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

A four-year project to map big-game routes throughout the West will end without additional funds from Congress - at least for now.

Since 2018, the United States Geological Survey has mapped wildlife migration corridors using radio collaring of big-game species, such as mule deer, pronghorn and moose. Glenn Harper, a range and wildlife division manager at the New Mexico Department of Natural Resources, said the maps help experts understand patterns of specific herds, which allows proactive management.

"If you know that there's a corridor in an area that you can mitigate your actions to protect, then you're way ahead of the curve," he said, "instead of coming back later and being like, 'Oh my, we did something wrong here.'"

The USGS previously received up to $5 million in annual congressional appropriations to develop the maps - but the Biden Administration zeroed out funding for next year's budget. Advocates of the mapping efforts are asking Congress to reverse that decision.

Harper, who works at the Santa Ana Pueblo on the Tamaya Indian Reservation, says the value of wildlife to tribes has been demonstrated for centuries through their ceremonies and spirituality.

"It's really important to tribes to understand where corridors exist across their landscape," he said, "because losing connectedness or migration paths for animals to move through is basically like losing your culture."

Santa Ana Pueblo also is a key migratory habitat for mule deer, and highways make their journey dangerous. Matt Kaufmann, a USGS wildlife biologist, said roadways, fences and development are just some of the obstacles migrating species face as they travel across lands with many different owners.

"Some of those lands are public lands - BLM lands, Forest Service lands, Park Service lands. Others are private lands," he said. "Sometimes they're moving on and off of Indian reservations. And without a map, it's really difficult to proactively manage and conserve these migrations."


Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Groups working to curb climate change said a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control carbon emissions is a major setback in their fight.

The justices, on a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, ruled only Congress can set limits on carbon monoxide and other pollutants, in Arizona and elsewhere. Going forward, the EPA must have clear congressional authorization to formulate most regulations.

Kirti Datla, director of strategic legal advocacy for Earthjustice, said the ruling could affect other regulatory agencies as well.

"If a court thinks that what an agency is trying to do is too new or too big, or addressing too important of a problem, it's going to basically assume that Congress didn't give the agency that authority," Datla explained.

Climate-change activists vow to fight the ruling, but a deadlocked Congress will make it difficult. In recent years, Phoenix and other Arizona cities have passed resolutions calling for emissions cutbacks, but state regulators have not made them mandatory for energy producers.

Datla pointed out in its ruling, the high court invoked a rarely-used rule known as the "major questions doctrine," which blocks the EPA and potentially other agencies from setting regulations deemed "transformational" to the economy unless Congress approves them first.

"There's some reason for concern that all the environmental laws, and kind of the system that's existed for the last 50 years that we've taken for granted keeping us safe -- or at least, safer than we would have been -- are being challenged," Datla emphasized.

Datla noted the ruling negates an Obama-era doctrine which set carbon limits aimed at pushing states to use less coal and more alternative energy sources. She thinks the decision could also undo a recent executive order requiring all federal agencies to take steps to reduce their carbon footprints.

"I think the bottom line here is that the decision is bad, and that it takes a highly effective way of regulating emissions from power plants off the table," Datla asserted. "Those emissions are an incredibly important piece of solving the climate puzzle."

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, coal and other hydrocarbon-based fuels account for almost 80% of U.S. power generation, while renewables make up 12%. The Biden Administration's goal is to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2030, and make the nation carbon-neutral by 2050.

Oregon's estuaries - the wetlands where the ocean meets rivers and streams - are rich habitat for wildlife, and they even store carbon from the atmosphere to help fight climate change.

But the state's plans to manage them are now decades old. That's why Oregon is setting out to update them.

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development is piloting this revision project with the Yaquina River estuary management plan. Katie Ryan is the executive director of The Wetlands Conservancy, which is part of the update project on the Yaquina River.

"These estuary management plans are outdated," said Ryan, "and they just don't take into account the current challenges that land managers have in these estuaries."

Oregon's estuary plans were developed in the 1980s. However, some vital elements were left out of the original process, including the involvement of tribal nations.

This time around, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians is part of the steering committee and advisory group on the first revision of the Yaquina River plan.

Ryan said estuaries are an important part of Oregon's goal to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

"Our coastal wetlands store carbon and actually, in a lot of ways, hold more carbon than our forests do," said Ryan. "We just have quite a few left - tidal wetlands - than we do forests. So, they help with climate change by helping store carbon."

Ryan noted that estuaries also are rich and crucial habitats for shorebirds, as well as juvenile salmon. She said that's important for the economy.

"In terms of this robust fishing industry that happens on this Oregon coast, our estuaries are huge for helping to support those economies," said Ryan. "So, I think just looking at the economies that rely on our estuaries - we want to make sure that the plans, you know, take their business into account."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.