December, 10 2018, 11:00pm EDT
WASHINGTON
The Trump administration took action today to weaken key parts of the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers agencies jointly proposed exempting polluters from important programs that prevent and clean up water pollution, by removing protections from certain streams,wetlands, and other water bodies.
This Dirty Water Rule would wipe out safeguards for water bodies that provide drinking water to tens of millions of people, including vulnerable populations such as children, and for wetlands that filter pollution and protect our communities from flooding.
For more than 45 years, the Clean Water Act has helped work toward a time when all water bodies are safe for swimming and fishing, and when drinking water supplies are protected from pollution. Now the Trump administration is moving backwards.
Clean water is essential for healthy fish and wildlife habitat and for quality outdoor recreation opportunities. The outdoor recreation economy supports 7.6 million jobs and $887 billion in consumer spending, and it depends on clean water.
Polluted water harms local economies and businesses. Breweries, outdoor recreation, tourism and local businesses rely on clean water to create jobs and power local economies. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates, for example, that algae outbreaks and "dead zones," such as the one that forms annually in the Gulf of Mexico, cost fishermen nearly $82 million annually in lost seafood catches. These problems are fueled by pollution into streams and rivers.
Members of the Clean Water for All Coalition offered these responses:
"Nurses understand the negative health effects of exposure to dirty water--whether it's from neurotoxic chemicals, like lead in drinking water, or chemicals linked to cancers and hormone disruption found in coal ash ponds, or fracking waste water that pollutes groundwater sources," said Katie Huffling, executive director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments and a nurse. "This attack on the Clean Water Rule is an urgent public health threat, and we strongly oppose any efforts to repeal this vital,health-protective rule."
"This is an early Christmas gift to polluters and a lump of coal for everyone else," said Bob Irvin, President and CEO of American Rivers. "Too many people in our country, urban and rural, are living with unsafe drinking water. Low-income communities,indigenous peoples and communities of color are hit hardest by pollution and river degradation. Instead of rolling back the rules and creating new loopholes for polluters, we need to strengthen safeguards for the rivers, streams, and wetlands that supply our drinking water."
"Clean water is as essential to a healthy economy as it is to a healthy environment. Business depends on clean water. We don't get clean water by gutting protections for streams and wetlands. We can't support and grow businesses by putting the natural water infrastructure they rely on at risk of destruction. The Trump Administration's proposal to replace the Clean Water Rule puts polluters ahead of the rest of the business community, said "Hammad Atassi, CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council, which has a member network representing more than 250,000 businesses across the country.
"Every American wants to be sure that their family is safe, and that means clean, safe drinking water." said Kim Glas, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance. However, the Trump administration today proposed to significantly weaken the Clean Water Rule, which safeguards the drinking water supplies for 117 million Americans. Enough is enough. The EPA should scrap their changes to this rule and instead enforce the existing rule that protects the water quality for millions of Americans."
"Everyone deserves the right to safe and healthy water, especially those communities most vulnerable to harmful exposures such as children," said Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, Executive Director of the Children's Environmental Health Network. "Our children of today and tomorrow simply deserve better and need better actions for their protections."
"The Dirty Water Rule continues the Trump administration's unbroken streak of doing whatever it can to put corporate special interests and their priorities first," said Bob Wendelgass, president and CEO of Clean Water Action. "This proposal will put our health and drinking water in jeopardy by radically reinterpreting the Clean Water Act while ignoring science. No one benefits from this scheme except for developers, the fossil fuel industry, and other companies who will have a free hand to pave over or plow under streams and wetlands."
"Today's action is nothing short of a full attack on clean water for millions of Americans. It's another shameless scheme to line the pockets of the multi-billion dollar polluters who helped put President Trump in office," said Abigail Dillen, President of Earthjustice.
"This Dirty Water Rule turns the mission of the EPA on its head: EPA is proposing to strip federal protection from drinking water sources for millions of Americans," said John Rumpler, director of the clean water program for Environment America. "It defies common sense, sound science, and the will of the American people."
"This outrageous move comes at a time when our communities are already facing crumbling infrastructure,increasing impacts from climate change, and corporate polluters that face extremely limited accountability for poisoning our people and planet,"said Rev Lennox Yearwood Jr., President& CEO of Hip Hop Caucus. "The consequences of this move are that millions of people will have less access to clean drinking water and those responsible will continue to get away with it. Unfortunately, low-income and communities of color will continue to bear the largest burden."
"This despicable attack on our clean water from Trump and his corrupt administration comes as no surprise as they have clearly and consistently put the profits of polluters ahead of what's best for our families," said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. "However, with too many communities across the country struggling with health crises related to their water, whether it be lead poisoning in Flint or toxic red tide in Florida or coal ash and hog waste-contaminated rivers in North Carolina, Trump's Dirty Water Rule is still an appalling rollback of critical safeguards for our waterways. It is crystal clear that we must do more, not less, to ensure every family in this country has access to clean and safe drinking water, and we pledge to fight this dangerous proposal to turn our drinking water sources back into the waste dumps of big polluters."
"Healthy streams and wetlands are essential for people and wildlife," said Collin O' Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. "Today's action allows a few to cut corners while increasing the risks to wildlife and to the drinking water for millions of Americans."
"People should be able to drink water and take showers in their homes without fear of being poisoned,"said Michael McAfee,president and CEO of Policylink. "Yet, nearly 77 million Americans live in communities that lack access to clean, safe water or sustainable water infrastructure. Low-income people and communities of color are already disproportionately impacted by contaminated water, which can cause a variety of health problems, particularly for children, and this proposal will exacerbate this inequity. Water is life. Caring for it is our shared responsibility. We must urge Americans to take a stand against this proposed Dirty Water Rule to ensure a future where everyone has access to clean water."
"This latest attack on our water is a new low for Trump and Wheeler as they again unabashedly side with corporate polluters instead of our families,"said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. "Not only will this rollback endanger the drinking water sources for millions of people, but it also jeopardizes wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, and economies that rely on safe, clean water. The Trump administration must stop rigging the system for special interests and start listening to the American public by acting to protect our water."
"Big polluters could not have crafted a bigger free pass to dump if they wrote it themselves," said Blan Holman, managing attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center's Charleston office. "This administration's efforts to dismantle the Clean Water Act are a full-frontal assault on one of our country's most important and longstanding environmental safeguards that has prevented unchecked and unlimited pollution from contaminating our waterways and drinking water sources for nearly 50 years. Protecting the South's waters against pollution is our top priority. In the face of this serious threat, SELC and our partners will fight this dangerous proposal in court."
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular