SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 5, 2009 (ENS) – Conservation and fishermen’s groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday in California Superior Court seeking to force state and regional water boards to implement existing clean water laws in the wild rivers and streams of the state’s North Coast region.

The groups argue that only cleaner waters will enable the recovery of endangered salmon species.

For decades, water quality in North Coast river and streams has been degraded by sediment, nutrients, high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen levels, and turbidity. These pollutants are the result of dam construction, water diversions, urban development, agriculture, logging, mining, and grazing.

The declining river and stream conditions have impacted the survival of regional salmon species, including chinook salmon, coho salmon, and Northern California steelhead, which are now listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Last year, the collapse of salmon stocks on the west coast caused the first ever complete shutdown of the commercial salmon fishing season.

“Regional and state officials have failed to develop realistic, workable action plans that protect water quality and provide habitat for endangered salmon that need cool, clean water to survive,” said George Torgun of the public interest law firm Earthjustice, who is representing the coalition in court.

“Without such plans, water quality in North Coast rivers and streams will not meet the standards that the state is obligated to achieve,” he said.

“We need abundant populations of salmon for long-term economic stability and for our future generations of fishermen,” said Glen Spain, northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a commercial fishing industry trade association that is a co-plaintiff in the suit.

Endangered salmon spawning in a California stream (Photo courtesy California Nature Tours)

“Providing the conditions necessary for salmon to survive could bring back tens of thousands of fishing jobs and a billion dollar industry to our region,” said Spain.

The action plans at issue are part of the Clean Water Act’s Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL, program. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive in 24 hours and still meet water quality standards.

The program first requires the agencies to identify and maintain a list of impaired rivers and streams and submit that list to the U.S. EPA for approval.

The agencies must then assess the sources of pollution causing the violations, set TMDL limits for these sources, and develop action plans to achieve the standards.

In 1995, many of the same organizations involved in the current legal action, sued the EPA for failure to address water quality problems under the TMDL program. That case resulted in a consent decree requiring the federal agency to set pollution limits for 17 listed water bodies within the region by 2007.

EPA has completed most of the work required by the consent decree and TMDLs have been established for Garcia River, Scott River, and Shasta River.

But except for those three rivers, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board have failed to prepare action plans as required by the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the federal Clean Water Act.

In their complaint, the groups recognize that the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, has suffered from deep cuts in staffing and funding for clean water programs.

“While the Regional Board appears to be making some progress, they have lost 60 staff members since 2001, leaving the agency unable to protect our wild rivers,” said Daniel Myers, representing Sierra Club’s Redwood Chapter, one of the plaintiff groups.

“The ecological collapse in our rivers is bad not just for fish, but also for the thousands of people and local communities that depend on the health of these rivers,” said Georgianna Wood of the plaintiff Northcoast Environmental Center. “These pollution problems may be complex, but the state and regional boards have the tools they need to act, and we urge them to do so.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SEATTLE, Washington, September 11, 2008 (ENS) – A coalition of conservation organizations filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Bush administration alleging that federal officials diverted $350 million from the public treasury to forestry foundations “dominated by the timber industry.”

The suit alleges that the administration violated federal appropriations law when, in September 2006, without any public process or congressional approval, the administration steered $350 million from Canadian lawsuit settlement funds to the foundations.

The plaintiff organizations – the Forest Stewardship Council-US, Conservation Northwest, and the Center for Biological Diversity – say they filed the lawsuit because they are committed to promoting sustainable forestry in the United States.

The Washington Forest Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Seattle, filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs in federal court in Seattle.

The defendants are the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

“Once again the Bush administration has made up its own rules,” said Joe Scott, International Programs director of Washington-based Conservation Northwest.

“Here, the administration illegally gave away hundreds of millions of public dollars to organizations whose programs are not clearly established to advance the public interest,” said Scott.

An example of Georgia’s upland maritime
forest. (Photo courtesy U. of Georgia)

The groups are asking the court to declare that the Bush administration violated the law and asks the court to take reasonable and fair steps to ensure that the money is safeguarded until the administration follows the law.

One of the co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit, represents a forest certification system.

Corey Brinkema, president of the plaintiff Forest Stewardship Council-US, said the organization joined the lawsuit because, “FSC-US and our partners work tirelessly to develop and promote the highest standards for forest management, as well as provide the public the opportunity to reward responsible forestry through choosing FSC-labeled products. The administration’s action is a huge setback that, if left unchecked, could significantly lower the bar for what is represented as sustainable forestry.”

The suit alleges that money the Bush administration earmarked to the two timber industry-dominated organizations, the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, Inc. and the American Forest Foundation, should instead have gone into the US Treasury.

“How this money is spent should have been up to Congress, not timber industry executives in a backroom deal with the administration,” said Bill Snape, senior attorney for the plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity.

Forested land in northern Idaho
(Photo by Terry Gray)

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities is a not-for-profit corporation established in September 2006, at the request of the governments of the United States and Canada in accordance with the terms of the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the two countries and endowed with $200 million. The Endowment is one of three entities designated to share in a one-time infusion of funds to support “meritorious initiatives” in the United States.

The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit organization that works with family forest owners. It was chartered in 1981 “to encourage the long-term sustainability of America’s forests, restore wildlife habitat, and develop quality environmental education programs.”

The AFF Board of Trustees includes officials of the National Audubon Society, the Aldo Leopold Foundation, and the American Bird Conservancy as well as packaging company MeadWestvaco and timber company Weyerhaeuser, as well as keyboardist Chuck Leavell, known for his work with The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and The Allman Brothers Band, among others.

The AFF adheres to the sustainability standards of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification PEFC, based in Geneva, Switzerland, a rival of the plaintiff Forest Stewardship Council.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 31, 2008 (ENS) – This has been the week for going after pesticides in court. Since Thursday, July 24, two coalitions – with many of the same member groups – have filed two federal lawsuits challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for allowing the continued use of organochlorine pesticides.

These two organochlorine chemicals – endosulfan and diazinon – are persistent in the environment and poison humans and wildlife in agricultural areas where they are applied and also can travel by wind and water to poison others in regions far away.

“EPA’s system for protecting the public from the dangers of pesticides like diazinon is broken,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney in the San Francisco office of Earthjustice, the public interest law firm that represents both coalitions. “The agency should be protecting farmworkers and children, not the profits of pesticide manufacturers.”

Last Thursday, a lawsuit seeking to stop the use of endosulfan was brought by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice on behalf of – Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Environmental Health, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United, Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers, and Teamsters Local 890.

Endosulfan is an organochlorine, part of the same family of chemicals as DDT, which the EPA banned in 1972. Crops commonly treated with endosulfan include cotton, tomatoes, melons, squash, and tobacco.

Acute poisoning from endosulfan can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, and in extreme cases, unconsciousness and even death. Studies have linked endosulfan to smaller testicles, lower sperm production, and an increase in the risk of miscarriages.

“This dangerous and antiquated pesticide should have been off the market years ago,” said Karl Tupper, a staff scientist with Pesticide Action Network. “The fact that EPA is still allowing the use of a chemical this harmful shows just how broken our regulatory system is.”

The coalition claims that the EPA has failed to consider the risks to children. A 2007study found that children exposed to endosulfan in the first trimester of pregnancy had a significantly greater risk for developing autism spectrum disorders.

It also poses risks to school children in agricultural communities where it has been detected at unsafe levels in the air.

In addition, endosulfan has been found in food supplies, drinking water, and in the tissues and breast milk of pregnant mothers.

“EPA has failed to protect children and endangered species from endosulfan poisonings,” said Osborne-Klein. “We call on EPA to ban the use of endosulfan in the United States.”

Endosulfan is especially toxic to fish and other aquatic life, the coalition charges, adding that the pesticide also affects birds, bees, earthworms, and other beneficial insects.

Osborne-Klein cites a recent federal study finding that national parks from Texas to Alaska are contaminated with endosulfan in amounts that threaten ecosystems and wildlife.

Endosulfan has been found in Sierra Nevada lakes and on Mt. Everest. “This persistent pesticide can also migrate to the Poles on wind and ocean currents where Arctic communities have documented contamination,” the coalition said.

According to EPA data, approximately 1.38 million pounds of endosulfan were used annually in the United States as of 2002, the most recent year for which national usage data are available.

“The science clearly shows that the use of this chemical puts the health of exposed farmworkers and children in agricultural communities at risk,” said Erik Nicholson of United Farm Workers. “There’s plenty of evidence and no need for more studies – we’re demanding that EPA take action now.”

On Monday, another coalition with many of the same member organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging the EPA’s decision to allow continued use of diazinon.

The lawsuit is part of the coalition’s multi-year campaign to protect children, farmworkers, and wildlife from the most dangerous pesticides and “to reform EPA’s lackadaisical regulation of public and environmental health,” the coalition said in a statement.

The coalition has filed a series of lawsuits targeted at the worst poisons on the market – diazinon is near the top of that list.

The lawsuit against diazanon was brought by Earthjustice, Farmworker Justice, and California Rural Legal Assistance on behalf of – Beyond Pesticides, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United, Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers, and Teamsters Local 890, and Luis Garcia Lopez, an individual farmworker in California.

Diazinon is one of a class of pesticides called organophosphates. These chemicals were originally developed by the German company I.G. Farben as nerve gases during World World II.

Farmworkers who are exposed to diazanon can suffer muscle spasms, confusion, dizziness, seizures, vomiting, and diarrhea. Severe exposures can cause coma and death.

Exposure is associated with damage to the liver and pancreas, diabetes, and a form of cancer called non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

“In the 21st century, we don’t need poisons like diazinon to grow our food,” said Margaret Reeves, senior scientist for Pesticide Action Network. “Americans increasingly are demanding pesticide-free food for their own health, their children’s health, their community’s health.”

After application, diazinon can become airborne. Monitoring has detected the poison in the air near schools at unsafe levels, the plaintiff groups claim. Infants and children are especially vulnerable to diazinon, which can interfere with growth and development.

“Children and farmworkers are breathing diazinon in the air in their schools, homes, and workplaces,” said Mike Meuter, an attorney from California Rural Legal Assistance. “In failing to protect our children from diazinon exposures, EPA has failed us all.”

Diazinon is also notorious for contaminating water – it is the most common insecticide detected in surface waters and is implicated in numerous bird and fish kills.

Almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that diazinon threatened the survival of numerous endangered species.

Diazinon is used on a wide variety of crops including apples, blueberries, broccoli, cherries, cranberries, pears, spinach, and tomatoes.

In 2004, EPA cancelled home uses of diazinon due to the extreme risks that it poses to children,

Still, one website advises householders who are struggling with fire ants to use Ortho diazinon granules to displace the insects.

EPA has continued to allow farm uses of the pesticide. The plaintiff groups point to the 118 different agricultural scenarios that put farmworkers at risk of overexposure to diazinon that have been documented by the EPA.

Diazinon is so toxic that it takes up to 18 days before EPA allows farmworkers to re-enter fields following application and up to 45 days before EPA allows farmworkers to harvest treated crops.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida, July 18, 2008 (ENS) – Today, five environmental groups filed a lawsuit to compel the federal government and the state of Florida to set numeric limits on the excess nutrients which trigger harmful blooms of blue-green algae.

Algae blooms are fouling Florida’s beaches, lakes, rivers, and springs, threatening public health, and closing swimming areas. Last month, a water treatment plant serving 30,000 Florida residents was shut down after a toxic blue-green algae bloom on the Caloosahatchee River threatened the plant’s source water supply.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice is representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, St. John’s Riverkeeper, and Sierra Club in the case filed in federal court for the Northern District of Florida.

The groups are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging what they say is a decade-long delay by the state and federal governments in setting limits for nutrient pollution.

In 1998, the U.S. EPA determined that prompt development of numeric standards for the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen by the state of Florida was necessary to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The groups claim that EPA action is required to achieve sufficient protection of Florida’s waters because Florida has failed to develop these standards.

Whenever it rains, runoff from factory farms, fertilized landscapes, and agricultural operations pour fertilizer residue containing phosphorus and nitrogen as well as livestock waste into Florida’s rivers and lakes. These contaminants are referred to as nutrients.

Blue-green algae on a Florida lake
(Photo courtesy Florida DEP)

“As the old saying goes, this stuff tends to flow downhill. Unfortunately, national treasures like the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico are being overloaded,” said Earthjustice attorney David Guest. “Measurable standards are the first step in restoring the quality of our nation’s rivers, lakes and oceans.”

The lawsuit has nationwide implications. Currently, Florida and most other states have only vague limits regulating nutrient pollution. Today’s legal action seeks a court order requiring that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency impose quantifiable – and enforceable – limits for those contaminates in Florida.

The EPA gave Florida a 2004 deadline to set limits for nutrient pollution, which the state disregarded. The EPA was then supposed to set limits itself, but failed to do so. EPA recently approved a plan that would have limits being “proposed” by 2011.

“Each time an extension is granted, it essentially guarantees these contaminants will continue to flow into our rivers, lakes, and oceans – endangering our wildlife and threatening our economy,” said Manley Fuller, president of the Florida Wildlife Federation.

Blue-green algae – also known as cyanobacteria – produce “dermatoxins” that can create severe dermatitis and are known tumor promoters; “neurotoxins” which interfere with nerve cell function; and “hepatotoxins” which attack the liver. Exposure to blue-green algae toxins through ingestion, skin contact or inhalation can cause rashes, skin and eye irritation, allergic reactions, gastrointestinal upset, serious illness, and even death, the groups argue in their complaint.

Nutrient contamination is altering water bodies all over Florida, the plaintiff groups claim.

As Earthjustice notes in a letter it sent to the EPA, “Potentially toxigenic cyanobacteria have been found statewide, including river and stream systems such as the St. Johns River in the Northeast Region, the Caloosahatchee River in the Southwest Region, and the Peace and Kissimmee Rivers in the Central Region.”

“In the Southeast Region, toxin levels in the St. Lucie River and estuary during an algae bloom in 2005 were 300 times above suggested drinking water limits and 60 times above suggested recreational limits,” Earthjustice wrote. “Warning signs had to be posted by local health authorities warning visitors and residents not to come into contact with the water.”

“Lake Okeechobee, which is categorized under state regulations as a drinking water source, is now subject to almost year-round blue-green algae blooms as a result of nutrient pollution,” wrote Earthjustice.

Inland freshwater resources are also affected by pollution from agricultural runoff and other sources: half of the state’s rivers and more than half of its lakes were found to have poor water quality in a 2006 report by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The problem is compounded when nutrient-poisoned waters are used as drinking water sources. Disinfectants such as chlorine and chloramine can react with the dissolved organic compounds, contaminating drinking water with mutagenic chemical byproducts.

“This level of pollution is hard to believe in modern America,” said Frank Jackalone of the Sierra Club.

Andrew McElwaine of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida said, “It is time for the federal government and Florida to step up to the plate and enforce clean water standards for the public. Citizens shouldn’t have to resort to lawsuits to get the government to make sure they have clean water, but unfortunately, that’s what we have to do today.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

ATLANTA, Georgia, June 30, 2008 (ENS) – A Fulton County Superior Court judge today issued a decision that blocks construction of the first coal-burning power plant proposed in Georgia in more than 20 years. The judge ruled that the new plant must limit its emissions of the heat-trapping gas carbon dioxide.

This is the first time any court has applied to an industrial source an April 2007 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore overturned the ruling of an administrative court approving the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy’s planned Longleaf power plant south of Columbus, Georgia.

In a challenge to the air permit brought by two environmental groups, Judge Moore held that the state environmental agency must limit the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions from the Dynegy power plant.

In June 2007, Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club filed suit challenging the Dynegy Longleaf permit allowing a 1200 megawatt coal-fired power plant to be built in Early County on the banks of the Chattahoochee River.

The groups challenged the permit because it failed to include any limitations for carbon dioxide.

Now, Dynegy cannot begin construction of the 120 megawatt plant unless it obtains a permit from the Environmental Protection Division, EPD, that complies with the Judge Moore’s ruling.

“In a case that is being watched across the country, Judge Moore has sent a message that it is not acceptable for the state to put profits over public health,” said Justine Thompson, executive director of GreenLaw, the Atlanta public interest law firm that represented the environmental groups.

“This ruling goes a long way toward protecting the right of Georgians to breathe clean air and sends a message to EPD that it must tighten the standards it uses to approve air pollution permits for companies seeking to build any more coal-fired power plants in this state,” Thompson said.

Healthcare providers and patient advocacy groups around the state spoke out against the proposed plant and submitted supporting briefs in the case. The Medical Association of Georgia issued a resolution opposing any new coal-fired plants in the state.

The permit also was challenged because the plaintiff groups say it failed to set safe emission limits for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and sulfuric acid mist – pollutants that contribute to smog and acid rain.

Fine particulate matter has been known to cause sudden death, premature birth, lung cancer, lung disease, asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, heart attacks and chronic respiratory diseases.

“I am thrilled that the judge understands our concerns about public health and global warming here in Early County. Coal plants are a bad idea all around, they hurt our lungs, they hurt our land, and they hurt our livelihood,” said Bobby McClendon, a leader of Friends of the Chattahoochee.

This plant would produce nine million tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually, an amount the plaintiff groups say is equal to adding 1.3 million cars on Georgia’s roads every year. A typical plant produces 3.7 million tons annually according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

In addition, the Longleaf plant would violate the U.S. EPA’s air quality standards for fine particulate matter where the plant is located, the groups alleged.

“The Clean Air Act was enacted by Congress to protect public health and with Judge Moore’s decision that is what is finally going to happen here in Georgia, said Patty Durand, Georgia Chapter director of the Sierra Club.

“Our state can find other ways to produce cleaner, more economically beneficial energy,” said Durand. “Other states are doing it. Why can’t we?”

Dynegy provides wholesale power, capacity and related services to utilities, cooperatives, municipalities and other energy companies in 14 states in the Midwest, the Northeast and on the West Coast. The S&P 500 company’s power generation portfolio consists of more than 19,000 megawatts of baseload, intermediate and peaking power plants fueled by a mix of coal, fuel oil and natural gas.

Dynegy has the most proposed coal-fired power plants of any company in the United States. An appeal of Judge Moore’s ruling is expected, but for the moment, the plaintiff groups are celebrating.

“Coal-fired power plants emit more than 30 percent of our nation’s global warming pollution,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. “Thanks to this decision, coal plants across the country will be forced to live up to their clean coal rhetoric.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, May 28, 2008 (ENS) – Health and environmental advocates filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to adopt stronger standards for ground-level ozone proposed by the agency’s own scientists.

The American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Appalachian Mountain Club are taking issue with the standards adopted by the federal environment agency in March.

The standards for ozone pollution, one of the components of smog, are not only far weaker than those unanimously recommended by EPA science advisors, but also leave public health and the environment at great risk, the groups contend.

“EPA officials ignored the advice of their own scientists when they chose these deficient standards, but they can’t ignore the law,” said attorney David Baron with the public interest law firm Earthjustice who filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, DC Circuit.

Smog hangs over the city of Atlanta,
Georgia. (Photo credit unknown)

“The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt standards strong enough to protect our lungs and our environment. We’re fighting to make sure that happens,” Baron said. “Stronger standards could save thousands of lives, by some estimates.”

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is already under suspicion of bowing to White House pressure to reject stronger smog standards. Johnson was grilled last week by members of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform who asked why he rejected the advice of scientists in setting the standard.

Before the committee on May 20, Johnson defended his actions and insisted that he was solely responsible for the smog decision. He declined to provide details about his meetings with the president and other White House officials.

“I have routine meetings with the executive branch including the president … those meetings are in confidence,” Johnson told the committee.

Johnson testified beside the head of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, Dr. Rogene Henderson, who critiqued Johnson’s actions, telling committee members, “Policymakers wandered into science and they did not do it well.”

“Willful ignorance triumphed over sound science,” Henderson told the legislators.

Henderson’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had recommended that the EPA set the health standard at between 60 and 70 parts of ozone per billion parts of air.

Instead, Johnson and the EPA set the standard at 75 parts per billion.

In their petition for review of the EPA ozone standard, the groups contend that the 75 parts per billion standard leaves asthmatics, young children, the elderly and others at greater risk for lung and heart disease than the standard recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee .

Smog is linked to premature deaths, thousands of emergency room visits, and tens of thousands of asthma attacks each year. Ozone is especially dangerous to small children and senior citizens, who are often warned to stay indoors on polluted days.

Exposures of less than 24 hours to current levels of ground-level ozone in many areas are likely to contribute to premature deaths, according to a National Research Council report published on Earth Day 2008

Evidence of a relationship between exposures of less than 24 hours and mortality has been mounting, but interpretations of the evidence have differed, prompting the EPA to request the Research Council report.

The committee that wrote the report was not asked to consider how evidence has been used by the EPA to set ozone standards, but the evidence is strong enough that the EPA should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards, said the committee.

“Ozone pollution threatens breathing for millions of Americans, especially children, the elderly and people with lung disease including asthma,” said Bernadette Toomey, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The EPA’s decision to disregard the overwhelming evidence and the advice of respected experts is a decision that we could not allow to go unchallenged.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, March 28, 2008 (ENS) – More than 70 groups from 27 states are objecting to a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would exempt factory farms from reporting emissions of hazardous gases from animal waste.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice submitted formal comments on behalf of the groups, which include family farmers and environmental advocates who say the federal agency’s proposal will harm people living and working near factory farms.

They object that “EPA’s proposed administrative reporting exemption for hazardous emissions at AFOs [animal feeding operations] is unlawful and arbitrary and should not be finalized.”

“It defies logic. EPA is attempting to do away with the very rules it has used to bring polluting factory farms into compliance,” said Earthjustice attorney George Torgun, who helped the groups to file their comments during the public comment window which closed Thursday.

“Requiring polluters to report toxic releases is essential to keeping communities informed about public health risks and is the first step in reducing these risks,” he said.

Concentrated animal feeding operation along a
highway in Iowa. Each building holds
up to 3,000 pigs. (Photo by
Elise Bauer)

Under the proposed rule change, large chicken production facilities, hog confinements, and cattle feeding operations would no longer have to report releases of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and other toxic gases.

The EPA says that the source and nature of such pollution makes an emergency response “unnecessary, impractical and unlikely,” and that the proposal “is protective of human health and the environment.”

The federal agency says this proposed rule “would reduce the burden on the regulated community of complying with these reporting requirements and allow emergency responders to focus on hazardous substance releases that would require a response.”

But reporting is not onerous or difficult. One telephone call or online report submission to the National Response Center fulfills the requirement to report the release of hazardous substances.

“This ill-considered proposal may save polluters a toll-free phone call, but it will make it harder for local emergency responders to protect communities,” said Earthjustice attorney Keri Powell. “It undermines public safety and goes against the law.”

The rule change would drop reporting requirements for hazardous air releases from big animal-feeding operations such as Threemile Canyon Farms in Boardman, Oregon, where the EPA found waste from the operation’s 52,000 dairy cows pumps more than 5.5 million pounds of ammonia into the atmosphere each year.

Family farms across American have given way to large-scale industrial animal feeding operations. The federal government estimates that animal density at poultry, swine, dairy and cattle operations has increased on average between 50 and 176 percent.

Earthjustice argues that the EPA proposed the rule change in December after pressure from agriculture industry lobbyists – in spite of findings by its own scientists that toxic gases from factory farms can pose serious health risks, including respiratory illness, lung inflammation and increasing vulnerability to asthma.

Sudden exposure can also be fatal, Earthjustice points out, citing a study which found that 19 workers at factory farms in Iowa were killed from hydrogen sulfide released during manure agitation.

“Yet again EPA is flaunting its willingness to place the financial interests of industry over the health and safety of our environment and our communities,” says Scott Edwards, legal director of the Waterkeeper Alliance.

“Factory farming is having a devastating impact on our nation’s waterways and now EPA is helping to insure that our airsheds also fall victim to this destructive practice,” said Edwards.

The EPA says release notifications must still be made to emergency response authorities when hazardous substances are released to the air from sources other than animal waste, such as ammonia tanks, as well as releases of hazardous substances to soil and water.

Today’s comments were submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of groups in – Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 7, 2008 (ENS) – Environmental attorney Trent Orr of the nonprofit public interest law firm Earthjustice warns that the Bush administration is again attempting to remove key protections for U.S. national forests.

This attempt was evident, he says, today, when the U.S. Forest Service released its court-ordered Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2008 Planning Rule.

In it, the Service selects a preferred method for developing sweeping land management plans that the agency said will “provide the framework for all resource and recreation management on national forests and grasslands nationwide.”

The Service insists it welcomes public involvement in the planning process for the 193 million acres of National Forest lands.

“We’re proud of this vitally important planning process and yet we recognize that improvements were needed to emphasize more public collaboration, to be more adaptive to changing environmental conditions, and to ensure the protection of wildlife,” said Joel Holtrop, deputy chief of the National Forest System.

Spindly, unhealthy trees fill in a
logged over area. (Photo courtesy FFNR)

After receiving and considering over 79,000 comments on the draft environmental impact statement, the Forest Service developed Alternative M as their preferred alternative. “The alternative is based on public comment and builds on the 1982, 2002, and 2005 Planning Rules and years of professional forest planning experience,” the Service says.

It provides “extensive public participation and offers an approach to quickly respond to changing natural resource conditions,” said the Service.

“This preferred alternative expands public involvement by requiring early and frequent public dialogue in all phases of the development, implementation and monitoring of land management plans,” said David Dillard, director of Ecosystem Management Coordination.

“This exceeds National Environmental Policy Act requirements for public involvement,” he said.

Orr disagrees.

Like the draft released this summer, he says, the Final EIS just states that none of the alternatives would affect the environment.

“This doesn’t come close to complying with the National Environmental Policy Act.”

The Service’s biological assessment of the new planning regulations “concludes that these will have no effect on any species listed as endangered or threatened, despite their abandonment of existing protections for wildlife in the national forests.”

The Final EIS was ordered almost a year ago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Phyllis Hamilton found that Bush administration officials had failed to do a legally required EIS to determine how weakening protections for wildlife, clean water, old growth, and public involvement in the planning process would affect the nation’s forests.

“The national forest planning rules are like the Constitution for our national forests, and the Bush administration tried to throw out the Bill of Rights,” said Orr, who argued the case before Judge Hamilton.

The Final EIS reveals that the new regulations eliminate wildlife and diversity protections just as the 2005 Bush Rule did, Orr says, adding, “The new regulations substitute “Categorical Exclusions” for Environmental Impact Statements as the rule for forest plans.”

“The Forest Service appears to be rushing out yet another set of regulations that weaken protections for wildlife and biological diversity on the national forests,” Orr said. “This proposal will continue to favor industrial forestry over protecting clean streams and fisheries.”

“Not only is the Bush administration trying to seriously weaken key protections for our National Forests, they pretend that these actions won’t have any effect,” said Kate Freund, legislative associate for Earthjustice. “They have once again failed to make a good-faith effort to follow the law.”

“One change in the latest version would give forest managers complete discretion to decide how future forest plans are analyzed under NEPA, or even whether environmental impacts are considered at all,” said Orr.

Last October, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives wrote a letter to the Forest Service opposing the proposed National Forest management changes and calling for thorough environmental review of the rule.

“NEPA is our ‘look before you leap’ law, which ensures openness in federal decision-making, said Orr. “By only paying lip-service to analyzing environmental impacts and seeking to exclude future forest plans from NEPA, the Bush administration is thumbing its nose at the court, Congress, and the American people.”

Read the Planning Rule of 2008 Final EIS here: [www.fs.fed.us]

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

NEW YORK, New York, January 20, 2008 (ENS) – Environmental advocates and state and city governments filed lawsuits Thursday to force the U.S. Department of Energy to adopt stronger energy efficiency standards for residential furnaces and boilers.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed suit on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, arguing that a two percent increase in efficiency standards adopted by the Energy Department in November will cost consumers billions of dollars and fail to reduce global warming emissions of carbon dioxide, CO2.

The city of New York and the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York also challenged the DOE standards in a joint lawsuit filed separately.

“Stronger energy efficiency standards for furnaces and boilers would save money, stop pollution and spare health,” said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. “The Bush administration’s stagnant standards disregard the law and public interest, benefiting industry at the expense of consumers and the environment.”

“Without increased fuel efficiency, consumers nationwide will unnecessarily spend potentially millions more in home heating costs, while their furnaces and boilers spew millions more tons of harmful CO2.”

The new DOE standards for gas-fired furnaces – the most common home heating appliance – represent a small increase from 78 to 80 percent efficiency.

When the DOE announced its new standards for furnaces and boilers in November 2007, the agency tried to put a good face on the move.

“As a nation, we must find better and more ways to both conserve energy and use it more efficiently and productively. These amended standards will not only cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, but they also allow consumers to make smarter energy choices that will save energy and money,” said DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner.

“Improving appliance standards is a top priority of the Department of Energy, and in the coming years, we intend to maintain and, where possible, accelerate the extraordinary progress we have made over the last two years,” he said.

Higher efficiency standards translate into economic benefits, especially in northern states where the cost difference between low and high efficiency models can be recovered more quickly through reduced heating bills.

Advocates for residents in these regions said the weak national standards hurt renters who are stuck paying the higher fuel costs of less efficient models installed by landlords.

“By adopting such weak new standards, the Energy Department is telling New Yorkers and others that reducing greenhouse gases and heating bills just doesn’t matter,” said Ramin Pejan, attorney at the New York City Law Department. “The success of the City’s PlaNYC efforts to improve air quality in a cost-effective manner depends, in part, on cooperation from federal agencies.”

“DOE chose to implement a standard so weak it is simply meaningless,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Ballo. “The vast majority of products on the market already meet the standard DOE has adopted. This is a blink and you’ll miss it efficiency increase.”

Ballo says the Energy Department recognized that adopting a 90 percent efficiency standard nationwide would maximize consumer value, saving $11 billion over a 24 year period, while also preventing the emission of 141 million tons of carbon dioxide over the same span.

Yet the federal agency instead opted for a standard that 99 percent of furnaces on the market already meet, resulting in much less cost savings and virtually no reduction in CO2 emissions.

The lawsuits challenge what plaintiffs call flaws in the Energy Department’s economic analysis that led the department to undervalue the benefits of stronger standards. For example, a stronger standard would most likely drive down the cost of natural gas, but the agency officials failed to consider this factor in making their decision.

The plaintifs contend that the Energy Department also failed to place a dollar value on the decreased carbon dioxide emissions that would result from a stronger efficiency standard.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

ALBANY, New York, December 31, 2007 (ENS) – Four environmental groups seeking stronger cleanup standards for brownfield properties are suing the state of New York.

Their lawsuit challenges the state’s Brownfield Cleanup Program that is intended to encourage the cleanup and redevelopment of the thousands of boarded-up gas stations, decaying factories and other abandoned brownfield sites across the state.

Brownfields sites are those that cannot be developed because of toxic contamination. The contamination is typically not severe enough to warrant a more robust cleanup under the Superfund law, but poses health and environmental risks if development occurs without some remediation.

A state Supreme Court judge heard oral arguments December 21 by the public interest law firm Earthjustice challenging the state’s Brownfield Cleanup Program.

Earthjustice is representing Sierra Club, New York Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Advocates of New York and Citizens’ Environmental Coalition in the case.

“Before we give out tax credits and liability exemptions to developers, before we allow homes and daycare centers and nursing homes to be built on these sites, we must make sure they are cleaned up to a level that protects human health,” said Earthjustice attorney Keri Powell. “That’s what we’re asking for in this lawsuit.”

“Under Governor [George] Pataki’s administration, New York established unsafe, second-rate soil cleanup standards that are not protective of children and drinking water,” said Anne Rabe, board member of Citizens’ Environmental Coalition.

HealthNow, the parent company
of BlueCross BlueShield of
Western New York, is building
on a Buffalo brownfield site.
(Photo courtesy New York DEC)

After 12 years in office Governor George Pataki was replaced in January by Governor Eliot Spitzer, the former attorney general of New York.

“Surprisingly, Governor [Eliot] Spitzer and the Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health have refused to address this outstanding flaw in the brownfield program. It is time for the state to fix this problem and stop subsidizing dirty cleanups,” said Rabe.

The environmental groups contend the state Department of Environmental Conservation, DEC, adopted weaker cleanup standards for properties in polluted neighborhoods, saying that sites only had to meet “background” levels of pollution. Under this regulation, such sites would be left only as clean as the surrounding area instead of being held to stricter standards designed to protect human health.

In response to the lawsuit, the Spitzer administration conceded in November that the program’s use of polluted “background” levels to limit site cleanups is illegal.

But the groups contend that other serious flaws remain in the way legislation is being applied in New York.

In 2003, a new brownfields law was adopted by the State Legislature. The 2003 law requires that sites be cleaned to a level that protects indoor air, surface water, and fish and other aquatic resources. But the groups argue that the DEC has refused to follow this mandate.

“All we are asking is that New York State’s brownfields regulations be protective of public health and the environment, and reflect what the law requires,” said Tim Sweeney, Regulatory Watch Program director with Environmental Advocates of New York. “The Department of Environmental Conservation has forced us to take them to court over concerns that are entirely reasonable and legitimate.”

State lawmakers also asked the DEC to study the results of past cleanups to determine whether tougher cleanup standards could be achieved, especially for contaminants where there is insufficient data on health risk. The DEC has not done this.

Finally, the groups argue that the DEC “arbitrarily” excluded all properties polluted by an off-site source. This exclusion could leave countless sites ineligible, many of them in low-income communities with a legacy of toxic contamination where pollution can be coming from several sources.

“The brownfield cleanup issue is the first real test of the Spitzer administration’s commitment to protecting public health, and so far, we’ve been disappointed in their response,” said Laura Haight, senior environmental associate with the New York Public Interest Research Group.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.