|
|
March 1, 2010
Who Needs Clean Water Anyway?$BlogItemTitle$>
Another entry in the New York Times fantastic "Toxic Waters" series came out Sunday. This latest one is about the slow but tragically effective weakening of the Clean Water Act: Thousands of the nation's largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act's reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.
As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising. Companies that have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters are not being prosecuted, according to Environmental Protection Agency regulators working on those cases, who estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years. The Clean Water Act was intended to end dangerous water pollution by regulating every major polluter. But today, regulators may be unable to prosecute as many as half of the nation's largest known polluters because officials lack jurisdiction or because proving jurisdiction would be overwhelmingly difficult or time consuming, according to midlevel officials. "We are, in essence, shutting down our Clean Water programs in some states," said Douglas F. Mundrick, an E.P.A. lawyer in Atlanta. "This is a huge step backward. When companies figure out the cops can’t operate, they start remembering how much cheaper it is to just dump stuff in a nearby creek." "This is a huge deal," James M. Tierney, the New York State assistant commissioner for water resources, said of the new constraints. "There are whole watersheds that feed into New York's drinking water supply that are, as of now, unprotected." All this despite the dangerous rise in pollutants in our drinking water. Meanwhile, Congress has been trying to engineer a fix in the form of the Clean Water Restoration Act, specifically by removing the word "navigable" from a description of waterways subject to regulation under the CWA. But guess who is among the lobbying groups leading the charge against reform? Our good friends in industrial agriculture, the American Farm Bureau. They are lobbying directly and through corporate front groups like the perniciously named Waters Advocacy Coalition. And here's what an AFB spokesman had to say to the New York Times: "If you erase the word 'navigable' from the law, it erases any limitation on the federal government's reach," said Mr. Parrish of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "It could be a gutter, a roadside ditch or a rain puddle. But under the new law, the government gets control over it." The article also suggests that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson could issue a ruling that would clear up some of the confusion regarding the EPA's jurisdiction. She has so far refused, preferring to wait for Congress to act. But with the GOP doing an awesome impersonation of a brick wall, it's hard to see the legislation moving forward any time soon. Perhaps Ms. Jackson might reconsider. It's only our water, after all.
Labels: health, politics, pollution, water
January 28, 2010
Frack, Baby, Frack$BlogItemTitle$>
With all the excitement over fracking -- the process of freeing huge amount of natural gas trapped within rock formations such as the Marcellus Shale by injecting water and chemicals at high pressure -- in Pennsylvania and New York, it's tempting to forget that the environmental cost to getting the gas out of the ground may turn out to be severe. In NY, the concern is radioactive contamination of New York City's upstate water supply. In Pennsylvania, the problem is more mundane -- constant industrial accidents (via Pro Publica): Earlier this month, Pennsylvania's environmental officials fined Pennsylvania-based Atlas Resources after a series of violations at 13 wells, including spills of fracturing fluids and other contaminants onto the ground around the sites. And just last week the agency fined M.R. Dirt, a company that removes waste from drilling sites, $6,000 for spilling more than seven tons of drilling dirt along a public road. The reports come on the heels of a string of other incidents that have killed fish in one of the state's most prized recreational lakes and released toxic chemicals into the environment. The Atlas spills are significant because they are among the latest and because they happened repeatedly during the routine transfer of fluids. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection fined [1] Atlas Resources $85,000 for the offenses, which took place between May and December of 2009. Many of the spills were discovered by DEP inspectors. ..."If you look at this series of violations -- it's not only that there are multiple violations," said DEP spokeswoman Helen Humphreys, pointing to the fact that the same three violations were turning up at each site. "This is a pattern, and it's a problem." Newsweek has a nice piece on the dangers of fracking fluids -- the stuff they inject into rock to bust the natural gas out -- and the fact that, despite their highly toxic, often corrosive, nature, such fluids were exempted from clean water regulations by Congress back in 2005. The NYT also covered a series of drilling-related spills in Pennsylvania a month ago.
But no matter the technique, Pennsylvanians should know by now that extractive industries have a tendency to poison the environments they exploit. The state has been actively cheerleading the industry (although given the potential windfall also strangely resistant to taxing it -- Gov. Rendell seems to prefer putting the tax burden on casino gamblers). But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, especially where hydrocholoric acid, benzene and diesel fuel (favorite ingredients for frackers everywhere) are concerned. Like the saying goes, frack around too much and there's sure to be trouble in the end.
Labels: health, local, politics, pollution, water
March 16, 2009
Poisoning the Water for a Nice Green Lawn$BlogItemTitle$>
This is one of my pet peeves. Starting in the early spring when I see those Chemlawn trucks rolling through my neighborhood, I want to have my Howard Beale moment. I want to run up to these people and scream, "Why are you pouring poison on your lawn?!?!?" I don't do it, of course, but I do marvel at the willingness people have to blindly pour that stuff on their property and thence into their drinking water. It has always surprised my that municipalities didn't seem to care. Apparently, that's changing: A new law proposed by Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, prohibits lawn fertilizer applications from Nov. 1 to April 1 to prevent nitrogen runoff from frozen ground. The law, which also requires retailers to post signs near fertilizer displays advising customers of the date restrictions, took effect in January. Violators, whether landscapers or homeowners, risk fines of $1,000.
In a county with no other source for drinking water for its 1.4 million residents, rising levels of nitrates are no small matter, county health officials said. Once concentrations in a water supply exceed a longstanding federal and state health standard of 10 milligrams per liter, public drinking wells must be shut down or else costly denitrification equipment must be added at the wellhead. Even at lower levels, nitrates become an environmental concern, health officials said. The restriction seem pretty mild to me - I'd ban lawn fertilization outright. Heck, in a world where people insist on watering them even in the midst of severe drought and where homeowners associations fine members if they don't, I'd ban lawns! But I'm not really that Stalinist. Not yet, anyway. Photo by heipei used under a CC licenseLabels: health, pollution, water
February 18, 2009
Scary Economic Indicators$BlogItemTitle$>
When desalination startups start to make news and attract VC capital, I think we can say Peak Water is here: Desalination start-up Oasys Water is banking on the fact that water will shortly be the new oil. Flagship Ventures, Advanced Technology Ventures (ATV), and Draper Fisher Jurvetson (DFJ) seem to agree as the three invested a total of $10 million in Series A funding. Sounds like this group is pretty far from shipping product. But I'm sure folks in Los Angeles are interested in getting on the waiting list. Photo by Hypergurl used under CC licenseLabels: climate, water
|
 |
|
|
|