. oil leases violated NEPA: “The Center for Biological Diversity
is leading a new lawsuit this week challenging the Bureau of Land Management's approval of an oil and gas lease sale in Kern County, Calif. The challengers are opposing what they call the federal agency's "hasty decision" under President Trump to sell the
fossil fuel leases on public lands for the first time in 10 years. BLM's decision to lease the seven parcels covering 4,133 acres did not include an adequate analysis of how development would affect the environment and local communities as required under the
National Environmental Policy Act, they said. "Because the agency failed to take a hard look at reasonably foreseeable impacts from the sale to air quality, climate, precious water resources, species, and the health and safety of local communities, the sale
is unlawful and should be vacated," they wrote in their complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club joined the lawsuit. Among the groups' concerns are that the leases will exacerbate
poor air quality in the county, which is one of the largest oil and gas production regions in the state. Opponents of the leases also warn that fracking could harm limited groundwater supplies in the area. The groups are asking the district court to toss out
the leases authorized by last year's sale and overturn the agency's underlying environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact supporting the decision.”
[E&E News, 3/23/21]
http://bit.ly/3d39eac
Can Dallas Learn Anything From the Feds Intervening in Houston’s I-45 Expansion?: “Something
interesting is happening in Houston. The Texas Department of Transportation wants to spend $7 billion expanding and re-routing Interstate 45 around downtown and points north. According to the Houston Chronicle, the 25-mile project would require seizing land
that contains housing for about 1,000 mostly Black, Brown, and low-income Houstonians. It would also eliminate businesses that collectively employ about 25,000 people. Harris County sued TxDOT to stop the project last week, citing violations of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the project, which receives federal funding, would have a disproportionate impact on people of color. The county has also sued the state over the project’s environmental impact, arguing that TxDOT misrepresented the damage
such an expansion would have on the targeted neighborhoods, therefore violating the National Environmental Policy Act. Almost immediately, the Federal Highway Administration wrote the state asking it to pause issuing any requests for contract proposals while
the agency investigates the claims. Streetsblog has the full story right here. Harris County’s concerns are specific to this project. There isn’t a highway overhaul in Dallas that would require such an extreme seizure of land. But it’s alarming that TxDOT
let the project get this far despite significant local opposition, including from Houston’s mayor and the county judge. Dallas’ recent highway projects—namely the planned Interstate 30 overhaul through downtown and East Dallas, as well as the Southern Gateway
Interstate 35 project in Oak Cliff—didn’t require significant property takings through eminent domain, and they seem to at least adhere to the existing highway’s footprint. (A TxDOT spokesman says the state acquired three acres of land for the Southern Gateway
project, which included one residence.)”
[Dbrief Magazine, 3/18/21]
https://bit.ly/3shcMMt
'Big structural change': What greens want on infrastructure: “Environmental groups are calling
for massive spending on an infrastructure package they view as a generational opportunity to address climate change, ramping up pressure on Democrats to deliver on campaign trail promises on clean energy and environmental justice. As Democrats call for bipartisanship
and Republicans demand a narrower and cheaper bill, greens will be warning the new congressional majority against giving in to GOP demands. That tension came to a head yesterday when reports emerged in The New York Times and The Washington Post that White
House aides were working on an ambitious $3 trillion infrastructure legislative effort encompassing climate, taxes and income inequality. The Sunrise Movement said that wasn't enough. Sunrise noted Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
has suggested spending as much as $4 trillion on infrastructure. "At this point, [President] Biden should realize that if his proposal is milder than what Joe Manchin is calling for, it does not go far enough," Sunrise Movement spokesperson Ellen Sciales said
in a statement yesterday. It was a peek into the political forces Democrats face from the left as they begin work on President Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda. Environmentalists see infrastructure as an unprecedented opportunity to address climate change,
juice the clean energy transition and make progress on environmental justice priorities.”
[E&E News, 3/23/21]
http://bit.ly/3lJsIET
Public lands, infrastructure hearings set to turn political: “Rep. Joe Neguse will preside
tomorrow over his first hearing as the new chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. The hearing — "Building Back Better: Examining the Future of America's Public Lands" — will explore "the economic potential
of restoring and conserving public lands," along with "police options to mitigate the impacts of climate change on public lands" as well as "how best to repair the damage [of] the Trump administration" with regards to federal conservation policy. "Public lands
are responsible for nearly 25 percent of U.S. carbon emissions from 2005-2014. Climate-driven impacts continue to devastate public lands and public land communities, with increasing wildfires, droughts, floods, and extreme weather," according to the official
hearing announcement. "As Congress and the Biden administration begin to shape a potential multi-trillion-dollar economic revitalization package," the announcement continues, "the question of how best to use public lands to our economic and environmental benefit
is more timely than ever." The conversation will take place in the context of an ongoing political and partisan disagreement over the use of public lands in relation to oil and gas drilling and construction of pipelines. Within President Biden's first week
in office, he had halted construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and froze new leasing permits on oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters. The Interior Department will, on Thursday, convene a virtual public forum to discuss the future of the federal
leasing program.”
[E&E News, 3/23/21]
https://bit.ly/316SvNO
Lawsuit: Mount St. Helens road project could damage research sites: “Several scientists
and conservationists are suing the U.S. Forest Service with the intention of stopping a plan to build a road through the blast zone of the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. The groups filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in U.S.
District Court in Tacoma, Washington on Monday. They claim the U.S. Forest Service is violating the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The U.S. Forest Service says it plans to build the road through the Pumice Plain of
the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument so it can bring in equipment to replace the original intake gate at Spirit Lake Tunnel and conduct geotechnical drilling to determine if the conditions are safe enough for possible future alternate outflow systems
to control the water levels in Spirit Lake. The road would allow them to bring in necessary equipment. Susan Jane Brown, an attorney with The Western Environmental Law Center, is representing the plaintiffs in the case: Cascade Forest Conservancy, Great Old
Broads for Wilderness, Washington Native Plant Society, Sierra Club, Dr. John Bishop, Dr. James E. Gawel, and Susan Saul. Brown said her clients recognize that there is a long-term public health and safety need to investigate the Spirit Lake outflow, but want
the Forest Service to take a more comprehensive approach. “For researchers to get so upset that they’re willing to file a lawsuit, that’s pretty amazing and I think it really does demonstrate the severity and significance of this project,” Brown said.”
[KOIN, 3/22/21]
http://bit.ly/2P3segN
Justin McCarthy
He/Him/His
Director, NEPA Campaign
The Partnership Project
C: 540-312-3797
E: jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org
The Partnership Project, a registered 501 (c) (3) non-profit, is a collaborative effort of over 20 of the country’s most influential advocacy organizations, including Sierra Club, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural
Resources Defense Council.