WASHINGTON - The federal Environmental Protection Agency is temporarily suspending BP from any new federal contracts, partly as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

In its release Wednesday, the EPA said BP's practices showed a "lack of business integrity." The decision will prevent the multi-billion-dollar company from receiving any new federal contracts and grants until the company can prove it meets federal business standards.

John Kostyack, National Wildlife Federation vice president for wildlife conservation, says the company already is feeling the impact.

"We don't know how long it will be in effect. We do know that BP did miss out on some sales of leases in the Gulf already as a result. So, they're starting to feel it, which is going to have that kind of productive effect."

Earlier this month, BP was ordered to pay $4.5 billion for criminal charges related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill.

Kostyack says this EPA suspension sets a standard for the practices of all oil companies going forward.

"I think it sends a message to BP and to every other oil company that operates in our land and our water that we expect compliance of environmental laws and that these laws actually mean something. They have teeth."

The suspension does not affect existing agreements BP has with the government. The effects of the 200 million gallons of oil spilled as a result of the explosion still are being felt by residents and businesses of the Gulf as oil continues to wash ashore.


get more stories like this via email

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."

Some three million acres of Colorado lands have been protected through land trusts and their partners, and new online resources launched by the group Keep it Colorado aims to help more families keep producing on their farms and ranches, and maintain their land for future generations.

Erin Quinn, conservation director with the Aspen Valley Land Trust, said protecting lands through conservation easements now is a good idea for a number of reasons.

"One is that the cost of real estate is so high," said Quinn. "But second, the state's incentives have never been better. So if you're considering, now is a great time."

By donating a conservation easement on private property to a qualified land trust, the charitable act qualifies the landowner for a transferable state income tax credit, which can be traded to people seeking to lower their tax liability for up to $5 million per easement.

Toolkits for landowners interested in learning more about easements, and for people who have purchased lands already protected, are available online at 'KeepItCO.org.'

A 2018 study found that every $1 invested in conservation through the tax credit generates $12 in economic benefits by protecting prime farmland, habitat for Colorado's wildlife, and land along streams, lakes and rivers.

Quinn said one question she hears a lot from landowners is, 'Will I still own my land after conservation easement?'

"And the answer is yep, the land is still yours," said Quinn. "And you're free to sell it, transfer it or mortgage it, but with the knowledge that the conservation easement will protect it in perpetuity."

Quinn said land conservation is meant to keep Colorado's treasured places open and natural, and to protect the region's land, water, wildlife, culture and heritage. She added that the actual uses of conserved land can change over time.

"But the land will remain undeveloped," said Quinn. "Maintaining space in my area for farming, ranching, scenic corridors, wildlife habitat and just simply for places for kids to play - those are all benefits."

A new report found nearly all Missouri coal plants are releasing toxins into the local groundwater.

The report from two nonprofits, the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, showed improper storage of waste material from coal-fired power plants is causing unsafe levels of groundwater contamination at 91% of U.S. coal plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency implemented the Coal Ash Rule in 2015, requiring power plants to monitor local groundwater and regulating safe storage of the byproducts of coal combustion.

Patricia Schuba, president of the Labadie Environmental Organization, said leaking ash disposal sites have been an issue in Missouri for decades, and the EPA needs to be proactive.

"Communities like mine would like the EPA to step up, start investigating these sites and enforce the rule," Schuba asserted. "I think it needs to come from EPA. Our state regulators here in Missouri bend over backwards to accommodate the polluters."

The Edison Electric Institute, a trade association representing U.S. investor-owned electric companies, said as producers begin to close basins where coal ash is stored, they are doing so "in ways that put safety first, protect the environment, minimize impacts to the community and manage costs for customers."

The EPA has established ash-disposal sites need to have a plastic liner and a layer of compacted soil in order to prevent groundwater contamination. But the requirements to retrofit ash disposal sites to correct groundwater contamination currently applies only to ash dumps active when the coal ash rule went into effect in 2015. Older sites were allowed to be closed without changing the soil underneath, or adding a plastic barrier.

Schuba argued sites like the one near her need to be dug up and cleaned up.

"EPA needs to act on this. We can't get this corrected quick enough," Schuba contended. "And for a place like Labadie, you have to go in, find the pollution, and tell the utility they need to dig up the waste, put it in a lined landfill and remediate the land, so just dewatering it, you can't dewater in a flood plain."

The Coal Ash rule requires groundwater wells be dug and tested near ash disposal sites, which has enabled reporting on the amount of groundwater contamination at each site.

"I would think anybody who lives in a community near one of those plants should not be drinking their water, and that's sad because we're all dependent on groundwater," Schuba emphasized. "Most Missourians drink groundwater, and if not, they're drinking water from the river where this pollution is washing out into."

Coal ash toxins in water are tasteless, odorless, and can't be seen.