Switchboard, from NRDC

Thirty-Two California Congressional Representatives Slam House Transportation Bill

2012-02-15T03:14:29Z

Justin Horner, Policy Analyst, San Francisco

In an earlier post, I laid out how a very very very bad House transportation bill is particularly bad for California. Since then, hundreds of opponents from across the political spectrum have voiced their opposition to this disastrous piece of legislation.

Last Friday, 32 members of California's Congressional delegation added their voices against HR 7. In a strongly worded letter to Transportation Committee Chair John Mica (R-FL), the members laid out exactly why HR 7 will be a disaster for California:

Eliminating public transit's share of the gas tax reverses 30 years of Federal transportation policy and "will cripple our transit agencies;"
With 3 of the 5 busiest Amtrak corridors in the country, the bill's 25% cut in Amtrak's budget "will hurt California's economy;"
Instead of building 2,300 new lane miles of highway and 115 new gates at California airports, the state has instead committed itself to high-speed rail. HR 7 would confound this ambitious program. "In an effort to tie California's hands, the bill would prohibit any funds from being used for the development of high-speed rail in California;"
Forty-five percent of America's imports come through California. HR 7's elimination of the Projects of National and Regional Significance Program directly impacts California's ability to serve as a gateway to the interior West;
Californians are still reeling from the 2008 Metrolink rail accident where 25 people lost their lives. The primary safety recommendation to come out of the aftermath of the disaster was a requirement for trains to have Positive Train Control technology by 2015. HR 7 delays this vital safety program until 2020, senselessly endangering the lives of thousands of rail riders in California and across the country;
Oil drilling off the California coast is simply no way to fund a transportation bill. Indeed, the members are wise enough to mention that "according to the NRDC[!], this [drilling] provision will likely only produce 1% of the funding" needed for the bill.

This bill is just a total disaster, and the House leadership's effort to split it into three separate pieces doesn't make it any better. NRDC will continue to encourage our members, friends, allies and all Americans to join us in voting NO on HR 7

Wake of the Flood

2012-02-14T23:06:06Z

Dan Lashof, Program Director, Climate & Clean Air, Washington, D.C.

Shortly after I moved to New York last August the city was hit by an earthquake, a hurricane, and an October snowstorm. These kinds of things aren’t supposed to happen in the Big Apple (if I wanted to live in a disaster movie I could have moved to California).

But happen they did, causing many New Yorkers to joke about the End of Days—and some to prepare for them. That may be premature. There is no reason to think that earthquakes will become a frequent occurrence on the East Coast. Preparing for more floods, however, is a really good idea. (Snowstorms are likely to become less frequent, but heavy snowfalls may increase as our atmosphere warms, increasing its water-holding capacity. See Theo Spencer’s post on trying to ski without snow.)

Hurricane Irene caused extensive flooding, power outages, and property damage throughout the Eastern Seaboard and into Vermont, killing at least 44 people in 13 states. Many commentators called it a 100-year storm. New research shows that flooding like what we saw from Irene could become a much more regular occurrence as our climate changes and sea levels rise.

The study conducted by Ning Lin and Kerry Emauel of MIT with Michael Oppenheimer and Erik Vanmarcke of Princeton focused on the risk of flooding in New York City. The researchers simulated 5000 storms under historic climatic conditions to develop a flood risk baseline. They then simulated another 5000 storms under conditions expected if carbon pollution continues to accumulate in our atmosphere unchecked, changing our climate and raising sea levels. Their conclusion is well summarized by the headline in the MIT News story about the study: ‘Storm of the Century?’ Try ‘Storm of the Decade.’

Specifically, the study found that a storm surge of 5.7 feet or higher, which currently occurs an average of once every 100 years, would occur once every 3 to 20 years due to the effects of heat-trapping pollution. Given that the sea walls protecting lower Manhattan are only about 5 feet tall, this means the city has a lot of work to do if it is to minimize the damage.

Fortunately for New York, it has a leg up on most cities. Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA and Columbia University has for many years been studying the risks that our changing climate poses to New York and developing recommendations on steps the city should take to prepare. And the City is listening. Mayor Bloomberg wrote the forward to a 2010 report she edited, which was published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York’s subway system, the lifeblood of the city, is already taking steps to reduce the risk that its huge network of tunnels will flood during storms by, for example, raising some subway vents by six inches. The full preparedness plan could cost the cash-strapped transit system $15 billion according to Klaus Jacobs of Columbia.

New York has benefited from a unique partnership between its world-class research centers, home-grown philanthropies, and forward-looking City Hall, and it still has a long way to go. How well prepared is your city for the storm of the century to become the storm of the decade?

President Makes Some Tough Choices for EPA Budget, But Overall a Good Proposal

2012-02-14T23:03:43Z

Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, Washington, DC

The President’s FY13 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency is essentially the same level as last year but there are increases in the budget for truly high priority activities that should be applauded.

Overall, the EPA budget is $8.3 billion, $105 million below the enacted level from FY12. That is a 1.2% decrease from the current year, paid for by a cut of $359 million in funds for the state revolving funds. Those funds pay for local drinking water and sewage water infrastructure improvement, detailed in my colleague Ben Chou’s blog here. .

However, the parts of the EPA budget that the President protects are very important. For instance, the main Operating Budget that pays for enforcement, regulators and their work and research and development, receives a 5% increase. These areas are targets for attacks in Congress, but these are also the nuts and bolts that underpin our environment law, the scientific underpinnings of our standards, and their enforcement. With the unrelenting attacks in Congress on EPA’s ability to set standards, funding these efforts are critical to protect our environment.

Several geographical water initiatives fared well, including another $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, $245 million for the Everglades and an increase of $15 million of the Chesapeake Bay.

The other noteworthy increase is in grants to states. These grants, which pay a significant portion of the state’s regulatory activities, are used to carry out Clean Water and Clean Air permitting activities, as well as most of the nation’s environmental enforcement. These funds are desperately needed as state sources of revenue have dried up in the current economy, so the President increased these programs by 10%.

Except for the cuts in the state revolving loans funds, the President’s environmental budget puts us on the right track to meet the Agency’s obligation to update and enforce our nation’s environmental standards.

House Transportation Bill Split Into Three Parts, Just Like Titanic

2012-02-14T21:50:38Z

Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director, Washington, D.C.

Mirroring the record-setting 18-hour, 100+ amendment markup in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the House Rules Committee posted almost 300 amendments this morning. There are some real gems in here (being facetious, of course), including:

Two from Rep. Broun (R-GA), one would zero out funding for transit entirely and the other would zero out funding for all Amtrak rail lines except the Acela;
One from Rep. Graves (R-GA) which would ramp the federal program out of existence entirely;
One from Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) which would pilot elimination of the federal program in two states;
Several proposing to carve out even more waivers of environmental reviews;
Two from Rep. McKinley (R-WV) that would slash regulation of coal residual and coal ash;
One from Rep. Sullivan (R-OK) that would add a cement deregulation bill; and
One from Rep. Pombeo (R-KS) that would prevent regulation of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking."

And those are just the worst ones!

However, the bigger, more radical move taken by the Rules Committee splits the transportation bill into three components -- Transportation, drilling and federal pension reform provisions -- for separate votes. Then there what's called a "self-executing" component to the rule, a procedural trick that staples the bills together after separate votes. A colleague tells me this has only been done three times, ever, by the House.

Why do this? Because Leadership miscalculated, and doesn't have the votes to pass the whole thing. So they are gambling that they can squeak each controversial piece through. If one fails, they all fail. Conversely, that means a vote for any one is really a vote for the whole pile.

When discussing the latest legislative shenanigans with the troubled House transportation bill, my colleague Rob Perks made an apt comparison: "It's worth noting that the Titanic broke into three pieces before it sank too." This is a little-known fact for those of us who saw the 1997 movie where it was depicted splitting in two.

Anyone who doesn't support the overall bill must vote against all three pieces, so we can sink the worst transportation bill ever.

Cleaning up the garbage of LA's dirty waste hauling practices

2012-02-14T21:22:58Z

Adrian Martinez, Staff Attorney, Environmental Justice, Santa Monica, California

Yesterday, during a marathon hearing that went past 5:30pm, the Los Angeles Board of Public Works took a huge step to a more sustainable future. You can read about the hearing here and here. It passed recommendations on how to improve LA’s waste system, while simultaneously reducing unnecessary truck pollution, reducing our dependence on space-hogging landfills, and helping resolve emerging environmental challenges like climate change. A broad array of environmental, environmental justice, community, faith-based, labor, and small business groups from the Don’t Waste LA Coalition participated to support the proposal.

Overall, the Board was swayed by the thorough job completed by the Bureau of Sanitation, which hired a consulting firm to analyze the benefits of various models of waste service and determine which system would have the smallest environmental footprint while still being financially feasible. The Bureau staff determined that an exclusive franchise would have the smallest environmental footprint of any option for reforming the commercial and multi-family sectors of LA’s waste industry. The exclusive franchise system being proposed would create 11 service areas in LA and have one hauler per service area. The proposal even said there would be ways to carve out areas for smaller enterprises, as opposed to solely going to the big four haulers which handle more than 85% of the waste contracts in the City’s commercial and multi-family sectors. An appropriately designed exclusive franchise system can have benefits ranging from a fairer rate structure, fewer dirty vehicle emissions and overlapping truck routes, the most aggressive diversion rate, and the highest reduction of impact from this industry in general.

I was struck during the hearing when one commenter claimed we do not need an exclusive system and that the above benefits could be achieved tomorrow without fundamental changes in the current system. If this is the case, then I challenge the industry to prove it. However, I am not going to hold my breath. I’m not confident that they will change their practices since they could have done so for decades. Now, I want to reiterate that there are many good actors in this sector. And, I am confident those folks will do well under a new system with standards. However, the lack of accountability and visibility in the system and the bad actors in the industry are bringing the whole system down. Because of this, I will continue to advocate for the exclusive franchise system because it provides the best environmental benefits and is the best solution for the City.

Hyperbole ran deep from the opponents of the Bureau of Sanitation’s plan. The main group organized to oppose rational reform of LA’s waste system was a new organization formed in October called Angelenos for a Clean Environment (ACE). Its members include the LA Chamber of Commerce, the Valley Industry Commerce Association, Central City Association and the Los Angeles County Disposal Association, amongst others. You can read more about them here. Essentially, ACE is a conglomeration of industry trade groups with a misleading name.

We should not be fooled by the rhetoric being promoted by ACE. The speakers they organized yesterday ranged in fanatical claims from concerns over small haulers to spread of fascism to the destruction of the American family. In focusing on the first argument, which may have a small nugget of legitimacy, it is important to understand that despite claiming 140 companies will be put out of business, only seven companies actually voiced concerns yesterday. And, many of the companies that the opponents claim will be impacted actually won’t be because they are exempted from the proposal. Asking them to testify is merely to maintain the status quo of a dirty and polluting system that benefits few on the backs of many.

Moreover the opposition expressed concern over the “thousands of jobs that would be lost” due to the new system; however, these claims appear to lack evidence. A recent report from the Blue Green Alliance found that you tap greater job creation when you increase recycling activities. I blogged about this report back in November.

NRDC will continue to advocate for the Bureau’s proposal to be implemented by the City Council. According to the Bureau’s consultant report submitted in January, only 19% of the waste in the commercial sector gets diverted from landfills. That is not a good record, and we need to improve this number to realize our zero waste goals. An exclusive franchise system is the best way to get there. Besides, there is too much at stake to allow City Councilmembers to be spooked by rhetoric and doomsday scenarios.

They're giving away free water: capturing rain from our rooftops

2012-02-14T20:28:24Z

Noah Garrison, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

When I boarded my plane Monday morning in Portland, Oregon it was (not surprisingly) raining. When I landed in Los Angeles a few hours later, it was raining. It was raining most places I flew over in between the two cities. And it rained in Nevada, Arizona, and a good chunk of the Midwest. South through Texas and Louisiana, which saw up to four inches of rain. East into Georgia. Rain fell over Portland and Oakland, Medford and Modesto, Reno and Plano, and Corpus Christi and Baton Rouge. Most of that water ended up funneled into a storm drain and dumped into the nearest river, lake, or beach. Which is a shame, because the opportunities for capturing that water to increase local water supplies are tremendous.

NRDC has released a report titled “Capturing Rainwater from Rooftops: An Efficient Water Resource Management Strategy that Increases Supply and Reduces Pollution.” The report demonstrates that at a time when many communities across the country are facing increasing risks of water shortages from, among other causes, prolonged periods of drought and the effects of global warming, capturing rainwater from rooftops can be a simple, cost-effective way to supply water for non-potable uses such as lawn watering and toilet flushing. It profiles eight U.S. Cities, and shows that even under a conservative set of assumptions, each city could capture hundreds of millions to billions of gallons of rainwater from rooftops each year, equivalent to the total annual water use of tens to hundreds of thousands of residents. And by using the rainwater, rather than allowing it to run off, pick up pollutants like trash, animal waste, metals, oils, and bacteria from paved surfaces, and then dump them in the nearest water body, the practice not only reduces strain on existing water supplies, but also reduces a leading cause of surface water pollution.

There’s a wide variety to the lengths cities and states are going to in order to promote or authorize (or in some cases unfortunately, prohibit) the use of captured rainwater, particularly for indoor non-potable purposes, as I’ve talked about previously here. Some states, such as California, that have an obvious need for the added water supply are still struggling to expand use of the practice. Others locations, such as Tucson, Arizona, now actually require all commercial development to provide 50 percent of their landscape irrigation water from harvested rainwater. As changes in water availability increase pressure on urban users, farms, cities, counties, and states to meet their water needs, it should be clear that anywhere there is a rooftop, there is an opportunity to increase water supplies. And it’d be nice to look down on all those rooftops the next time I’m in the air on a rainy day, and know that they were really only a quick stop for the rain on its way into someone’s storage tank.

This isn't your average oil pipeline. Keystone XL is a TAR SANDS pipeline

2012-02-14T18:46:11Z

Danielle Droitsch, Director, Canada Project, Washington, D.C.

Yesterday and today, the offices of Congress are being flooded with messages from hundreds of thousands of Americans opposing the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. After just 24 hours, almost 800,000 messages were sent to Senators from all across America decrying efforts to undo President Obama’s decision to deny the pipeline permit. Americans oppose proposed legislation that would bypass the environmental review for this tar sands pipeline (even though a final route for the pipeline has not yet been set) reversing the decision to deny the permit. So how can a recent poll released by Fox News find that 67 percent of Americans support the tar sands pipeline? The answer is that Fox News didn’t specify that this is a tar sands pipeline – different from regular oil pipelines in its risk of oil spills and in how much worse tar sands is for the climate than regular oil. In this, the Fox News poll differs markedly from another recent poll by Hart Research where respondents backed President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, 46 percent to 37 percent. Once Americans understand the risks of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, they say no to this dirty energy project. We know that we can do better than tar sands to meet our energy needs.

The difference in these poll results comes down to one thing: whether the person being surveyed understands that Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline – a very different thing than a conventional oil pipeline. There are significant environmental issues unique to tar sands including an increased risk of spills. The Keystone XL pipeline will carry tar sands, a uniquely corrosive and acidic mixture, more risky than most of the pipelines across the country. This blend of tar sands bitumen makes pipes more susceptible to corrosion bringing a higher chance of oil spills that are more difficult to clean up once they happen.

The poll by Fox News said that 67 percent of voters support the Keystone XL “oil pipeline.” This question is fundamentally flawed because it fails to mention that Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline. This and other polls touting public support for generic “pipeline” questions deserve a second look including a Rasmussen released poll claiming that a majority of Americans in favor of the pipeline and the National Journal poll with similar findings. These polls don’t give a fair assessment of where the public is because they asked about Keystone XL as a “pipeline” or an “oil pipeline,” which papers over the primary issue about Keystone XL – that it carries tar sands.

It is when Americans learn the truth about the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, that they grasp what a colossal mistake it would be to proceed with this project. The Hart Research poll takes a much closer look at public attitudes. The poll, conducted in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Colorado, found that respondents backed President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, 46 percent to 37 percent, once they heard the arguments for and against the pipeline. (Even before hearing the arguments, 32 percent backed the President’s decision – significantly more than found in polling with highly unreliable and generic questions that had been conducted earlier.)

Once Americans learn the full story about the tar sands pipeline, their views of the project dramatically change. First, they learned that this is not generic pipeline carrying conventional oil like so many pipelines that now exist. The Canadian tar sands oil is now being pushed through U.S. pipelines that were built and designed for less abrasive conventional oil. And TransCanada – the proponent of Keystone XL – has a bad safety record,. In fact, Keystone One, (the existing sister pipeline to Keystone XL) spilled 14 times alone in the United States, and over 20 times in Canada, in its first year of operation. President Obama made the decision to deny the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because the government was not given enough time to fully evaluate all of the pipeline’s health and safety issues (not to mention the full route was never scoped out). It is no wonder that once poll respondents understood these key facts more clearly they found good reason to support the President’s denial of the pipeline.

Second, they learned that the pipeline is meant to meet the needs of foreign oil companies wanting access to an international port. Keystone XL is a tar sands export pipeline through America – not for America. Keystone XL would not increase U.S. energy security and would increase the price of oil in the Midwest. Essentially, Keystone XL would take oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be sold on the international market. Exporting Canadian tar sands oil at higher prices on the world market may increase profits for the tar sands industry, but does not offer the U.S. energy security and it jeopardizes our drinking water all while increasing prices for American consumers.

Failing to mention that Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline carrying a very different and more dangerous substance than conventional oil is a significant omission from a poll question. Once Americans learn that with Keystone XL there are greater dangers of a toxic oil spill and that the pipeline itself is designed to take oil through America – not to America – their apparent support fades. That is why so many people across the United States turned out in unprecedented numbers in a 24 hour period to tell Congress that they do not want the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

When it Comes to Saving Whales, Who Doesn't Love a 'Miracle'?

2012-02-14T17:56:58Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

I just saw Big Miracle. The movie -- based on the 1988 rescue effort to save gray whales trapped by ice in the Arctic -- tugged at my heartstrings. I laughed. I cried. And I was reminded of why I love my job so much.

Big Miracle is based on true events: a gripping story set in Barrow, Alaska where people set aside their differences in an attempt to save three gray whales from drowning beneath rapidly forming Arctic ice. It had a (mostly) happy ending, an inspirational storyline, and a profound message: that the love for whales can unite even the most unlikely of allies. Environmentalists, politicians, big oilmen, Inupiat whalers, the military, and the media suspended hostilities and worked together to save these three whales. Even the Cold War began to thaw, when Russia sent an icebreaker to aid the rescue efforts.

More importantly, Big Miracle highlighted why people believe whales are worth saving. As Greenpeace-activist Rachel (played by a parka-clad Drew Barrymore) said, “even though they’re strong and big and powerful, they’re vulnerable.” The movie briefly touched on a number of ways whales are vulnerable to man-made dangers:

Hunting: Although bowhead whales – not gray whales – are the usual target of native Inupiat hunters, the movie depicts whaling captains deciding whether or not to harvest the three trapped gray whales. The whalers eventually decide to try and save the whales instead. (Sidebar: Before gray whales were protected by the International Whaling Commission’s 1986 ban on commercial whaling and the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act, they were hunted to near extinction. Commercial whaling is currently illegal, although Japan, Norway and Iceland continue to ignore the ban. The IWC does allow limited hunting for subsistence purposes.)
Entanglement: In the movie, Rachel cuts off a net wrapped around the fluke of the littlest whale. (Sidebar: entanglement in fishing gear is one of the biggest threats facing marine mammals today. There is a touching story of a humpback whale off the coast of California, entangled by 20 crab-pot ropes [240 feet long with weights every 60 feet] and 12 crab traps [weighing 90 pounds each]. The fishing gear was digging into the whale’s flesh and made surfacing to breathe difficult. According to rescuers, when the whale was finally freed she swam to each of the rescue divers and nuzzled them in thanks.)
Ocean noise: The movie depicts the whales panicking and fleeing to avoid the loud noise generated by the icebreaker. (Sidebar: man-made noise from seismic surveys, military sonar and shipping is truly drowning the oceans in sound. Scientists have discovered that whales stop feeding, abandon habitat and cease vocalizing in response to seismic surveys. Man-made noise can also cause death.)

(Spoiler alert) But like all good Hollywood movies, Big Miracle has a happy ending. Two of the whales survive. We see them swimming away – breaching and waving their flukes – presumably en route to their calving and breeding grounds off the coast of Baja, Mexico, one of NRDC’s BioGems. (Another spoiler alert) Despite the heroic rescue, the whales were not spotted again and it’s unknown whether they survived their ordeal beneath the ice or succumbed to exhaustion.

NRDC has been working for over 10 years to protect gray whales’ Baja calving grounds at Laguna San Ignacio.

I’ll be visiting Laguna San Ignacio later this month. From what I’m told, it’s a life-changing experience. If I get the opportunity to look a gray whale in the eye, it will be my ‘Big Miracle’ and a reminder of why I and my colleagues work every day to protect these gentle giants.

Fun Fact: Ted Danson, who plays the manipulative oil industry exec in Big Miracle, is actually a founding member and on the Board of Directors for Oceana. He is a long time ocean advocate.

Photo Credit: Drew Barrymore and her fiance Will Kopelman at the Big Miracle premiere, courtesy of Oceana; playful gray whales in Baja courtesy of NRDC; and the stunning Laguna San Ignacio, courtsey of Robert Glenn Ketchum.

The Path to Success in the Bay-Delta

2012-02-14T17:45:33Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

In his State of the State address, Governor Brown emphasized his commitment to developing a visionary Bay-Delta plan that will restore the estuary and its fish, and ensure a reliable water supply. Developing this plan will require hard work, but it can be done. The Bay Area has a great deal at stake. The Bay-Delta is the defining feature of our region. It provides a cornucopia of recreational opportunities and is a major reason why people choose to live here. But this ecosystem is in trouble, as shown by the plight of Chinook salmon.

A dozen rivers, draining 40 percent of California, funnel through the Golden Gate, the most important salmon system south of the Columbia River. But in 2008, 2009 and most of 2010, California’s salmon fishery was closed – the result of collapsing Bay-Delta runs-- putting thousands of fishermen out of work and costing the state a quarter billion dollars per year. One primary reason is increased water pumping from the Delta mostly for Central Valley agriculture. In some years, less than 40 percent of natural spring flows reach the Bay, starving the estuary of nutrients and imperiling young salmon.

But we don’t have to sacrifice salmon and the health of the Bay-Delta to meet water needs. There is a way to balance our water needs that would yield benefits for all. Two years ago, the legislature passed the Delta Reform Act, with a road map for the Delta. The Act established ecosystem protection as a “co-equal goal” for management, ending decades of narrow focus on increasing diversions. The law established a policy of reducing reliance on Delta water by increasing water efficiency. It also directed the State Water Resources Control Board to determine the flows needed for a healthy ecosystem. (They did so, concluding that restoring the Bay-Delta will require diverting far less.)

The legislature charted a path to success in the divisive debate over the Delta. A successful effort will mean less pumping and increased water conservation, water recycling and more – so that Central Valley farmers and Southern Californians can meet their needs with less Delta water. It will entail wetland restoration and flood protection investments. It might include a new facility to convey water around the Delta, if designed carefully and accompanied by strong protections built on a solid scientific foundation. Finally, it must be founded on fiscal reality. No public agency has resources to squander on overbuilt infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, an ambitious process that is developing a long-term Bay-Delta conservation strategy, has focused almost exclusively on a massive new facility to pump more water from an ecosystem that is already flow-starved, and has largely ignored the scientific findings of the State Water Resources Control Board, the National Research Council, the Delta Independent Science Board and others. This isn’t the path to success.

Returning to the path the legislature established will require state and federal agency leadership. They can’t turn this process over to water users and must give all an equal role in shaping this critical plan.

If we work together to use the water we consume more wisely, we can continue to grow California’s economy, restore fishing jobs, and protect the heritage represented by this natural treasure. There’s no pretending that striking the right balance in the Bay-Delta is an easy task, but the legislature has pointed the way.

Over half a million anti-Valentines to the Keystone XL pipeline: The American public has no love for tar sands

2012-02-14T17:09:14Z

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Director International Program, Washington, D.C.

Click here to share this image on Facebook

Americans from all walks of life who want to fight climate change and build a clean energy future have sent a clear message: the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest. Working with a large coalition of partners, our goal was to send a half million messages opposing the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to the Senate in just 24 hours. The messages opposed a Senate effort to overrule the President’s denial of the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. An unprecedented coming together of people from across the country eclipsed that goal before the challenge was half over. Over the last 24 hours the air was filled with tweets, facebook posts, blogs, and emails asking people to make their opinion known and how they responded! With counts still coming in, we are already at almost 800,000 messages sent. It's time for lawmakers to start heeding people across the country who are saying no to this Big Oil project and other dirty energy projects. Lawmakers and the oil industry should consider this an anti-Valentine message for tar sands. We don’t love it and we don’t need it. Americans know that we can do better for our climate, water and farmlands than expansion of destructive and expensive Canadian tar sands.

Once again, we see how much people value their clean air and water. We see that people are worried about what a changing climate in the form of violent storms, floods and droughts means for their homes and pocketbooks today and for their children tomorrow. We see that Americans know that we have the ability to do better than going after ever dirtier and more expensive forms of fuel such as high carbon tar sands that are strip-mined and drilled from under Canada’s Boreal forests and wetlands. And we see that Americans know that we should not bear the risk of a tar sands pipeline that is more likely to leak and more difficult to clean up than regular oil. Once the public learns about the risks of tar sands – they say no to that energy source and its pipeline. Americans are enthusiastic about clean energy and using American innovation and ingenuity to get there. There is no love for dirty energy solutions such as tar sands.

In their latest shenanigan, a number of Republicans in the Senate have proposed an amendment to the transportation bill to approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Congress approving a single pipeline project? What happened to our normal environmental review and permitting process, you might ask. The sad tale of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is that the review process was underway and expected to be completed in early 2013. Many Republicans in Congress didn’t want to wait and so they attached a requirement to make a decision on the tar sands pipeline to the end of year payroll tax relief legislation. With only 60 days to make a decision, President Obama denied the permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in January. That should have been the end of the story. But a number of Republicans in Congress are now coming back and trying to have Congress itself approve this project that is already dead. A pipeline approval provision passed in the Republican House and just this week a number of Republican Senators have introduced an approval provision to the completely unrelated transportation bill.

The transportation bill should not be weighed down by controversial and unrelated provisions such as an attempt to approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. And this assault on fair process and on health and environmental safeguards has sparked an outcry from across America. I have been so inspired to see the outpouring of enthusiasm from all walks of life in just the last 24 hours, saying yes to clean energy and no to dirty tar sands. And I hope that our Senators listen – the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not where the love is.

See Bill McKibben on the Colbert Report about the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and the effort to get a half million messages to the Senate in 24 hours: http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/bill-mckibben-talks-keystone-xl-colbert-report-video.html

Obama 2013 Budget on Water Infrastructure: Wrong on Spending Cuts; Right on Green Infrastructure

2012-02-14T15:06:27Z

Ben Chou, Water Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Sewer Overflow: Newtown Creek, Brooklyn (Courtesy of Riverkeeper)

You may not notice until there’s a water main break, a flooded street, or a sewage overflow, but there’s likely a vast network of pipes carrying wastewater, stormwater and clean drinking water all around you. That’s especially true if you live in a city. Unlike power lines, roads, railways, or airports, this infrastructure is largely hidden from our view. Yet, it has helped enable the growth of modern cities and economies by providing water for drinking, cooking, bathing, manufacturing, and numerous other uses and by transporting and treating sewage to prevent the spread of disease. This infrastructure provides drinking water to 84 percent of the total population in the U.S.—that’s over 260 million people—and treats sewage from 75 percent of the population (over 230 million people).

Despite the importance of water in our lives (just think about how long it’s been since you last turned on a faucet or flushed a toilet), our nation’s water infrastructure is in desperate need of repair. According to an infrastructure needs survey by EPA, nearly $335 billion worth of repairs, upgrades, and replacements are needed by water systems in the next 20 years to continue providing safe drinking water and protecting public health. Almost $300 billion is needed to repair and replace wastewater and stormwater pipes and treatment plants. Furthermore, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) estimate that utilities will need to spend $448 billion to $944 billion by 2050 to deal with climate change impacts.

Considering the significant water infrastructure needs our country is facing, the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) have never been more important. These funds help finance projects that handle and treat domestic sewage and stormwater and that deliver drinking water to homes and businesses. These infrastructure investments also create jobs and have a positive impact on the economy well beyond the amount spent.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s FY13 budget proposes a $359 million reduction to the SRFs from the $2.39 billion appropriated in FY12. The nation’s water infrastructure needs already far exceed the funding available—cutting the revolving funds means that a greater number of deserving community projects will not be able to get done. This approach will only imperil our infrastructure and the healthy communities it helps foster.

Oddly, this backtracking comes in the same budget that the administration is touting as an investment in needed infrastructure. And, in an only-in-Washington moment mere hours after the announcement of this cut, EPA posted a link on one of its Facebook pages today to an American Society of Civil Engineers graphic noting the economic consequences of not investing in water infrastructure.

On a brighter note, the FY13 budget proposes that at least 10 percent of funds made available to states under the Drinking Water SRF and at least 20 percent of funds under the Clean Water SRF go towards projects such as green infrastructure, water efficiency, and other environmentally innovative projects. Green infrastructure – techniques like green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavement – help to capture stormwater runoff, reduce pollution, and increase local water supplies—and cities across the U.S. are increasingly looking to these practices to reduce runoff pollution, save money, and beautify neighborhoods.

Congress should commit to providing the necessary funding to maintain and upgrade our nation’s ailing water infrastructure and make sure that green infrastructure is a critical part of this process.

Adding Ignorance to Injury: Administration Proposes to Cut Funding for Beach Pollution Programs

2012-02-14T13:51:00Z

Jon Devine, Senior Attorney, Washington, D.C.

President Obama released his budget proposal yesterday, and several of my colleagues are noting some highlights and lowlights in the package. I noticed one that belongs solidly in the latter category.

The detailed document summarizing the plans for spending by EPA reveals that President Obama would eliminate an important program that provides financial grants to coastal and Great Lakes states to “develop and implement programs to inform the public about the risk of exposure to disease-causing microorganisms in the water at the nation’s beaches.”

States use these funds to help pay to monitor water quality – specifically, whether there are bacteria in the water indicating the presence of pathogens that can make people sick – and to make decisions and notify the public about closing beaches or warning people about the dangers of swimming. In other words, it’s a simple investment in public health.

So, let’s take a look at the administration’s explanation of its decision to cut this health program, and see whether it holds up:

In this difficult financial climate, the Agency will eliminate the Beaches Grant Program with a reduction of $9.9 million in FY 2013. While beach monitoring continues to be important, well-understood guidelines are in place, and state and local government programs have the technical expertise and procedures to continue beach monitoring without federal support.

That is very hard to square with EPA’s statement just two weeks ago – announcing the distribution of the current fiscal year’s grants:

The grants will help local authorities monitor beach water quality and notify the public of conditions that may be unsafe for swimming. This is the 12th year that EPA is providing beach grant funds, bringing the total amount EPA has made available to nearly $111 million. As a result, the number of monitored beaches has more than tripled to more than 3,600 in 2010.

Because this is a new proposal, we’re still analyzing the possible consequences of adopting it, but one potential ramification is that states might stop collecting and providing information about water quality to EPA – even though these are critical data in which the public is keenly interested, as NRDC observes every year when we produce our “Testing the Waters” report. States are obligated to have beach monitoring and notification programs meeting certain minimum criteria, but those obligations are conditions of receiving the federal grants that President Obama would zero out.

Sadly, this announcement comes on the heels of another proposal from the Obama administration that leaves beachgoers insufficiently protected from things like diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and stomachache caused by bacteria and viruses in beach water. As my colleague Steve Fleischli pointed out:

A new EPA proposal to address pollution at U.S. beaches allows 1 in 28 people to get sick when they go to the beach. Imagine a school fieldtrip to the beach – for every large conventional school bus, nearly three kids would be put at risk of getting an illness like diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

Now imagine if a restaurant was allowed to serve food that would make 1 in 28 people sick. The public wouldn’t tolerate it. Yet EPA somehow is considering allowing 1 in 28 swimmers to get sick at the beach. It’s outrageous and a serious health risk that cannot and should not be ignored.

Today’s budget proposal and the proposed standards for assessing what constitutes an acceptable health risk are a double-whammy for the millions of Americans that visit our coastal and Great Lakes beaches. If they are adopted, we will have to worry that the beach is using standards that are not strong enough to protect the public health, and also worry that beach managers might lack the resources to know if even those standards are met and communicate the results to the public.

Why lovable places matter to sustainability

2012-02-14T13:26:37Z

Kaid Benfield, Director, Sustainable Communities, Washington, DC

Yesterday I presented a gallery of places that inspire romance – places that kindle love, if you will. But I submit that they are also lovable themselves. Is that important? Should those of us who care about sustainability also care whether a place is “lovable”? Shouldn’t we only care about the resources it consumes and the pollution it generates?

I grappled with a related question almost three years ago, in an article titled, in part, “Does beauty matter?” I answered my own question with a tentative yes, but I’ll confess to being made restless in my conviction by the whole “but it’s in the eye of the beholder” thing. If we can’t reach consensus on a definition, then how do we know when we have it?

I’ll grant that lovability – or beauty – can be elusive to define, especially over time. For people, being what we now consider overweight and unattractive was once considered a desirable indicator of wealth. I’m told that lots of people hated Victorian architecture before they started loving it.

But being elusive to define with certainty is not the same thing as being unimportant. While there may not be unanimity, there are in fact places that are pretty darn close to being universally loved. And they are the ones most likely to be defended and cared for over time, and thus the most sustainable in a very literal way. We need more of them.

I think I’ve always felt this intuitively, but I wasn’t able to articulate it until I came across the work of an architect and thinker who now is also my friend. Steve Mouzon, whose photography I featured yesterday, is unabashed in his declaration of why lovable buildings and places matter:

“Any serious conversation about sustainable buildings must begin with the issue of Lovability. If a building cannot be loved, then it is likely to be demolished and carted off to the landfill in only a generation or two. All of the embodied energy of its materials is lost (if they are not recycled.) And all of the future energy savings are lost, too. Buildings continue to be demolished for no other reason except that they cannot be loved.”

Steve prefers to link sustainability with “lovable” rather than “beautiful,” because he acknowledges that there is a cold sort of beauty that can be hard to love, and ultimately it is lovability that will lead to the care and retention of buildings. I’m adding “places” to buildings, but I am confident that Steve would agree with my addition. (His writings on the issue have focused on buildings because of concerns he has with the way they are evaluated in green rating systems.)

Steve also believes that, while lovability cannot be precisely defined, there are elements one can draw from classicism that can “stack the deck in our favor” when creating new buildings: time-honored proportions such as the golden mean. I would add that places that are in close harmony with nature compose another set of cards with which to stack the deck (to extend the metaphor, which as a writer I’m not entirely sure is a good idea).

He begins to approach the influence of nature in one of his more intriguing ideas, that “harmony with the region” may be an indicator of what may be lovable:

“Simply put, we might love a little clapboard cottage in Beaufort and a stone farmhouse in Tuscany, but putting that clapboard cottage on a Tuscan hillside would look absolutely ridiculous.

“I suspect that much of the mystery of lovable buildings may be embedded somewhere in the harmony with the region. I don’t understand it now, but it’s one of my top priorities, because we really need to figure this out.”

In the region where I grew up, the North Carolina mountains, there is a lot of stone and natural wood in some of the architecture. That is immensely harmonious with the region, in my opinion. I would also invoke the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright here: Wright is unpopular with urbanists because he favored a spread-out sort of aesthetic. I get that, but when you see one of his Prairie School buildings with strong horizontal lines and roofs actually on the flat prairie, it makes sense to me. Similarly, Fallingwater, perhaps his best known residence, fits incredibly well into its natural setting, cascading architecture above cascading waterfalls. His architecture has a lot of fans – and a lot of staying power – for a reason.

Basically, I agree with Steve that we don’t fully understand what makes a place (or a building) lovable. And I would add that mimicking a place that is lovable may not always be a safe answer. But I also agree that the topic is very important. In what possible definition of “sustainability” can a place fit if it is not literally sustained? In order to sustain something, we need to care. And we don’t have enough people who will care just because the consumption or pollution numbers argue that they should. We are so much better positioned if they, and we, can also do so out of love.

Move your cursor over the images for credit information.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment. For more posts, see his blog's home page. Please also visit NRDC’s Sustainable Communities Video Channel.

President's Budget: Two Oil & Gas Reforms That Could Make a Difference

2012-02-14T02:32:54Z

Bobby McEnaney, Land Policy Analyst, DC

Making Industry Pay Fees More Than You Might For an Overdue Library Book:

President Obama released the federal budget for Fiscal Year 2013, and in this package are included a number of common sense reforms that would improve how oil and gas resources are managed on the nation’s millions of acres of federal lands. Despite the fact that similar proposals in last year’s budget fell on the deaf ears of Congress, these reforms should be given greater consideration given that this nation is in the middle of an unprecedented oil and gas boom (in so much that the United States has become a net exporter of petroleum products). For the FY 2013 cycle, two of these proposed reforms are of particular note: the first initiative would increase the fees for the inspection of oil and gas operations as managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The second notable proposal would greatly increase a diligence fee that is levied on oil and gas leases in order to prevent oil and gas companies from the current practice of squatting on federal lands by securing millions of acres of leases at bargain basement rates.

In the last two budget cycles, the administration has proposed charging a $6,500 inspection fee for new permits, to ensure that oil and gas drilling operations are being carried out in a lawful and safe manner, while also making certain that such operations are paying their fair share in royalties. BLM is proposing this inspection fee due to a series of Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and findings that have established beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voluntary and self-policing system that the oil and gas companies prefer and enjoy, is basically a recipe for malfeasance. To make matters even worse, recent budget cuts have also severely limited the BLM's ability to carry out even the most minimal of inspections. How bad are things? The GAO found that the average active drilling well is inspected once every 2-10 years – practically speaking, that means an individual drilling operation will receive only one federal inspection during its existence.

In late 2008, per GAO's recommendations, the BLM initiated a process to remedy these problems by proposing an inspection fee. BLM Director Bob Abbey testified in April of 2011 before the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to further explain the reasoning behind this fee, "In 2012 the BLM will begin to charge a fee to recover inspection costs for the oil and gas program, allowing a savings of $38 million in requested funding. The fee would defray Federal costs and ensure continued diligent oversight of oil and gas production on Federal lands. Fee levels would be based on the number of oil and gas wells per lease so that costs are shared equitably across the industry." To put the Director’s testimony in more plain terms: at best, the U.S. taxpayer was losing millions of dollars in revenues given that BLM did not have the inspectors to assess, verify, and collect royalties. At worst, oil and gas companies were pocketing millions in the difference that should have been going to taxpayers. Industry predictably opposed this modest new fee, and have successfully defeated its adoption over the last two budget cycles.

The second reform would charge a more substantive rental fee for those acres that are leased by a company for oil and gas drilling, but remain idle. In this regard, the fossil fuel industry currently retain millions of acres of leases that are not producing – in all total, this amounts to 26 million acres of idled leases out of the 38 million acres of federal land leased for drilling. In fact, industry is paying practically nothing for these lands: between $1.50 to $2.00 an acre. Since most leases are held for 10 to 20 years, this is a paltry sum – people pay more for an overdue library book than what is paid by BLM lease holders. These low rents contribute to gross over speculation, a finding that was confirmed by the GAO that concluded in comparison to other states that also lease their public lands for oil and gas development, the federal rental rate is typically ten times lower than it is for comparable states like Texas.

What is concerning about the upcoming budget battles is that we can expect the allies of the oil and gas industry to paint a false dichotomy: that increased fees and federal oversight over the nation’s federal lands is counterproductive in nurturing energy independence. That such measures will also cost taxpayers by limiting job growth and economic development. The irony of this position is that the further Congress continues to deny these agencies the tools necessary to fulfill their legal obligations to fully collect royalties (while also managing to conserve natural resources), the more likely these agencies will fail on all accounts. If Congress truly wants the Interior Department to be successful in fulfilling its responsibility in developing domestic energy sources, it cannot at the same time handcuff and eliminate the tools the Interior Department are in desperate need of in order to succeed.

NRDC in the News 2/13: State of the Union, Keystone XL end-run, marine mammals endangered by sonar and more...

2012-02-13T22:47:10Z

NRDC News, NRDC News Team, NRDC Offices Worldwide

Frances Beinecke was quoted in Environmental Magazine’s Earth Talk on the environmental implications of Obama’s State of the Union address and policies… Scott Slesinger spoke with Bloomberg BusinessWeek about Obama’s budget proposal to cut more than $40 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas and coal producers in the next decade and spend more for conservation and alternative energy, calling the proposal “forward-thinking”… Anthony Swift commented on a House Republican bill that would override Obama’s January rejection of a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in an Inside Climate News article…

Michael Jasny expressed concern in Canada’s Victoria Times Colonist about marine mammals exposed to sonar used by the Canadian Navy in Juan de Fuca Strait… In a Los Angeles Daily News article, Adrian Martinez commented on Los Angeles’ proposed recycling plan which supports the city’s recycling goals of recycling 90% of waste by 2025, saying the plan is a “key nut to crack to getting to zero waste”… Peter Hill discussed the cost and benefits of California’s revised renewable energy requirements in the Merced Sun-Star… An Environmental Magazine’s Earth Talk piece referred to an NRDC report, “U.S. Latinos and Air Pollution: A Call to Action,” highlighting the disproportionate health effects of air pollution on Latino populations in the U.S…