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
New Mexico has one of the nation's last "wild" rivers, free of human-made structures and community representatives will be back in the nation's Capitol this week to advocate for its protection.
A delegation of tribal leaders, local elected officials, veterans and community leaders will urge members of Congress to pass the M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act. Passage would protect nearly 450 miles of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and their tributaries.
Harry Browne, a commissioner in Grant County, said local residents have championed the legislation for nearly a decade.
"This region is among the nation's most economically challenged," Browne pointed out. "We deserve the benefits of Wild and Scenic Designation, increased tourism, increased investment by small businesses in outdoor recreation activities."
After four introductions, the bill passed out of a Senate committee last year with bipartisan support. As negotiated, it would allow grazing operations to continue on surrounding areas. Nonetheless, some landowners oppose the bill, worried it might restrict their Gila water use and lead to lawsuits.
In 2011, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico won the right to establish a reservation on homelands in southern New Mexico.
Pamela Eagleshield, vice chair of the tribe in Oklahoma, said many of the remaining 800 members hope to return and enjoy the pristine environment.
"Because our petroglyphs, our carvings, our culture, our history; everything that we have is there," Eagleshield emphasized. "If it's changed in any way, that's something that directly affects the spirituality of our people."
Browne noted the Grant County community-driven proposal will benefit people of all kinds.
"That is why my family and I moved here back in the early '90s," Browne stressed. "It would be devastating to see what we have here diminished by un-careful development."
New Mexico's outdoor recreation industry generates just over $2 billion in consumer spending by directly employing 28,000 people.
get more stories like this via email
The Supreme Court's decision in 2023 to roll back the Clean Water Act has meant less federal oversight in protecting the country's wetlands.
Illinois does not have a standalone program, and one organization hopes state legislators will pass measures to change this. Wetlands clean the water, reduce flooding and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
David McEllis, Illinois legislative director for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said Senate Bill 3669 and House Bill 5386 have passed out of their respective committees, but he expects future amendments.
"This would create, through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, a permitting process for when a landowner wants to destroy or fill in or work on wetlands in the state," McEllis outlined. "That covers the gap that was created by the Supreme Court decision."
The department believes landowners can play an important role in protecting the state's nearly 54,000 species of insects, birds, mammals, frogs and fungi by providing nesting and roosting places for habitat and making clean water accessible. The agency warns the state's natural areas are being lost to urban development and agricultural and industrial interests.
McEllis believes a wetlands standalone program would continue where the court's ruling left off and protect the state's remaining untouched and unprotected wetlands. The center's fact sheet said Illinois has already lost 90% of its wetland acreage and the status of the remaining 10% is unknown.
He pointed out the destruction of wetlands has taken place in Illinois for hundreds of years, since the state's establishment in the 1800s.
"There are some existing protections in the state in Cook County and some of the suburban counties, so those wetlands have some protection," McEllis acknowledged. "There are multiple rivers in downstate Illinois, and also wetlands areas throughout the state."
McEllis noted millions of wetlands have already been used for farming purposes, resulting in a loss for the state. A report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said wetlands currently cover nearly 6% of the land in 48 states. An estimated 95% of wetlands are freshwater; the rest are marine.
get more stories like this via email
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies has sued the U.S. Forest Service over a logging project in southwestern Montana.
The group claims the agency didn't do the necessary environmental impact review.
The project calls for cutting 11 miles of road into an area bordering the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area so loggers can take almost 11,000 acres of timber.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Executive Director Mike Garrity said the project threatens prime lynx habitat now, and for future generations.
"And lynx are listed as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act," said Garrity. "Lynx avoid clearcuts for up to 50 years, and they also avoid roads."
The edge of the Anaconda-Pintler is prime habitat for grizzly bears, too, which also avoid clear cuts and are most often killed close to logging roads.
The Forest Service has argued that managing forests by tree thinning helps limit wildfire danger. The suit awaits action in federal court in Missoula.
Garrity argued that the Forest Service violated a federal law requiring a thorough Environmental Impact Statement before starting a project, and discounted work that had already been done in the 115 square mile area.
"The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't consider the 145 miles of illegal roads in the project area," said Garrity. "They just pretended they didn't exist."
The Forest Service contends it held public meetings during the planning stages.
Garrity said since logging on the Anaconda-Pintler project has already started, the alliance may sue for an injunction to stop further work while the lawsuit proceeds.
Disclosure: Alliance for the Wild Rockies contributes to our fund for reporting on Endangered Species & Wildlife, Environment. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email