July, 31 2012, 04:52pm EDT
Appalachian Communities Win Case Against Unlawful Mountaintop Removal Mining Permit While Federal District Court Issues Decision Finding EPA Must Act Through Regulation, not Guidance
Appalachian communities win challenge to state permit, but still seeking federal protection from devastating mines and pollution
WASHINGTON
Today rulings were issued in both West Virginia and the U.S. District Court demonstrating the need for Environmental Protection Agency standards that are based on the overwhelming scientific consensus that pollution from surface coal mining and coal waste disposal threatens Appalachian streams.
Today the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board (WV EQB) ruled that the state's Clean Water Act permit for a mountaintop removal mine, Patriot Mining Company's New Hill West mine, is unlawful because it does not limit harmful pollution that degrades water quality. Also today the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in the coal industry case challenging a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance document meant to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and protect Appalachian communities from extreme mountaintop removal mining pollution. This court found that, to protect Appalachian streams from the harm caused by mining pollution, EPA should have issued a formal regulation instead of a guidance document. On these grounds, the court vacated the EPA's conductivity guidance.
The West Virginia Environmental Quality Board decision demonstrates that the science is clear and stricter permits are necessary for protecting Appalachian waterways from coal mining pollution, including very high levels of conductivity and total dissolved solids that harm aquatic life. The EPA relied on these same studies to support its final guidance, and although the federal court ruled against the guidance, nothing in its decision questioned the scientific consensus behind the guidance. The federal court ruling also does not affect the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board decision.
In July 2011, the EPA issued this final guidance following its own two extensive peer-reviewed scientific reports, as well as multiple independent peer-reviewed scientific reports, that all found that mountaintop removal mines create lasting, irreparable harm to streams and water quality. In light of these scientific reports, EPA issued the guidance to assist its staff in meeting longstanding and well established requirements of the Clean Water Act. This final guidance also came after the EPA's consideration of 60,000 public comments.
Sierra Club and Appalachian Mountain Advocates won the case in front of the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board.
In the federal case, the Sierra Club, Coal River Mountain Watch (WV), Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (WV), West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards (VA), and Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment (TN) -- represented by Earthjustice and the Appalachian Mountain Advocates -- opposed this coal mining industry lawsuit as intervenors in support of EPA's effort to follow the Clean Water Act, consider the latest science, and protect America's waters from destruction.
The following are their statements:
Said Ed Hopkins, Sierra Club's Environmental Quality Program Director:
"We are heartened to see the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board affirm basic protections of the Clean Water Act, and overturn the unlawful mountaintop removal mining permit today. In addition to continuing to follow the Clean Water Act consistent with federal court rulings, we urge the EPA to adopt the water quality benchmarks in the guidance addressed by today's court decision as federal rules to ensure full protection for all local communities from the dangerous industry of mountaintop removal coal mining," "Together, the state environmental quality board and EPA must ensure that all Appalachian communities finally receive the protection from mountaintop removal mining that we deserve."
Said Dianne Bady, co-director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, based in West Virginia:
"We're saddened that this federal court ruling will prevent the EPA from using this scientific guidance to protect Appalachia's waters from mountaintop removal mining operations that have been linked to increased harm to human health. But with or without this one particular guidance document, the EPA still has a duty to protect our waters and our people directly under the Clean Water Act, and it is a relief to see our state environmental quality board affirm the science and follow the Clean Water Act. In keeping with today's decisions, we urge the EPA to continue advancing strong, science-based policies to safeguard our lives."
Said Vernon Haltom, executive director of Coal River Mountain Watch in West Virginia:
"Our people's health and the survival of our communities depend on strong enforcement of the laws and regulations intended to protect us from pollution. Since the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection chooses instead to enable unfettered pollution from mountaintop removal, we must rely on the U.S. EPA. It is a victory to see the state environmental quality board affirm fundamental requirements of the Clean Water Act. Because the science is clear on what we need to do to protect our waters, we hope that today's court decision does not weaken EPA's resolve to protect us from mountaintop removal, which is increasingly linked to deadly human health problems."
Said Emma Cheuse, Earthjustice attorney:
"EPA and state regulators still have a legal duty to uphold the Clean Water Act, and today's court decision recognizes EPA's authority to set rules to protect our waterways. It is essential for both EPA and state agencies charged with protecting communities to follow the science, and they must doing everything possible under the law to prevent the irreversible destruction of mountaintop removal mining, before more mountains and streams are destroyed forever."
Said Rick Handshoe of the Kentuckians For The Commonwealth:
"The federal court decision is a setback for the people of Appalachia. This conductivity guidance - based on scientific evidence - gives us the first sign that something may be wrong with our water. Whatever may happen in the courts, assuming today's decision is appealed, the science EPA has highlighted will continue to be a great tool for people in Appalachia. It's been a great tool for me. I've tested a creek where the water was crystal clear but the conductivity meter ran over 4000 micro Siemens. That told me something was wrong, and after further testing was done we saw how bad it was - some of the pollutant levels were 100 times the water standard. We need to do something federally to protect Appalachians from mountaintop removal mining. And we will continue to look to the Kentucky governor to use this science to protect the water and health of people all over the Commonwealth."
Said Cindy Rank, mining board chair of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy:
"For years mining companies have fought science and even minimal clean water protections under the 40-year-old Clean Water Act using every legal trick in the book. In some cases, such as today's federal court decision, they have won. This continues to put us living in Appalachia in the unconscionable position of having to document our own communities' sickness, disease and other unexplained health impacts as reasons to finally stop the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining. As we do this, it's critical that West Virginia keep doing as it did today and use strong science to deny permits."
Said Cathie Bird, chair of the E3 Committee of Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment:
"EPA's conductivity guidance supports a broader science-based strategy to keep mountain ecosystems resilient and healthy. While the court's decision is disappointing, we hope the EPA and the states will continue to use the full force of their authority under the Clean Water Act to strengthen the protection of water, upon which human communities and other species depend."
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Final Guidance: Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order: https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/Final_Appalachian...
Information on the EPA's Clean Water Act oversight of Appalachian surface mining activities: https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mining.cfm
Information on Appalachian groups' intervention to support EPA in lawsuit filed by the coal mining industry: https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2010/appalachian-and-national-organiz...
Final EPA Scientific Reports on Water Quality and Mountaintop Removal Mining Pollution Impacts:
* Field-based Aquatic Life Benchmark (2011): https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=233809
* Effects of Mountaintop Mines/Valley Fills (2011): https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=225743
Final EPA Report: Review of Clean Water Act SS 402 Permitting for Surface Coal Mines by Appalachian States (2010): https://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/pdf/Final_Appalachian_Mining_P...
Contact:
Liz Judge, Earthjustice, (202) 797-5237 or (970) 710-9002 (cell)
Oliver Bernstein, Sierra Club, (512) 289-8618
Dan Radmacher, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, (540) 798-6683
Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, (304) 924-5802
Vernon Haltom, Coal River Mountain Watch, (304) 854-2182
Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, (304) 360-1979
Rick Handshoe, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, (606) 358-4912
Jane Branham, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, (276) 679-7505
Casey Self, Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment, (865) 249-7488
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
Plastics Summit 'Die-In' Highlights Need to Cut Production
"This week governments have a choice: Stand up to this slash-and-burn approach by agreeing to radically reduce plastic output, or let the world be held to ransom by a dying industry."
Apr 23, 2024
As the fourth round of talks for a global plastics treaty kicked off in the Canadian capital on Tuesday, campaigners with the corporate accountability group Ekō staged a die-in at Ottawa's Shaw Centre to demand an ambitious plan to reduce production.
"Plastic pollution has reached the snows of Antarctica, the deepest oceans, even the clouds in the sky—and still fossil fuel corporations are trying to ramp up production," explained Ekō campaign director Vicky Wyatt. "This week governments have a choice: Stand up to this slash-and-burn approach by agreeing to radically reduce plastic output, or let the world be held to ransom by a dying industry. It's very clear to people across the planet which way they need to go."
Demonstrators—some wearing fish masks to highlight how plastic pollution impacts marine biodiversity—gathered in front of a 28-foot banner that used plastic trash bags to spell out: "Plastic is poisoning us. Cut production now."
(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)
Participants in the die-in—which followed the weekend's "March to End the Plastic Era" through the Canadian city—held smaller signs with similar messages, demanding that governments and industry "stop fueling climate chaos."
As Common Dreamsreported last week, new research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California shows that planet-heating pollution from the plastics industry is equivalent to that of about 600 coal-fired power plants, and 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions from plastic production are released before the plastic compounds are even created.
The protesters also highlighted that more than 180,000 Ekō members have signed a petition urging action on plastic pollution. The petition specifically calls for banning all plastic waste exports from the European Union and fully implementing the Basel Convention within the bloc, while the summit has a global focus and the plan is to have a treaty by the end of this year.
After countries agreed to draft a treaty two years ago, the latest talks in Kenya last year were flooded by fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists and ended with little progress, increasing attention on the Canadian meeting that began Tuesday and is scheduled to run through Monday.
"It's a crucial moment of this process," Andrés Gómez Carrión, chair of the negotiations and an Ecuadorian diplomat in the United Kingdom, toldReuters on Monday. "One of the biggest challenges is to define where the plastics lifecycle starts and define what sustainable production and consumption is."
Petrochemical-producing countries including China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia "have opposed mentioning production limits" while E.U. members, island nations, and Japan aim to "end plastic pollution by 2040," the news agency reported. The United States supports that timeline but "wants countries to set their own plans for doing so" and submit pledges to the United Nations.
"We are facing a global plastics crisis that requires urgent, global action. Reducing plastic production needs to be a core component of the solution," Christy Leavitt, campaign director at Oceana in the United States, said in a statement. "Countries must act now to stop the flood of plastic pollution that is harming our oceans, climate, health, and communities by starting at the source to reduce its production."
"The U.S. should support a strong, legally binding plastics treaty that addresses the full life cycle of this persistent pollutant from extraction and production to use and disposal," Leavitt added. "Now is the time for the United States to show its support to reduce plastic production, eliminate unnecessary single-use plastics, prohibit hazardous chemicals in plastics, and establish mandatory targets for reuse and refill systems. The United States and the world must act before it's too late."
Greenpeace last month installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol to send President Joe Biden a message.
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said of Biden. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The petrochemical industry, Reuters noted, "argues that production caps would lead to higher prices for consumers, and that the treaty should address plastics only after they are made."
Sam Cossar-Gilbert of Friends of the Earth International emphasized the need to resist corporate pressure in a statement Tuesday.
"A people-powered movement and some governments are proposing ambitious steps to address the plastic problem, like regulating the harmful waste trade, single-use bans, and reducing global plastic production," said Cossar-Gilbert. "But multinational corporations will also be lobbying with their false solutions, distractions, and delays. Only by stamping out corporate capture can we deliver a new global treaty to end plastic pollution."
Mageswari Sangaralingam from the green group's Malaysian arm, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, stressed the need for strong waste management policies, given that Global South countries have become dumping grounds for richer nations' discarded plastic.
"Waste colonialism, whether in the form of trade in plastic waste and other hidden plastics, perpetuates social and environmental injustice," said Sangaralingam. "However, ending the plastic waste trade without reducing plastic production will likely trigger more dumping, cause toxic pollution, and contribute to the climate crisis. The global plastics treaty is an opportunity to plug loopholes and address policy gaps to end plastic pollution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
South Korean Court Hears First Asian Youth Climate Case
"Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later," said one plaintiff's mother. "But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
Apr 23, 2024
One of South Korea's two highest courts on Tuesday began hearing Asia's first-ever youth-led climate lawsuit, which accuses the country's government of failing to protect citizens from the effects of the worsening, human-caused planetary emergency.
Nineteen members of the advocacy group Youth4ClimateAction filed a constitutional complaint in March 2020 accusing the South Korean government of violating their rights to life, the "pursuit of happiness," a "healthy and pleasant environment," and to "resist against human extinction."
The lawsuit also notes "the inequality between the adult generation who can enjoy the relatively pleasant environment and the youth generation who must face a potential disaster from climate change," as well as the government's obligation to prevent and protect citizens from environmental disasters.
"South Korea's current climate plans are not sufficient to keep the temperature increase within 1.5°C, thus violating the state's obligation to protect fundamental rights," the plaintiffs said in a statement.
South Korea's Constitutional Court began hearing a case that accuses the government of having failed to protect 200 people, including dozens of young environmental activists and children, by not tackling climate change https://t.co/XRIGE23KGM pic.twitter.com/snvqBaGGe9
— Reuters (@Reuters) April 23, 2024
Signatories to the 2015 Paris agreement committed to "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C."
According to the United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) most recent Emissions Gap Report, the world must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 28% before 2030 to limit warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels and 42% to halt warming at 1.5°C. UNEP said that based on current policies and practices, the world is on track for 2.9°C of warming by the end of the century.
A summary of the lawsuit notes that South Korea is the fifth-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, and that the government is constitutionally obligated to protect Koreans from the climate emergency.
Instead, the plaintiffs argue, the Korean Parliament "gave the government total discretion to set the GHG reduction target without providing any specific guidelines." Furthermore, they contend that the government's downgraded reduction targets fall "far short of what is necessary to satisfy the temperature rise threshold acknowledged by the global community."
Lee Donghyun, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, toldReuters: "Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later. But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
The South Korean case comes on the heels of a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found that Switzerland's government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to heed scientists' warnings to swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
The ECHR ruled on the same day that climate cases brought by a former French mayor and a group of Portuguese youth were inadmissible.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, and Peru also have human rights-based climate cases on their dockets.
In the United States, a state judge in Montana ruled last year in favor of 16 young residents who argued that fossil fuel extraction violated their constitutional right to "a clean and healthful environment."
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is trying to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Rights Chief Demands International Probe of Mass Graves Near Gaza Hospitals
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," said Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights.
Apr 23, 2024
The United Nations' human rights chief on Tuesday called for an international investigation into mass graves discovered at two Gaza hospitals that Israeli forces recently assailed and destroyed, further imperiling the enclave's barely functioning healthcare system.
Volker Türk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement that he was "horrified" by the discovery of mass graves at the Nasser and al-Shifa medical complexes, which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reduced to ruins.
More than 300 bodies were reportedly discovered in the mass grave near the Nasser facility in Khan Younis, Gaza, and eyewitnesses said Israeli soldiers executed civilians during their two-week-long raid of al-Shifa last month.
Türk demanded an "independent, effective, and transparent" probe into the killings and mass graves, adding that "given the prevailing climate of impunity, this should include international investigators."
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," he added. "And the intentional killing of civilians, detainees, and others who are hors de combat is a war crime."
"Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price."
The IDF's destructive attacks on Nasser and al-Shifa were part of a broader Israeli assault on Gaza's healthcare system. An analysis released Monday by Save the Children found that the rate of monthly Israeli attacks on healthcare in Gaza since October has exceeded that of any other conflict around the world since 2018.
The group estimated that Israel has launched an average of 73 attacks per month on healthcare in Gaza—and at least 435 attacks total since October.
"After six months of unimaginable horror, the healthcare system in Gaza has been brought to its knees," said Xavier Joubert, Save the Children's country director in the occupied Palestinian territory. "Healthcare workers are risking their lives daily to give Palestinian children a chance at survival. The constant attacks on healthcare are simply unjustifiable and must stop. Palestinian children must have unimpeded access to services, including healthcare and education."
Türk also used his statement Tuesday to condemn Israeli forces' killing of women and children in airstrikes on the southern Gaza city of Rafah in recent days. The human rights official noted that Gaza doctors rescued a baby from the womb of her mother as the latter succumbed to head injuries from an Israeli strike.
"The latest images of a premature child taken from the womb of her dying mother, of the adjacent two houses where 15 children and five women were killed—this is beyond warfare," said Türk. "Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price in this war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular