Environmental groups are suing over the expansion of one of the state's largest crude-oil operations.

The lawsuit contends that the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District illegally approved permits without environmental review of the risks of importing millions of gallons of toxic and potentially explosive oil.

Matt Krough, campaign director for ForestEthics, said 5 million Californians live in the evacuation zone for an oil train derailment or explosion. He said it's too dangerous to allow the Bakersfield Crude Terminal to increase traffic without investigating the threat to air quality and public safety.

"You see the potential for these oil trains passing through every major population center of California," he said, "crossing critical waterways and aquifer recharge zones, crossing through valuable farmland."

The lawsuit, filed by Earthjustice, maintains that Air District officials approved the permits in a piecemeal fashion to keep the project from getting public scrutiny.

The Kern County terminal opened last year and is allowed to accept up to 100 crude-oil trains a day, including those carrying volatile crude from the Bakken shale formation as well as heavier and highly toxic tar sands.

According to the California Energy Commission, oil shipments by railroad into California have hit an all-time record, which Krough said also increases the risk of a disastrous spill.

"That's rare, but it's a real risk," he said. "The other side, though, is that there is a chronic exposure for people all along the rail route to emissions from the trains in transit, and from this terminal itself."

Krough said California's weather also is a hazard for trains carrying volatile crude oil.

"These tank cars, black ones, coming through California in the summer - and you actually have boiling contents, with the constant popping of these pressure-released valves," he said. "This is the sort of thing that needs to be studied and understood."

The lawsuit contends that the expansion of the Bakersfield Crude Terminal could lead to a 1,000 percent increase in the amount of crude imported by rail into California each year.

The petition is online at earthjustice.org.


get more stories like this via email

As the Environmental Protection Agency scales back enforcement because of staff shortages and new federal rollbacks, concerns are growing in Michigan and across the country about who will hold polluters accountable.

Michigan, with more than 11,000 inland lakes and access to four Great Lakes holding 90% of the nation's freshwater, faces challenges as EPA budget cuts reduce enforcement by nearly 20% and eliminate more than 200 staff.

Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, said in a recent webinar that his organization commissions polling and focus groups every two years on clean-water issues in the Great Lakes.

"And it's an 85% issue. It's almost as if, when you push people and you say, 'How much should we do to protect the Great Lakes and restore them?' he asked, "It's like, whatever it costs, you do it."

Supporters of EPA cuts, especially in energy, manufacturing and agriculture, contend strict environmental rules are too costly for businesses. In late 2024, more than 100 industry groups urged then-President-elect Donald Trump to roll back regulations they said were "strangling" the economy.

Partisanship continues to shape the debate over environmental laws, with lawmakers often split along party lines when it comes to regulations.

David Uhlmann, a former EPA official and environmental law attorney, stressed in the webinar the need to take politics out of environmental protection.

"The environmental laws require EPA working with the state to promote clean air, healthy rivers and streams, to make sure that we're living in communities free of toxic waste," he said. "Those laws apply regardless of who the president is."

In Fiscal Year 2024, the EPA's enacted budget was more than $9 billion, with a workforce of more than 15,000 employees.


get more stories like this via email

Washington lawmakers have created a new Prescribed Burn Liability Fund to help make controlled burns less risky on public, private and tribal lands across the state.

Advocates said low-intensity fires, which clear dead vegetation and small trees, are among the best tools to reduce wildfire severity but fears of runaway fires have limited their use.

Cody Desautel, executive director of the Colville Tribes, helped write the bill to create the fund. He said although there is risk, data from the Forest Service and other agencies show controlled burns are very safe.

"They pull off 99.84% of their burns within prescription within the planned footprint," Desautel pointed out. "The risk of it is really low but for the rare occurrences you see it, the cost can be fairly high."

Desautel noted a century of fire suppression has increased burnable materials in forests, causing more intense wildfires.

Indigenous people have practiced controlled burns for millennia, Desautel added, to both prevent fires and promote plant growth. To reduce wildfire damage, he argued the state needs a new approach.

"We're going to have to shift our perspective, how we deal with fire, how we create fire resilience," Desautel urged. "It has to be suppression in combination with fuels and forest health treatments that makes fires easier to manage."

Rep. Adam Bernbaum, D-Port Angeles, sponsored the bill to create the liability fund. He said when fires are bigger and harder to control, along with loss of life and property, it can also make things more expensive for communities living close to forest land.

"The rising property insurance rates there make it challenging for low-income, middle-income people across the state," Bernbaum observed.

Bernbaum hopes the new policy will help bring down insurance rates for homeowners and encourage more people to get certified to implement prescribed burns. He added the fund should be up and running by the beginning of 2026.


get more stories like this via email

The sale of public lands along with a rollback of protections for national monuments is back on the table now that Republicans control both houses of Congress.

During his first term, President Donald Trump unsuccessfully tried to reduce the size of national monuments in Utah and Nevada. The Washington Post set off alarm bells last month after it reported that New Mexico's Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks is among the six national monuments the Trump administration is considering for energy development.

Mark Allison, executive director of New Mexico Wild, said it is a complicated issue.

"We see attempts through the courts, the House rules process, through budget reconciliation and even federal legislation where they're trying to either turn what are public lands over to states or actually directly privatize them and sell them off to the highest bidder," he explained.

That came to pass last week when the House Natural Resources Committee passed legislation to sell or transfer 460,000 acres of federal lands in Nevada and Utah to local governments or private entities.

In the 2025 State of the Rockies survey, 72% of residents polled in eight Western states said they would prefer their member of Congress emphasize protecting clean air, water and wildlife habitat while boosting outdoor recreation over maximizing the amount of public land used for oil and gas drilling.

That was a 2% increase from the year before. But Allison fears public sentiment consistently expressed in the annual Colorado College poll could be ignored.

"If this comes, we want to be ready to have just an overwhelming and immediate response to tell the administration that we stand by our monuments in New Mexico and don't want to see them harmed," he added.

In the final days of his administration, President Joe Biden designated more than 600,000 acres of desert east of California's Coachella Valley as the Chuckwalla National Monument. But a Texas-based group has filed a lawsuit to stop the designation, arguing the president overstepped his authority.


get more stories like this via email