January, 29 2016, 11:30am EDT

Court Orders Environmental Protection Agency to Finalize Rules so Polluters Pay for Their Own Toxic Messes
After decades of delay “financial assurance” regs will prevent polluters from leaving staggering cleanup cost to the public
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to stop letting polluters off the financial hook for contamination they caused. The judges directed the EPA to finalize long-awaited "financial assurance" regulations that will first apply to metal (hard rock) mining and other industries.
The case was brought by Earthjustice, a national nonprofit environmental law firm, on behalf of Idaho Conservation League, Earthworks, Sierra Club, Amigos Bravos, Great Basin Resource Watch, and Communities for a Better Environment.
The conservation groups asked the federal judges to force the EPA to put into effect so-called financial assurance regulations as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA. The rules were required to have been initiated in 1983 but have languished for decades.
"Neighbors living with toxic contamination in their backyards have waited more than thirty years for this day," said Earthjustice attorney Amanda Goodin. "Today's court ruling is clear--we will no longer see polluters cheating the system, evading their financial obligations, and skipping town on their toxic messes, leaving taxpayers stuck with hefty cleanup bills."
The court recognized that, "[I]t is a common practice for operators [of sites that produce hazardous substances] to avoid paying environmental liabilities by declaring bankruptcy or otherwise sheltering assets," and that financial assurance rules would prevent these polluters from skipping town on their toxic messes.
Background: CERCLA is the nation's law for the cleanup of hazardous substances. Commonly known as the "Superfund" law, it established a major regime to pay for effective cleanups of toxic waste sites. One provision of this law--section 108(b)--required EPA to ensure that companies that could potentially create future toxic sites remain financially capable of cleanup. These "financial assurance" rules were intended to prevent the common problem of companies creating toxic sites and then declaring bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for cleanup and often causing the cleanup of dangerous sites to be delayed for years.
In 1980, Congress directed the EPA to take the first step in the issuance of these rules by 1983. EPA did nothing until a court ruling in 2009 (brought by many of the same groups) ordered them to start. But the effort immediately languished again, leading to the second lawsuit. Today's court decision puts an end to this decades-long pattern of delay with a binding schedule on EPA to complete the rules, which have been vigorously opposed by industry.
Extensive government-sponsored research and analysis has shown that financial assurance requirements reduce the risks of major spills of hazardous substances. These rules also play an important role in preventing hazardous pollution, because unsafe practices and equipment lead to higher insurance costs--so when financial assurance rules are in place, these risky industries have an incentive to adopt safer methods.
EPA has estimated that one in four Americans lives within three miles of a hazardous waste site. The cost of cleaning up even a single site is high--for example, according to a 2005 report, it will cost $140 million, on average, to clean up each of the 142 largest Superfund sites, for a total of almost $20 billion. The parties responsible for these disasters often evade costs: Cleanups at 60 so-called "mega-sites" are already being funded either wholly or partly by public funds. Because the Superfund tax expired 15 years ago, the funds available for cleaning up toxic sites has been dramatically reduced. It is thus critical that financial assurance rules guarantee that funds are available for cleanup.
Rachel Conn, Interim Executive Director of Amigos Bravos: "The judges agreed --mining companies must clean up their act. The public and the environment have paid the price for too long. If financial assurance requirements had been established when required by law, we would not now be faced with an $800 million liability at the CMI Questa New Mexico mine."
Jennifer Krill, Executive Director of Earthworks: "This victory paves the way for the closure of loopholes that made it far too easy for polluters to skip-out on costly cleanups. This decision is a win for the millions of families that live near polluted industrial sites, and the American taxpayers who have footed the cleanup bill all too often."
Andres Soto, Communities for a Better Environment: "This important court victory will push polluters, who have long been gaming the system, to finally deal with their own toxic messes in a responsible way. Communities need rules requiring facilities that handle hazardous materials to have money at all times to address their impacts on the human beings and environment they put at risk."
John Robison, Public Lands Director of the Idaho Conservation League: "Idaho's rivers are the lifeblood of our communities. This court order is a much-needed step in preventing future toxic messes that could threaten our clean water and quality of life. In addition, requiring companies to post a "damage deposit" or bond helps incentivize smarter and cleaner operations that save everyone money in the long run. It's much better to keep our rivers clean than to try to clean them up after they have been polluted."
Lisa Evans, senior administrative counsel, Earthjustice: "Decades of EPA inaction has laid the intolerable burden of toxic cleanup on the nation's most vulnerable communities. Today's court decision fixes this inequity by closing loopholes that will force irresponsible companies to set aside money to clean up the messes they make--a lesson we learn in kindergarten--and act responsibly.
John Hadder, Director of Great Basin Resource Watch: "We will all benefit from stronger protections brought by this important court victory. This win comes at a time when residents living near the abandoned Anaconda Copper Mine in Yerington, Nevada are on bottled water, and enduring a stalled clean-up due to lack of funding. The likely long-term toxification of the groundwater could have been arrested had the industry been required to bond for potential clean-up."
Nick Jimenez, Associate Attorney, Sierra Club: "This is good news for the environment, citizens who live near mining and other hazardous sites, and our bank accounts. A final rule on financial assurances will take us one step closer to responsible mining practices and the health and environmental benefits they entail."
Online version: https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2016/court-orders-environmental-protection-agency-to-finalize-rules-so-polluters-pay-for-their-own-toxic-messes
See this release in Spanish, here.
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
New Face of GOP Healthcare Fix Is Senator Linked to Largest Medicare Fraud Scheme in US History
Sen. Rick Scott is warning fellow Republicans of a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare if they don't craft an alternative to the Affordable Care Act.
Dec 03, 2025
US Sen. Rick Scott, former CEO of the company that was at the center of the biggest Medicare fraud scheme in American history, has emerged as the most vocal Republican proponent of healthcare reform, warning his fellow GOP lawmakers that continued refusal to engage with the issue risks a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare.
On Thursday, according to Axios, Scott (R-Fla.) is "convening a group of House and Senate conservatives on Capitol Hill to pore over fresh polling to develop GOP alternatives to the Affordable Care Act."
Late last month, Scott unveiled his own proposal titled the More Affordable Care Act, which would keep ACA exchanges intact while creating "Trump Health Freedom Accounts" that enrollees could use to pay for out-of-pocket costs. Scott's plan, as the health policy group KFF explained, would allow enhanced ACA tax credits to expire and let states replace subsidies in the original ACA with contributions to the newly created health savings accounts.
"Unlike ACA premium tax credits, which can only be used for ACA Marketplace plans, the accounts in the Scott proposal could be used for any type of health insurance plan, including short-term plans that can exclude people based on preexisting conditions," KFF noted. "States could also waive certain provisions of the ACA, including the requirement to cover certain benefits."
"While ACA plans would still be required to cover people with preexisting conditions under the Scott proposal," the group added, "it is likely that the ACA marketplace would collapse in states that seek a waiver under his approach."
Last month, amid the longest government shutdown in US history, Scott leapt at the opportunity to champion possible Republican alternatives to the healthcare status quo, despite his ignominious record.
In 2003, the US Justice Department announced that the hospital chain HCA Inc.—formerly known as Columbia/HCA—had agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and damages to settle what the DOJ characterized as the "largest healthcare fraud case in US history."
Scott resigned as CEO of Columbia/HCA in 1997, days after federal agents raided company facilities as part of the sweeping fraud probe. The federal government and company whistleblowers said the hospital giant "systematically defrauded" Medicare, Medicaid, and other healthcare programs through unlawful billing and other ploys.
"In 2000, Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times in a deposition as part of a civil case involving his time leading the company," Florida Phoenix reported last year. A former HCA accountant accused Scott, who was never directly charged in the case, of leading "a criminal enterprise."
Scott later served two terms as governor of Florida and is now one of the wealthiest members of Congress, and he maintains he was the victim of a politically motivated DOJ investigation.
"The Clinton Justice Department went after me," Scott complained during his 2024 Senate reelection campaign.
It's unclear whether Scott's healthcare ideas will gain sufficient traction with President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, who have seemed content to bash the existing system without proposing anything concrete or viable to replace it. Trump was supposed to unveil his own healthcare proposal last month, but the White House pulled the plug amid GOP pushback.
Some members of the Democratic caucus, meanwhile, are making the case for the very system Scott is warning his colleagues about.
"Let’s finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said earlier this week. "We need Medicare for All."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Political Stunt Wrapped in Badges’: New Orleans Readies Resistance as Trump Operation Begins
“Our city is not a stage for political theater," said the Democratic congressman representing New Orleans. "Our people are not props."
Dec 03, 2025
The Trump administration on Wednesday launched a major operation against what it said are "criminal illegal aliens" in New Orleans but that critics contend is political theater targeting what the Louisiana city's mayor-elect called people “just trying to survive and do the right thing."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that it launched Operation Catahoula Crunch—which some Trump administration officials are also calling "Swamp Sweep"—because New Orleans is a sanctuary city that refuses to cooperate with the anti-immigrant crackdown ordered by President Donald Trump.
The blitz—which began on the same day as a similar operation in Minneapolis and follows federal invasions of cities including Charlotte; Chicago; Los Angeles; Memphis; Portland, Oregon; and Washington, DC—is expected to involve at least hundreds of federal agents and National Guard troops and reportedly aims for 5,000 arrests in Louisiana and Mississippi.
"Sanctuary policies endanger American communities by releasing illegal criminal aliens and forcing DHS law enforcement to risk their lives to remove criminal illegal aliens that should have never been put back on the streets," Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Wednesday.
While McClaughlin claimed the targets of the operation will be "monsters" that "include violent criminals who were released after arrest for home invasion, armed robbery, grand theft auto, and rape," examination of detention statistics of similar operations in other communities has shown that a large percentage of those swept up have no criminal record.
Academic studies and analyses by both left- and right-wing groups and have repeatedly affirmed that undocumented immigrants commit crime at a dramatically lower rate than native-born US citizens. The libertarian Cato Institute last week published data showing that nearly three-quarters of the 44,882 people booked into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody since October had no criminal conviction and just 5% had been convicted of violent crimes.
Detention data published last month by the Department of Justice revealed that just 16 out of 614 people arrested in the Chicago area during DHS's Operation Midway Blitz had criminal histories that present a “high public safety risk.”
Elected officials representing New Orleans called the DHS operation an unnecessary and unwelcome stunt.
“It’s one thing if you would have a real strategic approach on going after people... who have criminal felonies or are being accused of some very serious and violent crimes. But that’s not what the public is seeing,” Democratic New Orleans Mayor-elect Helena Morena told the Washington Post on Wednesday.
“They’re seeing people who are just trying to survive and do the right thing—and many of them now have American children who are not causing problems in our community—treated like they are violent, violent criminals," she added.
Moreno's website published a "know your rights" resource page with tips from the National Immigrant Justice Center—a move that could possibly run afoul of a state law cited by Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to threaten felony prosecution of people who nonviolently resist Trump's crackdown. On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the law is a violation of the right to free speech.
Congressman Troy Carter (D-La.) said in a statement Tuesday that “if the administration truly wants to support public safety in New Orleans, they can help us recruit and retain well-trained local officers, invest in modern policing tools, and build transparent partnerships with city and parish leaders."
New Orleans welcomes partnership. We do not welcome occupation.What we are seeing unfold in our community is not public safety; it is a political stunt wrapped in badges, armored vehicles, and military uniforms.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr. (@reptroycarter.bsky.social) December 3, 2025 at 6:35 AM
"Dropping armed federal agents and National Guard troops into our communities without coordination is not cooperation—it is chaos," Carter continued. “As Congressman for New Orleans, I want to be clear: We will always stand for the rule of law. We will always stand for safe communities. And we will always stand against tactics that terrorize families and undermine public trust."
“Our city is not a stage for political theater," he added. "Our people are not props. If the administration wants to be a partner, then act like one; share the plan, respect local law, and work with us, not around us.”
Hundreds of New Orleans residents took to the streets Monday night despite cold, heavy rain to protest the impending DHS operation. Demonstrators shared umbrellas and held signs showing support for immigrants. They chanted messages, including "No ICE! No fear! Immigrants are welcome here!" and "Chinga la Migra"—roughly translated as "Fuck the Border Patrol."
“We have to fight for the rights of everyone. I’m out here to support the immigrant community because it’s an integral part of New Orleans. New Orleans was built by immigrants," protester Jamie Segura told Gambit.
Addressing the crowd at Monday's rally, resident Mitch Gonzalez said: “This is my home. My trans sister was kidnapped and taken from me. Now she has to fight from Mexico, not even her home country, because they’re snatching people.”
Last night, hundreds marched through the streets of New Orleans, in the pouring rain, chanting “No ICE.”
If people are willing to storm the streets after dark in a downpour, it tells you everything about how fed up this country is with state-sanctioned cruelty. pic.twitter.com/kF5KjpU2SX
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) December 2, 2025
As New Orleans residents anticipated the impending operation, mutual aid groups kicked into action in defense of immigrant communities, citing effective rapid response efforts in Chicago.
“What we’ve learned is that even a street witness who is not recording makes these interactions less traumatic and less violent,” Beth Davis, press liaison officer at Indivisible NOLA, told the Washington Post on Wednesday. “So we need to get eyes on these people.”
The New Orleans branch of Democratic Socialists of America—which is hosting training sessions—said ahead of the federal blitz: "We call upon all of New Orleans to get organized and resist this fascist occupation. Protect your neighbors and make these troops and federal agents feel unwelcome in every part of our city."
Other Orleanians prepared by closing or displaying signs telling the federal invaders that they are not welcome.
“We’re going to make sure that any hotel that they stay at, any neighborhood that they try to terrorize, we’re going to bring as many people there to stop them in their tracks, whether it’s in New Orleans, Los Angeles, Chicago—anywhere in this country,” Antonia Mar of Freedom Road Socialist Organization told Verite News during Monday's protest.
Suggesting that the crackdown could backfire, Mar added that "if there’s one thing Trump does well, he gets people organized against him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Threatens Blue State SNAP Funds Unless They Turn Over Recipient Data
"Why is the Trump administration so hellbent on people going hungry?” asked New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, whose state has nearly 3 million food stamp recipients.
Dec 03, 2025
The Trump administration is threatening to strip away funds used to provide food assistance to poor Americans in Democrat-led states beginning next week, unless they provide information identifying who receives benefits.
At a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said states would be denied the ability to access billions of dollars that Congress has appropriated to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), unless they provide the federal government with personal information—including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates, and immigration status—of aid recipients.
SNAP provides Americans with incomes below 130% of the federal poverty line with roughly $6 per day on average to pay for food. Roughly 1 in 8 Americans—over 42 million—rely on the program. Rollins originally ordered states to provide this information to the government in May in what she said was an effort to verify the eligibility of those receiving benefits.
“As of next week, we have begun and will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states until they comply and they tell us and allow us to partner with them to root out this fraud and to protect the American taxpayer,” Rollins said Tuesday.
As of Tuesday, 29 states had provided the information, but many Democratic ones, including New York and California, had not. Rollins claimed that those states were choosing to "protect illegals, criminals, and bad actors over the American taxpayer.”
While the benefits paid to individuals would not be cut, states that don't comply stand to lose millions of dollars that they use to administer the program, which could delay benefits and force them to push some recipients off the program.
In its efforts to enact sweeping cuts to social safety net programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies, the Trump administration has often fallen back on false claims that the services are being abused by ineligible people, including undocumented immigrants.
"Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive federal benefits under [SNAP]," explained Melissa Cruz of the American Immigration Council in November. "However, SNAP benefits are provided to households rather than individuals. If, for example, the head of a household is undocumented, they may still apply for SNAP benefits for their U.S. citizen children. But benefits are calculated based on the number of eligible people in the household, so the assistance would only cover the US citizen children—not the entire household.”
Rollins has elsewhere claimed that 186,000 deceased individuals receive benefits, while 500,000 individuals receive duplicate benefits, citing it as evidence of fraud. But as the current US Department of Agriculture website explains, these are the result of administrative efforts—such as states being slow to update eligibility rolls when recipients die or move to a new state. The USDA says that over the past 15 years, it has reduced the prevalence of illegal benefit trafficking in SNAP from 4% to 1%.
The USDA's order comes on the heels of the largest cut to SNAP in the program's history. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by Trump in July, cut funding to the program by roughly 20%.
Like with other programs, Rollins suggested on Tuesday that the goal of USDA's order was not simply to root out "fraud," but to further slash Americans' benefits: “As [former President] Joe Biden was working to buy an election a year ago, he increased food stamp program funding by 40%, so now... we continue to roll that back,” she said.
Rollins' 40% claim is also an exaggeration; according to an estimate by the Cato Institute last month, the spending increase was actually about 21%.
Like President Donald Trump's previous efforts to deny SNAP benefits to states during this fall's government shutdown, the USDA's order has run into legal hurdles.
After 22 states sued, a federal judge in San Francisco, Maxine Chesney, issued a preliminary injunction in October blocking the administration from demanding the data.
Chesney found that these actions likely violated the SNAP Act, which says that states are only allowed to release data related to administering the program. She also found that states would likely succeed in their argument that the administration might illegally share the data with other agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security, to aid mass deportation efforts.
Gina Plata-Nino, the SNAP director at the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center, told the Washington Post that the USDA's demands for this data were likely illegal.
“The federal law restricts USDA access to this,” Plata-Nino said. “The agency has always relied on anonymized data or small samples to perform oversight… Them saying, ‘We’re going to go ahead and remove this funding,’ it’s just so unprecedented.”
The Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee accused Trump and Rollins of "illegally threatening to withhold federal dollars."
"SNAP has one of the lowest fraud rates of any government program, but Trump continues to weaponize hunger," they said.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), whose state had nearly 3 million food stamp recipients as of 2024, asked why Trump was again threatening to strip the state of SNAP funding after his previous attack on the program during the shutdown.
"Genuine question: Why is the Trump administration so hellbent on people going hungry?” Hochul asked.
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst who focuses on SNAP and other antipoverty programs at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that while cutting funds, Trump has also scrapped the nation's most comprehensive food insecurity survey, the Household Food Security Report, which would measure the effects of those cuts on Americans.
“The Trump administration’s approach,” Bergh said, “has been enacting the deepest cuts to food assistance in history, needlessly disrupting SNAP benefits during the government shutdown, and terminating the most reliable measure of food insecurity to hide the consequences of those decisions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


