By: Katie O’Brien
Brandywine is a town of less than 7,000 people located in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The population in the county is 60% African American and they are all victims of environmental racism. Brandywine is a 21 square mile town is already home to one large gas-fired power plant. A few months ago, not one, but TWO additional gas fired power plants were approved to be built in the town. The neighboring towns already have a gas-fired power plant with another under construction. The area will have FIVE gas-fired power plants in the future, making the Brandywine area have more fossil fuel power plant capacity than 99.9% of the country according to the Energy Justice Network.
The area already has unacceptable air quality and was declared by the EPA to be in “non-attainment” for ground level ozone pollution. According to the EPAs ozone health page, breathing ozone can cause a decrease in lung function, inflammation of the airways, and induction of respiratory symptoms such as coughing, throat irritation, pain and burning while breathing, and chest tightness, among others. It even states that ozone is associated with increased mortality. In some studies on lab animals, long-term exposure to ozone could cause “morphological changes that could be a market of chronic respiratory disease”. It is crazy to think that in an area where there are already non-attainable levels of ozone, that two more ozone producing power plants were approved to be built, especially with the clear information from the EPA about the dangers of ozone exposure.
Residents of the area are just learning of the power plants approval. Many of the local newspapers in the area shut down in recent years. When residents of the area found out about the proposed sites, they requested an extension on public comment to alert more people; they were given “tiny legal notice in a newspaper, which was inadequate to notify people of public hearings”. Since the sites have already been approved residents are having a hard time trying to fight back against the power plants. The surrounding communities in the Brandywine area are all victims of environmental racism and their rights are being violated with the construction of these gas-fired plants.
To learn more: http://www.energyjustice.net/files/md/PG-NGPP-factsheet5pg.pdf
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
Climate change is a growing concern; almost 75 percent of Americans today favor a government action for a safer, greener future. President Obama showed initiative against climate change when he introduced the historic Clean Power Plan this year, which set the first ever national carbon emission limit on the electric power sector. Climate change is the result of an increased average global temperature, where one of the major factors causing this warming is from emissions from non-renewable energy sources, such as fossil fuels and coal. Recently, Met Office data showed that the global annual average temperature has officially increased by 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels and will continue increasing if no action is taken against climate change. This is alarming as todays average global temperature is now halfway to the internationally agreed critical point of 2 degree Celsius that is deemed the limit where climate change effects are intolerably high. With climate change a very real threat, the upcoming presidential campaign candidates’ stance on global warming could shape who wins office.
All democrat candidates have acknowledged the existence of man-made climate change; however, each take different responses when it comes to environmental policies. Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders seek to resolve climate change with already released proposals. As part of her first acts in office, Clinton would involve generating 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable source, installing a half- billion solar panels, and to power every home with carbon-free sources all by 2020. Bernie Sanders stated he would tax emissions on oil and coal burning to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Sanders was also just endorsed by the national environmental group, Friends of the Earth, as a reward for Sanders’ pledge for climate change action, where 2 million activists claim to promote the nominee for president. Martin O’Malley said that clean energy would be his number one priority as president, pledging to create the Clean Energy Jobs Crops to reduce emissions and restore forests. As for the 15 Republican candidates, only Bobby Jindal has made specific proposals to reduce emissions but through small scale changes and not by building on the Obama administration’s environmental policies.
According to President Obama, climate change denial threatens national security as it “undermines the readiness of our forces”. The EPA already knows the damages expected nationwide by climate change. Americans in the Southwest and Great Plains can expect severe droughts. The Southeast can face more intense hurricanes and increased floods from rising sea levels. The Midwest and Northeast face economic damage from reduced agriculture yields and intense heat waves. The Northwest and Tropics can experience a blow to the delicate ecosystem with increased pests and reduced biodiversity.
The Natural Resource Defense Council released a survey that showed fifty-five percent of Latinos were “very concerned” or “extremely concerned” about climate change. This high level of concern is due to the Latino overrepresentation in locations that are already experiencing effects caused by climate change. Latinos in California are seeing more wild fires and extreme droughts and those in Florida are seeing an increase in sea-levels and frequency of hurricanes. Another survey by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that 84 percent of African-Americans in Atlanta, Cleveland, and Philadelphia want to see action by the federal government to address climate change as exposures from pollutants from non-renewable energy sources are leading to a high rate of asthma. Increase competition on already stressed water sources, threats to infrastructures from rising sea levels and erosions, and devastating heat waves can threaten human health and wellbeing, making climate change and important issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.
Bill Gates’ net worth is estimated to be $79.7 billion and his worth just seems to grow every year. Known as the world’s richest man, Gates is also listed 
as the sixth most powerful person in the world. He and his wife Melinda run the Gates Foundation their goal is to reduce inequity and improve the lives of people in poorer countries.
But what about America? What about the innocent people in which his investment company, Cascade Investments, is making him even more money, at the expense of innocent children who are made sick and dying from chemical/radioactive materials?
My mother often told me that it is wonderful, honorable to support others who need help, but always remember charity begins at home.
Bill and Melinda are doing extraordinary work in poor countries, but their money to do that work is coming from their investments like, Republic Services where they have personally invested 2.9 Billion dollars. Gates Foundation has divested from Republic Services but Bill and Melinda have not.
Families with children in St. Louis have watched helplessly as their children developed cancer and some have died. Parents believe their children health problems are due to Republic Services burning and radioactive Superfund site. The Missouri health authorities found an over 300% increase in children’s brain cancer near the Republic site. This cancer is preventable.. .avoidable… by helping people move away. Today they are trapped. Families can’t live in their homes, sell their homes or afford to pay rent or mortgages somewhere else. These are working people, many not earning a living wage.
Bill could direct his investment company to use their power as shareholders to purchase the homes of innocent families that surround the burning landfill. Once the fire is put out and the radioactive materials cleaned up Republic can resell the homes and reduce their costs. It is anticipated that the fire will burn for another four years and the plan to clean up the radioactive wastes is also far into the future.
I thought at one time, that maybe Bill and Melinda just didn’t know. As parents of three children Jennifer, Phoebe, and Rory I thought they could relate to the fears the parents in St. Louis face every day to protect their most precious asset their children. Unfortunately they do know and I guess don’t care. Recently, they sold all of their Foundation’s stock in Republic Services. A good first step but far from what’s needed. Their personal stock of almost three billion is still earning dividends off the back of little children and hard working parents. We believe it was the petition drive that CHEJ did with the local group Just Moms STL in St. Louis, Missouri that brought the problem to their attention. Maybe it did, we’ll never know.
Today, it’s clear that Bill and Melinda know there is a problem in St. Louis, and they don’t want the public face of the Gates Foundation to be associated with that Superfund site. With this knowledge, they continue to profit from Republic Services, which in turn continues to place children in harm’s way. Bill and Melinda have made a decision to not take action with their personal wealth.
I can only ask, and hope others who read this ask, won’t you please reconsider your decision? Please, give a little charity at home. You are the richest man and one of the most powerful in the world and have said you want to improve the lives of people in poor countries, how about America? You can use your power in the Republic Services Board room to vote to move the innocent families or buy the properties yourself. The child, with brain cancer in the photo, is worth helping.
By Vesta Davis
Many people understand the damage done to communities by the fossil fuel industry, especially now when discussions on the current climate crisis are at an all-time high. It is hard to find a current news outlet that doesn’t mention one of the key words: “climate change,” “sustainability,” or “global warming,” at least once a day—even if they’re denying the validity of them.
While this is all well and good, there are thousands of initiatives working for environmental justice that go unacknowledged. And even further, international energy companies often violate basic human rights of local communities, and never suffer the consequences.
This past summer, a Federal court ruled to allow a case filed in 2001 against the Exxon Mobil Corporation to proceed. The lawsuit was filed by 11 Indonesian citizens after numerous human rights violations were committed by the local Exxon employees. According to the plaintiffs, the Exxon security guards beat, sexually assaulted, and murdered local villagers on numerous occasions.
The Mobil Corporation first began gas drilling in the rural Aceh region of Indonesia in the early 1970s. In the late 1990s, the Exxon and Mobil corporations merged and established four natural gas sites in Aceh. However, after the fall of President Suharto 1998, tension and violence between rebel groups and local authorities grew. The increase of foreign companies, workers, and technology seemed only to escalate matters, especially since Exxon hired the local military and police forces as security for each plant. Between the years 1999 – 2001, there were approximately 50 separate incidents of gunmen hijacking company pick-up trucks and vans, and two air planes were shot down when attempting to land. Local buses carrying employees from surrounding villages to the Exxon site were also targeted by land mines.
This violence caused Exxon to shut down three of the four natural gas plants. However, Exxon maintained the employment of the local military even though they knew there was extreme violence occurring between them and the locals. According to the Indonesian Human Rights Commission, there have been hundreds of documented incidents of rape, torture, and murder committed by the soldiers.
While Exxon is not to blame for all of this violence, locals do hold the company partially responsible. The industry pays the soldiers, provides them with weapons, and also instills them with a sense of power and entitlement. They are also permitted to use the companies digging equipment which has supposedly been used to create mass graves.
Situations like this are more common that one may think. Many western energy companies have established themselves amidst turmoil in international communities. For instance, the Canadian mining company Turquoise Hill Resources in Myanmar, the gasoline retailer Unocal—now owned by Chevron—in Burma, and the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project funded by Exxon, Chevron, and the World Bank.
In 2013, a case went to the Supreme Court in which a group of Nigerian citizens sued the Shell oil company for “aiding and abetting” violence and murder in Ogoniland, an area of Nigeria popular for oil drilling. Apparently, when Shell set up camp, locals responded by organizing protests against the environmental destruction. Shell then hired the Nigerian Government to stop the demonstrations. Extreme violence, murder, rape, and illegal arrests ensued throughout the 1990s. The plaintiffs in this case allege that Shell representatives perpetuated the violence by supplying food, transportation, and compensation to the military forces.
The case was denied by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that due to the “Alien Tort Statute”, the United States system was not entitled to intervene. Because of this ruling, many were shocked when the Indonesian case passed through the Federal system. Human rights lawyer, Agnieszka Fryszman, claims that it is probably the first international case involving a major United States company and “foreign misconduct” to be approved by a Federal court.
Exxon has continuously denied the allegations that they are involved with the violence in Aceh. They state that they are trying to “maintain some neutrality.” However, even if they are not intentionally involved, they are still complicit. When an international energy corporation is present in an impoverished or indigenous community, a feeling of dependency and reliance is created. Exxon may wish to stay in denial about their role in the situation, but in environments such as this, staying neutral is just as toxic.
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]
By Kaley Beins
Few environmental concerns have received more media attention than TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline, a project designed to transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada across 840 miles of the United States to Houston, Texas. Supporters of the project claim it will provide economic growth and domestic energy security, but critics have lambasted Keystone XL for its potential effects on climate change and the possibility of spills.
In addition to the environmental concerns connected to the pipeline, the proposed plan for Keystone XL disregards the sacred land of multiple indigenous groups. As Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) explained in IEN’s November 3rd E-Blast, “This dirty tar sands pipeline has met immense organized resistance from the Dene, Cree and Metis first nations at its source, thru [/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][sic] the traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin, also known as the Great Sioux Nation, and from the Ponca people of the southern great plains. This grassroots effort, coupled with alliances with non-native landowners helped the fight against Keystone XL become the marquee fight for the US Climate Movement.” Keystone XL is the very definition of an environmental justice issue.
After President Obama’s February 2015 veto of the Congressional bill that would have approved the pipeline, TransCanada and other supporters of Keystone XL have been trying to find other ways to pass the necessary legislation. This past Monday, November 2nd, TransCanada petitioned Secretary of State John Kerry to ask the U.S. State Department to pause its review of Keystone XL pending Nebraska’s approval of a portion of the route. Despite previously complaining of delays in the approval process, TransCanada is now asking for further delays, leading to speculation that it is trying to push the Keystone XL decision to the next presidential administration. This political move is significant as support for the pipeline is split directly along party lines; the Democratic nominees have come out against the pipeline, while the Republican nominees are in favor of it. However, on Wednesday the State Department decided to continue with its evaluation of the Keystone XL application.
Additionally, the White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced that President Obama plans to make a decision regarding the Keystone XL pipeline before the end of his term. As December’s Paris Climate Summit approaches and Obama solidifies his legacy I hope that he upholds his commitment to addressing climate change, in this case by rejecting TransCanada’s Keystone XL project.
[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
In August, the EPA and President Obama announced the Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon pollution from power plants as a means to stem the advance of climate change. The plan introduces the first national standards the U.S. has ever seen for carbon pollution, while customizing goals for each state. If the plan is successful it will not only greatly reduce carbon pollution emitted from U.S. plants; it will also contribute to incentivizing a clean energy transition in the United States, while improving air quality by reducing loads of soot and hazardous chemicals emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels.
According to the EPA, the construction of the plan has involved “years of unprecedented outreach and public engagement.” EPA plans to continue its discussions with communities now that the final plan is in place, and November is a particularly busy month for this initiative. During the next month, EPA will hold four two-day public hearings at locations across the country. Hearings will be held in Pittsburgh (November 12-13), Denver (November 16th-17th), Washington, DC (November 18th-19th), and Atlanta (November 19th-20th). These hearings will give community members and other stakeholders the chance to raise concerns or arguments relating to the power plan. Registration opened several days ago, and can be found at the EPA’s website. Following the meetings, the public comment period for the plan will remain open through January 16th.
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]
According to the Clean Power Plan fact sheet, EPA will require states to document how they are actively enhancing community engagement during the implementation of the plan, particularly engagement with low-income communities, minority communities, and tribal communities. This requirement attempts to establish a channel of dialogue by which community members can learn about state activities to realize the goals of the plan, while providing their own input. The EPA will also monitor air quality impacts on vulnerable populations and provide easily accessible data on emissions via a community resource web page.
So far, the plan has drawn mixed praise and criticism from environmental and environmental justice organizations. The Sierra Club praised the plan’s inclusion of environmental justice provisions as well as community resources. However, they pointed out that the plan does not include a consideration of cumulative impacts; that the plan allows cap-and-trade programs to be used, which may exacerbate the existence of pollution hot spots in environmental justice communities; that waste-burning may increase as a result of the plan; and that the requirements for compliance with the Civil Rights Act during plan implementation are insufficient. The Energy Justice Network echoed concerns about cap-and-trade programs and Civil Rights Act compliance, and urged EPA to close loopholes related to nuclear power, natural gas, and biomass burning. WE ACT for Environmental Justice praised the plan as an ambitious “step in the right direction,” and assured that environmental justice advocates across the country would continue to speak up and impact the implementation process just as they shaped the original plan.
As the EPA and state agencies move forward with implementation, this involvement from EJ activists will be critical in ensuring that the plan’s provisions for environmental justice and community involvement are carried forth, and that the lingering inadequacies of the plan are addressed. Hopefully, the November meetings will be a continuation of this unprecedented process of community engagement and outreach.
[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
The enormous growth of unconventional natural gas fracturing (also known as fracking) in recent years has come at the expense of knowing little if anything about the health risks associated with this practice. As production as slowed due to dropping gas prices in the past year or so, several studies have come out that raise serious questions about the health impact of this process. A study published earlier this month by a group of researchers at the John Hopkin’s School of Public Health concluded that “expectant mothers who live near active natural gas wells operated by the fracking industry in Pennsylvania are at an increased risk of giving birth prematurely and for having high risk pregnancies.” This paper was published in the journal Epidemiology.
In this paper, the authors examined more than 9,000 births in 40 counties in northern and central Pennsylvania between January 2009 and January 2013. They compared electronic birth outcome data with information that estimated the cumulative exposure to fracking activity in the region. This information included how close wells were to homes where the mothers lived, what stage of drilling the wells were in, the depth of the wells, and how much gas was generated from the well during the mother’s pregnancy. This information was used to generate a cumulative index of how active each of the wells were and how close they were to the women.
They found that living in the most active area of drilling and production activity was associated with a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of a woman giving birth before 37 weeks of gestation (considered pre-term) and a 30 percent increase in “high risk” pregnancies, a designation that can include elevated blood pressure and excessive weight gain during pregnancy. In total, 11 % of the pregnancies were born preterm, with 79% born between 32 and 36 weeks.
Other research in recent years has also shown a connection between fracking wells and low birth weight. “There are now four studies that have looked at various aspects of reproductive health in relation to this industry and all have found something,” Brian Schwartz, the lead author of the Hopkins study, said in an interview. In one of these studies, researchers found an increased risk of congenital heart and neural tube defects in babies whose mothers lived within 10 miles of a natural gas well in rural Colorado.
In a media statement released with the study, the authors made clear that the study can’t pinpoint the specific reason why pregnant women living near the most active wells had the worst pregnancy outcomes. But Schwartz pointed out that every step of the drilling process has an environmental impact. “When the well pads are created, diesel equipment is used to clear acres of land, transport equipment and drill the wells themselves. Drilling down thousands of feet and then horizontally many more thousands of feet requires heavy equipment to break up the shale where the gas sits. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) then involves injecting millions of liters of water mixed with chemicals and sand to fracture the shale. The fluids are then pumped back to the surface. The gas itself also releases pollutants.” Schwartz also noted that living near fracking well results in increased noise, road traffic and other changes that can increase maternal stress levels.
“Now that we know this is happening we’d like to figure out why,” Schwartz says. “Is it air quality? Is it the stress? They’re the two leading candidates in our minds at this point.”
As with many other environmental and public health risks, the more we look, the more we find. We already know that fracking contributes to the impact of climate change because of the large amount of methane that’s released. It’s beginning to look more and more like it also has serious effects on the health of the people who live nearby.
A fire in one landfill in St. Louis is headed for a nearby Superfund site containing nuclear waste. It’s a desperate situation, but a group of courageous leaders has stepped in to save their community and their families. Here’s a few lessons we can draw from their work:
Get Your Neighbors Involved – In a meeting this week, the EPA, the ATSDR, and other officials tried to take sell the community on their solution, but Just Moms STL wasn’t buying. They not only staged a protest outside the meeting before it started, all of the good work that they have done to educate their neighbors was evident from the get-go.
Seek Out the Real Story – At the meeting scientists presented their facts, but the crowd knew that all the data presented directly contradicted earlier studies that Missouri’s Attorney General commissioned. At many points during the evening, it was clear that not only did the crowd know the real story, it was clear they were prepared to take action.
Get Your Story Out – National media came to the meeting: the meeting made CBS’ morning AND evening news hours the next day. The landfill story has been featured weekly in St. Louis due to the activism of Just Moms STL – now it has finally broken through to the national level.
Do a Power Analysis and Take Action – A determined band of volunteers made all of this happen. They got the entire Missouri congressional delegation to write to the EPA and they enlisted the support of their state legislators. They organized rallies, meetings and media events. They recruited more members by going door to door, they organized a coalition and schooled themselves on the issues. The 400 people at this week’s meeting were informed and ready to take action because of Just Moms STL.
Get Expert Help – CHEJ has been working with these brave leaders, many of whom have a family member who has become sick from the landfill. CHEJ has been holding conference calls with Just Moms STL every week. Lois Gibbs has also traveled to St. Louis several times to conduct trainings. CHEJ can help you organize and can also help connect to other organizing sources. Call us!
By: Katie O’Brien
The community surrounding West Lake Landfill near St. Louis, MO has been fighting for their lives. CHEJ has been working with the grassroots group Just Moms STL for over a year to help train them to organize their neighbors to join them in their fight to regain their health.
An underground fire is burning approximately one thousand feet from 50,000 tons of illegally dumped radioactive waste from the Manhattan Project, which experts estimate can reach the waste in as little three to six months. The fire has been burning for five years, sending smoke and soot into the streets and homes of the surrounding areas. Residents believe this toxic smoke has been causing an upsurge in health problems such as lupus and cancer, and the state health department defined the area to have a much higher than expected childhood cancer rate. Children cannot play in their yards because the air is so toxic it causes nosebleeds.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed West Lake Landfill as a Superfund site in 1990. Since then, the EPA has continuously mishandled clean up efforts and refuses to move families away from the hazardous site. Just Moms STL has been trying to meet with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for over a year to discuss the health problems that are affecting their children and to establish a plan, but they are constantly denied a meeting.
The St. Louis County Government put together an Emergency Operation Plan in case of a potential nuclear threat; stating its purpose is to reduce or prevent the loss of lives within the county. The plan states the catastrophic event will occur with little or no warning at all. Residents will be urged to shelter in place until the county can properly set up evacuation points. Just Moms STL continues to fight for their communities and the relocation of their families.
Sign the petition to help Just Moms STL get their families relocated!
Since its major amendment in 1972, the nationally enforced Clean Water Act (CWA) has greatly restricted the amount of contaminants entering navigable open surface waters in America by setting a wastewater standard for industries and businesses. Not only has this improved water conditions to meet the needs of people, the environment has benefited as well.
However, confusion about what the CWA covers arose during the trials of Supreme Court cases SWANCC (2001) and Rapanos (2006). The major questions that emerged during the cases were these: Does the CWA protect certain bodies of non-navigable open surface waters, such as small streams and tributaries, that eventually feed into navigable open surface waters? Also, exactly how far does the CWA’s coverage extend?
Because the Act did not clearly define what bodies of water are protected, troubles arose for the EPA when it attempted to enforce the law in many cases. As much as 500 cases have been dropped or had priorities lowered in the years 2006-2007 alone because of the ambiguous definition of what is protected under the CWA. Without specifying what bodies of waters are covered, about 60 percent of America’s streams and 20 million acres of wetlands are at risk of losing protection. This is water that more than 117 million Americans use for drinking.
The newly implemented Clean Water Rule was designed to improve water protection by addressing this issue of ambiguity. The rule now precisely defines bodies of waters that were historically covered by the CWA. Specifically, the rule now provides comprehensible definitions on what types of tributaries, adjacent wetlands and waters, and isolated waters are protected by the CWA. Exclusions are also defined.
Some states, business, agriculture, and real estate developer groups are opposed to this new rule. They expressed concern that the new rule grants too much power to the federal government and that it can allow the EPA to step over its bounds. U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Erickson of North Dakota blocked the new rule in a total of thirteen states by requesting an injunction hours before the rule was set to take effect. These states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem praises the injunction and hopes to see the Clean Water Rule overruled. He was quoted, “I am very pleased by today’s ruling, which protects the state and its citizens from the serious harm presented by this unprecedented federal usurpation of the state’s authority.”
This overruling continues to bar protection to Americans living in these states who obtain their drinking water from sources that could have otherwise been protected with this new rule. Regardless, the EPA stated that the new rule has been in effect since August 28th, 2015 in the remaining states that are not involved in the lawsuit. The EPA and Army Corps, who work together to implement the rule, state that the rule was developed to make definitions under the CWA easier to understand after previous court cases did not clearly define what bodies of water, such as small waterways or non-navigable open surface tributaries, are protected.
Requested input from environmental justice stakeholders was used when developing the Clean Water Rule. Over one million public comments were listened to in order to help better clarify what waters are protected by the CWA. The rule proposes that it will positively impact at risk populations and low income communities by enhancing key roles given to states and tribes when implementing their respective CWA programs. With smaller bodies of waters, such as streams, being covered, the Clean Water Rule has the potential to help clean water sources once unspecified by the CWA. Small urban and rural communities who depend on these water sources for consumption, bathing, recreation, and business could benefit from this new clarity in the Clean Water Act by reducing exposure to contaminants and chemicals.