SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Donald Trump's pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, faces strong opposition by environmental and progressive groups - including the League of Conservation Voters.
The League's vice president of government affairs, Tiernan Sittenfeld, said the question of who will run the EPA has a big impact on California policies and politics. Sittenfield said that Pruitt has already made headlines for suing the EPA many times, and has been accused of accepting money from energy companies in his role as a state attorney general.
"It is hard to imagine that Donald Trump could have nominated a worse person to be the administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency,” Sittenfield said. "The mission is to protect human health and the environment - our air, our water and our land. Everything about him - his beliefs, his record, his actions - is completely antithetical to the vitally-important mission of the EPA."
Facing questions on his position on climate change during Wednesday's confirmation hearing, Pruitt acknowledged that the climate is changing, but said the appropriate response is up for debate.
Sittenfeld said California has been a national leader on conservation and energy-efficiency issues, but the state could be in constant conflict with Pruitt as head of the EPA.
"This is literally someone who we have seen not only sue the EPA seemingly in conjunction with particular companies - whether its ExxonMobil, or Devon Energy, or Murray Energy - he's also sued the EPA over preventing wildlife from being added to the Endangered Species List,” Sittenfield argued.
Oklahoma has made news in recent years with its unprecedented increase in man-made earthquakes caused by the oil-drilling method known as fracking. Pruitt's critics have said he could have been a leader in protecting residents if he had addressed the problem.
get more stories like this via email
New Mexico has one of the nation's last "wild" rivers, free of human-made structures and community representatives will be back in the nation's Capitol this week to advocate for its protection.
A delegation of tribal leaders, local elected officials, veterans and community leaders will urge members of Congress to pass the M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act. Passage would protect nearly 450 miles of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and their tributaries.
Harry Browne, a commissioner in Grant County, said local residents have championed the legislation for nearly a decade.
"This region is among the nation's most economically challenged," Browne pointed out. "We deserve the benefits of Wild and Scenic Designation, increased tourism, increased investment by small businesses in outdoor recreation activities."
After four introductions, the bill passed out of a Senate committee last year with bipartisan support. As negotiated, it would allow grazing operations to continue on surrounding areas. Nonetheless, some landowners oppose the bill, worried it might restrict their Gila water use and lead to lawsuits.
In 2011, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico won the right to establish a reservation on homelands in southern New Mexico.
Pamela Eagleshield, vice chair of the tribe in Oklahoma, said many of the remaining 800 members hope to return and enjoy the pristine environment.
"Because our petroglyphs, our carvings, our culture, our history; everything that we have is there," Eagleshield emphasized. "If it's changed in any way, that's something that directly affects the spirituality of our people."
Browne noted the Grant County community-driven proposal will benefit people of all kinds.
"That is why my family and I moved here back in the early '90s," Browne stressed. "It would be devastating to see what we have here diminished by un-careful development."
New Mexico's outdoor recreation industry generates just over $2 billion in consumer spending by directly employing 28,000 people.
get more stories like this via email
The Supreme Court's decision in 2023 to roll back the Clean Water Act has meant less federal oversight in protecting the country's wetlands.
Illinois does not have a standalone program, and one organization hopes state legislators will pass measures to change this. Wetlands clean the water, reduce flooding and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
David McEllis, Illinois legislative director for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said Senate Bill 3669 and House Bill 5386 have passed out of their respective committees, but he expects future amendments.
"This would create, through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, a permitting process for when a landowner wants to destroy or fill in or work on wetlands in the state," McEllis outlined. "That covers the gap that was created by the Supreme Court decision."
The department believes landowners can play an important role in protecting the state's nearly 54,000 species of insects, birds, mammals, frogs and fungi by providing nesting and roosting places for habitat and making clean water accessible. The agency warns the state's natural areas are being lost to urban development and agricultural and industrial interests.
McEllis believes a wetlands standalone program would continue where the court's ruling left off and protect the state's remaining untouched and unprotected wetlands. The center's fact sheet said Illinois has already lost 90% of its wetland acreage and the status of the remaining 10% is unknown.
He pointed out the destruction of wetlands has taken place in Illinois for hundreds of years, since the state's establishment in the 1800s.
"There are some existing protections in the state in Cook County and some of the suburban counties, so those wetlands have some protection," McEllis acknowledged. "There are multiple rivers in downstate Illinois, and also wetlands areas throughout the state."
McEllis noted millions of wetlands have already been used for farming purposes, resulting in a loss for the state. A report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said wetlands currently cover nearly 6% of the land in 48 states. An estimated 95% of wetlands are freshwater; the rest are marine.
get more stories like this via email
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies has sued the U.S. Forest Service over a logging project in southwestern Montana.
The group claims the agency didn't do the necessary environmental impact review.
The project calls for cutting 11 miles of road into an area bordering the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area so loggers can take almost 11,000 acres of timber.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Executive Director Mike Garrity said the project threatens prime lynx habitat now, and for future generations.
"And lynx are listed as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act," said Garrity. "Lynx avoid clearcuts for up to 50 years, and they also avoid roads."
The edge of the Anaconda-Pintler is prime habitat for grizzly bears, too, which also avoid clear cuts and are most often killed close to logging roads.
The Forest Service has argued that managing forests by tree thinning helps limit wildfire danger. The suit awaits action in federal court in Missoula.
Garrity argued that the Forest Service violated a federal law requiring a thorough Environmental Impact Statement before starting a project, and discounted work that had already been done in the 115 square mile area.
"The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't consider the 145 miles of illegal roads in the project area," said Garrity. "They just pretended they didn't exist."
The Forest Service contends it held public meetings during the planning stages.
Garrity said since logging on the Anaconda-Pintler project has already started, the alliance may sue for an injunction to stop further work while the lawsuit proceeds.
Disclosure: Alliance for the Wild Rockies contributes to our fund for reporting on Endangered Species & Wildlife, Environment. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email