SANTA FE, N.M. -- Tomorrow is the final day to comment on a controversial plan that allows for thousands of new oil and gas drilling sites in New Mexico's historic Greater Chaco region.

The plan is opposed by dozens of conservation groups, New Mexico tribes, communities and citizens who have asked for more time to comment on the plan.

Miya King-Flaherty, organizing representative for Our Wild New Mexico at the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, said most tribal people who will be directly impacted by the drilling in northwest New Mexico couldn't participate in virtual meetings on the issue because they don't have internet access or adequate broadband.

"Also, given how COVID ravaged the Navajo Nation, a lot of people were just very much focused on keeping themselves safe, their family safe and just dealing with that crisis," King-Flaherty said.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wants to add up to 3,100 new industrialized fracking wells in the Greater Chaco region.

Proponents of the Trump administration's energy-dominance policies say development on public lands is necessary for the nation's economic and energy security.

King-Flaherty said a coalition of 50 organizations sent a letter last week asking the U.S. Department of the Interior to halt the drilling plan for the Chaco region until the public can participate in-person without risk to health and safety.

She believes there's too much at stake to continue with the current plan and process.

"It would further create health impacts, potentially contaminate groundwater resources, and it will further desecrate a cultural landscape that is very important to tribes, the Pueblo and the Navajo," King-Flaherty said.

More than 93% of public lands in the Greater Chaco region already are leased for oil and gas development, and the BLM would like to open up nearly four million more acres for drilling.

Following recent virtual meetings, both the Interior Department and the BLM refused to make comments part of the official record, and have yet to broadcast or post the proceedings for public review.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Farm bureaus and agricultural leaders of Chesapeake Bay watershed states are pushing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fund a major initiative to reduce farm runoff pollution in the bay and its waterways.

Six farm agencies - from states including Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York - are urging Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to put more than $730 million behind the Chesapeake Resilient Farms Initiative. It aims to help farmers with conservation efforts to cut chemical and sediment contamination.

Denise Stranko, federal executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said time is running out to meet federal cleanup goals.

"We know that roughly 80% of the reductions that are still left need to come from agriculture," she said. "And so efforts like this - a bold move by USDA to acknowledge that and say, 'Yes, we are going to send more money to the watershed' - it would just be a huge step toward getting us to that 2025 deadline."

With 83,000 farms in the region, farm runoff is the largest single source of water pollution in the bay and its tributaries, according to the foundation. Runoff makes up 49% of the bay's three main pollutants: nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

Farm runoff needs to contain about 50 million fewer pounds of nitrogen than it does now by 2025, said Doug Myers, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's senior scientist for Maryland. His group has been working with Maryland lawmakers to reform the state's conservation practices to meet that target. Now, more diverse cover crops are in place that help use less fertilizer, and soon the addition of stream buffers will also protect against runoff.

"Those are two big policy changes that we think will accelerate the agriculture sector," he said, "and if that was to be matched up with really good funding for agricultural programs from the feds, I think we could not only make but exceed our goals."

President Joe Biden's proposed budget for 2022 promises about $90 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program to clean up the watershed, a $3 million increase over current funding.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- The historic clean-energy bill signed into Illinois law yesterday includes measures from closing coal and natural gas plants by 2045 to funding for clean-energy opportunities for Black, brown and Indigenous workers.

It also sets the deadline for net-zero emissions by 2050, increases funding for wind and solar, and keeps three nuclear power plants open for five more years.

Dulce Ortiz, co-chair of Clean Power Lake County, said it is important the bill focuses on Black and brown residents and frontline communities.

"The climate and equitable-job section prioritizes Black and brown communities that have been disproportionately impacted and historically suffered due to exposure to toxic pollution," Ortiz explained.

Opponents of the law argued closing coal and natural-gas plants could raise electricity bills. State Democratic lawmakers noted consumers can expect to pay between $3.55 and $4 more per month.

Ortiz, who lives near a coal-fired power plant, argued the plants need to be closed to protect the health and wellness of surrounding communities.

Pat Devaney, secretary treasurer of the Illinois AFL-CIO, a member of Climate Jobs Illinois, said the bill sets some of the nation's strongest labor standards, such as requiring collective-bargaining agreements for all utility-scale wind and solar.

He added it also helps communities currently reliant on coal and natural gas transition to the clean economy.

"With these provisions, we can ensure the clean-energy grid of the future will be built and maintained right here in Illinois by highly trained union workers to the benefit of their families and their communities," Devaney asserted.

For people who live in work in communities where power plants are closing down, the bill establishes community grants, and a "Displaced Energy Worker Bill of Rights." Advance notice of any closures is required, as well as financial advice, employment assistance and career services.

HELENA, Mont. -- Montanans are delivering a message to the offices of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., across the state today: Support bold investments in the country's future.

Congress is considering a $3.5 trillion budget, which includes major investments to address climate change. Tester was instrumental in crafting the bipartisan infrastructure bill last month, which carried a $1 trillion price tag.

Caitlin Piserchia, climate and political organizer for the Sierra Club Montana chapter, said lawmakers now have a chance to pass an ambitious budget reconciliation bill.

"With the budget reconciliation bill, we have an opportunity to pass something three times the size with priorities that could be truly transformational for Montana and for the rest of the country," Piserchia asserted.

Montanans are delivering care packages to six Tester offices from Kalispell to Billings today. They are calling on the senator to support six priorities in the reconciliation bill, including moving the country toward 100% clean energy, repealing federal fossil-fuel subsidies and retrofitting and electrifying all schools and hospitals.

Congress is still working out the details of the reconciliation bill, the fate of which has been tied to the infrastructure bill.

Piserchia wants to see the measures pass in September while there is still the political will to move forward on them. She added it is also crucial to act on climate change now as it impacts on the country grow and in light of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which urged the world to act quickly to prevent more warming.

"Also, it's coming at a time when there are significant wildfires in Montana," Piserchia pointed out. "There's been a drought emergency, and that IPCC report just came out, concluding that we're coming closer to the end of our window to change the outcomes that we could be facing."

Piserchia noted they are also calling on Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., to support the budget reconciliation, but admitted it is a long shot. Daines voted against the infrastructure bill in August. Because of how it is crafted, the reconciliation bill just needs a simple majority in the Senate to pass.