TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing new water quality rules to reduce contamination from sewage, manure and fertilizer in Florida's fresh-water streams, rivers and lakes because those pollutants can trigger toxic algae outbreaks. The green slime is harmful to people, fish and wildlife. The rules mean sewage treatment facilities will need to install new pollution-control equipment - something the industry has argued will be too expensive.
A lawsuit filed by Earthjustice resulted in the rule changes. The firm's managing attorney, David Guest, says he's happy to see the EPA stand firm.
"It's a great day when EPA simply says we are not going to cave in to fabrications on compliance costs and decide not to do what the law requires."
The sewage lobby placed the compliance price tag at $50 billion a year, saying it could mean as much as a $1,000 annual increase in sewage bills for Floridians and possibly could bankrupt some local governments. Guest counters that those figures are more than 600 times the actual cost determined by the EPA, which estimates it at $85 million a year.
According to Guest, those industry estimates are "scare tactics," preying on Floridians struggling financially due to the recession.
"That's not an exaggeration, that is a terror tactic. The threat of a $1,000 increase in their sewage bill could mean the loss of their house to some people. So it is a terror campaign, trying to convince middle-class Floridians that clean and safe water is unaffordable."
Guest says the cost of doing nothing is far greater than that of cleaning up Florida's waterways.
"There could be a toxic algae outbreak, and that will destroy the value of your property. It could be so dangerous that you can't have human contact, you can't put your hand in it; so dangerous, that if your dog went swimming in it, your dog would probably die."
The new limits go into effect in 15 months.
get more stories like this via email
Dana Nessel, Michigan's Attorney General, joined Indigenous and conservation groups at a demonstration Thursday in Cincinnati, highlighting what they said are the risks to their region from the Line 5 oil pipeline.
In the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Nessel's office delivered oral arguments in a lawsuit asking to decommission the aging pipeline owned by Canadian company Enbridge.
Nessel argued the company puts its own profits above the state's natural resources. She told the crowd the case has been in limbo while Enbridge has requested it be moved from court to court.
"This is a Michigan case, brought under Michigan law, by Michigan's Chief Law Enforcement Officer on behalf of the people of the State of Michigan -- on behalf of our Great Lakes -- and it belongs in a Michigan court," Nessel asserted.
More than 60 tribal nations support the motion to bring the case back to Michigan. They contend the pipeline operates "illegally" through the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa's reservation in northern Wisconsin. Enbridge acknowledged Line 5 was built in the 1950s but said it is monitored 24/7.
The dual pipeline continues under the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan.
David Holtz, a member of the board of directors of the Sierra Club, said the prospect of an oil pipeline rupturing in the Great Lakes would be catastrophic to Michigan, the region and the entire country.
"This over 70-year-old pipeline that has deteriorated and is being held up by anchor supports in currents in the Strait lakes that have the power of the Niagara Falls," Holtz pointed out. "It's a really, really risky proposition."
He added President Joe Biden has the power today to step in and revoke a permit, which would shut the pipeline down.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Advocates are asking Maryland lawmakers to establish a superfund to help hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the costs of climate change.
Both houses of the General Assembly are debating the "Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather Act." It would establish a Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Fund, targeting the 40 largest companies extracting or refining gas and oil with a fee totaling $9 billion over 10 years.
Sen. Katie Fry Hester, D-Howard, citing the expense of infrastructure upgrades, said the state needs help paying these costs.
"Unfortunately, it has become the responsibility of the Maryland taxpayer to foot the bill for the costs of climate mitigation, adaptation and recovery measures," Hester pointed out. "Not anymore. It's time to ensure that the polluters pay."
The bill would enable the Department of the Environment to use the fund for stormwater and sewer system improvements, bridges and rail infrastructure, flood recovery, clean energy projects and more. In a recent Senate committee hearing, some lawmakers expressed concern about the targeted businesses passing the cost on to consumers.
The Center for Climate Integrity estimated by 2040, Maryland will have to spend more than $27 billion to protect against the possibility of moderate sea-level rise.
Jamie DeMarco, Maryland director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said climate change mitigation is already costing the state hundreds of millions.
"Howard County is spending $228 million to bore an 18-foot diameter drainage tunnel through granite bedrock to prevent flooding," DeMarco noted. "It's the biggest capital expenditure in the history of the county. Annapolis is spending $50 million renovating their dock from nuisance flooding. The same thing is happening everywhere across the state."
Recent polling by Data for Progress found 73% of likely voters support assessing a fee on big oil and gas companies to pay part of the cost of climate change mitigation. Either version of the measure needs to pass one chamber by March 18 in order to have a future in the current session.
Disclosure: The Chesapeake Climate Action Network contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, and Sustainable Agriculture. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
The founder of the Baltimore Compost Collective wants Baltimore to ditch trash incineration, fight climate change and grow healthier food.
Marvin Hayes began composting in Baltimore more than a decade ago and has grown the operation into a collection service picking up around 1,500 pounds of food waste each week. Hayes operates a composting facility at the nonprofit Filbert Street Garden, where the organic material is turned into rich soil for use at the urban garden.
Hayes sees a revolution, a better way of life for Baltimore's Black community to help fight what he calls "food apartheid" and end the city's reliance on a giant, polluting waste-to-energy incinerator and fight climate change.
"People didn't know that the incinerator was causing $55 million in health damages, or they didn't know what the incinerator was," Hayes recounted. "People didn't know that Baltimore County trash gets brought here and burned. Howard County's trash gets brought here and burned."
In September the Environmental Protection Agency announced a $4 million grant as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill to build a solar-powered composting facility in south Baltimore to accept food scraps and other organic material. The agency estimates the facility will keep 12,000 tons of waste out of the city's incinerator.
Incinerators release large quantities of lead, mercury and other harmful pollutants into the air. In late 2020 Baltimore signed a 10-year contract to continue incineration, much to the chagrin of environmental advocates such as Hayes, who have long advocated for composting as a viable alternative to toxic trash incineration.
A 2018 study by the Baltimore Office of Sustainability noted compost-amended soil can reduce contamination of urban pollutants by 60% to 95%, and protects against the danger associated with lead in urban soils.
Hayes' composting facility has a limited capacity. When it is full, he transports the rest of his food scraps to a bigger organic compost facility in Upper Marlboro in Prince George's County.
"If PG County is doing it, why shouldn't Baltimore be following the same practices?" Hayes asked. "Make a large scale composting facility, so when the residents put their recycling out, they'll put their composting out, it'll go to a large-scale composting facility, create four times more jobs than incinerators, two times more jobs than the landfill."
This story was produced based on original reporting by Aman Azhar for Inside Climate News.
get more stories like this via email