January, 31 2010, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25
Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, (360) 281-4747
Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, (503) 348-2436
Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, (503) 768-6673
Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, (360) 281-4747
Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, (503) 348-2436
Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, (503) 768-6673
Clean Water Advocates Act For Stronger Stormwater Controls in Washington
Lawsuit filed to protect salmon and close illegal loopholes
LACEY, Wash.
Local residents and clean water advocates today filed a
challenge to Clark County's on-going failure to protect rivers, streams
and comply with laws limiting stormwater pollution.
The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed an appeal on behalf
of three local conservation organizations asking the Washington State
Pollution Control Hearings Board to throw out a recent agreement
between Clark County and the Washington Department of Ecology. Local
residents and clean water advocates argue the state authorized
inadequate development standards that will generate illegal stormwater
pollution.
"Clark County's refusal to comply with state stormwater requirements
is unfair to other cities and counties that are working hard to clean
up our polluted waterways," said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman,
who is representing the groups. "When it comes to clean water, everyone
needs to do their share."
Stormwater contains toxic metals, oil, grease, pesticides,
herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. Last year, the Environmental
Protection Agency released a startling report on toxics in the Columbia
Basin, which identified stormwater as a leading cause of toxic
pollution in the basin. When stormwater runs off parking lots,
buildings, and other urban development, it carries with it toxic
metals, particularly copper and zinc, which harm salmon and other
aquatic life.
Under a lopsided deal reached in early January, Ecology agreed to
allow Clark County to retain inadequate stormwater standards for new
development in exchange for a promise to implement county-funded
stormwater mitigation projects.
However, Clark County is already required to implement these
projects under federal law. Additionally, the agreement allows Clark
County to mitigate new development anywhere in the county, up to three
years after the development occurs.
"Clark County's approach to stormwater is a bad deal for clean water
and species like salmon because developers will continue to use
outdated and inadequate building standards," said Dvija Michael Bertish
of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association, one of the appellant groups.
"It's also a bad deal for taxpayers because it transfers the burden of
mitigating stormwater from developers to the public."
"From subsistence to recreational fishing, so many people in our
area rely on fish from local streams and rivers," explained Brett
VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. "Given the
direct harm of stormwater toxics on salmon, we need our state and Clark
County to comply with the law to protect the salmon and the people who
rely on them."
Federal law required Clark County to adopt new rules governing
runoff from development by August of 2008. Rather than comply with
Clean Water Act requirements, the county knowingly adopted a
significantly weak flow control standard for new development. While
Ecology initially sought to bring an enforcement action against the
county, it later agreed to let Clark County retain the insufficient
standards.
"Clark County is allowing development that does not change the rate
of stormwater flow even though this flow continues to damage creeks and
rivers," said Dennis Dykes, an expert hydrogeologist who has reviewed
the Clark County's proposal. "The stormwater ordinance and the proposed
flow control program are not protective of water quality and endangered
species like salmon. There is simply no scientific basis for allowing
continued degradation of one watershed in exchange for a plan to do
something beneficial somewhere else."
The appealing groups include Rosemere Neighborhood Association,
Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.
They are represented by attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer of
Earthjustice.
About the Pollution Control Hearings Board
The Pollution Control Hearings Board acts like a court for appeals
of state environmental regulations. The three board members hear
appeals from orders and decisions made by the Department of Ecology and
other agencies as provided by law. The Board's function is to provide
litigants a full and complete administrative hearing, as promptly as
possible, followed by a fair and impartial written decision based on
the facts and law. The Board is not affiliated with the Department of
Ecology or any other state agency. The Board consists of three members,
who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate for
staggered six-year terms.
Read a copy of the EPA's toxics report for the Columbia
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Signals It Will Uphold 'State-Sanctioned Discrimination' in Transgender Care Case
"We the people means all the people," said the ACLU. "There is no 'transgender' exception to the U.S. Constitution."
Dec 04, 2024
Attorneys who argued against Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming healthcare at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed hope that the court's nine justices will take "the opportunity to affirm the essential freedom and equality of all people before the law," while reports indicated that the right-wing majority is inclined to uphold the ban.
"Every day this law inflicts further pain, injustice, and discrimination on families in Tennessee and prevents them from receiving the medical care they need," said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, which represented three families and a physician. "We ask the Supreme Court to commit to upholding the promises of the U.S. Constitution for all people by putting an end to Tennessee's state-sanctioned discrimination against trans youth and their families."
The law, S.B. 1, which was passed in March 2023, bars medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medications, other hormonal treatment, and surgical procedures to transgender minors and youths with gender dysphoria.
The Supreme Court case, United States v. Skrmetti, applies only to the ban on puberty blockers and hormonal therapy for minors; a lower court found the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the surgery ban.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and a law firm were joined by the Biden administration in arguing that Tennessee allows doctors to prescribe puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments for youths with congenital defects, early puberty, diseases, or physical injuries.
As such, said the plaintiffs, Tennessee's ban for transgender and nonbinary youths violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives."
The court's three liberal justices—Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all indicated they believed Tennessee has tried to classify people according to sex or gender with the law.
"One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity," said Kagan. "Sounds to me like, 'We want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,' and that's an important purpose behind the law."
Matthew Rice, the lawyer representing Tennessee in the case, claimed the state simply wants to prevent "regret" among minors, and the court's six conservative justices signaled they were inclined to allow Tennessee to ban the treatments—which are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other top medical associations.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the nine justices should not overrule the decision made by lawmakers representing Tennessee residents, considering there is debate over the issue, and pointed to changes some European countries have made to their gender-affirming care protocols for minors.
Representing the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that there has been debate about gender-affirming care in the U.S. and abroad, but pointed out that countries including the U.K. and Sweden have not outright banned treatment.
"I think that's because of the recognition that this care can provide critical, sometimes lifesaving benefits for individuals with severe gender dysphoria," she said.
Following the arguments, plaintiff Brian Williams, who has a 16-year-old daughter in need of gender-affirming care, addressed supporters who had assembled outside the Supreme Court.
"Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care is an active threat to the future my daughter deserves," said Williams. "It infringes not only on her freedom to be herself but on our family's love for her. We are not expecting everyone to understand everything about our family or the needs of transgender young people like our daughter. What we are asking for is for her freedom to be herself without fear. We are asking for her to be able to access the care she needs and enter adulthood knowing nothing is holding her back because of who she is."
Sotomayor said there is "very clear" evidence "that there are some children who actually need this treatment."
A 2022 study led by researchers at the University of Washington found that transgender and nonbinary youths aged 13-20 were 60% less likely to experience moderate or severe depression and 73% less likely to be suicidal after receiving gender-affirming care.
Prelogar asked the justices to "think about the real-world consequences of laws like S.B. 1," highlighting the case of a plaintiff identified as Ryan Roe.
Roe had such severe gender dysphoria that "he was throwing up before school every day," said Prelogar. "He thought about going mute because his voice caused him so much distress. And Ryan has told the courts that getting these medications after a careful consultation process with his doctors and his parents, has saved his life."
"But Tennessee has come in and categorically cut off access to Ryan's care," she added. "This law harms Ryan's health and the health of all other transgender adolescents for whom these medications are a necessity."
Tennessee is home to about 3,100 transgender teenagers, and about 110,000 transgender youths between the ages of 13-17 live in the 24 states where gender-affirming care is restricted.
More than 20 states have laws that could be impacted by the court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives," said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "But I also know that every out trans person has embraced the unknown in the name of living free from shame or the limits of other people's expectations."
"My heart aches for the parents who spent years watching their children in distress and eventually found relief in the medical care that Tennessee now overrides their judgment to ban," said Strangio. "Whatever happens today, tomorrow, and in the months and years to come, I trust that we will come together to fight for the realized promise of our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all."
A ruling in the case is expected in June.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Small Town Sues Utility for Climate Deception
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change," said the mayor of Carrboro, North Carolina.
Dec 04, 2024
The town of Carrboro, North Carolina filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the utility company Duke Energy of carrying out a "knowing deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis."
The municipality—which is near Chapel Hill and is after compensation for damages it has suffered or will suffer as a result of the alleged deception campaign—is the first town in the United States to challenge an electric utility for public deception about the dangers of fossil fuels and seek damages for the harms those emissions have created, according to the town's mayor, Barbara Foushee.
The case was filed in North Carolina Superior Court and argues that Duke Energy has engaged in a "greenwashing" campaign to convince the public it sought to address the climate emergency.
"In reliance upon these misrepresentations, the public has continued to conduct business with Duke under the mistaken belief that the company is committed to renewable energy," according to the filing.
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change. The climate crisis continues to burden our community and cost residents their hard-earned tax dollars," said Foushee, according to a press release.
Mayor Pro Tem Danny Nowell added that "it's time for us to hold Duke Energy accountable for decades of deception, padding executives' pockets while towns like ours worked to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. This suit will allow the Town of Carrboro to invest new resources into building a stronger, more climate-resilient community, using the damages justly due to our residents to reimagine the ways we prepare for our climate reality."
According to the lawsuit, Carrboro will be forced to spend millions of dollars either repairing or shoring up public infrastructure as a result of more frequent and devastating storms, which scientists agree are caused by climate change.
The complaint comes not long after the release of a report, Duke Energy Knew: Documenting the Utility’s Early Knowledge and Ongoing Deception About Climate Change, from the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group. According to the report, Duke Energy well understood the risks posed by burning fossil fuels as far back as the 1960s, but chose to take part in promoting disinformation about climate science. In more recent years, the utility continued to pursue fossil fuels while blocking renewable energy development, according to the report's authors. Much of this research is referenced in the lawsuit.
As one example of its "deception," the lawsuit points to Duke Energy's participation in the the Global Climate Coalition, an entity created with the intent of opposing action to curb the climate crisis.
Duke Energy was the third largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in 2021, according to a breakdown from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which ranked U.S. companies in terms of their CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.
More than 20 states, tribes, cities, and counties have brought similar climate deception lawsuits. Maine, for example, recently became the ninth state to sue a major oil and gas company for deceiving the public about its products' role in the climate crisis.
"We’ll soon have a climate denier-in-chief in the White House, but Carrboro is a shining light in this darkness, taking on one of the country's largest polluters and climate deceivers," Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release. The Center for Biological Diversity is advising on the case.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Sound Alarm Over Trump Plot to Install Nominees Without Senate Approval
"If you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
Dec 04, 2024
Dozens of civil rights and pro-democracy organizations teamed up Wednesday to express opposition to President-elect Donald Trump's push to use recess appointments to evade the Senate confirmation process for his political nominees, many of which have
glaring conflicts of interest.
The 70 groups—including People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and the NAACP—sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that Senate confirmation procedures provide "crucial data" that helps lawmakers and the public "evaluate nominees' fitness for the important positions to which they are nominated."
"The framers of the Constitution included the requirement of Senate 'Advice and Consent' for high-ranking officers for a reason: The requirement can protect our freedom, just as the Bill of Rights does, by providing an indispensable check on presidential power," reads the new letter. "None of that would happen with recess appointments. The American people would be kept in the dark."
Since his victory in last month's election, Trump has publicly expressed his desire to bypass the often time-consuming Senate confirmation process via recess appointments, which are allowed under the Constitution and have been used in the past by presidents of both parties. The need for Senate confirmation is already proving to be a significant obstacle for the incoming administration: Trump's first attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid seemingly insurmountable Senate opposition, and Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth appears to be on the ropes.
"Giving in to the president-elect's demand for recess appointments under the current circumstances would dramatically depart from how important positions have always been filled at the start of an administration," the groups wrote in their letter. "The confirmation process gathers important information that helps ensure that nominees who will be dangerous or ineffective for the American people are not confirmed and given great power, and that those who are confirmed meet at least a minimum standard of acceptability."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices, and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Scholars argue recess appointments were intended as a way for presidents to appoint officials to key posts under unusual circumstances, not as an exploit for presidents whose nominees run up against significant opposition.
The Senate could prevent recess appointments by refusing to officially go on recess and making use of pro forma sessions, but incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that "we have to have all the options on the table" to push through Trump's nominees.
"We are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda," Thune said last month.
Trump has also previously threatened to invoke a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that he claims would allow him to force both chambers of Congress to adjourn, paving the way for recess appointments.
Conservative scholar Edward Whelan, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, denounced that proposed route as a "cockamamie scheme" that would mean "eviscerating the Senate's advice-and-consent role."
Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, said in a statement Wednesday that "if you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices," said Myrick, "and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular