The U.S. Supreme Court Court on May 25 significantly curtailed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation's wetlands and waterways. It was the court's second decision in a year limiting the ability of the agency to enact anti-pollution regulations and combat climate change. Reporting by Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio quotes President Biden as calling the decision "disappointing." It "upends the legal framework that has protected America's waters for decades," he said. "It also defies the science that confirms the critical role of wetlands in safeguarding our nation's streams, rivers, and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and wellbeing of children, families, and communities." Farmers and developers see it differently - this will enable them to use wetlands that were previously restricted. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture reports in a May 25 email that this decision in Sackett v. EPA clarifies states’ authority and brings hope of regulatory certainty for farmers. NASDA CEO Ted McKinley says "The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sackett v. EPA today comes as welcome news to farmers, landowners and state departments of agriculture who sought clarity on what has been an over-litigated issue for decades,” McKinney said. “We take relief in this decision as the justices clearly state the ‘significant nexus theory is particularly implausible’ and the EPA has no statutory basis to impose the standard.” The Des Moines Register in an May 25 article reports on the split decision:
In a May 25 press release, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan issued the following statement: “As a public health agency, EPA is committed to ensuring that all people, regardless of race, the money in their pocket, or community they live in, have access to clean, safe water. We will never waver from that responsibility. I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision that erodes longstanding clean water protections. The Biden-Harris Administration has worked to establish a durable definition of ‘waters of the United States’ that safeguards our nation’s waters, strengthens economic opportunity, and protects people’s health while providing the clarity and certainty that farmers, ranchers, and landowners deserve. These goals will continue to guide the agency forward as we carefully review the Supreme Court decision and consider next steps. In 1972, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed the Clean Water Act, giving EPA and Army Corp implementation responsibilities. In doing so, our leaders recognized that protecting our nation’s waters is vital to ensuring a thriving economy and agricultural sector, to sustaining diverse ecosystems, and to protecting the water our children drink. Over the past 50 years, we have made transformational progress — rivers that were once on fire have been restored and now sustain vibrant communities in every corner of the country. A common sense and science-based definition of ‘waters of the United States’ is essential to building on that progress and fulfilling our responsibility to preserve our nation’s waters — now and for future generations.” This interpretation is another volley in the game of political football that the Clean Water Rule has become. Previous reporting on the LWV UMRR Blog:
0 Comments
Arne Carlson was governor of Minnesota from 1991 to 1999. He continues to speak out on issues, especially those affecting Minnesota's environment. In a recent interview with Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Dennis Anderson, Carlson talked about his concern regarding the proposed PolyMet and Tamarac mines. In this interview, Carlson restates his long-held concerns about the ownership of these proposed mines and their past performance in other settings. The PolyMet copper mine would be located in the Boundary Waters watershed. The Tamarac mine in the headwaters of the Mississippi, and would be a source of nickel, cobalt and copper. This report on the Minnesota Legislature's website provides deeper information on these two projects.
Another mining project proposed in Minnesota is a manganese mine near Emily, Minnesota, in the heart of our northern Minnesota lakes region. This mine, North Star Manganese, would be an underground mine with a processing plant. Development of this mine has been controversial, and like the others, it has the possibility of serious impacts to water resources in the Upper Mississippi. An April 30 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune outlines the troubled path this project has followed and the plans for its future. The minerals that are proposed to be mined will be needed for powering electric vehicles in the future. These mines would provide domestic sources of these critical minerals. The need for balance in developing these resources is critical. This 2017 article in the New York Times provides background on the minerals and issues. We will continue to follow these projects and provide periodic updates on the LWV UMRR blog. This is a post by Matt Doll of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, and is shared here with permission.
Developed at 3M in the 1970s, the PFAS class of chemicals are useful for making products waterproof and easy to clean, among other uses. They don’t break down easily, and there’s no natural process that makes it happen - hence the use of the term “forever chemicals” to describe them.
The fact that PFAS doesn’t break down in the environment would be bad enough. But many of these chemicals contribute to a myriad of health conditions - cancer, vaccine resistance, high cholesterol - makes their rapid proliferation a worldwide tragedy. And those are just the effects we know of today. No one on this planet chose to put PFAS in their bodies, but almost of us have it anyway. These chemicals have made their way into our bloodstream through water, fish, and consumer products. Some communities, like parts of the eastern Twin Cities Metro - home to an old 3M dumping site - have it worse than others, facing appalling rates of illnesses like childhood cancer. Some of the worst offenders among PFAS chemicals - specifically PFOA and PFOS - have been largely phased out in most countries, leading to dramatic reductions in their prevalence in human bodies. But others continue to be used in numerous consumer products and in concentrated sources like firefighting foam. And we’re only just beginning to learn about the horrifying scope of PFAS usage in pesticides (as if one of the world’s worst environmental offenders couldn’t get worse!) Taken together, the story of PFAS so far is a gloomy one. Humanity will be dealing with the health ramifications of these toxic substances for generations to come. But in Minnesota, the birthplace of PFAS, we might be starting to turn things around. The Minnesota response The good news is that we have simple, effective tools for reducing the amount of PFAS in our bodies: halt their use, and make sure that our drinking water is protected. Those solutions are the basis for the package of PFAS legislation currently advancing at the Capitol, which MEP has identified as one of our key priorities to pass this session. Most are included in one or both of the Environment Omnibus Bills introduced in the House and Senate. The solutions proposed in these bills have included:
These bills certainly haven’t gone unopposed. Lobbyists representing a wide array of chemical companies flew to Minnesota earlier in the session to argue that companies will be unfairly burdened by these proposals. They made arguments about the cost of compliance, the fact that not all PFAS chemicals have yet been identified as causing harm, and the challenges of having different chemical laws in different states. That last argument should be taken with an especially large grain of salt - the chemical industries aren’t exactly thrilled by the idea of nationwide regulation, either. The chemical lobby stood in contrast, especially in comparison to students and parents from Tartan High School in Oakdale - ground zero for PFAS exposure. These community members shared their own stories with Legislators of how their loved ones’ lives have been devastated or cut short by PFAS-related cancers. Legislators have modified some of their provisions, but they aren’t stepping backward on the PFAS package, nor should they. If signed into law, it would represent among the strongest actions ever taken in the United States to combat this health threat. It’s encouraging to see the signs around the world that the use of PFAS substances is waning. 3M, which faces major lawsuits for its role in this crisis, has committed to phasing out their PFAS manufacturing entirely by 2025. The European Chemicals Agency has proposed phasing out PFAS across the entire European Union. Maine has passed a law that bans all intentional inclusion of PFAS in products by 2030. Here in Minnesota, we’re working to start fixing the PFAS problem where it began. We owe it to ourselves, our kids, and the world to get it right. For previous columns by Matt, visit mepartnership.org/category/blog/. If you would like to reblog or republish this column, you may do so for free - simply contact the author through the LWV UMRR email: lwvumrr@lwvmn.org. Carbon pipelines were the topic of the October 2022 UMRR meeting - this UMRR blog post has the video and lots of information. Now, as companies are seeking landowner and regulatory permissions to build CO2 pipelines, there have been some events that can affect the process.
Today (March 28) in Iowa, House File 565, which restricts the use of eminent domain to build carbon pipelines, passed the Iowa House in a bipartisan vote with 73 votes in favor and 20 against. This bill moves to the Iowa Senate Commerce Committee now - it must pass there by March 31 to move on. In Illinois, the Coalition to Stop CO2 Pipelines has obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act showing Navigator's 1350-mile CO2 pipeline project would cross over 1800 waters of the U.S. and impact over 150 acres of wetland. The project also includes horizontal directional drilling under major rivers, such as the Illinois and the Mississippi. According to a post on the Coalition's website, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is ready to permit the project, not as a one complete pipeline, but as 1800 separate projects, under its expedited Nationwide permitting program. This will allow the pipeline to proceed without a full environmental review or any public comment. There is an Action Alert on the site to reach out to Corps officials and US Senators and members of Congress requesting a more robust permitting process. There is also a bill in the Illinois legislature to restrict pipeline expansion. An article on Reuters website provides a broader update on pipelines. They report that Navigator CO2 Ventures’ proposed carbon pipeline project in the U.S. Midwest is struggling to secure a site to store millions of tons of greenhouse gas it hopes to collect from the region’s ethanol plants, as residents refuse to give up land rights over fears the underground reservoirs could leak, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. Also at issue in Illinois is the regulation of "pore space", the airspace between bits of rock and soil where CO2 would be stored. Who owns the 'nothing' in the soil under our feet? An article posted on the Newburn Law website examines this issue. This article provides some background on the issue as well as an analysis of laws pertaining to the use of pore space. "One of the emerging issues around CCS is who owns the pore space in the ground. Under United States' land rights laws, the person who owns the pore space in the ground is generally the person who owns the surface estate—that is, all the land above the pore space. Of course, a landowner can sell the right to mine the underlying ground soil for minerals. More and more, energy companies are seeking out land with underground pore space to implement their CCS technology. CCS is usually employed deep underground. The issue for companies wanting to use CCS is whether they must pay the surface owners for use of the underground pore space. Of course, this raises issues of private property rights. Does the surface owner of the land own all of the pore space beneath it? What if someone else owns the mineral rights to the land? Do they also own the pore space? Whether a landowner can divest their rights to the pore space under their land, who has the rights to the pore space, and the value of the pore space, are all complicated and novel legal issues courts are just now starting to address."
Our speakers are ardent and knowledgeable people who know hydrology and are passionate about the rugged terrain and wild waters of the Driftless area. The video starts with the basics - how groundwater works, interconnections to surface water, land use impacts and drinking water impairment. Jeff Broberg led us through this with humor and grace. Jeff's home in rural Winona doesn't have a safe water supply, so he has a personal stake in the water quality of the area. Next our speakers addressed two examples of watersheds - one in Minnesota and one in Iowa. The WinLac watershed in Minnesota surrounds the cities of Winona and La Crescent, along the Mississippi. The uplands of this watershed are in the Karst bluffs and land use has heavily impacted drinking water quality. Paul Wotzka described the impacts we see in this small watershed, including the impacts of row crop and animal agriculture. When land use changes, water quality improves. How does that work? Paul explained how his land practices have improved the water at his home. The second watershed we looked at is Bloody Run in northeastern Iowa - read more about Bloody Run at this link. Larry Stone is part of the Save Bloody Run movement, and he provided an update on where this case is in the courts and on the ground. The webinar wrapped up with a lively question and answer session led by LWV UMRR Chair Mary Ellen Miller. Many thanks to our speakers for this excellent program!
Zoom or in person event, sponsored by the Izaak Walton League of Minnesota January 27 at 6:30 pm The in-person event will be held at the IWLA Minnesota Valley Chapter House 6601 Auto Club Road - Bloomington, MN Creation of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (Refuge) was largely the result of the Izaak Walton League, and in particular, the efforts of its founder and leader, Will Dilg. Dilg's vision became a reality on June 7, 1924 when Congress passed the Act establishing the Refuge. Today the Refuge begins near Wabasha, MN and extends downstream for 261 miles ending near the Quad Cities of Iowa and Illinois. In this meeting, participants will take a journey around the Refuge highlighting recent efforts in MN that perpetuate Dilg's vision.
Clean Water for All (CWfA) is a national non-profit organization started in 2016 to meet the need for a single, comprehensive coalition that advocates for national clean water protections, which in turn benefit watersheds across the country. LWV UMRR participates in CWfA in two ways - as a member of the Mississippi River Network, which is in turn a member of CWfA, and through the individual participation of LWV UMRR Secretary Tamara Prenosil. CWfA is a national network that brings together organizations to build and utilize collective power to advance equitable policies that increase access, affordability, and strong protections of clean water across the nation. They envision every community having safe and affordable clean water that supports thriving communities, healthy ecosystems, cultural resources, and wildlife. Their work focuses in three issue areas: federal policy, infrastructure and agricultural pollution. Equity and Climate are integral to all three areas.
The LWV UMRR blog is going to focus on groundwater for the next few months. This month we have two posts on the transfer of groundwater from state to state and country to country through bottled beverages and agricultural products. In "Exporting Water from the Mississippi - one 0.5liter Bottle at a Time", we take a look at the efforts of Niagara Bottling to site water bottling facilities in Minnesota and Wisconsin. This California company is seeking to expand in areas where cities will use their water supplies to encourage economic growth - the catch is that municipal water supplies are rated a higher priority than industrial uses, so an industrial use of municipal water takes advantage of a loophole in the system. The second post, "Groundwater is moving across the world in products" looks at the use of Arizona groundwater to raise alfalfa for dairy herds in Saudi Arabia. Arizona passed an act requiring the big cities to manage groundwater sustainably, but that law does not apply outside these major population centers... another loophole being exploited to access water. Minnesota also passed a Ground Water Protection Act, back in 1989. The Minnesota Ground Water Association charged a team with developing a white paper that looks at implementation of the Act in the past 30 years, and then looks ahead to what more needs to be done. (You can view a video on this Act and White Paper at this link.) One issue that stands out through all of these is the movement of water from one state, or one country, to another. Without clear policies to govern sharing (and not sharing) of water, there will be piecemeal protections and continuing over-withdrawals.
There's a whole more ways that water moves in products. Bottled beverages, dairy products, agricultural products and much more. In November, CNN posted an article on how groundwater in Arizona (yes, super-dry Arizona) is being used to grow alfalfa that is shipped to Saudi Arabia (where the use of groundwater for agricultural products has been prohibited) to feed cattle for Saudi dairy products.
Dropping groundwater levels are not just a problem of water supply for residents; cities are impacted, too, threatening the water supply of thousands. And when aquifers drop, the ground surface compacts, resulting in land subsidence. And changes in land use have resulted in other problems; the CNN article documents floods of silt that have impacted local homes due to changes in runoff patterns.
Arizona passed a law back in 1980, the Arizona Groundwater Protection Act, that established "Active Management Areas" around Phoenix, Tucson and other high-growth areas, but does not address agricultural use of groundwater. (This article on the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association blog describe the Act and provides background on why it was passed.) Foreign interests are exploiting the lack of protection for the resource and are 'mining' the resource to move groundwater, as products, from this very thirsty region.
We should take time to think about this... it's easier to feel outrage about Arizona water feeding Saudi cows than it is about Midwestern schoolkids eating Arizona citrus. But we are all part of the problem... and we all need to be part of developing and implementing smart laws and effective protection measures to protect our water resources.
|
LWV Upper Mississippi River Region | UMRR blog |