Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 2/15/2016
-
Fixing Our Broken Water Systems
Feb 14, 2016 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
Underneath America’s streets lies a network of pipes that is supposed to bring clean water into homes, schools and businesses. -
NYC-Area Waters Are Packed with Plastics -- Study
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
There are at least 165 million plastic particles traveling through New York Harbor and neighboring waters at any given time, the NY/NJ Baykeeper environmental group found in a new report. -
Only One CSB Imperial Sugar Recommendation Still Open
Feb 15, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety
Eight years after dust-related explosions ripped through an Imperial Sugar Company refinery in Port Wentworth, Ga., on Feb. 7, killing 14 people and injuring 38 others, only one of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board's... -
As Fossil Fuel Industry Staggers, a Massive Gas Pipeline Project Endures in Texas
Feb 15, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Dahr Jamail
The oil and gas industry is in a state of free fall. With prices for both commodities lower then they have been in years, oil companies are cutting jobs and many major drilling projects across the United States... -
How Scalia Reshaped Environmental Law
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Justice Antonin Scalia had a monumental impact on environmental law. -
Methane Leaks: Major Distraction, Minor Ill
Feb 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Letters to the Editor
In his Feb. 4 op-ed “Fixing the Methane Leaks That Deflate Natural-Gas Gains,” Fred Krupp rightfully calls for further reduction of methane leakage. However, he overlooks the major progress... -
Dems Offer Bill to Help Poor Families Pay Utility Bills
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A coalition of Ohio and Michigan Democrats unveiled legislation last week to help poor families pay for water and sewer bills. -
Rebuilding Trust After Flint: What About the Water in Your City?
Feb 15, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Daniel Moss
With the unfolding horror of Flint's water crisis, filling a glass of tap water suddenly feels risky. -
Portland Air Pollution is an Emergency, Lawmakers Tell EPA
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
As state regulators have said little about Portland, Ore.'s cancer-causing air pollution, Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, all Democrats, called on U.S. EPA to take action...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
Fixing Our Broken Water Systems
Feb 14, 2016 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
Underneath America’s streets lies a network of pipes that is supposed to bring clean water into homes, schools and businesses. But the news of lead poisoning in Flint, Mich., and the emergence of similar problems in Sebring, Ohio, and other cities have revealed a shocking truth: Some of these systems are so old and poorly maintained that they have become a major hazard to human health.
It is clear why America’s water systems are failing. The country has invested far too little in its public works, as governments at all levels have become obsessed with cutting spending. The Environmental Protection Agencyestimates that the country needs to spend $384 billion by 2030 to continue providing clean drinking water to all Americans. The American Water Works Association, which represents public water utilities, puts the tab at $1 trillion in new spending in the next 25 years.
Lead contamination is a particularly good example of what’s wrong. Although Congress banned lead water pipes in 1986 — three long decades ago — millions of older pipes are still in use, typically as service lines connecting homes to local water systems, and inside homes in pipes and fixtures. That means lead can leach into water even if the water wasn’t contaminated when it entered the system.
Nobody knows how many lead service lines are still in use. Estimates range from 3.3 million to 10 million lines. To get a better fix on the problem, the E.P.A. and state governments should require local water utilities to do a census of how many homes are still connected with lead service lines. That would help determine replacement costs. If the number is at the high end of current estimates, costs could reach $50 billion. Spread over the five to 10 years it could take to replace every pipe, that should be a manageable sum for a country as prosperous as America.
Some cities, like Lansing, Mich., are already replacing lead service lines on their own. But many others will need federal and state assistance. There is no reason Congress cannot come up with the money.
Any such plan should give preference to Flint, Sebring and other cities where lead contamination is a major, continuing problem. It should also be designed to help homeowners who, in many places, are financially responsible for lines underneath their property. However the task is approached, it must be completed thoroughly: Experts say that a lead-contamination problem in Washington, D.C., in the early 2000s was made worse because service lines were not completely replaced.
Policy makers should go beyond the hardware and develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure safe drinking water. This is a joint responsibility of the E.P.A. and state governments. There should be more frequent and thorough monitoring of drinking water. Congress also needs to give the environmental agency more resources and authority to keep water safe, not just from lead but from other contaminants. Over the last 10 years, the agency’s drinking water budget has fallen by 15 percent after adjusting for inflation, and its staff has shrunk by about 10 percent.
Congress should also help by updating a wholly inadequate law known as theToxic Substances Control Act, which has allowed tens of thousands of chemicals to be used in consumer and industrial products without being tested for safety. Many of those chemicals end up in the nation’s water systems. The Senate and House have passed competing bills to fix that law. Both bills are weaker than they ought to be, but the Senate version is the stronger of the two.
Republicans love to slam the E.P.A., so it was no surprise that some of them used recent hearings about the crisis in Flint to criticize the agency, even though Flint’s problems can be attributed in large part to thickheaded state and local officials, including a Republican governor. The current front-runner in the Republican presidential primaries, Donald Trump, has said he would get rid of the environmental agency entirely because it issues too many regulations. When asked who would protect the environment, he replied, “We’ll be fine with the environment.”
Try that on the people in Flint, where the problem was not too much regulatory oversight, but far too little.
-
NYC-Area Waters Are Packed with Plastics -- Study
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
There are at least 165 million plastic particles traveling through New York Harbor and neighboring waters at any given time, the NY/NJ Baykeeper environmental group found in a new report.
Researchers collected samples in New York's East River, the mouth of the Hudson River, and New Jersey's Passaic River and Raritan Bay and found that the average concentration of plastics was 256,322 particles per square kilometer.
"It just goes to show you big problems need big solutions," said Sandra Meola, a spokeswoman for Baykeeper.
The study, which was modeled on a pioneering study of plastics in the Great Lakes, found that 85 percent of plastic materials were smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter.
The tiny plastic particles in part come from microbeads that are found in certain cosmetic products, a usage that Congress has since banned.
The tiny particles also include plastic shavings from bottle production and other manufacturing byproducts, said Sherri Mason, a chemistry professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia, who conducted the Great Lakes study.
The spread of plastics in bodies of water is concerning, Mason said, because fish and plankton eat them (Greenwire, Jan. 29; Karen Matthews, AP/Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 13).
-
Only One CSB Imperial Sugar Recommendation Still Open
Feb 15, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety
Eight years after dust-related explosions ripped through an Imperial Sugar Company refinery in Port Wentworth, Ga., on Feb. 7, killing 14 people and injuring 38 others, only one of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board's recommendations stemming from that incident remains open. CSB posted an update on its recommendations as the anniversary arrived.
The only open recommendation is one made to OSHA: Promulgate a comprehensive standard to reduce or eliminate hazards from fire and explosion from combustible powders and dust. That one, CSB regards as "Open - Unacceptable Response/No Response Received," adding that OSHA disagrees with the need outlined in the recommendation, but CSB believes there is sufficient evidence to justify a rulemaking.
Another recommendation made by the board in its completed investigation was for the Risk and Insurance Management Society; CSB asked RIMS to require member companies to develop and implement combustible dust hazard awareness training for all facility audit personnel and to incorporate combustible dust hazard identification in the audit protocols. This recommendation is "Closed - Reconsidered/Superseded," with CSB reporting that RIMS rejects the recommendation but supports the rejection with a rationale with which the board concurs.
Other recommendations were addressed to Imperial Sugar, AIB International, Zurich Services Corporation, the American Bakers Association, and others. The board asked Imperial Sugar to apply the following standards to the design and operation of the new Port Wentworth facility and reports that the company's actions meet the board's objectives:
NFPA 61: Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities
NFPA 499: Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas
NFPA 654:Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate SolidsNFPA Handbook, Electrical Installations in Hazardous Locations
NFPA 70 Article 500:Hazardous (Classified) Locations
-
As Fossil Fuel Industry Staggers, a Massive Gas Pipeline Project Endures in Texas
Feb 15, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Dahr Jamail
The oil and gas industry is in a state of free fall. With prices for both commodities lower then they have been in years, oil companies are cutting jobs and many major drilling projects across the United States have ground to a virtual standstill.
Unlike the US, countries around the globe whose political apparatuses are not heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry are actively moving away from fossil fuels. With the mounting and unarguable impacts of anthropogenic climate disruptionescalating daily, the oil and gas industry now resembles embattled dinosaurs desperately groping for their survival.
Meanwhile, vocal protest against oil and gas companies is only growing.
Recently, a coalition of 165 organizations - including environmental, faith and political groups and businesses - signed a massive petition calling on the Government Accountability Office to launch a full-scale investigation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency that, while it has never declined a permit request by a company to build a gas pipeline, theoretically regulates them.
Even in oil and gas friendly Texas, there is a growing outcry about the egregious abuse of landowners rights' carried out by the company behind a new gas pipeline.
That pipeline, the Trans-Pecos high-pressure gas pipeline project that will transport natural gas from Far West Texas into Mexico, is moving forward nonetheless.
The proposed 143-mile Trans-Pecos pipeline would deliver up to 1.4 billion cubic feet of Permian Basin natural gas into Mexico each day. The pipeline consortium is led by the richest man in Mexico, Carlos Slim, and Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), headed by CEO Kelcy Warren, who Forbes says is worth $6.7 billion, and is being built for the Mexican Federal Electricity Commission.
ETP, however, is on rocky terrain financially: It recently experienced its largest one-day drop in stock price since 2006 when its value lost 15 percent and reached a seven-year low.
"The [industry] downturn has led investors to worry that pipeline stocks can't raise dividends, finance growth, and pay their debt after values collapsed and spending outpaced revenue," The Dallas Morning News reports.
How can the CEO of a company that recently lost 15 percent of its total value in a single day - and dropped to its lowest value in a decade - think this new pipeline will turn a major profit given that the gas industry is experiencing such a dramatic downturn in the United States?
The answer lies in Japan, where wholesale gas prices are roughly 10 times higher than they are in the United States. The gas in the pipeline is not intended for Mexico, as both ETP and Carlos Slim would like the public to believe. It is in fact intended to be shipped overseas, which of course also means that their use of eminent domain (the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use) to seize land in Texas has been and continues to be illegal.
The principle financial backers of the project include the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi and the Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation in Japan, according to reports from within the oil and gas industry itself.
With Japan continuing to reel from the ongoing effects of the Fukushima disaster, that country is moving to shut down all of its nuclear power and is currentlyreplacing that energy with natural gas, thus driving gas prices dramatically in both Japan and other parts of Asia.
Hence, while the domestic market for natural gas is in a state of collapse, ETP's CEO Kelcy Warren sees huge potential profits for his company abroad.
This is likely why in December 2015, Warren said, "You really make money during the dark times when other people are struggling."
Sacred Landscapes and Reluctant Warriors
Most people who are paying attention to the ecological and economic situation on the planet would not argue with Warren that these are indeed "dark times," and most people, as well as ecosystems, are "struggling."
But there are many people in Far West Texas, one of the only relatively pristine places left in the pipeline-smothered Lone Star State, who have devoted their lives to fighting against the construction of a pipeline through what is left of the wildest part of the state.
David Keller is a longtime historian and archeologist who lives in Alpine, Texas, a small town that lies directly in the path of the pipeline. He is also the cofounder and now landowner coordinator of the Big Bend Conservation Alliance, a group that opposes the pipeline project and is working to preserve and protect the wild spaces left in the Big Bend area of Far West Texas.
"This is a sacred landscape, and for them to degrade it with a pipeline is a personal affront," he told Truthout. "I did not want to be involved [in a battle against the Trans-Pecos project], but the enormity of this threat pulled me into the fold, and I've been a reluctant warrior."
Like so many in the region that will be directly impacted by the massive pipeline project, Keller found his connection to the earth through the wide-open spaces of the high desert in West Texas, and with his partner Jessica Lutz, founded the Big Bend Conservation Alliance and began working with landowners whose property was under threat.
Keller met Coyne Gibson, a former engineer in the gas industry, at a public information meeting about the project. Having worked for the Houston division of Fluor Engineering as an electrical and control systems engineer, Gibson's experience in the oil and gas industry includes a variety of petrochemical infrastructure projects, including systems associated with oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids; gas-processing facilities; refineries; and transportation and distribution systems, including pipelines and associated compressor stations.
Thus, Gibson is as informed as anyone about what can go wrong with highly pressurized gas pipelines.
Being from Texas myself, that state's natural beauty imprinted me with long-lasting memories, which over time led me toward working to increase awareness about the importance of preserving wild, unspoiled land.
So when I met Gibson, who had worked for decades engineering oil and gas infrastructure, I had my reservations about his motives for speaking out against the Trans-Pecos pipeline project. But when we sat down for an interview for a story I was writing about it, my suspicions melted away. He began talking, sincerely and earnestly, about the facts.
For example, he pointed out that after companies have installed a pipeline underground, they then try to cover up and "restore" the construction damage - but this is not possible.
"That process is maybe, at best, marginally successful over a long time period," Gibson told Truthout. "But out here, in this fragile ecosystem, there is little chance for restoration."
He was frank about the likelihood of something going wrong with a pipeline such as the Trans-Pecos.
"It's likely there will be an explosion - not if, but when," Gibson stated flatly. "At a random place along the line, the risk, let's say, is X. At a compressor station, the risk is 10X, or greater, because it has people working on it, rotating machinery, electrical systems and vehicular traffic; concomitant risk is there. And when something goes wrong, it tends to be catastrophic."
Like Keller, Gibson moved to the area because he fell in love with the land, and had no intention of becoming embroiled in a battle against a pipeline project.
"I have this place - different every single day, a new vista, a new sky, a new experience," Gibson said, sounding more like a poet than a former gas industry engineer. "I have the darkest skies at night; I can read a book from the glow of the zodiacal light at the new Moon. I can see Andromeda, with my naked eye, no telescope required. I can see a hundred shooting stars on all but the cloudiest of nights."
The coalition of people opposing the pipeline is diverse - but for many of them, their major motivator is this same deep, emotional connection to the land.
"I can take in the scent of pinyon and ponderosa pine, the fragrance of desert creosote bush," Gibson said. "I can hear the 'quiet' like nowhere else. I can be at peace. We are Brown, white, Black, Indigenous, men, women and children. We are liberal, conservative, deeply spiritual, agnostic. We all have one thing in common - this place, and the way we feel about it."
But all of that is under threat, as construction of the pipeline has, at least in some areas of the route, already begun.
Follow the Money
Keller, Gibson and other opponents of the project emphasize ETP's dishonesty in using the eminent domain law to forcibly take land from reluctant ranchers under the guise that a substantial portion of the gas in the pipeline would be used for domestic purposes. Ample documentation exists to show that the gas is meant to be shipped to overseas markets.
Even without taking Asia into account, the project was ordered by the Mexican government to serve the needs of Mexico. Hence, the pipeline does not serve a single domestic US customer, and yet it is already taking, by force of Texas law, private property from US citizens.
As Gibson puts it, ETP is taking this land "for use by a for-profit company owned by billionaires to provide natural gas to a foreign country ruled by a corrupt and violent government - and, as it turns out, a country that is primarily serving as a 'pass-through' that will allow unregulated export of US-derived LNG [liquefied natural gas] to hungry markets overseas."
Significant evidence exists to back Gibson's claim that the purpose of the pipeline is to ship the gas overseas. Gibson provided Truthout with a copy of a February 3 letterhe sent to the FERC, which includes documentation from Pemex, Mexico's national oil and gas company, outlining its plans for shipping natural gas overseas via its "transoceanic corridor project," which the company aims to use in order to position "Pemex as a key player in the Pacific [natural gas] market."
Gibson's letter to the FERC lines it out. In the section titled, "Export of United States & Mexico Natural Gas - Transoceanic Corridor Project," he writes:
... It is evident that Mexico, and the United States, in collaboration with private enterprises intend to export natural gas, via liquefaction, to markets in Asia/Oceania, perhaps beginning as early as 2018.
The construction of storage facilities in Mexico, the rapid, and aggressive expansion of the Pemex and CFE pipeline infrastructure, its interconnection with border-crossing pipeline facilities, tied to United States systems, all clearly demonstrate these plans.
In addition, Mexico is active, in planning and construction to convert three existing LNG re-gasification import LNG terminals into combined dual liquefaction /re-gasification operating capability, and to construct two new liquefaction-only LNG facilities.
In the document, Gibson points to things like the construction of storage facilities in Mexico, aggressive expansion of pipeline infrastructure and several other indicators of that country's plans to export the gas.
"While some of the billions of cubic feet of natural gas planned for export from the United States will certainly be used in generating electricity in CFE's Mexico facilities, much of that natural gas appears to be subject to temporary storage, and redirection into Pemex liquefaction LNG facilities for export to higher-priced markets in Asia/Oceania," the document continues. "Clearly this is not in the 'public good' - it will adversely affect prices on the domestic US supply, causing prices to rise for US consumers. This has direct negative effects within the US; including a rise in the price of electricity, a rise in the price of foods (natural gas is a feedstock for fertilizers), a rise in the price of goods (natural gas is a feedstock, and source of industrial fuel), and a rise in the price of home heating fuel."
"So the play here is that Japan needs access to this natural gas, and other markets in Asia will also need it, so the cheap natural gas in the US will be exported through Mexico where there is virtually no regulatory activity with LNG [liquefied natural gas]," Gibson explained to Truthout.
Hence, the land and wildlife of Far West Texas are shouldering the ecological cost - and residents are shouldering the emotional cost - of watching the area where they live become deeply scarred and polluted, and possibly destroyed.
Empty Promises
While residents have worked tirelessly to spread awareness of the pipeline's capacity for destruction, corporate media outlets have painted a relatively rosy picture of what the project will do. Several major news outlets have reported that the small border town of Presidio, Texas, which has a very depressed economy, would benefit from the pipeline by gaining both natural gas and scores of jobs.
Critics have argued that ETP has allowed people to believe that the Trans-Pecos project would automatically provide natural gas to Presidio, which currently depends on propane (which is far more expensive) for its fuel. The people of Presidio have also been led to believe by both ETP and the corporate press that the pipeline would lead to the opening of a chili plant - and hence dozens of jobs - which the gas would be necessary to run.
But any benefits to Presidio would by no means be automatic. A pipeline "tap" would be required to run gas to Presidio via a lateral distribution line, since the town lies roughly 12 miles away from the pipeline.
"Costs on that type of construction can run from $400,000 a mile to a more normal average cost of around $1 million per mile," Gibson said. "So given where the tap into the city is located and the construction necessary to get it to the city is roughly $10 million in cost."
Presidio would not be able to purchase the gas directly from the Trans-Pecos project. A "franchise" like West Texas Gas would have to establish a business relationship with various gas suppliers in the area. Money requisite for these business transactions would have to come from West Texas Gas, which would have to invest as well as develop the 12 miles of pipeline needed, and then buy the gas for the city and sell it to customers. There is no guarantee that West Texas Gas is interested in going this route.
Another option would be a partnership between a company like West Texas Gas and a municipal entity in Presidio, in which the city itself could become the local gas company. In that case, West Texas Gas would need to pay for the infrastructure necessary to tie into the pipeline and purchase the gas at the hub.
Another piece to the puzzle: In order to distribute the gas on a local level, a "city gate" facility would have to be established. This facility would do things like odorize the gas, dry the gas, reduce the pressure down to what is required for a municipal distribution and then run the metering part of the distribution of the gas to those who consume it.
"So if you do all of the math needed for this kind of infrastructure, you end up with about $25 million to $30 million in cost that somebody has to pay for," Gibson said. "Either a private entity like West Texas Gas would roll the dice and say there is enough business opportunity in Presidio to make that worthwhile, or the city would have to funnel it through municipal bonds or some other source of funding."
Thus, given that the median household income for the town of Presidio is under $25,000, and there are roughly only 5,000 people in the entire area in and around the town, the likelihood that the Trans-Pecos pipeline would result in natural gas being brought to the town seems very low.
Another point to consider is that there are only seven restaurants in Presidio that might benefit from having natural gas, so there really isn't a large commercial and industrial contingent, and heating homes is not going to come anywhere near industrial-use levels of the gas.
"All these factors play in to what the 'take rate' is and decrease the likelihood that natural gas ever really could appear in Presidio," Gibson said. "People try to make this into a divisive socioeconomic issue, but it really is based purely on economics."
Gibson underscored his point by saying that if Presidio could benefit from having natural gas, even before the existence of the Trans-Pecos pipeline, a gas company would have extended the already existing six-inch diameter West Texas Gas system that serves the area and run that pipe into Presidio so the town could have gas. But this has not happened because, according to Gibson, "the economic case is not there for it."
"It's not that people don't want Presidio to have natural gas, because I'd be the first person to stand up and say, 'If natural gas can help Presidio, how can I help you get it?'" he said. "But the practical reality is something different."
Gibson believes the people of Presidio, along with city management, have been deceived, thanks to faulty reportage and ETP's misinformation campaign.
"I'm saddened that people would deceive the residents of Presidio and the city management," he concluded. "But it's very unlikely that natural gas will ever be supplied to Presidio, at least as a consequence of this pipeline."
Of course, this is not just the story of one small town in Texas. It's just one example of how giant corporations conduct misinformation campaigns to convince residents of poor and working-class areas that an intrusive corporate presence will benefit them. The people of Presidio and towns like it are being deployed as pawns in a profit-making game of international proportions.
"Our Consciousness Is Woven Into the Landscape"
Simultaneous to the nefarious pursuit of profit at all costs, a groundswell of people acting to protect the land is gaining steam in Far West Texas.
Jessica Lutz, along with working with Big Bend Conservation Alliance and her partner Keller, is a documentary photographer and artist, and is keen to the importance of the aesthetics of the region where they live and work.
"This is a mythical landscape, and that is something to be protected, not just for Texas but for the US," Lutz told Truthout.
Like Keller, Lutz was reluctant to get involved in the fight, but her love of the land - in particular, the area around Big Bend - left her with no choice but to enter the fray.
"The ecosystem doesn't end at the borders of the parks," she added. "In fact, it doesn't end in the US either; it extends into Mexico, and this is one of the last intact bioregions left."
Lutz spoke at length about the "majestic" quality of the landscape, and pointed out how she felt that the Trans-Pecos project is more like "a war on the citizens" for nothing more than the development of gas infrastructure on both sides of the US-Mexico border, "for an industry that might not even be here in 20 years."
Alyce Santoro, an artist who lives in the nearby Davis Mountains with her husband, feels similarly. Along with other residents, Santoro learned of the pipeline project in the spring of 2014, and quickly began working to inform people of what was in store. The more she learned, the more alarmed she became, as she believes one role of the pipeline is to lay down the infrastructure necessary in order to bring fracking to the pristine Big Bend region.
Like Gibson, Keller and Lutz, when asked about why she is working on this defense campaign, she spoke reverently of the land.
"People here have an incredible sense of place," Santoro said. "We experience these vistas daily, and can't help but be moved by them. Our consciousness is woven into the landscape."
Keller, who has a background as an environmental historian, spoke to the cumulative long-term impacts of the pipeline.
"It's a series of lateral roads, fences, chain-link fences, blow-down facilities, valves and meters and all kinds of infrastructure and the possibility for more infrastructure; this is just the beginning and more will come," he said. "So it's the cumulative effect of all that impact over time that will drive biodiversity down, and we're already facing issues from climate change and human encroachment."
While Keller is not opposed to the oil and gas industry, he sees the pipeline project as "only benefiting the fat cats, no way around that. So we bear all the impacts, and none of the benefits."
As an archeologist, Keller has several deep concerns about the impact the pipeline is already having.
In order to construct the project, a 125-foot-wide berth of the top two feet of the soil is scraped away, for the entire 143-mile length of the pipeline.
"Almost all our culture is contained in that two feet of ground," Keller explained. "The pipeline obliterates both. So you are ripping pages out of the book of history and tossing them to the wind. They claim they are doing due diligence on the area, but I've seen their due diligence is a crock of shit."
Keller noted that ETP has admitted to having only tested for cultural deposits down to one foot, when there are areas in the floodplain of the Rio Grande where cultural deposits like cairns, fire pits and other relics don't even begin until one digs down at least three feet.
"This region is understudied, in its infancy in terms of archeological discovery," he added. "Less than 1 percent has even been surveyed professionally."
That means there are countless undiscovered human burial areas, petroglyphs, medicine wheels, sacred sites and effigies that could be destroyed along the vast length of the pipeline route, without anyone ever knowing.
"The government isn't protecting our land, so we have to," Lutz said. "The state is here to facilitate industry, so it's up to us as individuals to voice our concerns and do everything we can to protect these last remaining wild places."
Keller explained that he feels as though he and his people are "under attack, and that we are in a war." He said he would be unable to sleep at night if he did not fight for the land. He admitted that he actually hates doing this work, including going to meetings and working with various groups.
"I just want to be out in nature, left alone, enjoying the quite and peace and animals and just being in it, that's what I live for," Keller said. "That's why I'm fighting."
He would rather not fight, and does not particularly care for that part of himself.
"I'm a peaceful, kind person, but this stuff makes me really angry," he explained. "I came out here [from Lubbock] to get away from that stuff. I came here [and] was not interested in becoming a member of anything. But this happened, so what are you going to do?"
Lutz said she felt similarly.
"I love this region, and I found the place I want to live," she concluded. "I'm not a fighter, I'm not a protester, nor an activist. I'm a quiet person. But I love this region. My heart is open here. I will do everything I can to preserve this area. It's worth fighting for. There's no other option."
-
How Scalia Reshaped Environmental Law
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Justice Antonin Scalia had a monumental impact on environmental law.
Scalia, who was found dead Saturday at a West Texas resort, wrote more than a dozen major decisions in his 30 years at the Supreme Court. His opinions sculpted fundamental aspects of environmental law, setting key precedents that continue to be loudly criticized by green groups.
With his sharply worded opinions and dissents, Scalia led the court's conservative wing on limiting environmental groups' ability to bring lawsuits, standing up for property rights in the face of regulation and the scope of federal water regulation.
More than other justices', Scalia's opinions had an enormous impact on the lower courts, shaping the way they viewed environmental cases.
He was a "judge who trusted his own intuitions," said Todd Aagaard, vice dean and professor at Villanova University School of Law, adding that could be a compliment or a critique.
Aagaard cautioned against characterizing Scalia as anti-environment, saying it is easy to "overstate" that aspect of his jurisprudence. Aagaard noted that at least two of his decisions could be considered pro-environment.
But he added that Scalia was frequently "following his nose, and often his nose did not like the environmental outcome."
Scalia was deeply interested in administrative law, which was one of the reasons he was prolific on environmental and property rights cases.
But unlike other justices, he typically separated the environmental impacts at stake in the case from the legal questions presented.
Scalia was a "powerful voice for the idea that environmental issues are nothing special, as far as the law is concerned," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. "Indeed, he was almost disdainful of the idea that there was anything special about environmental questions."
Over the arc of his career, however, the anti-environmental position appeared to become Scalia's default argument -- a shift that is clear in later rulings that seem to contradict his earlier decisions.
"No [justice] has had more of a negative impact," said Pat Parenteau, professor at Vermont Law School.
Limits on 'standing'
Scalia's arguably most enduring and important opinions severely limited the ability of environmental groups to bring lawsuits challenging federal regulations and other actions.
Before Scalia arrived at the Supreme Court in 1986, there was no established standard for the concept of "standing" in environmental cases.
Standing refers to whether the party bringing the lawsuit has sufficiently showed it is directly "injured" by the policies at issue -- a key legal hurdle in environmental cases.
In three opinions, Scalia put significant restrictions on whether environmental groups have standing to challenge myriad environmental protections.
Most importantly, the justice wrote in 1992's Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife that the environmental group lacked standing to challenge endangered species protections.
The ruling remains one of the most controversial in environmental circles.
"His opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife regularized standing doctrine and appeared to place real limits on lawsuits brought by environmental groups and others representing those that benefit from regulations," said Justin Pidot, a former Justice Department environmental attorney who is now a professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Scalia went onto to reaffirm that holding in two subsequent decisions -- 1998's Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment and 2008's Summers v. Earth Island Institute.
Property rights
Scalia was also frequently the court's biggest friend of property rights, especially in environmental cases.
He penned several opinions on regulatory "takings" -- meaning instances where there was a dispute over whether the government was placing unconstitutional restrictions on the use of property.
Those decisions appeared shaped by the belief that the government must compensate individuals in circumstances where zoning or environmental protections would reduce their property values.
Scalia's most important opinion on the issue was 1992's Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council.
The case concerned a South Carolina law that prevented a landowner from building houses on a barrier island. The state cited a 1988 law that was aimed at protecting the islands from erosion.
Scalia, writing for the court, held that the state law effectively rendered the landowner's property valueless. The law, he said, amounted to an unconstitutional taking.
The ruling reverberated through the environmental community because it seemed to suggest severe limitations on any conservation measure. However, the reach of Scalia's holding inLucas was somewhat reduced by later decisions.
Scalia also wrote that permitting conditions for property development could also violate the Constitution's takings clause.
In 1987's Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Scalia wrote that California must provide compensation to coastal property owners if it wanted to require them to maintain a pathway for the public to the beach.
And in 2012, Scalia ruled in favor of an Idaho family challenging U.S. EPA's Clean Water Act compliance order that forbade them from developing their property. Scalia and the court held that the family had a right to challenge the enforcement action in court.
Evolution on deference
Scalia's supporters are quick to point out that his opinions weren't entirely against environmental regulations.
In the early phases of his career, he appeared to strongly support Chevron deference, the outcome of 1984's Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council holding that if a law isn't clear, a court must defer to an agency's interpretation.
In 2001, for example, Scalia penned the opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking Associationsthat upheld EPA air standards.
Scalia wrote that because the Clean Air Act did not explicitly instruct EPA to consider implementation costs, it need not do so.
And in 1994's City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, Scalia also backed the regulation of fly ash emissions by municipal incinerators.
However, Scalia appeared much less willing to defer to agencies, in particular EPA, the longer he was on the bench.
"More recently, Scalia's environmental decisions seem more results-oriented," Pidot said.
In the past two years, Scalia has twice written opinions sharply criticizing EPA's Clean Air Act interpretations.
In 2014, for example, he trimmed EPA's greenhouse gas permitting authority in an opinion that many believed foreshadowed his disapproval of President Obama's Clean Power Plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to address climate change (Greenwire, June 23, 2014).
And last year, Scalia sharply criticized EPA for not considering costs in developing air standards for mercury and other hazardous pollutants.
In that case -- as in the Whitman case earlier -- the law itself was silent on whether EPA must consider costs.
In Whitman, Scalia said the agency didn't need to. In the mercury case, Scalia wrote that it is "unreasonable" for EPA not to consider costs in determining whether the regulation was "appropriate and necessary" (Greenwire, June 29, 2015).
Daniel Farber, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said Scalia's rulings in the mercury case and the earlier greenhouse gas permitting lawsuit are the only instances in the history of the Supreme Court where it has struck down an agency's interpretation as unreasonable under Chevron.
"For better or worse," Farber wrote in a blog post, "he shaped current legal doctrine in fundamental ways."
Reporter Robin Bravender contributed.
-
Methane Leaks: Major Distraction, Minor Ill
Feb 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Letters to the Editor
In his Feb. 4 op-ed “Fixing the Methane Leaks That Deflate Natural-Gas Gains,” Fred Krupp rightfully calls for further reduction of methane leakage. However, he overlooks the major progress already being made in reducing emissions using industry standards. His call for new, national regulations is shortsighted.
Since 2005, by the U.S. EPA’s own calculation, methane emissions from fracked oil and natural-gas wells have fallen 79% even as production has surged. In the past 30 years, the natural-gas transmission industry has reduced the number of pipeline leaks by 94%. The natural-gas industry is clearly making progress and has ample incentive to reduce leakage. Escaped methane is, after all, lost revenue. Also, the large Porter Ranch (no relation) leak outside of Los Angeles, a black eye others won’t want to repeat, only adds to the pressure for further progress.
Greater use of natural gas in place of coal has driven carbon emissions from the nation’s power plants to a nearly 30-year low. In fact, no country is reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions faster than the U.S.—an achievement driven by the shale gas revolution. We need more investment in natural-gas production and infrastructure to encourage further use of clean-burning natural gas in the power sector. However, costly federal regulation of methane could be counterproductive to the goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.
J. Winston Porter
Savannah, Ga.
Mr. Porter is a former assistant administrator of the EPA.
The regulations proposed by the Interior Department and the EPA to cut methane emitted by flared and leaked gas have no basis in science. While it is true that each molecule shows strong infrared (IR) absorption bands—and therefore CH4 qualifies to be called a “greenhouse” (GH) gas— its climate impact is essentially zero, for three independent reasons. The number of molecules is too small—only 1% of CO2 and only 0.01% of water vapor (WV), the most important atmospheric GH gas. Absorption by strong IR bands of water vapor overlaps (“shades”) those of CH4. There is only a minor amount of energy in the IR emission from the Earth’s surface in the region of CH4 absorption bands.
The proposed EPA regs are unscientific, will have no perceptible effect on global climate, constitute a complete waste of resources and put a heavy economic burden on the energy industry—with all costs, like a tax, passed along to consumers who can least afford them.
Em. Prof. S. Fred Singer
University of Virginia
Arlington, Va.
-
Dems Offer Bill to Help Poor Families Pay Utility Bills
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A coalition of Ohio and Michigan Democrats unveiled legislation last week to help poor families pay for water and sewer bills.
H.R. 4542, introduced by Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), would direct U.S. EPA to create a pilot program for grants to low-income households for bill repayment. Public water utilities that have entered a consent decree with the agency to remain in compliance with the Clean Water Act would be eligible to apply for the program.
"As utility companies work to achieve full compliance with clean water standards, Congress must ensure our nation's most vulnerable are not priced out of life's most essential resource," Fudge said in a statement.
The threshold for eligibility would be at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty income guideline -- $36,450 for a household of four -- or 60 percent of the state median income. The legislation is modeled after the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
The legislation comes as residents of Flint, Mich., must rely on bottled water and use water filters after water from the Flint River corroded the city's water infrastructure, causing lead contamination. The city lost two class-action lawsuits last summer when residents charged the government with illegally hiking water rates.
In Ohio, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District approved a rate increase of 75 percent in Cuyahoga County over five years following a consent decree, Fudge's office said. Sewer rates in the city of Akron increased by 69 percent last year.
-
Rebuilding Trust After Flint: What About the Water in Your City?
Feb 15, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Daniel Moss
With the unfolding horror of Flint's water crisis, filling a glass of tap water suddenly feels risky.
Throughout history, water quality has challenged cities -- plagues, cholera, and dysentery have felled great metropoles. Today, more than a billion people remain without safe water access around the world.
And yet, internationally, water is now a human right, and how to manage it equitably and sustainably is highlighted in climate change agreements as well as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Climate change and energy conservation imperatives are driving changes. As cities learn to protect source water, capture rainwater, recycle grey water, involve the public and establish watershed committees, creativity in urban water management is taking off.
In the end, though, water consumers want results -- clean water gushing from their faucet. They wonder: Is my city a leader or a hazard to my health?
Flint can be looked at two ways. It may be an exception, a story of a callous governor making cost-saving decisions at the expense of Flint's mostly black and brown children. Or it could signal the beginning of a systemic breakdown within the more than 50,000 water utilities in the United States.
So far, despite decaying infrastructure and budget pressures,, water utilities have delivered on their promise of healthy water. Many cities have taken positive steps to avoid what has happened in Flint.
Flint is preceded by plenty of disasters, most the result of bad management decisions, that have eroded public confidence and prompted utility action. In 2014, algae blooms, fed by heavy nitrate use, ruined Toledo's water supply. A dramatic chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia left that city's water undrinkable. These calamities are free advertising for the United States' $13 billion bottled water market.
But before giving up on public water, there's evidence to consider. As tragic as the news is out of Flint, said American Water Works Association Communications Director Greg Kail, almost all of the nation's water utilities are in compliance with the Safe Water Drinking Act's Lead and Copper Rule. The utilities would have to acknowledge any violations in annual Consumer Confidence Reports. "In the vast majority of cases," said Kail, "water professionals discharge their duties with seriousness and protect public health. When something like Flint occurs, it strengthens their commitment."
On the heels of Flint, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and New York's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) circulated reassuring letters to legislators and customers describing their water quality measures. The DEP proactively distributes 1,000 test kits per year to customers to collect household-level data on lead and other contaminants. The MWRA and DEP both rely on feedback from customers, what Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, the MWRA's director of Planning and Sustainability, described as "building confidence at the retail level. We want customers to have a good feeling about their water after they interact with us." The MWRA, like many water utilities, tracks and publishes water quality data on its web site, and has a water quality hot-line with a public health professional to respond to inquiries. In Flint, the switch to a new water source was not disclosed, and customer complaints were routinely ignored.
In-house and regulatory safeguards shouldn't discourage alert water citizens from making a nuisance of themselves at City Hall, but in the vast majority of cases, public urban water meets EPA standards. While the American Society of Civil Engineers' Report Card for America's Infrastructure gives the nation's drinking water infrastructure a "D" grade -- raising red flags about the $3.6 trillion the United States needs by 2020 to upgrade water infrastructure nationwide -- the report also says that "outbreaks of disease attributable to drinking water are rare." While that is not a ringing endorsement, healthy water advocates can point their public officials to smart cities that manage their water well, investing in transparent governance, "grey infrastructure" -- piping and treatment -- and "green infrastructure" -- rehabilitating ecosystems to ensure water quality and quantity.
New York City's water system is emblematic of this trend, frequently featured at water-management conferences around the world. Its innovative planning began in the 1800s with gravity-fed pipes carrying pristine water to the city from the Catskill and Delaware watersheds. In the 1980s, facing contamination from industrial agriculture and encroaching suburbanization, rather than build a $6 billion treatment plant, the water utility pioneered urban-rural collaboration in what came to be known as "payments for environmental services." In return for healthy drinking water, the city transferred cash to rural areas to improve animal-waste management on farms and sanitation in towns.
Although New York City likes to claim title to the "champagne" of drinking water, in 2014 it was edged out by Boston in the American Water Works Annual Tap Water Taste Test. Similar to New York City, Boston keeps water clean at its source. Whereas New York primarily forges land-use agreements with private landowners, Boston concentrates on protecting public lands in collaboration with state agencies. Conserving the forest around the Quabbin and Wachusetts reservoirs means that, to achieve Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, Boston water requires only minimal treatment. The city's good tasting water isn't just an aesthetic bonus: It means that when water smells bad or is discolored, customers call the utility to complain.
Upstream and downstream, watersheds are home to competing economic interests, many of which can compromise water quality. Governments have used both carrots and sticks to ensure responsible water and land use that yield clean water. After stirring a hornet's nest of angry farmers with strict regulation enforcement, New York's water utility switched tactics and offered direct aid to farmers who voluntarily engaged in watershed-friendly farming.
A similar challenge emerged in the Midwest. Iowa's $30 billion grain trade is fattened by a multi-million-dollar infusion of chemical fertilizers, only a portion of which actually ends up feeding its corn and soy plants. Much of the rest of it is washed into the Raccoon River, a principal Des Moines water source. Bill Stowe, the chief executive of Des Moines Water Works, said that the state failed in its efforts to get farmers to willingly reduce nitrate runoff. "It's very clear to me," said Mr. Stowe in a New York Times article, "that traditional, industrial agriculture has no real interest in taking the steps that are necessary to radically change their operations in a way that will protect our drinking water." Treating the nitrate-filled water to potable water standards isn't cheap, so in 2015, the water utility served the farmers the bill via a lawsuit against two upstream counties. While this may sound like the makings of an urban-rural civil war, the lawsuit has set in motion an important public debate in Iowa about who ought to pay for clean water.
Self-taxing may seem unlikely today, but California voters in 2014 approved a $7.5 billion bond to repair and replace aging and vulnerable water infrastructure. Parched lawns, made more visible by Governor Jerry Brown's vocal leadership on water conservation and climate change, shook voters from complacency; water can't be taken for granted. The bond meant that water bills will likely spike, but voters put thirst before wallets. Funds will be used to, among other things, shore up water reliability, meet safe drinking water standards and clean up groundwater. Some $260 million will go to the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small Community Grant Fund, run by the State Water Resources Control Board. In the Bay Area, a 2002 voter-approved bond has helped the San Francisco Public Utility Commission blend groundwater with Sierra Nevada snow melt and incentivize San Francisco builders to collect and treat water onsite, part of what Paula Kehoe, director of Water Resources at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, describes as "a new water paradigm."
Such a paradigm may not come without a struggle. When United Water won the contract to manage Atlanta's water system in 1999, they halved the workforce and increased rates. Brown and orange water dripping from city faucets led to "boil-only alerts." Then-Mayor Shirley Franklin canceled the contract in 2003 and restored municipal management of the water system. Around the world, citizens are forcing re-examination of private contracts and pressuring city governments to take back control of water services. Faced with rate hikes without service improvements, communities question how returning profits to private shareholders squares with managing water for the public good, The Transnational Institute's remunicipalization tracker reports that in the past 15 years, 235 cities in 37 countries have brought water systems under public control.
Flint has moved the country like no other water crisis. When one water utility betrays the public trust, Estes-Smargiassi said, "it damages confidence everywhere." The injuries in Flint will persist well beyond its scarred children. It may be some time before families feel reassured enough to drink from their tap. And yet every day and everywhere, there are examples of committed water workers and forward-thinking city officials demonstrating that, with enough investment and public oversight, water can be managed for the public good.
-
Portland Air Pollution is an Emergency, Lawmakers Tell EPA
Feb 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
As state regulators have said little about Portland, Ore.'s cancer-causing air pollution, Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, all Democrats, called on U.S. EPA to take action, saying the situation is a public health emergency.
"We, along with the public, are alarmed by seeming revelations that these toxic emissions fall into a regulatory loophole," the lawmakers wrote to EPA, "and are demanding that the agencies entrusted to protect public health act decisively on this matter."
After Forest Service scientists discovered toxic hot spots throughout Portland, Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality kept the severity of the news secret for eight months. Since then, the agency has avoided answering questions.
The Forest Service's study has put a magnifying glass over the issue of Portland's air pollution. The problem has long been known, but now scientists can pinpoint the most polluted neighborhoods and determine what kind of pollutants are present.
For example, arsenic was detected in state Gov. Kate Brown's (D) neighborhood. One of the most prominent culprits is stained glass manufacturers that use metals including lead, cadmium and arsenic to add color to glass. There are no controls in place to stop the fumes produced when those metals are burned from seeping into the surrounding area (Rob Davis,Portland Oregonian, Feb. 12).
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested