SEATTLE - The Environmental Protection Agency rarely investigates complaints from minority communities that allege local environmental regulations are discriminatory.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, only one of seven cases in Washington state has been accepted for investigation since 1996.

Sarah Tory, who wrote a recent article for High Country News about the EPA's failure to enforce the Civil Rights Act, says there's a disconnect between the agency's civil rights office and its regulatory wing.

"It seems to be the case that the EPA is chiefly concerned with making sure industries, power plants, et cetera, are complying with the laws," says Tory. "And if they are, the EPA is reticent to then turn around and say, 'Actually while you may be in compliance with our regulations, you're violating the Civil Rights Act.'"

Since the EPA established its Office for Civil Rights in the early 1990s, it has received more than 300 complaints, yet never made a formal finding of environmental discrimination.

The Center for Public Integrity says it takes the agency 350 days on average to decide whether to investigate a case.

Tory says in one case, the pesticide methyl bromide was being used near a California high school.

In 1999, seven parents filed a complaint with the EPA against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Twelve years later, the agency released preliminary findings of discrimination, for the first time ever and in response, set up one air-quality monitor near the school.

Tory says by then, another pesticide was in much wider use.

"During the time the EPA took to investigate the impacts of methyl bromide, the pesticide had been phased out, and it had been replaced by a new pesticide called methyl iodide," she says. "Methyl iodide is also linked to numerous health problems, and the EPA knew this but didn't account for it in their investigation."

The EPA has released a draft action plan called EJ 2020 to ensure the agency can better respond to allegations of environmental discrimination in the future.

EJ 2020 is open to public comment through July 7.


get more stories like this via email

Virginia environmental advocates are looking for protections of old-growth forests.

In 2022, President Joe Biden issued an executive order to have old-growth forests across the country inventoried.

A U.S. Forest Service report finds the agency is responsible for more than 24 million acres of old-growth forests. This amounts to only 4% of forests in the U.S. However, around 76% of these lands are unprotected from logging operations.

Sam Evans, national forest and parks program leader for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the U.S. Forest Service needs to consider which forests should be cut, and which should not.

"The responsibility there is for the Forest Service to figure out what's the healthiest mature forest, what mature forest is on the best track to restore that, and sort of leaving it alone," Evans contended. "Letting it age into 'old' condition. Perhaps there are other mature forests that aren't in good condition, and maybe we can focus on those for timber cutting."

Environmental groups are reluctant to see the trees cut down, since they help stave off climate change. Studies find old-growth forests can store between 41% and 84% of the total carbon stock of all trees. Losing the trees represents a carbon equivalent to one-quarter of the country's annual fossil-fuel emissions.

While forests are being planted in place of any old-growth forests made into timber, Evans noted younger, even-aged forests do not carry all the benefits of an old-growth forest.

"They really don't have a lot of diversity," Evans pointed out. "They're just a lot of trees of the same age, and a lot of shade on the ground. Those forests, those post-logging forests, don't have a huge biodiversity benefit."

He added seeing it come to fruition will require cultural changes on the U.S. Forest Service's part. Earlier this year, the agency held a comment period when more than 92,000 people spoke about different elements to consider in developing a rule regarding climate policies to protect, conserve, and manage the national forests.

The unprecedented attempt to build a wall along the U.S. Mexico border has had devastating effects on wildlife from which they may not recover, according to a New Mexico wildlife expert.

The Trump administration spent an estimated $15 billion constructing more than 400 miles of wall, much of which replaced smaller existing barriers.

Bryan Bird, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, said construction fragmented wildlife habitats and cut off species' migration routes. Because geography and private land ownership in Texas and Arizona slowed the effort, Bird pointed out much of what was only "vehicle barrier" in New Mexico is now permanent.

"Unfortunately, New Mexico ended up getting the brunt of the border wall construction," Bird explained. "In fact, other than the Bootheel, most of the border between Mexico and New Mexico is walled now."

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, showed wall construction desecrated Indigenous cultural sites, hurt wildlife and destroyed vegetation.

Bird pointed out webcam feeds now are documenting how much more difficult the wall has made it for wildlife to cross the international border, where many species already were imperiled.

"The ocelot, the Mexican gray wolf, the jaguar, the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl," Bird outlined. "All of these species are on the verge of extinction, and this border wall may have been the nail in the coffin."

Multiple erosion and flooding hazards were created by construction of the wall, which he said is already showing signs of deterioration.

"Not only was it incredibly, historically expensive and a burden on taxpayers to build it, but now you've got to maintain it," Bird noted. "And if you do not spend a lot of money maintaining it, it's going to fall down."

The Biden administration has been criticized for flood gates being left open along the border wall, which allowed some illegal immigrants to enter. But the U.S. Border Patrol took responsibility, noting the gates have always been opened during monsoon season to prevent flooding and keep the wall from falling over.

They're calling it an "adventure conservation documentary," and the film has its first showing tonight in Traverse City.

"Troubled Water" chronicles a 36-day, 425-mile journey on standup paddleboards along the Great Lakes. One focus is the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline, which moves crude oil from Canada to Michigan beneath the Straits of Mackinac.

The film's producer, Chris Yahanda, called the film a "love letter to the region," but said it's also a reminder of what could be lost in case of a spill or accident with Line 5.

"It's not only an interesting and awesome, intense outdoor adventure, but it's a story of some amazing people that have dedicated their lives to protecting the places we thought we'd explore," he said, "and celebrating them and learning about the threats that face the Great Lakes and how people can help; and just trying to be more informed and how we can help protect all these waters that we love so much."

Tonight's premiere is at the Traverse City Opera House, opening with a community reception at 6:30 p.m., and the film starts at 7:30 p.m. Tickets can be purchased there or in advance at CityOperaHouse.org.

The advocacy group Oil and Water Don't Mix hopes for a packed house to enjoy the show. Sean McBrearty, the group's media campaign coordinator, said it's part of a larger effort to bring public awareness to the environmental risks associated with Line 5.

"Everybody who wants to get involved - who cares about the Great Lakes and wants to protect them, and make sure we don't have a crucial oil spill - has a role to play, whether it's something large or something small," he said. "And I'm very grateful for the role Chris and William and their crew have played in all this."

Earlier this year, representatives of 51 Tribes and First Nations asked that the United Nations intervene and force Canada to end its support for Line 5, over concerns that a spill could pollute the Great Lakes.