Author: Pat Seelinger

Water Rule Under GOP Fire in the Senate

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 47

The GOP has launched an effort in the Senate to repeal the “Waters of the United States Rule”in the Clean Water Act. On November 3, a GOP-backed bill sought to repeal the rule and was shot down. This was followed the next day by another bill that sought to make the rule have “no force or effect, according to Farm & Dairy.

The Wall Street Journal reported that 57 senators voted for the November 3 repeal attempt, just 3 votes shy of the required 60 needed to start debate on a bill. Every Republican senator voted for the bill, along with four Democrats.

According to The Hill, the bill was called the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. Its supporters argued that their bill would have achieved the EPA’s goal of protecting navigable waters while making a distinction between state and federal waters.

“It is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while respecting the difference between state waters and federal waters,” Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, said.

The bill’s supporters have also argued that the rule would give the EPA an enormous reach over what can be considered navigable waters, according to the Wall Street Journal. They said that this could create difficulties and confusion for many farmers as well.

“If you’re looking for an excuse to extend the reach of the federal bureaucracy as widely and intrusively as possible, why not just issue a regulation giving bureaucrats dominion over land that has touched a pothole, or a ditch, or a puddle at some point?” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Critics of the bill argued that it missed the point of the rule it was trying to change, reported The Hill. They also saw the bill as a step back into a less regulated time.

“What this [bill] would do today is takes us back…to the day when rivers caught on fire,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat.

The Obama administration had also threatened to veto the bill, should it have passed, according to The Hill. In a defense of the Waters of the United States rule, the Obama administration said that the new bill would make it so any new rules about water jurisdiction would have to be written in a way inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.

On November 4, Senator Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 22, reported Farm and Dairy. The resolution passed 53-44 and needs to pass in the House before going into effect.

Ernst called the rule ill-conceived and stated that it threatens the livelihood of many people across the country, according to Farm & Dairy. Farmers, farmer groups and the American Farm Bureau Federation have already expressed concern over the vague wording of the rule and possible overreach by the EPA. The EPA, however, has stated that the rule merely clarifies existing rules and will not have an effect on what it considers “normal”farming practices.

Since the passage of the new bill in the Senate, other farming organizations have expressed their support of a repeal attempt. According to Hoosier Ag Today, these groups include the Indiana Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

“America’s cattlemen and women are drowning in federal regulation that adds burdens, costs and uncertainty to our businesses,” said Phillip Ellis, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “The WOTUS regulation is the greatest overreach yet. If allowed to take effect, it would give EPA jurisdiction over millions of acres of state and private property.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the rule would put about 3% more waterways under federal jurisdiction. The EPA claims that the rule is necessary to clarify which waters are under federal rule. The EPA also said that farmers would not need a permit due to an existing exemption.

The water rule was supposed to go into effect earlier this year, according to the Wall Street Journal. However, a U.S. appeals court blocked the implementation of the rule in October. Several states have been preparing legal challenges to that decision in the interim.

GE Gets OK from EPA to Shut Down Cleanup Plant on the Hudson River

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 46

The EPA on November 12 approved the shut down of a General Electric Co. PCB cleanup plant that has been treating polluted sediment dredged from the Hudson River for 6 years, according to WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The shut down of the plant is the one of the final steps before the EPA can declare GE’s dredging of the Hudson is completed, according to the Wall Street Journal. The plant was used to treat sediment that had been polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that GE had dumped into the river for more than 40 years.

The EPA stated that PCBs were banned in 1979, and that they “have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system and endocrine system.” They were widely used in manufacturing from 1929 until the ban.

According to WAMC, the dredging project took place over a 40-mile section of the Hudson River, north of Albany. The plant itself covered 110 acres.

WAMC stated that backfilling the dredged areas had already been completed. All dredged material is expected to be taken off site by the end of the year.

Critics of the EPA’s approval voiced concerns about future dredging prospects, according to the Wall Street Journal. They said that the plant could be used to treat sediment from other dredging operations along the Hudson. However, the EPA stated that “no such opportunity is imminent.”

Some of these critics were the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Wall Street Journal reported. Both organizations were against the plant shutting down because they believed more dredging was needed to meet the EPA’s goals for decontaminating the river.

WAMC reported that some of the infrastructure from the plant may remain in place. It is expected that some buildings, asphalt and concrete roads and surfaces, the wharf and the rail yard will remain. What will be left will depend on discussions between GE, the EPA and the surrounding property owners and municipalities. Soil sampling and the ability to decontaminate these structures will also play a large part in what stays.

The EPA said that it will be decades until PCB levels in the Hudson will be low enough for humans to eat fish from the river. Although the project is far from over, both GE and the EPA have called the dredging project a success. GE still has to conduct a $20 million study on how to restore 6,000 acres of land on the banks of the Hudson that were also contaminated by their PCBs.

Study Finds EPA Responsible for Toxic Wastewater Spill in Colorado

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 45

A report by the Interior Department found that the EPA lacked the expertise to carry out a project that resulted in the spilling of 3 million gallons of wastewater into the Colorado River. The report, released on October 22, found that the EPA was aware of the dangers of carrying out the project for more than a year before the spill happened, CNN reported.

On August 5, workers attempting to drain and contain toxic water seeping from an abandoned mine in the Colorado Rockies caused a blowout that polluted the Colorado River and nearby waterways with lead, arsenic, cadmium, beryllium and mercury. CNN reported that the spill “temporarily turned the Animas River a shade of yellow-orange”.  Although the EPA officials said levels of these metals have gone back to normal, some experts claim the heavy metals have simply sunk to the bottom of the rivers.

The report outlined several failures by the EPA at the site in addition to the actual spill. These included a lack of analysis on downstream consequences if there was a failure, failure to analyze the geologic and hydrologic conditions of the general area and a lack of understanding that water behind a blocked mine opening can create hydraulic forces similar to those found behind a dam.

The report stated that the EPA has guidelines for how to conduct environmental sampling, waste characterization and water treatment in abandoned mines.  However, the report also stated that these guidelines have “little appreciation for the engineering complexity of some abandoned mine projects that often require, but do not receive, a significant level of expertise.”

According to the New York Times, the accident happened when the EPA, with the Department of Natural Resources, pushed a pipe horizontally through the top of a plug holding back the toxic water. The Interior Department’s report said the better alternative would have been to drill a hole from the top first. This would have allowed the EPA to see whether or not pressure needed to be relieved on the plug before placing the pipe. The EPA countered that drilling would have been to costly and slow in its own review in August.

In June 2014, the contractor working on the project, Environmental Restoration, warned the EPA that working on the mine might lead to a blowout of wastewater containing toxic metals, CNN reported. New documents show that Environmental Restoration warned the EPA again in May 2015.

This report may not be the end of the EPA’s woes, however. According to CNN, attorneys general in New Mexico, Utah and Colorado have suggested they may sue the EPA, either individually, or as a group.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/us/animas-river-colorado-epa-mine-spill/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-investigation-blames-epa-for-toxic-spill/article/2574710?custom_click=rss

Petition to EPA Could Force Wisconsin to Take Action on Clean Water Act

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 44

Sixteen Wisconsin residents filed a petition on October 20th that could strip away the state’s authority over its waters, according to the Lacrosse Tribune. The 87-page petition accused the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources of not following the federal standards set out in the Clean Water Act.

The main force behind the petition was Midwest Environmental Advocates, based out of Madison, Wisconsin, according to the Lacrosse Tribune. Midwest Environmental Advocates is a nonprofit environmental law center that specializes in Clean Water Act enforcement, according to their website. They have represented several groups with environmental interests in the past few years, including a group that fought against Richland Center Renewable Energy to reduce pollution into waterways around the lower Wisconsin River.

“Our petition for corrective action is important and justified because it has been over four years now and in many instances and much longer that both the DNR and the EPA have known that Wisconsin does not issue water pollution permits that are fully compliant with the Clean Water Act,” Tressie Kamp, staff attorney for MEA, said.

The petition against the Wisconsin DNR goes back to a letter from 2011 to the DNR that listed 75 omissions and deviations from federal requirements, according to the Lacrosse Tribune. An EPA spokesman said that 40 of those errors have been resolved.

“Is the state being held accountable or not?” MEA director Kimberlee Wright said. “Without effective government, we are compounding what our children and grandchildren will face in a world increasingly short of drinking water.”

Former DNR secretary George Meyer, who looked over the petition, was surprised by the scope of the allegations against the Wisconsin DNR, according to the Lacrosse Tribune.

“When it’s all put together like this, it’s hard to fathom how this could happen,” he said.

However, Adrian Stocks,  the DNR section chief for wastewater permitting, explained how the charges may not be as serious as they seem at first.

“Many of these end up being cases where we are rectifying our language to match federal language. A lot of them aren’t real substantial changes,” he said.

The petition itself refers to a much deeper problem, though. It claims that the governor of Wisconsin and the state legislature have limited the DNR’s ability to the point where they can no longer make informed decisions on water pollution issues.

If the petition does catch the attention of the EPA, it may take some time before we see any of the effects, however. Stocks said that changing a rule takes a minimum of 27 months if  “everything falls into the right place,” according to the Lacrosse Tribune. The alternate route would be an emergency rule-making process that was previously implemented for making changes to air pollution laws in Wisconsin. Stocks said that no emergency measures have been taken on water pollution yet.

Wright said, “[The petitioners are] asking the DNR to do a better job issuing their water pollution permits. If that can’t happen and if that can’t happen quickly, petitioners are asking EPA to start the process of taking back DNR’s authority to issue permits.”

Sources:

http://www.wkow.com/story/30310980/2015/10/20/petition-filed-with-epa-seeks-cleaner-water-in-wisconsin

http://midwestadvocates.org/news-events/news/petition-to-epa-wisconsins-fails-to-comply-with-clean-water-act/

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/petition-urges-epa-to-force-wisconsin-to-obey-water-law/article_80578cd2-99e3-52e3-9020-3b2e0010d187.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Court Rules Against Fracking Regulations

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 43

A federal court in Wyoming ruled that the Bureau of Land Management does not have the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on September 30, according to E&E Publishing.

The BLM had plans to set stricter rules on disposing wastewater this summer, according to the Wall Street Journal. The new rules also would have required disclosing what chemicals are used in fracking. However, U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl shut these plans down by his ruling.

The main concern that he addressed was that Congress had never given the BLM authority to regulate fracking, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Congress has not authorized or delegated to the BLM authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing and, under our constitutional structure, it is only through congressional action that the BLM can acquire this authority,” Skavdahl wrote.

Skavdahl said the Safe Drinking Water Act had given the EPA exclusive control over fracking regulations, according to E&E Publishing. However, the Energy Policy Act took away the EPA’s control over fracking in 2005, leaving regulations up to states and tribes to decide.

Skavdahl also felt that the BLM had not substantiated enough evidence to determine that fracking causes harm, according to E&E publishing. Skavdahl also said the BLM had not shown how the new rules they proposed would address the problems they said fracking caused.

“The Fracking Rule seems a remedy in search of harm,” Skavdahl said.

Critics of the ruling argue that the BLM has authority over oil and gas production on federal land, which includes fracking, according to E&E Publishing.

“BLM has well-established authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing and other downhole aspects of drilling on federal lands,” Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman said.

A spokeswoman for the Interior Department said the BLM will follow the court’s ruling while they consult the Justice Department. They could appeal ruling if they wanted, according to the Wall Street Journal.

 

Sources:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060025657

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-court-blocks-obama-administration-hydraulic-fracturing-rule-1443641565

 

Suburban Waste May Be Turning Male Frogs Into Females

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 41

A study from Yale researchers published September 7 suggests that waste from suburban areas may be changing the sex of frogs in nearby ponds, according to Newsweek.

The study, led by Yale researcher David Skelly and doctoral student Max Lambert, found a connection between the ratio of male to female frogs in ponds and their proximity to suburban developments. The study, which took place in over 20 ponds in Connecticut, claimed that the chemicals from suburban waste are to blame for the changes, according to Michigan Radio.

According to Newsweek, the study reported that there were significantly lower amounts of female frogs in ponds in undeveloped areas compared to those near the suburbs. This could be coincidental, but Skelly’s team found hermaphroditic traits in many of the male frogs in these suburban ponds, suggesting that there is a change happening.

“So you have genetic males becoming, in terms of their morphology and perhaps their physiology, they’re turning into females because of the chemicals they’re encountering in the environment,” Skelly said.

confusedfrog

The study found that estrogen-mimicking chemicals from plants may be playing a large part in the changes. Specifically, it points to phytoestrogens, which are found in plants like clovers, soybeans and peanuts. Simply removing these from your yard may be releasing the chemicals into the surrounding environment, causing the sex change in nearby frogs, according to Newsweek.

However, Skelly said that there are a myriad of factors that could be leading to these changes, according to Michigan Radio.

“It’s everything from brake pads to components of plastics to — in other contexts, we’ve found that, you know, whatever goes into your domestic wastewater is likely to be getting in there,” he said.

Skelly said he wasn’t sure what this means for the frog population, but he did mention the importance of determining whether or not these new female frogs are sterile, said Michigan Radio.

As far as solving the problem, Skelly said that there wasn’t going to be one single solution due to the number of factors playing into the changes, according to Michigan Radio.

“We’re not going to be able to just get, for instance, you know plasticizers, like BPA, out of baby bottles or just de-register one kind of pesticide and take care of the problem,” he said. “Not that those things might not make some kind of a difference. But they’re not going to be comprehensive, effective solutions.”

 

Sources:

http://michiganradio.org/post/there-are-weird-things-happening-frogs-suburbs#stream/0

http://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-hermaphrodites-suburban-waste-369553

 

 

EPA Announces New Assumable Waters Sub-Committee

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 40

On Sep. 15, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the creation of a new sub-committee under the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The new committee, called the Assumable Waters Sub-Committee, will provide recommendations on clarifying details for states or tribes attempting to assume permitting responsibilities under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Section 404 of the CWA currently outlines a program for regulating tidal waters, waters used for transport and their adjacent wetlands.  As it stands now, the program is largely administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, this section of the CWA allows for a state or tribe to assume the responsibilities of the program and administer it themselves. Currently, only New Jersey and Michigan have done this.

2015WoUSbooks

The EPA decided to make this sub-committee because states have said that section 404 does not provide enough details for them to estimate the cost of administering the program themselves. The purpose of the Assumable Waters Sub-Committee will be to make recommendations on how to clarify this to NACEPT.

By adopting the program, states will be able to have direct control over their wetlands. Also, those seeking a section 404 permit would only have to go to the state level for that permit.

The EPA’s website states, “The EPA fully supports states and tribes assuming permitting responsibilities for the aquatic resources under their jurisdiction.” It is possible that the creation of the Assumable Waters Sub-Committee is meant to encourage more states to assume the responsibilities of section 404.

To assume permitting responsibilities, a state needs to create a similar program to the federal one and submit it to the EPA. After the program is reviewed and accepted, the Army Corps of Engineers will no longer process permits for waters in that state. However, the program will still be subject to an annual review by the EPA.

The EPA’s website outlines this process in greater detail at http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/fact23.cfm. For more information on the creation of the Assumable Waters Sub-Committee go to http://www2.epa.gov/cwa-404/assumable-waters-sub-committee.

404(G)

 

Republican Congressman Moves to Impeach EPA Administrator

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 38

A Republican congressman introduced a resolution on September 11, 2015 calling for the impeachment of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, claiming she made false statements to Congress when she testified on the Clean Water Rule, according to Fox News.

“McCarthy not only broke the law by lying to Congress, but in doing so she also lied to the American people in order to force misguided and overreaching regulations, which have no scientific basis, down our throats,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, the Arizona congressman behind the resolution.

According to the Associated Press, Gosar accused McCarthy of perjuring herself several times while discussing details about the rule’s legal justification. A federal court ruling blocked the rule in 13 states already, but the EPA plans on going forward in the other 37 states.

One example that Gosar cited was on Feb. 4, when McCarthy said the EPA was “not expanding jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, we are not eliminating any exemptions or exclusions in this proposal, we are in fact narrowing the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act consistent with sound science and the law.”

Gosar said that the Clean Water Rule, “will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and cause untold economic harm to communities throughout the country.” Critics of the rule claim that its implementation would put every body of water, down to a puddle, on private land under federal oversight, says Fox News.

However, the EPA said that the rule will only affect bodies of water with a direct and significant connection to larger bodies already under the jurisdiction of the EPA, according to Fox News.

The Dallas Morning News said that Gosar has the support of 18 other representatives, but the Republican members of the House are far from unified on the resolution.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “There’s no plan to impeach Gina McCarthy.” McCarthy, a California Republican, is not related to Gina McCarthy, the Associated Press said.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said the impeachment resolution, “has zero merit and is nothing more than political theater.”  She also called Gina McCarthy,  “a dedicated public servant who performs her duties with the utmost respect for the law.”

“Protecting public health and the environment for all Americans should not be a political issue,” said Purchia.