As fall weather arrives, the National Wildlife Federation is making the case for Marylanders to take a new approach to leaf management.

Fall lawn care often involves bagging leaves, by either raking or collecting with a mower, but the federation is asking people to leave at least a portion of their leaves in place. The leaf layer provides a critical habitat for butterfly and moth larvae to overwinter, and they in turn provide food for birds in the spring.

David Mizejewski, naturalist for the National Wildlife Federation, said if you must remove the leaves, a great option is to use them as mulch in planting beds.

"They cover the roots under the plants, they suppress weeds, they retain soil moisture," Mizejewski outlined. "Sounds an awful lot like mulch and fertilizer. But we've been trained by the garden industry to 'get rid of all the leaves,' and then go buy mulch and fertilizer."

The federation conducted a survey this year to coincide with its campaign and found only one in four people "leaves their leaves," and about half of those who rake leaves throw them away.

In the survey, 36% of respondents said they were required to remove leaves by a homeowners association or city ordinance. While leaves breaking down naturally help improve the soil, Mizejewski argued throwing leaves out with the trash is harmful to the environment.

"Bagging them up and sending them to the landfill actually is a really bad thing," Mizejewski contended. "It really contributes some really nasty greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere that are a piece of climate change."

In landfills, leaves and other organic waste decompose and produce methane, which as a greenhouse gas is many times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Mizejewski added if you must remove the leaves, it is better to compost them or take them to a municipal recycling center.

Michigan boasts 11,000 inland lakes, more freshwater shoreline than any other state and tens of thousands of miles of rivers and streams but a new report shows some waters are being contaminated by livestock waste from concentrated animal feeding operations.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center report says the 290 feeding operations in Michigan generate almost 63 million pounds of waste.

Katie Garvey, staff attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Center and author of the report, said lax regulation leads to more pollution.

"This is just a lot of waste, and it all has to go somewhere," Garvey pointed out. "Unfortunately, because of the way that this industry operates and the state's failure to regulate it properly, that 'somewhere' -- all too often -- is the waters of the state."

Garvey said if the feeding operations were regulated like other industrial operations, they would have to either treat their waste before disposing of it, safely manage it, or produce less waste. Some defenders of the operations say every farm is different and the industry should not be painted with a broad brush.

Sarah Fronczak, environmental management educator for Michigan State University Extension, grew up on a farm and now helps to educate farmers and others on best practices. Fronczak believes the most effective way to keep livestock waste from running off is a tried-and-true method many farmers have gotten away from, the use of plants known as cover crops.

"Usually, when I work with a farmer, I'll say, 'Hey, are you applying your manure to living roots?'" Fronczak noted. "Because if a plant is there to take up the nutrients, it's going to be hard for those nutrients to leave, because the plant's going to be there to take them."

She thinks there are more feeding operation owners adhering to their permit requirements than those who do not. However, Garvey argued there are laws in place wrongfully protecting the large operations.

"Most of these legal protections were not designed for these industrial-scale operations," Garvey stressed. "Therefore, they are basically benefiting from loopholes that are intended to benefit smaller-scale farmers."

Garvey added dozens of actions can reduce agricultural pollution, including tightening and better enforcement of permits, conducting more unannounced audits and inspections, and imposing real consequences on repeat offenders.


get more stories like this via email

The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized a rule to close a significant loophole in coal ash disposal regulations.

The Coal Combustion Residuals Rule targets millions of tons of toxic coal ash previously exempt from federal oversight, including the 19 legacy coal ash ponds and landfills in Georgia. For decades, utilities have disposed of coal ash by dumping it in unlined ponds and landfills where the toxins leak into groundwater.

Dori Jaffe, managing attorney for the Environmental Law Program at the Sierra Club, hailed the EPA's decision as a significant victory for communities impacted by coal ash pollution.

"They now will also have to comply with certain requirements regarding groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care of those units," Jaffe explained.

The rule comes as part of a comprehensive effort by the EPA to tackle pollution from power plants. Alongside the new rule, the agency announced three other regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, wastewater pollution and toxic air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

According to the EPA, coal ash is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants with a hazardous mix of pollutants and carcinogens. The pollutants found in coal ash are linked to myriad health conditions from cancer to reproductive failure, and pose grave risks to both human and environmental health.

Jaffe underscored the significance of the regulations in holding utilities accountable and pushing for cleaner energy solutions.

"There have been some concerns in the past regarding how EPA is issuing those permits because they are allowing coal ash ponds to be closed in place where the coal ash continues to be saturated with groundwater," Jaffe pointed out. "Which means it's still going to be able to leave that pond, go out into the groundwater and contaminate potentially public water supply sources."

She emphasized Georgia's Environmental Protection Division will not be able to issue permits for closure plans regarding the coal ash ponds but will have to seek permission from the EPA.

Moving forward, Jaffe is concerned about how the rules will be implemented. However, she added it is a great step in protecting communities and the environment from the harmful effects of coal ash.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission is giving residents a chance to voice their opinion on a plan which could influence how their electricity is generated and impact costs for years to come.

The state is updating its Carbon Plan, and in it Duke Energy is proposing a build out of 8.9 gigawatts of new gas plants, representing one of the largest buildouts of new gas plants of any utility in the country. The plan is raising concerns among residents and environmental advocates.

Naomi Albert, North Carolina field coordinator for the advocacy group Appalachian Voices, warned it could affect electricity rates, while posing risks to the state's climate goals and community health.

"For the communities that are directly adjacent to them, there are health concerns," Albert pointed out. "Burning fossil fuels, like methane gas and coal, produces air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and others that contribute to the development of a whole host of diseases including lung disease, asthma."

Albert highlighted the issue of winter reliability. During Winter Storm Elliot, the failure of gas-powered generation resulted in widespread power outages across the eastern half of the U.S., including 500,000 Duke Energy customers in the Carolinas.

Residents will get the chance to speak in person this week at two public hearings. The first hearing will be today in Wilmington at the New Hanover Courthouse, and the second will take place Tuesday at the Durham County Courthouse.

House Bill 951 outlines energy targets North Carolina utilities must achieve, including a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the electric power sector by 2030, and complete carbon neutrality by 2050. Albert pointed out the proposed plan does not help meet the stated goals and will leave customers with unpredictable bill increases, driven by fuel volatility.

"Recent analysis by EDF and EQ Research shows that high gas prices have driven up electricity rates in recent years," Albert reported. "They found that increased fuel costs drove 67% of the increase in residential rates in Duke Energy Carolina service territory. "

Albert believes improvements can be made to the plan to meet the goals outlined by the state and incorporate resources to increase renewable energy. As the public hearings approach, she urged North Carolinians to raise their voice and share what they think. People unable to make the in-person hearings can leave a comment on the commission's website.


get more stories like this via email