SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Karen Schambach (530) 333-2545; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Several of the California state parks scheduled for closure received federal aid with strings attached, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Of the 70 parks the state plans to shutter, 13 used federal funds which require the lands be kept open for recreation permanently or be replaced by lands of equal market value and recreation usefulness.
The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) requires that state grant-assisted parklands are to remain forever available for "public outdoor recreation use" or be exchanged for lands of equivalent value. Thirteen of the California park units set to be shuttered received LWCF monies, including Portola Redwoods State Park, Russian Gulch State Park, Salton Sea State Recreation Area and Twin Lakes State Beach.
Running afoul of LWCF rules may also disqualify California from future grants. Since 1965, California has received approximately $300 million in LWCF funding. By contrast, the savings the state projects from park closures is approximately $22 million.
"These shutdowns may jeopardize a larger national investment in California's magnificent park system," stated California PEER Director Karen Schambach. "Our promises to keep parks open in perpetuity have to last beyond the next budget cycle."
Federal reimbursement rules also mean that the parks cannot be closed without permission of the National Park Service (NPS). Reportedly, current discussions between the state and federal park officials regarding the 13 parks revolve around how NPS will define "closed." If a park is open part time or on a seasonal basis, it may not violate LWCF strictures.
This is not a new controversy for California. On June 8, 2009, the NPS also warned California that its plan to close 200 state parks could even result in the forfeiture of some park lands purchased with federal funds. The state backed off those park closure plans, in part because state analysts came to realize that it was potentially significantly more expensive to shut down parks than to keep them operating.
"Hopefully, there will be a resolution that protects the greatest recreational assets," added Schambach, who revealed the 2009 state Parks and Recreation Department memo cataloging the liabilities to the state from park shutdowns. "Closing public lands to the public should be government's last resort."
###
See the list of 13 state parks with federal reimbursement requirements
Read the 2009 Jarvis letter with the same warning
Look at the Land and Water Conservation Fund provisions
Examine other costs associated with closing parks
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
"This is what happens when pesticide oversight is controlled by industry lobbyists," said one campaigner.
Despite U.S. President Donald Trump's supposed goal to "Make America Healthy Again," his administration is moving to reregister dicamba, a pesticide twice banned by federal courts, for use on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans.
In response to legal challenges from the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, National Family Farm Coalition, and the Pesticide Action Network, courts ruled against the herbicide's registration in 2020 and again last year.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced its latest push to allow the use of dicamba on Wednesday, detailing proposed mitigation efforts—including temperature restrictions and the use of drift reduction agents—that EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou told The Washington Post would "minimize impact to certain species and the environment."
The EPA's proposed registration is now open for public comment until August 22, but supporters and critics are already weighing in. While the pesticide companies welcomed the agency's attempt to allow dicamba products from BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta, the advocacy groups behind the court battles sharply called out the Trump administration.
"EPA has had seven long years of massive drift damage to learn that dicamba cannot be used safely with GE dicamba-resistant crops," said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety, in a statement.
"If we allow these proposed decisions to go through, farmers and residents throughout rural America will again see their crops, trees, and home gardens decimated by dicamba drift, and natural areas like wildlife refuges will also suffer," he warned. "EPA must reverse course and withdraw its plans to reapprove this hazardous herbicide."
Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, declared that "Trump's EPA is hitting new heights of absurdity by planning to greenlight a pesticide that's caused the most extensive drift damage in U.S. agricultural history and twice been thrown out by federal courts."
"This is what happens when pesticide oversight is controlled by industry lobbyists," he charged. "Corporate fat cats get their payday and everyone else suffers the consequences."
The centers pointed out that "the decision to seek reapproval comes less than a month after Kyle Kunkler, a former lobbyist for the American Soybean Association, was installed as the deputy assistant administrator for pesticides in the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The ASA has been a vocal cheerleader for dicamba since its initial approval for use on soybeans in 2016, despite the fact that soybeans have been the most widely damaged crop."
The Post asked the EPA whether Kunkler's recent appointment influenced the dicamba decision. In response, Vaseliou said that the "EPA follows the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act when registering pesticides" and any insinuation otherwise was "further 'journalism' malpractice by The Washington Post."
After Kunkler's new job was made public last month, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) also flagged his "years of advocating against restrictions on farm chemicals such as glyphosate and atrazine," and stressed that "these are the very pesticides singled out in Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' report for their potential links to chronic illness in children."
"The appointment of Kyle Kunkler sends a loud, clear message: Industry influence is back in charge at the EPA," said EWG president Ken Cook at the time. "It's a stunning reversal of the campaign promises Trump and RFK Jr. made to their MAHA followers—that they'd stand up to chemical giants and protect children from dangerous pesticides."
"To those who genuinely believed the MAHA movement would lead to meaningful change on toxic exposures: We understand the hope," he said. "But hope doesn't regulate pesticides. People with power do. And this pick all but guarantees the status quo will remain untouched."
Cook—whose group has also sounded the alarm about dicamba—concluded that Kunkler's EPA post "is but the latest example of the Trump administration's sweeping betrayal of environmental protection and public health."
"The public deserves to know who was complicit in Epstein's heinous crimes, including people with immense power in our government," said the top House Oversight Committee Democrat.
A congressional subcommittee voted Wednesday to subpoena the U.S. Department of Justice to hand over files related to deceased convicted child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, thwarting an apparent effort by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson to delay further action on the matter until after summer recess.
The House Oversight Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement voted 8-2 on a motion by Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) to subpoena the DOJ for all records related to the investigation into Epstein. The longtime former friend of President Donald Trump was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008 and faced federal child sex trafficking charges at the time of his suspicious 2019 jailhouse death, which was officially ruled a suicide.
"Numerous members of this committee and this subcommittee have called for answers and transparency," said Lee, the top Democrat on the subcommittee. "So let's do something about it."
In addition to Lee, the motion was backed by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Reps. Wesley Bell (D-Mo.), Brian Jack (R-Ga.), Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.).
"Today, Oversight Democrats fought for transparency and accountability on the Epstein files and won," Garcia said in a statement. "House Republicans didn't make it easy, but the motion was finally passed to force the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files."
"Let's be clear: This is a huge win for the American people," he added. "The public deserves to know who was complicit in Epstein's heinous crimes, including people with immense power in our government. Today's vote was just the first step toward accountability, and we will continue pushing for the truth."
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) must now sign the subpoena so it may be officially issued to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. Comer agreed to subpoena Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell—who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for child sex trafficking and other crimes as part of Epstein's alleged operation—following a separate Oversight subcommittee's vote on Tuesday.
Johnson (La.) on Tuesday said the lower chamber would adjourn on Wednesday, one day earlier than scheduled. Critics called the move a blatant attempt to thwart a vote on the Epstein documents, pointing to other recent moves, including the House Rules Committee blocking an amendment that would have forced the DOJ to release the full files to the public, as proof of GOP stonewalling.
Epstein allegedly ran a sex trafficking network involving underage girls, whom he is accused of flying aboard his personal jet—dubbed the "Lolita Express"—to his private island, Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the billionaire financier and his guests abused the children.
Trump partied with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s and flew on the "Lolita Express" numerous times—although there is no evidence that he ever visited Little St. James or was involved in any of Epstein's crimes. Still, the president has appeared eager to move on from the issue after he and key members of his administration repeatedly advocated for the release of the Epstein files. Trump has accused Democrats of amplifying the Epstein "hoax" and has derided his supporters demanding full disclosure of all related documents as "weaklings."
Apparently confirming what estranged Trump adviser Elon Musk and others have asserted, Bondi informed the president in May that his name appears in the Epstein files, according to Wall Street Journal reporting published Wednesday. Trump is suing the paper and two reporters, as well as parent company News Corp and its founder Rupert Murdoch, over reporting about a bawdily illustrated letter Trump allegedly wrote for Epstein.
Asked by CNN Wednesday whether her constituents care about the Epstein case, Lee replied, "Yes, I think the American people want transparency."
"At the end of the day, we have to send a message that whether you are the littlest guy or you are the most powerful person in this nation, that if you commit a crime, if you do things that we aren't supposed to do, that there will be some accountability," she added. "Right now, if we don't vote on this, or if we don't release these files, we're sending a message that if you are a powerful abuser... you'll be covered."
"Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the U.S.' influence... major polluters—past and present—cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed."
Vanuatu's government on Wednesday hailed the landmark International Court of Justice advisory opinion that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action against the "urgent and existential threat" of human-caused planetary heating, while demanding an end to the impunity enjoyed by major polluters including the United States, which is leading an ecocidal fossil fuel expansion under President Donald Trump.
The ruling by the ICJ—a United Nations organ also known as the World Court—states that "climate change is a common concern" and "cooperation is not a matter of choice for states but a pressing need and a legal obligation."
Furthermore, the tribunal underscored that "nompliance with emission-reduction commitments by a state may constitute an internationally wrongful act," suggesting a legal mechanism for reparations for countries suffering loss and damage from climate harms caused by wealthier polluters.
Vanuatu Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology and Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment, and Disaster Management Ralph Regenvanu said in a statement that "the ICJ ruling marks an important milestone in the fight for climate justice."
"We now have a common foundation based on the rule of law, releasing us from the limitations of individual nations' political interests that have dominated climate action," he noted. "This moment will drive stronger action and accountability to protect our planet and peoples."
"The nations most responsible for emissions should be held accountable."
"Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the U.S.' influence, along with the loss of climate finance and technology transfer, and the lack of climate ambition following the U.S.' withdrawal from the Paris agreement, major polluters—past and present—cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed," he continued.
"The Global South is bearing the brunt of a crisis it did not create," Regenvanu stressed. "Families are losing their homes, entire cultures are at risk of disappearing, and lives are being shattered by man-made climate disasters. The nations most responsible for emissions should be held accountable for any violations of legal obligations and they must also step up and lead in providing resources and support to aid those most affected."
"A victory in the world's highest court is just the beginning," he added. "Success will depend on what happens next through coordinated efforts across diplomacy, politics, litigation, and advocacy to turn this moment into a true turning point."
While some of the world's biggest polluters pursue fossil-fueled energy agendas, low-lying Pacific island nations including Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and the self-governing New Zealand territory of Niue are working to draft a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty (FFNPT). Such an accord would aim to end the expansion and phase out production of fossil fuels while ensuring a just transition to renewable energy. In 2023, California became the largest economy in the world to endorse a FFNPT.
Vanuatu was the first nation to endorse the FFNPT, having done so in 2022.
"Every day we are experiencing more debilitating consequences of the climate crisis," Vanuatu President Nikenike Vurobaravu said at the time. "Fundamental human rights are being violated, and we are measuring climate change not in degrees of Celsius or tons of carbon, but in human lives. This emergency is of our own making."