ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minneapolis and Duluth recently entered the fray of U.S. cities either imposing plastic bag fees, or adopting outright bans. One expert who tracks these policies says they could lead to more statewide laws.

The two Minnesota ordinances were adopted as fees, because the state Legislature had already enacted a preemption law prohibiting plastic bag bans. Jennie Romer, founder of 'PlasticBagLaws.org,' says despite roadblocks at the state level, cities will work around them.

She points to Colorado as an example.

"The Denver City Council just went forward with a 10 cents fee on all bags as well, in order to get around that preemption on bans," says Romer. "So, they ended up with what we consider a very good policy by trying to get around preemption."

Romer says Denver's ordinance will be effective because it's a higher fee and applies to both plastic and paper bags, which should prompt customers to switch to reusable bags.

She says the Minneapolis 5 cent fee has some teeth because it applies to both plastic and paper, while the Duluth ordinance covers only plastic bags. She points out that limited fees aren't as effective in changing consumer behavior.

Meanwhile, retailers are feeling pressure to stop using plastic bags. A recent petition drive called on Minneapolis-based Target to ditch them.

It's unclear what will happen with Target, but Romer says retailers are mindful of customer concerns about the impact plastics have on the environment.

"Not only with bags, but some retailers have come out with commitments to make all of their packaging recyclable by a certain period," says Romer, "or contain a certain amount of recycled content."

However, there's still pushback at the retail level. The Minnesota Grocers Association voiced concern about the disadvantages fees could create for supermarkets.

The group says customers should have a choice at the checkout lane, and retailers can provide more education about sustainable options.


get more stories like this via email

Ruybal Fox Creek Ranch sits in a dramatic canyon in the foothills of southern Colorado's San Juan Mountains, right next to the Rio Grande National Forest, and federal and state lands near the Conejos River. Purchased in 1962 on a school bus driver's salary, Josie Ruybal Abeyta's parents left the 821-acre parcel to their six daughters in 2005.

Abeyta remains determined to keep the land the way her father had kept it, but four of her sisters wanted to sell the property considered extremely valuable to area developers.

"And two of us did not," she said. "And I had heard about a conservation easement where you could still keep the property, the owners would get paid to keep it the way it was, and I thought that was a win-win situation for everyone."

But year after year, Abeyta's application for an easement was rejected by the state, with one official telling her outright that it would never happen and to give up. But Abeyta found the right formula working with the Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust, and the easement was finally completed last year.

More than 50% of the population in Conejos County is Hispanic, and many families settled in the area before the United States existed. Abeyta added families with large pieces of property were forced to sell, and she believes it is culturally important for those who still hold parcels to maintain their deep ties to the land.

"You know I've got beautiful memories of us spending summers in the mountains, and of extended families going up there, like for the Fourth of July," she said. "To me, it was just heaven on earth. It's been in our family. I could not bear to let it go."

The easement also helps protect Ruybal Ojito Spring, which has been pumping about a gallon of water per minute since 1962. More than 40 species of animals call the ranch home, from big game such as elk, black bear and bobcat to endangered species including Mexican spotted owl and yellow-billed cuckoo.

"My children and my grandchildren love to go up there," she added. "For me also, that was part of it. God's not making any more land; we've got to hold it and protect it and treasure it, keep it safe for future generations."


get more stories like this via email

Virginia environmental advocates are not happy with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on the Clean Water Act. The ruling in Sackett versus E-P-A creates a new definition for wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act. In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito described those wetlands as having continuous surface connection to waters of the United States.

Doctor Wally Smith, vice president of the Clinch Coalition, said legal debate over these wetlands has gone on for some time. He continued these non-contiguous wetlands are much needed to help areas fight off ever-worsening storms.

"If you have things like storm events that produce a lot of runoff that might otherwise make its way into a river, those wetlands can help filter out some of the pollutants that might otherwise make it downstream," he said. "And, they can also capture a lot of that runoff and slow its flow to essentially buffer against things like flood impacts in those downstream waterways."

He added as much as this ruling clarifies what constitutes a wetland, it also creates further questions. One in particular is what happens to a wetland once protected under the Clean Water Act getting fragmented by development. He feels in the coming years, agencies and the legal system will be sorting out these new unanswered questions.

Outside of this ruling, Smith noted Congress could pass new legislation regarding wetland protection. But, due to gridlock it has faced on other legislative issues, he is not sure this will come to pass. It now comes down to states deciding to enhance protections in their own wetland laws, like Virginia has, according to Smith.

"Here in Virginia, we actually have provisions in some of our state wetlands laws that write in exceptions for those isolated wetlands that are maybe in disturbed areas or are smaller," he explained. "That's one place you may see some lawmakers kind of step in and re-evaluate the state protections to see if there are ways to shore those up."

This ruling does not prevent wetlands from being developed over, despite Clean Water Act protections, he continued. The Act's protections call for a more rigorous permitting process for projects being built over protected waters.

During National Rail Safety Month, Congress is being urged to take swift action to pass the Rail Safety Act of 2023. The measure aims to prevent future disastrous train derailments such as the most recent in East Palestine, Ohio, and the Marysville, Tennessee, derailment in 2015.

Brittney Kohler, legislative director for transportation infrastructure with the National League of Cities, said the Railway Safety Act is about stopping the continuous cycle of train wrecks, often with hazardous materials on board, that put the health and safety of communities at risk.

"We need to re-evaluate rail safety and ensure that we are keeping up with the modernizations that are needed," she emphasized. "And what we can do together is pass this bill and continue to work on rail safety."

The bill would require state emergency personnel to be notified of what chemicals are onboard train cars coming through their communities. It also would mandate the use of defect-detection technology which advocates say could have prevented the East Palestine derailment. The act is headed to the Senate floor after passing committee in May.

Kohler added the National League of Cities has created detailed rail-safety recommendations to encourage Congress to consider steps that would make railways and communities safer, and said those recommendations include ensuring financial fines are used first for the community impacted.

"What we hope to see is that fines will create better behavior that are more appropriate to what's happening," she said. "And we've seen a lot of incidents just continue because there aren't any consequences. And we think that these fines have an opportunity to be used for good. "

Kohler said more than 500 mayors and leaders sent letters to Congress for the timely passage of the Railway Safety Act. And she encouraged Tennesseans also voice their concerns about the importance of safety and prevention of train derailments in the Volunteer State.