LIBBY, Mont. – The Regulatory Accountability Act in the U.S. Senate follows the lead of President Trump and the House in changing how federal agencies make regulations. But Montana critics of the bill are concerned it would set the bar too high for passing regulations and weaken agencies' abilities to enforce laws.

Gayla Bennefield lives in Libby, which has been devastated by asbestos, a toxic byproduct of vermiculite mining. Bennefield's parents and husband died of asbestos-related illnesses. She says the Environmental Protection Agency finally is working on rules to regulate asbestos - rules she and others have been fighting to get for nearly two decades.

"But now with the new regulatory act, everything that we've ever worked for and everything we stand for, I think, in Libby, is going to be wiped off the slate," she says.

The bill requires agencies to prioritize "cost-effective" solutions, which supporters say will save the government money. But opponents worry it will mean cutting corners on protections for people's health and the environment. They also worry about the bill giving more regulatory oversight to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

David Ditloff with the National Wildlife Federation in Montana says the bill flips an essential part of the rule-making script. Instead of the current benchmark that a rule not be "arbitrary and capricious," agencies would have to show "substantial evidence" of the need for a rule.

Ditloff says this could hamstring rules in court. In his view, the bill is presented as making the rule-making process more efficient - but would do just the opposite.

"The Regulatory Accountability Act would actually add 53 new requirements to the regulatory process," he explains. "It's solution to too much bureaucracy, and red tape is adding more red tape."

Ditloff says all of this tips the scales away from protections for Americans and toward special interests.


get more stories like this via email

Nebraska has had a number of deadly and destructive fires this year, and nearly half the state remains in extreme or exceptional drought. If it is as windy this year as it was last year at this time, fire risk to life and property will continue to be high.

Tedd Teahon, district fire management officer for the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest, said there is no longer a fire season; it's a year-round phenomenon.

One firefighter died fighting the national forest fire in Halsey, which burned nearly one-fourth of the largest hand-planted forest in North America. It is believed to have been human-caused, but remains under investigation.

Teahon emphasized a spark is all it takes in these dry conditions.

"That will start fires right now, if you throw your cigarette butt out," Teahon stressed. "Check underneath your vehicles, make sure you haven't caught something, something is dragging and so on. Anything that could start a spark."

Fires took the lives of three Nebraska firefighters this year, more than a dozen were injured, and one has been recovering in a Lincoln rehab center for over a month. Although people cause nearly 85% of all wildland fires, Teahon noted most fires in the Nebraska National Forest are caused by lightning strikes.

Teahon urged people to observe posted restrictions as well as the weather.

"You know, if you're coming out to the forest, a big deal is parking, so make sure you read your fire restrictions very well," Teahon advised. "Weather is a huge one, you know, if it's going to be super windy, maybe it's not a good day to go driving around at all."

With the ongoing La Niña effect, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts continued drought in the Midwest through at least January.

Teahon added winter brings increased challenges for firefighters.

"And the problem now is that it's getting below freezing, and fire trucks will start freezing up, you know, once the sun goes down," Teahon explained.

In addition to equipment failure, winter risks for firefighters include falls, hypothermia and frostbite.

Conservation groups are pushing to keep federal protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah.

Boundaries of the two monuments were significantly reduced by President Donald Trump five years ago, but restored by the Biden administration. Now, conservation groups have filed a motion to intervene in two lawsuits, one headed by the State of Utah and the other headed by a number of plaintiffs including the BlueRibbon Coalition, an off-road vehicle advocacy group, challenging federal protection of these lands.

One suit targets the Antiquities Act, saying the monument areas are too large and essentially deprive the state of resources.

Steve Block, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said groups like his are working alongside the Biden administration to ensure protection continues.

"That's the really high level, is that it really comes down to who gets to call the shots on these lands," Block explained. "I think there are some interests who want to see these landscapes exploited for short-term financial gain instead of long-term preservation."

Several tribal nations have also become involved. The Bears Ears National Monument was established by President Barack Obama. Grand Staircase-Escalante was declared a national monument by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It is said to be home to many dinosaur fossils which cannot be found anywhere else in the world.

It has only been a couple of months since the lawsuits were filed, so Bloch noted they are in the preliminary stages. He added the lawyers representing the state want the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case, where the court's conservative majority could possibly undo the Antiquities Act.

"It is a real black eye on the state that they would seek to undo the monuments," Block contended. "Seek to open these areas again to types of extractive uses - like oil and gas, like coal, like hard-rock mining, like off-road vehicle use."

Bloch stressed he is disappointed the state is not embracing the opportunity to protect the areas and work with tribes to safeguard land iconic to Utah.

To help people better understand the health of the Upper Rio Grande Basin, a first-ever "report card" gave the overall river basin a "C" for its moderate condition, and warned improvements are needed.

A group of ecosystem scientists and local conservation advocates said the moderate rating comes with a warning there is not enough water to sustain all users' needs and maintain a healthy river ecosystem.

Paul Tashjian, director of freshwater conservation at Audubon Southwest, said actions are necessary to ensure people and wildlife have continued water access.

"We're water-challenged, and I think that what I liked about the report card, is that it really looked at all the water users alongside of each other and valued all of them together," Tashjian remarked. "Not just the living river, but also the importance of our farming communities, the importance of our compact."

He added New Mexico's Upper Rio Grande had the highest score, while the Lower Rio Grande got the lowest score at 41% or "C minus." The report card is meant to provide a backbone for developing meaningful resiliency strategies.

Casey Brown, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, who helped develop the report card model, said it showed limited water availability is due to climate change, interstate management issues, infrastructure, and increased demand from a growing population.

"Here's how much water we have. How are we going to allocate that water among its very competing uses?" Brown asked. "What our model does is help make it clear what those different allocations mean, in terms of trade-offs for the different water users."

Enrique Prunes, manager of the Rio Grande for the World Wildlife Fund, which also participated in creating the report card, said the Upper Rio Grande, flowing from its headwaters in Colorado, through New Mexico and ending in Texas, has supported people and wildlife for thousands of years.

"There are many communities that depend on the water that this river provides," Prunes outlined. "Agriculture -- 85% of the water that is used in the Rio Grande goes to agriculture -- but of course, for biodiversity, for ecosystems, that component of the environment is very important."