December, 19 2014, 01:45pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jay Branegan, 202-513-6263, jbranegan@nrdc.org, or Elizabeth Heyd, 202-289-2424, eheyd@nrdc.org
Environmentalists Sue to Protect Water Quality
EPA charged with ignoring past court decision
WASHINGTON
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) today announced they have sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen standards to prevent pollution from stormwater, one of the nation's most widespread forms of water pollution. More than a decade ago a federal appeals court ordered EPA to strengthen those protections, but the agency has failed to take action.
The dirty water that runs off roads, parking lots and other hard surfaces in cities and suburbs when it rains is the prime cause of beach closings around the country, and is responsible for fouling tens of thousands of miles of streams and hundreds of thousands of acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. In addition, sediment-laden runoff from forest roads threatens drinking water supplies and kills fish and other aquatic life.
"This inexcusable delay in obeying a clear court order is, unfortunately, all too typical of EPA foot-dragging on the crucial stormwater pollution problem. The agency has repeatedly promised a much-needed update of all its stormwater protections, and repeatedly failed to come through," said NRDC senior attorney Larry Levine.
The suit, filed late Thursday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, charges EPA has failed to implement that court's 2003 ruling ordering the agency to correct and strengthen rules for urban runoff that flows through municipal sewer systems. EPA also ignored the same court's order to decide whether it has an obligation under the Clean Water Act to regulate runoff from forest roads that wash damaging sediment into water bodies. The ruling in EDC v. EPA resulted from a successful challenge brought by EDC and NRDC against EPA's 1999 stormwater regulations.
"EPA's failure to act deprives the public--and the environment--of the important clean water victory that EDC and NRDC achieved over ten years ago. Our waterways continue to remain at risk from stormwater pollution, which threatens public health, wildlife, and recreation. " said Maggie Hall, Staff Attorney at EDC.
In urbanized areas, according to the suit, stormwater "picks up contaminants, including suspended metals, algae-promoting nutrients, used motor oil, raw sewage, pesticides, and trash," that flows untreated through municipal sewer pipes directly into streams, lakes and the ocean. It is, the suit says, "one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation, at times comparable to, if not greater than, contamination from industrial and sewage sources."
The appeals court found that EPA's urban runoff rules for communities with populations under 100,000 don't comply with the Clean Water Act because they rely on self-regulation by local municipalities and don't allow for public participation when local pollution controls are being set.
Unpaved forest roads throughout the West are a major threat to water quality, undermining the billions of dollars that is spent on the recovery of native runs of salmon and steelhead, and harming other valuable fisheries and drinking water supplies.
In 2003 the court said the agency had given no justification for its failure to regulate runoff from forest roads and ordered the agency to address this issue.
In 2009, EPA announced it would undertake a major overhaul and upgrading of its urban stormwater rules, which NRDC and EDC welcomed as an opportunity for the agency to obey the court order on urban runoff. NRDC also encouraged the agency to promote green infrastructure--roof gardens, permeable pavements and the like--that would allow more rainfall to soak directly into the ground, and sharply limit runoff volume.
However, EPA never completed the new rules and recently disclosed it was abandoning the effort. EPA had been under heavy pressure from developers not to act.
EPA announced in 2012 that it was considering options for regulating forest road runoff, and that regulation may be appropriate. However, the agency has offered no timeline for a decision.
In the lawsuit, EDC and NRDC seek a court order imposing clear deadlines for EPA to act. "We hope this suit spurs EPA to get back into the business of modernizing its whole stormwater program, which badly needs updating and could greatly benefit from new green technologies," NRDC's Levine said.
Read more about this issue and the lawsuit, and find the pdf of the lawsuit at Larry Levine's blog:
https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/llevine/clean_water_delayed_is_clean_w.html
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Trump Floats Plan to Let Billionaire Polluters 'Bribe Their Way' Past Regulations
"He's making it official: If you write a big enough check, his administration will let you break the rules and drive up costs for working families," said one climate advocate.
Dec 11, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday floated a legally dubious proposal to let corporations and individuals who invest $1 billion or more in the U.S. bypass regulations, a scheme that environmental groups and government watchdogs said underscores the corrupt intentions of the incoming administration.
"Corporate polluters cannot bribe their way to endangering our communities and our clean air and water," Mahyar Sorour of Sierra Club said in a statement. "Donald Trump's plan to sell out to the highest bidder confirms what we've long known about him: He's happy to sacrifice the wellbeing of American communities for the benefit of his Big Oil campaign donors."
"We will keep fighting to defend our bedrock environmental protections and ensure they apply to everyone, not just those who can't afford Trump's bribe," Sorour added.
In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump wrote that "any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals."
"GET READY TO ROCK!!!" said Trump, who pledged on the campaign trail to accelerate oil drilling and asked the fossil fuel industry to bankroll his bid for a second White House term in exchange for large-scale deregulation.
As early as May of this year, fossil fuel industry lobbyists and lawyers had already begun crafting executive orders for Trump to sign upon retaking the White House. After winning last month's election, Trump moved quickly to stack his Cabinet with billionaires and other rich individuals with close corporate ties, including those in the fossil fuel industry.
The Associated Pressnoted Tuesday that Trump's push to let large investors evade regulations would itself likely run up against regulatory hurdles, "including a landmark law that requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impact before deciding on major projects."
"While Trump did not specify who would be eligible for accelerated approvals, dozens of energy projects proposed nationwide, from natural gas pipelines and export terminals to solar farms and offshore wind turbines, meet the billion-dollar criteria," AP noted. "Environmental groups slammed the proposal, calling it illegal on its face and a clear violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, a 54-year-old law that requires federal agencies to study the potential environmental impact of proposed actions and consider alternatives."
"Presidents have no authority whatsoever to waive statutory public health and safety protections based upon a dollar value of capital investment."
Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, said Tuesday that "Trump is treating America's energy policy like a cheap knickknack at an estate sale: brazenly offering to auction off our public lands and waters to the highest bidder."
"Trump's promise to fast-track environmental approvals for billion-dollar kickbacks is nothing but an illegal giveaway to fossil fuel special interests," said Moffitt, pointing to federal law requiring "rigorous review processes to protect the public interest, not rubber stamps for corporate polluters."
"Trump's plan would turn a system already rigged in favor of fossil fuel interests into one openly driven by corruption, where special interests dictate policy and everyday Americans pay the price," Moffitt added. "Now he's making it official: If you write a big enough check, his administration will let you break the rules and drive up costs for working families."
Axiosreported that Trump's specific focus on environmental regulations "will put the spotlight on Lee Zeldin," the president-elect's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
"Zeldin is considered to have little environmental policymaking experience—but is a strong supporter of Trump's broad deregulatory push," the outlet noted.
Tyson Slocum, director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen, expressed confidence that Trump's plan "will not come to pass," given that "presidents have no authority whatsoever to waive statutory public health and safety protections based upon a dollar value of capital investment."
"Trump's claim deserves ridicule for being so outlandishly illegal and wrong," said Slocum. "However, the statement does highlight Trump's utter disregard for protecting the environment or human health and the imminent peril that he and his cronies will push policies that jeopardize health, safety, and planetary well-being."
Slocum said there are other "more realistic and insidious" Trump schemes worth guarding against, including his "efforts to use national security designations to force bailouts of coal power plants during his firm term."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) warned in response to the president-elect's Truth Social post that "the Donald Trump-Elon Musk government will be of the billionaire, by the billionaire, and for the billionaire—with one set of rules for the big-money oligarchs and another set for everyone else."
"Clean air and clean water are not and will not be for sale," the senator added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
34 US Lawmakers Urge Biden to Pardon Steven Donziger
"We are deeply concerned about the chilling effect this case will have on all advocates working on behalf of other frontline communities, victims of human rights violations, and those seeking environmental justice."
Dec 11, 2024
More than 30 Democratic members of Congress on Wednesday called on outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden to pardon environmental and human rights lawyer Steven Donzinger, who endured nearly 1,000 days in prison and house arrest after successfully representing Ecuadoreans harmed by Big Oil's pollution of the Amazon rainforest.
In a
letter to Biden led by Rep. Jim McGovern, (D-Mass.), 33 House and Senate Democrats plus Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont noted the "troubling legal irregularities" in Donzinger's case, which have been "criticized as unconstitutional or illegal by three federal judges, 68 Nobel laureates, and five high-level jurists from the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the United Nations."
Donziger represented a group of Ecuadorean farmers and Indigenous people in a 1990s lawsuit against Texaco—which was later acquired by Chevron—over the oil company's deliberate dumping of billions of gallons of carcinogenic waste into the Amazon. He played a key role in winning a $9.5 billion settlement against Chevron in Ecuadorian courts.
However, Chevron fought Donziger in the U.S. court system, and when the attorney refused to disclose privileged client information to the company, federal District Judge Lewis Kaplan—who was invested in Chevron—held him in misdemeanor contempt of court. Loretta Preska, Kaplan's handpicked judge to preside over Donziger's contempt trial, is affiliated with the Chevron-funded Federalist Society.
Donziger's case drew worldwide attention and solidarity, with human rights experts and free speech groups joining progressive U.S. lawmakers in demanding his release. He was released in April 2022 after 993 days in prison and house arrest.
"Donziger is the only lawyer in U.S. history to be subject to any period of detention on a misdemeanor contempt of court charge," the 34 lawmakers wrote. "We believe that the legal case against Mr. Donziger, as well as the excessively harsh nature of the punishment against him, are directly tied to his prior work against Chevron. We do not make this accusation lightly or without evidentiary support."
The legislators warned:
Notwithstanding the personal hardship, this unprecedented legal process has imposed on Mr. Donziger and his family, we are deeply concerned about the chilling effect this case will have on all advocates working on behalf of other frontline communities, victims of human rights violations, and those seeking environmental justice. Those who try to help vulnerable communities will feel as though tactics of intimidation—at the hands of powerful corporate interests, and, most troublingly, the U.S. courts—can succeed in stifling robust legal representation when it is needed most. This is a dangerous signal to send.
"Pardoning Mr. Donziger," the lawmakers added, "would send a powerful message to the world that billion-dollar corporations cannot act with impunity against lawyers and their clients who defend the public interest."
The lawmakers join more than 100 environmental and human rights groups that have urged Biden to pardon Donziger.
In an April opinion piece published by Common Dreams, Donziger contended that "I need this pardon because I am the only person in U.S. history to be privately prosecuted by a corporation."
"More specifically, the government (via a pro-corporate judge) gave a giant oil company (Chevron) the power to prosecute and lock up its leading critic," he continued. "As a result of this unprecedented and frightening private prosecution, I still cannot travel out of the country and I have been prohibited from meeting with clients I have represented for over three decades. Nor can I practice law, maintain a bank account, or earn a livelihood."
"No matter where one stands on the political spectrum," Donziger added, "we should all be able to agree that what happened to me should not happen to anybody in any country that adheres to the rule of law."
The appeal for a Donziger pardon comes amid a
wave of eleventh-hour pleas from lawmakers for Biden to grant clemency to figures ranging from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden to Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier—often described as the nation's longest-jailed political prisoner—and federal death row inmates including Billie Jerome Allen, who advocates say was wrongly convicted of murder.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Supreme Court Briefs, Biden DOJ Sides With Communities Suing Big Oil
"The Justice Department has affirmed again that communities deserve their day in court to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and the resulting harms."
Dec 11, 2024
Campaigners and experts on Wednesday welcomed the Biden administration's new briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to intervene in state and local lawsuits that aim to hold fossil fuel giants accountable for lying to the public about their contributions to the climate emergency.
The Tuesday filings in Sunoco v. the City and County of Honolulu and Alabama v. California align with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's amicus brief last year, which stemmed from Colorado communities suing Big Oil. Following that filing, the justices declined to hear five appeals from fossil fuel companies trying to shift climate liability cases from state to federal court.
The U.S. Supreme Court—which has a right-wing supermajority—asked Prelogar to weigh in again this past June and October. Her new filings have climate advocates hopeful that the justices will follow their previous path and let the cases against major polluters advance in state court.
"The Justice Department has affirmed again that communities deserve their day in court to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and the resulting harms," said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), in a statement. "Big Oil companies are desperate to avoid facing the evidence of their deception in a courtroom, but wanting to escape the consequences for your actions is not the same thing as having the law on your side."
"As the solicitor general makes clear, there is no legal basis for the Supreme Court to intervene in these cases."
In Honolulu's case—intended to make companies including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell pay for local climate damages—the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the fossil fuel industry's argument that "state law claims alleging the deceptive marketing of fossil fuel products were either governed by the federal common law of transboundary air pollution or preempted by the Clean Air Act."
Prelogar made the case that the country's highest tribunal "does not have jurisdiction to review the Hawaii Supreme Court's interlocutory decision" that allowed Honolulu's suit to proceed, "and even if it did, further review at this time would be unwarranted."
For the other case—which involves 19 state attorneys general trying to stop climate deception suits in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—Prelogar wrote that "there is no merit to the contention that the federal common law of transboundary air pollution governs (and therefore precludes) the defendant states' claims."
The solicitor general also argued that the attorneys general working on behalf of Big Oil lack standing; "the only interests directly at stake are the interests of private energy companies," not the citizens of each state; and "the very suits that the complaint seeks to enjoin are better forums for resolving the issues raised."
Alyssa Johl, vice president of legal and general counsel for CCI, said that "as the solicitor general makes clear, there is no legal basis for the Supreme Court to intervene in these cases. State and local governments are seeking to hold corporations accountable for lying about their harmful products, and state courts have the authority to hear those claims. The justices should reject these meritless requests and allow communities to have their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable."
Experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) agreed. Delta Merner, lead scientist for the group's Science Hub for Climate Litigation, said the new briefs "represent an important step in the pursuit of climate accountability" and "reaffirm that communities have the right to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for decades of misleading the public about the harms associated with their products."
"Research has shown how fossil fuel companies knowingly concealed the dangers of their products while misleading the public—a pattern of misconduct that contributed directly to today's climate crisis," she noted. "These cases seek to give communities the chance to present this evidence in court, shining a light on the broader impacts of corporate disinformation campaigns."
"We applaud the Biden administration's continued support for these lawsuits and urge the incoming Trump administration to continue following science and clear legal arguments."
Kathy Mulvey, director of the climate accountability campaign at UCS, stressed that "communities like Honolulu are bearing the financial burden of addressing climate damages, using public dollars to remediate harms caused by decades of deception by fossil fuel companies."
"A core principle of accountability is timely access to justice through the courts. Honolulu and other communities have already waited years to present their evidence and argue their claims," she added. "We applaud the Biden administration's continued support for these lawsuits and urge the incoming Trump administration to continue following science and clear legal arguments."
Honolulu's suit is just one of dozens that state and local governments have filed against the fossil fuel industry—and Prelogar's brief last year notably represented a departure from the first Trump administration's support for Big Oil. Her new briefs come as the nation prepares for President-elect Donald Trump to return to the White House next month, with a Republican-controlled Congress.
Shortly after the GOP electoral victories last month, Emily Sanders a senior reporter for the CCI project ExxonKnews, spoke with multiple legal experts who framed the courts as key to Big Oil accountability with Trump and Republican lawmakers in power.
"It's not a stretch to say the message coming from the federal executive branch writ large and large numbers of Congress is going to be climate denial and misrepresentations," said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor and senior fellow at Vermont Law School. "So these cases and these jury verdicts are going to be even more important to correct the record to the extent you can."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular