Switchboard, from NRDC › Jon Devine's Blog

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.

Getting the Straight Poop About Industrial Livestock Production

2012-02-02T17:46:00Z

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

Cowboys have known for years to “always drink upstream from the herd.” And although the lone, Stetson-wearing cowpoke roaming the prairie is becoming as rare as the jackalope, his advice is as poignant as ever-- animals poop, and their manure carries bacteria, viruses and other contaminants that pollute water and can make people sick.

Unfortunately, for most Americans, there is very little information available about where “the herd” is, or if their favorite swimming holes happen to lie downstream. A majority of animals are now raised in industrial livestock facilities, known in the regulatory world as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that these operations generate approximately 300 million tons of manure each year, more than the amount of trash produced by all Americans. However, although some states collect piecemeal information about CAFOs, there are no comprehensive data about the size, location, or waste management practices of the U.S. livestock industry.

Without key information about the industry, the federal government’s watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, observed, “EPA does not have the information that it needs to effectively regulate these operations.” So, under pressure from NRDC and our partners, EPA agreed to initiate an effort to get a handle on the industry’s true risks to water, by proposing to collect some basic operating information from CAFOs. Unfortunately, EPA, cowed by the livestock industry, chickened out. (Sorry – this stuff is extremely pun-worthy.)

In our submitted comments (click on the little “PDF” button next to “Comment”), NRDC and several other groups argued that EPA’s proposed inventory would collect far too little information. As proposed, EPA wouldn’t even ask CAFOs to report what steps they take to prevent leaks and spills or whether any manure is transferred off-site, putting even more waters at risk than just the ones in the immediate vicinity of any given CAFO.

Despite the weak proposed survey, the livestock industry had a cow (see?) about EPA’s proposal. But this is ludicrous. For one, it would impose virtually no burden on operators, despite their huge environmental footprint. EPA estimated that responding to the proposed survey would take one hour every 10 years – a pittance compared to what other industrial pollution sources have to do. Even if EPA strengthened the requirements and made operations submit more regularly – which it should – the effort would be modest.

In addition, collecting basic information will not reveal industry secrets. The number of and kinds of animals confined, the waste they produce, and what’s done with it are hardly the Colonel’s Secret Recipe. Rather, it’s valuable information about the ability of these operations to pollute waterways.

Finally, and most surprisingly, the industry argued they would somehow be targeted for unlawful activity because the government collects information about their operations. Although some fringe illegal activity has unfortunately happened, there is no apparent correlation between these actions and public information about pollution data -- lawbreakers have been able to perpetrate crimes despite the lack of available data about which waters are at risk from CAFOs’ own actions, and EPA provided no evidence that facilities in states that make information about CAFOs publicly available had been targeted more. Frankly, this argument makes the industry look like Chicken Little (I mean, it’s just sitting there, right?).

EPA will be considering what kind of information to collect from industrial livestock operations for several more months; a final decision is due this summer. Even though the official comment period recently ended (during which tens of thousands of concerned citizens weighed in to support a strong information collection effort – thank you!), I encourage you to weigh in with the agency (you can send an email to OW-Docket@epa.gov, and use the docket ID number EPA‐HQ‐OW‐2011‐0188) to let officials there know that you want them to protect the public health by taking the first, most basic, step – finding out the scope of the problem. If EPA takes concerned citizens’ advice and improves its proposal, it just might just make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. (Again, sorry.)

Do You Live in an Emerald City? New NRDC Report Profiles Communities Leading the Way on Green Infrastructure

2011-11-16T15:45:00Z

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

As my colleague David Beckman wrote today, NRDC released a new report called Rooftops to Rivers II. Our study presents the pollution problems caused by stormwater – particularly contaminated runoff and sewage overflows – and discusses in depth how communities use green infrastructure techniques to clean up their waterways and to bring multiple valuable benefits to city residents. We felt it important to produce this analysis now, because this winter the Environmental Protection Agency will propose an update its national standards for controlling runoff pollution from new development and existing paved areas, and cities’ successes can help EPA develop robust requirements for communities across the nation.

In particular, Rooftops to Rivers II details common water pollution problems and provides case studies for 14 geographically diverse cities that all can be considered leaders in employing green infrastructure solutions to address their pollution problems. These cities have improved their ability to manage stormwater and reduce runoff pollution, saved money and beautified cityscapes by capturing rain where it falls.

To assess the breadth of each of these leaders’ green infrastructure activities, we created a metric we’re calling the “Emerald City Scale.” The six-point scale identifies six core criteria every city can undertake to maximize their green infrastructure investment, including: a long term green infrastructure plan for the city, a requirement to retain a defined amount of runoff from development projects, a requirement to reduce existing impervious surfaces using green infrastructure, incentives for private-party installation of green infrastructure, guidance or other assistance in deploying green infrastructure, and a dedicated funding source to help ensure that green infrastructure projects keep going.

Cities were awarded one point for each of the criteria that have been met. Each city in our report received at least one point but only one received a perfect score of six – and that was Philadelphia, which has emerged as the national leader when it comes to green infrastructure.

The other cities featured in the report received the following number of points on our Emerald City Scale:

Milwaukee, WI (5)
New York, NY (5)
Portland, OR (5)
Syracuse, NY (5)
Washington, D.C. (5)
Aurora, IL (4)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (4)
Chicago, IL (3)
Kansas City, MO (3)
Nashville, TN (3)
Seattle, WA (3)
Pittsburgh, PA (1)
Detroit Metro Area & the Rouge River Watershed, MI (1)

(Photo: Seattle's High Point Neighborhood -- Street-sides being supplanted with additional plants. Notice trees and shrubs. Photo by Nancy Arazan)

Below is a chart depicting how the communities earned their distinctions as Emerald Cities.

It’s important to note that while some of the cities received higher scores than others, each is meeting at least one of the core NRDC criteria. The ranking is not meant to highlight areas in which some cities are lacking compared to others, because every city that is meeting one or more of our criteria are performing in ways that deserve to be emulated. In fact, because each of these diverse cities has implemented at least one aspect of NRDC’s Emerald City plan, we know it’s doable.

Each of these cities is proof that green infrastructure works. Their success should encourage both the EPA and policymakers on the local and state levels to adopt policies that will drive similar approaches and outcomes nationwide.

For cities not included in the report, but which are pursuing green infrastructure programs that meet NRDC’s six criteria, we want to know about it. NRDC has developed a function on our website that allows municipalities to submit information about local green initiatives. We welcome other communities to add their names to the growing list of cities using green infrastructure. Doing so will further demonstrate to the EPA and other policymakers that green infrastructure is effective, affordable and should be implemented across the country.

Clean Water Under Attack - How Will Your Senator Vote?

2011-11-14T15:59:55Z

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

As early as this week, the Senate will consider a funding bill for Energy and Water Development, and will be asked to undermine safeguards for a host of water bodies under the Clean Water Act. Senators Barrasso (R-WY) and Heller (R-NV) intend to offer an amendment to the bill that will hamstring efforts to protect critical water bodies, especially certain kinds of wetlands and small or irregularly-flowing streams, like the one pictured to the right, which runs through the outdoor adventure park where my family and I spent our Friday day off.

If the Dirty Water Rider passes, unless and until Congress changes the law, the Corps would be permanently prohibited from changing its rules defining what waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, or changing a pair of policy memoranda that EPA and the Corps issued during the Bush administration – memos that have had the real-world effect of denying Clean Water Act coverage to countless streams and wetlands. As I have previously written, EPA and the Corps have begun to take critical steps to overhaul their guidelines and update their regulations to better protect important waters, so this rider seeks to kill this good government initiative.

Consequently, the rider threatens resources that are critical to public health, safety, and aquatic ecosystems. Headwaters and wetlands absorb flood waters, they filter pollutants from contaminated water, they contribute to the drinking water supply of over 117 million Americans, they support fish and waterfowl prized by anglers and hunters, and they feed our iconic rivers and lakes.

NRDC is working with our partners in numerous conservation groups to defeat the Dirty Water Rider. We have set up a website to provide information and relevant materials about the issue and the fight, and I urge you to poke around.

After you do so, please take action. Call or otherwise contact your Senators and ask them to oppose the Dirty Water Rider to be offered by Senators Barrasso and Heller. You can get their contact information right here and they really value hearing from their constituents.

Congressional Attacks on Regulations Are Attacks on You

2011-10-05T17:00:00Z

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

This post was co-written with my colleague, Ben Chou.

Deregulation is the flavor of the month in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Congress is Baskin-Robbins.

Recently, Representative Don Young (R-AK) made headlines by saying he was going to introduce legislation to repeal all federal regulations adopted in the last 20 years. If he makes good on this threat, the bill would invalidate federal rules adopted in 2000 implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act and recent updates to the requirements for public accommodations and commercial sites under the Americans With Disabilities Act, just to name a couple of a host of public health, civil rights, workplace safety, environmental, transportation safety, food quality, and homeland security safeguards that have been adopted over the past two decades.

This is a laughably radical notion, of course, and it would be scarcely worth mentioning if it were the only such idea being considered by members of Congress. In fact, it’s just the least well-disguised one.

An equally radical bill has been introduced by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Susan Collins (R-ME). Rather than attempt to go back in time like Representative Young, these Senators have authored a bill that promises to kill all manner of future regulatory safeguards. But it does so quite cleverly – by throwing several monkey wrenches into the gears of agency action, providing new and unnecessary administrative hurdles to regulatory requirements, and creating rules of decision that will often favor doing nothing over protecting the public.

Regulation Isn’t a Four-Letter Word

Before getting into the nitty-gritty of this bill, it is worth remembering some of the things regulatory agencies do to keep us safe, healthy, and able to live our lives free of discrimination. A few examples:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations establish levels of pollutants that dozens of different industries are allowed to discharge into the nation’s waterways, based on available technologies to reduce such pollution. EPA also sets out how much treatment our sewage must receive before being discharged.
The Department of Transportation has rules that require truckers not to perform “safety-sensitive functions” within four hours of consuming alcohol.
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for determining what levels of various “natural or unavoidable defects in foods” do not create health risks. For instance, this includes – just looking at the first one in alphabetical order – allowing for no more than an “[a]verage of 30 or more insect fragments per 10 grams” of ground allspice.

For even more illustrations, several months ago, a group called Federally Employed Women did a great piece – an hour-by-hour summary of a day in the life of a hypothetical person helped by various government initiatives. (Granted, some of the items are a stretch – the dream sequence from 1:00-3:30 AM comes to mind – and some of these agencies actually could use a kick in the pants to better look out for the public, but the concept is pretty cool.)

Obviously, making these kinds of judgments requires scientific, economic, engineering, and other expertise. And that’s what administrative agencies have – subject matter experts that implement the laws that Congress passes regarding specific topics. Members of Congress lack the specialized knowledge, staff, and time to draft laws that specifically address the innumerable different issues that face our society. Accordingly, Congress enacts broader directives and leaves it to administrative agencies to carry out the law by way of more situation-specific regulations. Another benefit to this approach – agency staff people aren’t constantly running for re-election and trying to curry favor with industry supporters.

Think of it this way: no matter how much you love your representatives in Congress, ask yourself – do you think they would do a good job deciding how many insect fragments can be in your allspice?

The “Regulatory Accountability Act” Threatens Public Protections

Against this backdrop comes the bill from Senators Portman, Pryor, and Collins. As my colleague, Daniel Rosenberg, explained in detail, this act would completely rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act, which has guided federal agency rulemaking for over 60 years. It will allow industries and polluters more opportunities to challenge and thwart rules that they deem too inconvenient.

For instance, the bill would add a new level of administrative process to many rulemakings. It would establish extended minimum time periods before an agency can take several steps in the rule-writing process, so that rules by necessity will drag out over years. Depending on the significance of the rulemaking effort, the bill also provides opportunities for industry to force an agency to hold an one or more formal hearings, in which particular pieces of agency evidence or agency findings could be challenged in an elaborate trial-style proceeding, and could also be challenged later in a separate court case. Together, these hassles make it very difficult to even navigate the regulatory process for a new or tighter public safeguard.

On top of these new roadblocks, the law would superimpose cost-benefit analysis on the rulemaking process and would generally require agencies to adopt “the least costly alternative” considered unless the agency can demonstrate that the public health, safety, or welfare benefits provided by any “more costly” alternative chosen outweighs the additional costs.

Why is that unreasonable? It is no secret that conventional cost-benefit analysis often fails to properly monetize the benefits of clean air and water and similar societal values. One complication, for instance, is the difficulty of ascribing dollar values to intangible environmental benefits (e.g., healthy ecosystems). This has been demonstrated most recently with EPA’s haphazard analysis for the proposed power plant cooling water rule, which underestimated the benefits of reducing fish kills associated with cooling water intake structures (you can read more about the proposed rule here).

This is a common problem. Indeed, many of the industry-specific pollution limits I mentioned above have costs that exceed their quantified benefits. SImilarly, when EPA commissioned an examination of the costs and benefits of the entire Clean Water Act in 2000, the end product was extremely limited, focusing on just two of 45 benefit categories identified, as depicted in the figure below, copied from the benefits report.

Even with that limited analysis, the benefits (about $11 billion/year) were close to the costs ($14.1 billion/year), such that it is reasonable to expect that the law has been an economic positive over time. The accompanying cost report suggests the same, saying, "The CWA benefits were estimated in a separate study under a strict set of assumptions, and they only apply to a subset of the nation's surface waters and water pollutants. Nonetheless, these partial estimates, which amounted to approximately $11 billion per year in the mid-1990s, are relatively close in magnitude to the CWA cost estimates from this study. Although these results are suggestive, more detailed analysis, particularly of the benefits, will be needed to draw stronger conclusions regarding the benefit-cost performance of the CWA."

Because of these difficulties, the new Senate deregulatory bill would further restrict EPA’s ability to adopt rules to protect our water resources from pollution under the Clean Water Act because these rules might be deemed too costly or too burdensome to polluters while ignoring the numerous benefits that clean water provides to the public and environment.

The groups that support this act would have you believe that regulations commonly thwart economic growth and kill jobs, so that it’s a good thing to effectively bring the rulemaking process to a halt. But in reality, only 13 percent of small business owners in a recent survey think regulations are their biggest problem. Also, as another colleague, Scott Slesinger, has pointed out--when challenged, none of the sponsors of the new anti-regulation bill could point out a single rule that has cost jobs. They are just pushing the same, tired meme of “job-killing regulations” and hoping that no one is paying attention to the details.

One final point -- in case you have any lingering doubt that these bills are just meant to kill public safeguards and aren’t serious attempts to add more rigor to the regulatory process, take a look at the many protective administrative actions that members of Congress have attacked even though the estimated benefits exceed their costs. For instance, as I’ve written, the Republican House leadership has gone after a good-government initiative by EPA and the Army Corps to clarify what water bodies are protected by the Clean Water Act, even though the initiative’s estimated annual benefits of $162 million to $368 million compare favorably to its predicted costs of $87 million to $171 million per year.

I guess some members of Congress just never met an attack on public safeguards they didn’t like.

Are East Coast Cities Prepared for Impacts of Hurricane Irene?

2011-08-25T21:10:15Z

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

As Hurricane Irene pushes closer and closer, East Coasters are nervously tracking her course and bracing for impact. I, for one, am trying to impress upon my wife and kids – presently vacationing on a barrier island south of Long Island, New York – that no matter how cool the waves look and how adept at boogie-boarding they think they are, they need to be careful.

Questions abound. What kind of damage will Irene do? Is your city prepared for it?

While it’s not clear what impact climate change might have on the frequency of hurricanes, they are likely to become stronger as sea surface temperatures increase. A recent NRDC report provides some insight – exploring similar anticipated impacts from extreme weather (including more frequent and intense storms, and increased flooding), which we expect to increase in various parts of the country as a result of climate change.

The report – “Thirsty for Answers” – specifically looked at a dozen cities in the U.S., including three that are currently in the path of the storm: Boston, New York and Norfolk (VA).

Below is a breakdown of where those cities’ weaknesses lie, and what they’re doing to prepare for extreme weather, flooding and other coming impacts expected from climate change.

BOSTON

Boston’s relative sea level has increased 11.8 inches since 1900 and conservative projections are that sea levels could rise another 2 to 3.3 feet by 2100. As a result, the city and surrounding area is likely to experience more flooding related to storm surge, threatening vital coastal infrastructure such as Logan Airport, port facilities in Boston’s Inner Harbor and roadways.

Fortunately, the city has taken some steps to help reduce the kinds of impacts it expects to see from climate change, many of which are similar to what we could see from Irene – including increased flooding and more frequent and intense storms. These include:

Global Warming Solutions Act: A state law aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions between 10 percent and 25 percent below a 1990 baseline by 2020 and 80 percent below this baseline by 2050. The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is collaborating with other state agencies and the public to accomplish the act’s objectives.
“Sparking Boston’s Climate Revolution”: A report released in April 2010 reiterates at a city level the goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act. The report also notes several ongoing local adaptation efforts. For example, the Office of Emergency Management and the Boston Water and Sewer Commission are updating their plans to include climate change concerns, especially sea level rise and changes in storm intensity.
Reducing Flood Risks: Some waterfront development projects, such as the Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Seaport Square, are reducing future flood risks from rising sea levels by placing ground floors and critical systems at higher elevations.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ Climate Resilient Communities program: Boston was selected in November 2010 to participate in the Climate Resilient Communities program developed by ICLEI USA. Participants in the program receive access to adaptation resources and technical support to guide adaptation planning.

NEW YORK

With 578-miles of waterfront, New York City could experience a 2- to 5-inch sea level rise by 2020, a 7- to 12-inch rise by 2050 and a12- to 23-inch rise by 2080. Higher sea levels, coupled with the likelihood of more frequent and intense storms, are expected to cause coastal flooding throughout New York, threatening the city’s low-lying infrastructure, including roads, subway and rail lines and LaGuardia airport.

Also on that list are the city’s sewage treatment plants and already-overburdened sewer systems. Sea level rise, increased coastal flooding, more frequent and intense rainstorms, and increased precipitation all threaten the functioning of this critical infrastructure.

We rely dearly on this infrastructure – as the recent fire at a Harlem sewage plant reminded us when it poured millions of gallons of sewage into the Hudson and Harlem Rivers, closing beaches, and making fishing and other recreation unsafe. As the report explains, more frequent and intense storms to the NYC region will only exacerbate our current sewage overflow problem. That’s why it’s critical we make our systems more resilient, with methods like increased green infrastructure (like park space, green roofs, porous pavement and roadside plantings) to reduce their workload.

Fortunately, as my colleague Larry Levine explains, “New York City is ahead of many other cities in terms of evaluating its climate change vulnerabilities and scoping out potential adaptation measures. The city has already implemented some common-sense measures to protect key water infrastructure, such as ‘rais[ing] pump motors, circuit breakers, and controls at the Rockaway Wastewater Treatment Plant from 25 feet (7.6 meters) below sea level to 14 feet (4.3 meters) above sea level.’”

There’s much more to be done, but here’s what the city is already doing:

PlaNYC: a city-wide sustainability plan established in 2007 to address climate change mitigation and adaption efforts.
NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Climate Change Task Force’s “Climate Change Assessment and Action Plan”: includes a range of tasks and actions, such as working with the science community to improve climate change projections, determining climate change impacts and related costs to water systems, identifying and implementing response strategies, and a commitment to reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions.
Water system resiliency: NYC DEP past and future strategies include rebate programs for water conservation, green infrastructure strategies to reduce runoff and sewer overflows, maximizing water supplies from existing facilities, and infrastructural improvements to enhance reliability of water distribution systems.
Addressing climate change: NYC DEP now includes climate change impacts in the City Environmental Quality Review process, takes projected sea and tide levels into consideration in sewer design and discharge points, includes climate change as a risk when prioritizing projects, and identifies vulnerable infrastructure and includes flood protection measures in capital improvement funding cycles.
New York City Panel on Climate Change: convened by Mayor Bloomberg in 2008, the panel is composed of climate, legal, insurance, and risk management experts, and supports the New York City Climate Change Adaption Task Force.
Department of City Planning’s “Vision 2020”: a comprehensive waterfront plan that, among other goals, aims to identify strategies for building resilience to sea level rise and more intense storm events. In the short term, the city will update PlaNYC to address climate resilience to flooding, study best practices for resilience to flooding and storm surge, incorporate climate change projections into waterfront infrastructure design standards, work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update flood insurance rate maps, and integrate climate change preparedness into emergency planning preparedness.

NORFOLK

Norfolk, which ranks 10th in the world for the value of assets exposed to flooding from sea level rise, has taken some steps to prepare for impacts like those we may see from Irene – including increased flooding and more frequent and intense storms – but there is still much to be done.

Sea level in Norfolk has steadily risen 14.5 inches over the past 80 years. The combination of sea level rise and land subsidence will make flooding a major concern for Norfolk this century. If projections hold true, much of the city could be underwater by 2100 if an extensive levy system or other protections are not developed, posing a serious threat to vital transportation infrastructure such as the city’s active port and Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. And, in an analysis of the past 80 years, five of the seven most significant storm surges have occurred since 1998.

Developed areas and transport systems are especially vulnerable to storm-surge flooding. More intense rainfall can also impact water quality by causing runoff, which increases amounts of bacteria and algae that can lead to water borne disease and pollution.

The economy in Norfolk is tied closely to industries located on the coast, especially the three major naval facilities and the Port of Virginia’s Norfolk International Terminal. These facilities are vulnerable to storm surge flooding, and damage could affect the area’s economy as well as impairing the readiness of U.S. forces. The Norfolk Naval Base, a 4,300-acre site, is the largest naval facility in the United States and home to more than 500 buildings, an infrastructure supporting surface and submarine vessels, and an airstrip supporting aircraft. With an average elevation of 8 to 10 feet above sea level, the site already experiences storm surge-related flooding, which the Navy anticipates will be exacerbated by sea level rise.

So far, here are some of the steps Norfolk, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy have each taken to prepare for impacts like this:

Carbon footprint inventory: Norfolk is developing a carbon footprint inventory, to be completed by 2012, that will include a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and strategies for achieving this goal.
plaNorfolk2030: The city currently is updating its general plan to include climate change impact considerations such as sea level changes.
Flood vulnerability analysis: The city has hired a Dutch coastal engineering firm to conduct a flood vulnerability assessment. The firm has developed a flood forecast model that estimates flood depths based on tide elevation data. The model will allow the city to assess costs related to flood mitigation strategies, and apply the assessment to a long-term flood plan that prioritizes funding and the implementation of flood improvement projects.
Chesapeake Inundation Prediction System: An important tool to make predictions about climate change impacts, this system uses high resolution hydrodynamic models and elevation data to aid in flood predictions.
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program: This partnership between the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy evaluates the environmental and ecological impacts of climate change on military installations. One study focuses on evaluating the risks to coastal military installation assets and mission capabilities in the Hampton Roads region from climate change impacts.
U.S. Navy Climate Change Road Map: This was released in 2010 by the Navy’s “Task Force Climate Change” to guide Navy policy, strategy and investment plans related to a changing global climate. It prioritizes the development of recommendations for Navy investments to meet climate change challenges, including the protection of coastal installations vulnerable to sea level rise and water resource challenges for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

As the Boy Scout motto goes: Be Prepared. With climate scientists forecasting more frequent and intense storms as a result of climate change, those words were never truer. Luckily, Boston, New York and Norfolk are beginning to take note. Let’s hope it proves beneficial as they face down Irene this weekend.

House Adds New Attacks on Clean Water

2011-07-26T20:04:00Z

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

Last week, I wrote about two handfuls of dirty water “riders” in the House of Representatives’ funding bill for EPA and the Department of the Interior. This week, the bill is being considered on the House floor, and yet even more riders have appeared. More will appear in the coming hours and days, but here’s my latest information about the new and varied ways that the House might undermine fundamental protections for clean water.

I neglected to mention a provision in my last post that is now included in the bill. In committee, Rep. Emerson (R-MO) got an amendment included (it’s now section 456) that would prohibit EPA from identifying wetlands in counties that have been included in a major disaster declaration due to flooding this year, thus making them more susceptible to destruction. This one is truly bizarre, as a single acre of wetland can store 1 to 1.5 million gallons of floodwater, so folks concerned with flood prevention should want to maximize the wetland acres that are preserved, not make it easier to bulldoze them.
Representative Denham (R-CA) is expected to offer an amendment that would prohibit funding for restoration of salmon to the San Joaquin River. This provision would undermine the settlement agreement between the federal government, farmers, fishermen, and conservation groups and could force the case back to court.
We’re hearing that Representative McKinley (R-WV) may offer an amendment to effectively strip EPA of the authority Congress gave it under the Clean Water Act to prohibit or restrict certain discharges that would have an “unacceptable adverse effect” on our water, fish or wildlife. EPA has used this authority sparingly – only 13 times since the law was enacted in 1972. In other words, it is reserved for truly bad projects where the discharger cannot or will not curtail the impacts to water resources, but this attack would force EPA to ignore the scientific evidence of the harms caused by destructive dumping proposals.
Reportedly, Representative Goodlatte (R-VA) may offer an amendment that would sabotage decades of work by state and federal officials and by concerned citizens, which culminated when EPA released a comprehensive cleanup plan for the Chesapeake Bay watershed in December. If it is the same amendment he inserted in the FY11 spending bill, it would prohibit EPA from enforcing this plan if states fail to meet their pollution control commitments and, by doing so, could frustrate the restoration of this national treasure and important fishery.
Representative Latham (R-IA) has filed an amendment to stop a planned collection of water pollution information from the largest industrial livestock facilities (also known as “factory farms”). Confined animals generate approximately 500 million tons of manure every year, which is more than three times the amount of human waste produced, and which gets nowhere near the same kind of pollution control treatment. This waste contains nitrogen and phosphorus, suspended solids, bacteria and viruses, organic compounds, antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones, and it is commonly discharged into the environment. Sounds like something EPA should be able to gather information about, don’t you think?

Thanks to these and many other riders – catalogued on NRDC’s new rider website -- this bill is the worst piece of anti-environmental legislation Congress has ever considered. Although the White House thankfully threatened that President Obama may veto the bill, Representatives still need to hear from their constituents that these kind of attacks are unacceptable. Otherwise, we may see a reprise of last fiscal year, where the House leadership took the nation to the brink of a government shutdown in pursuit of a host of dirty policy riders. Please take a couple of minutes to look up your Representative’s office phone number, and give him/her a call to explain why you oppose all of these pro-polluter riders and this dirty water (and air, and land…) bill.

EPA Reaffirms Importance of Science-Based Decisions for Mountaintop Removal Mines

2011-07-21T17:43:20Z

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

Today the Environmental Protection Agency issued its final advice to its field staff about how they should consider scientific evidence of the downstream impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining when reviewing proposed permits for those mines. This guidance document, as it is known in the administrative law world, replaces one released last April, and will help protect Appalachian communities from the impacts of mountaintop removal mining. The guidance advises EPA’s Clean Water Act permit reviewers concerning the levels of conductivity—a measure of the amount of certain kinds of contaminants in stream water—to gauge the impacts of proposed mountaintop mining operations on water quality.

The issuance of this final guidance underscores the deliberate and science-based way that EPA is approaching its actions on mountaintop removal. The final guidance was developed over the course of fifteen months, as EPA reviewed the science and solicited public comments on its interim guidance.

Of course, the guidance is just that—guidance. It will help EPA apply an appropriate level of scrutiny to mountaintop removal permit proposals, in light of scientific concerns about mines’ potential to cause significant pollution.

Ultimately, the Obama administration needs to do more to curtail mountaintop removal, as the practice of using the nation’s waters as waste dumps is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles that underlie the Clean Water Act. My colleague Allen Hershkowitz recently argued that the existing science demands a moratorium on new mountaintop removal permits pending further investigation by our nation’s top scientific bodies. The government has significant untapped authority to rein in these mines, especially to curtail their impacts on water quality, and it should do so.

But in the meantime, EPA must be allowed to continue its important work to uphold science and the law, as it reviews individual mine proposals. We must preserve EPA’s legal authority to protect people and the environment from mountaintop removal pollution by fighting back against congressional efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act, such as the new dirty water bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and the numerous anti-clean water “riders” (including some on mountaintop removal specifically) in the spending bill now under consideration in Congress.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Really Lousy Ideas

2011-07-18T20:14:00Z

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

I am not ashamed to admit it: I am middle-aged and love the “Harry Potter” series – so much so that I have been thinking hard about how to write a blog post about work and the new Harry Potter movie, which the family and I attended first thing Saturday morning. (It was awesome, and some unnamed members of the family may have gotten a little misty-eyed.) Anyhow, it turns out that there’s a pretty easy analog in the wizarding world to the world of clean water policy.

Potterphiles know well that the last installment of the series is largely about the heroes’ quest to find and destroy “horcruxes,” objects in which the evil (an adjective that really doesn’t do the guy justice) Lord Voldemort has hidden parts of his fractured soul. Voldemort did this to cheat death; it’s basically a way of hedging his bets by sprinkling fragments of evil around the world.

A similar thing is going on right now in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House is presently in the midst of developing appropriations bills to fund various governmental operations for fiscal year 2012, and anti-environmental members of Congress have divided up their agenda to essentially overturn the Clean Water Act into a series of “riders,” provisions that target particular pollution control initiatives and prohibit federal agencies from implementing them. These riders do not save the country money, but rather use the appropriations process instead of the usual legislative route to make major policy changes.

The pro-polluter crowd in the House seems to be hoping that the sheer volume of riders will mean that at least some of them will make it through the legislative process. These policy horcruxes attack virtually every clean water action that the Environmental Protection Agency has taken in the past couple years.

Here’s a run-down of the water pollution riders in the spending bill for EPA and the Department of the Interior. Before reading, you might want to sit down and grab a butterbeer – it’s a doozy of a list.

Section 432 would keep the Office of Surface Mining within the Department of Interior from continuing work to revise regulations adopted in the waning days of the Bush administration that opened up streams to destructive and polluting practices associated with surface coal mining. The Obama administration, which has acknowledged both substantive and legal flaws with the Bush administration rule, actually needs to pick up the pace on this and develop a protective rule -- the last thing it needs is a directive to stop work.
Section 433 seeks to shield mountaintop removal coal mining operations from EPA review by stopping EPA and the Corps of Engineers from continuing a process they put in place to scrutinize proposed mines. It would even suspend the use of an internal EPA memo that explains to agency personnel how the scientific evidence of the harms associated with mountaintop removal projects should be taken into account as EPA reviews permits issued to mine operators by the Corps of Engineers and states.
Under section 435, unless and until Congress changes the law, EPA would be permanently prohibited from changing its rules defining what waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, or changing a pair of policy memoranda that EPA and the Corps issued during the Bush administration – memos that have had the real-world effect of denying Clean Water Act coverage to countless streams and wetlands. EPA and the Corps recently took critical first steps to overhaul their guidelines and update their regulations to better protect important waters, so this rider seeks to kill this good government initiative.
Section 436 would restrict EPA from working further on regulations or requirements governing cooling water intake structures and thermal discharges from power plants. Although EPA has proposed a rule that is far too weak to protect the aquatic environment when it could’ve protected critical resources at a reasonable cost to industry with no adverse effects on electric reliability or consumer prices, the solution to the weak proposed rule is a strengthened rule rather than no rule at all.
Section 438 would permanently change the Clean Water Act to exempt stormwater discharges from a host of logging-related sources from the law’s industrial permitting program. This provision would overturn a recent court decision requiring discharges from logging roads to be covered by pollution control permits. By allowing significant sediment-laden discharges from these operations to escape environmental review during the permitting process, the amendment would threaten drinking water supplies and native fish species.
Section 439 attempts to stop EPA’s work on the development of a proposed rule to reform the national regulations governing runoff pollution from urban and suburban sites and stormwater systems. Nationwide, EPA estimates that “[u]rban stormwater is the primary source of water quality impairment [for] 13% of all rivers and streams[,] 18% of all lakes [and] 32% of all estuaries. . . .” At ocean and Great Lakes beaches in 2010, polluted runoff and stormwater caused or contributed to 8,712 beach closing/advisory days. Unfortunately, the rider would mandate that EPA halt work – which is well underway – to address these problems until 90 days after EPA submits a report to Congress about the reform effort. By doing so, it would blow up the agency’s current timetable to revise the rules by the end of next year.
Title V of the bill is another permanent change to the Clean Water Act. It also amends the national pesticide law. It exempts pesticides from clean water permitting and strips EPA’s ability to protect our waters from pesticide contamination. This change has been included in stand-alone bills in both the House and Senate, about which my colleague Mae Wu has written extensively.
An amendment offered by Rep. LaTourette (R-OH) could prohibit any EPA funds from going to any Great Lakes state that has set stronger ballast water pollution standards (either tougher numeric standards or faster implementation requirements) than weaker international standards or potentially weaker federal standards being developed by the U.S. Coast Guard. This amendment clearly applies to New York, which has been a leader in developing protective standards that will require the shipping industry to begin treating its ballast water before discharging it to eliminate invasive species threats. New York’s leadership has also been critical to driving the development of stronger regulations at the federal level. The language of this amendment could be read to strip all EPA funding from any Great Lakes state that has any requirements, including timelines, that are more stringent than federal or international requirements.
An amendment offered by Rep. Diaz-Balart (R-FL) would keep EPA from implementing a program to clean up Florida waters that are plagued by harmful algae blooms, nasty slime that can produce harmful toxins and that can rob water bodies of the oxygen that fish and other critters need to live.

The House will vote on these provisions most likely next week. Here’s hoping that the friends of clean water in that chamber have some magic of their own to stop the attack.

NRDC Annual Beach Report: What's lurking in the waves at your favorite beach?

2011-06-29T14:00:00Z

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

The Fourth of July is just around the corner – and Americans nationwide are breaking out their swimsuits, loading up their cars and heading to the beach. It’s a summer rite of passage – but unfortunately it can also make you sick.

As the picture to the right indicates, I’m more of a beach sleeper (to the apparent consternation of my niece) than I am a swimmer, especially now that I’ve become a complete wimp about cold water in my middle age. But, if you are a swimmer, you may want to find out more about water quality and the beach management practices at your favorite swimming spot. According to NRDC’s 21st annual beachwater quality report – out today -- beach closings and advisories totaled more than 24,000 days last year. That’s the second highest number in the more than two decades that NRDC has put out this report. Seventy percent of those were issued because bacteria levels exceeded public health standards, indicating the presence of human and animal waste.

Gross, huh? No one wants to swim in that, yet NRDC’s Testing the Waters report found that stormwater runoff and sewage overflows continue to plague America’s beaches – as they have for decades. The difference is – now we know how to clean it up.

I’ll get to those solutions for cleaner beachwater in just a moment, but first – here’s a rundown of the top findings in this year’s report:

The Top 10 Repeat Offenders

Over the last five years, sections of 10 beaches have stood out as having persistent contamination problems, with water samples exceeding health standards more than 25 percent of the time:

California: Avalon Beach in Los Angeles County (3 of 5 monitored sections):

Avalon Beach – Near Busy B Café
Avalon Beach – North of GP Pier
Avalon Beach – South of GP Pier

California: Cabrillo Beach in Los Angeles County

California: Doheny State Beach in Orange County (2 of 6 monitored sections):

Doheny State Beach – North of San Juan Creek
Doheny State Beach – Surfzone at Outfall

Florida: Keaton Beach in Taylor County

Illinois: North Point Marina North Beach in Lake County

New Jersey: Beachwood Beach West in Ocean County

Ohio: Villa Angela State Park in Cuyahoga County

Texas: Ropes Park in Nueces County

Wisconsin: Eichelman beach in Kenosha County

Wisconsin: South Shore Beach in Milwaukee

Swimming in contaminated water can have significant consequences. Bacteria in the waves can lead to skin rashes, pinkeye, gastrointestinal problems, respiratory infections, and hepatitis.

One study found that swimmers at polluted beaches in the Great Lakes region were more likely than non-swimmers to have gastrointestinal illnesses. Children are especially vulnerable since they tend to out their heads underwater more often and are more likely to swallow water when swimming.

Superstar Beaches

On the other side of the spectrum – there were a few beaches that stood out as top performers.

In recent years, NRDC has issued ratings of water quality at 200 of the nation’s most popular beaches, evaluating their water quality results and best practices for testing and public notification. We do so again this year.

But this year, for the first time, we took that one step further – awarding “Superstar Beach” status to four beaches featured in our star rating guide. These beaches not only received the highest (5-star) rating , but had perfect testing results for the past three years, indicating a history of very good water quality. Those beaches are:

Delaware: Rehoboth Beach-Rehoboth Avenue Beach, in Sussex County

Delaware: Dewey Beach, in Sussex County

Minnesota: Park Point Lafayette Community Club Beach, in St. Louis County

New Hampshire: Hampton Beach State Park in Rockingham County

So, before you resign yourself to the beach chair, remember that plenty of beaches have very good water quality and many states work hard to keep swimmers safe.

Looking at water quality testing alone, in 2010, the Southeast, the New York and New Jersey coastline, and the Delmarva area had the lowest rates of contamination in the country, with only 4 percent, 5 percent and 6 percent of tests indicating contamination, respectively. The specific states with the lowest rates of contamination last year were: New Hampshire (1 percent), New Jersey (2 percent), Oregon (3 percent), Hawaii (3 percent) and Delaware (3 percent).

Causes of Contamination & Solution for Cleaning It Up

Why aren’t all of America’s beaches Superstars? There are many sources of beachwater pollution, but the single most identified cause was stormwater runoff. Sewage overflows were also a contributor.

When it rains on paved streets, rooftops and parking lots, water rushes into storm drains, carrying oil, toxins, pet waste, and fertilizers along with it. In many communities, stormwater gets passed through the same pipes as sewage. During a downpour, those systems often get swamped, leading to overflows directly into waterways. That disgusting brew of polluted stormwater and raw sewage—and all its accompanying bacteria, viruses, and parasites—too often finds its way to our beaches.

But this is preventable. We know how to stop it.

And the best way to do it is to capture rain water before it rushes into storm drains and sewage pipes. Green infrastructure — things like parks, porous pavement (pictured in action to the left), green roofs and rain barrels — help capture rain where it falls. These solutions not only cut down on dirty stormwater and sewage overflows, but they also add green space to neighborhoods, increase property values, reduce asthma and heat-related illnesses, and save on heating and cooling energy costs.

Cities around the nation are beginning to embrace green infrastructure solutions. Now, EPA has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to increase its prevalence on the national level by overhauling its national rules designed to tackle runoff pollution, when it revisits them later this year.

By embracing green infrastructure at a national scale, the government can significantly clean up the water at America’s beaches, as discussed in the video below. NRDC is hopeful this report will encourage them to do the right thing for beach-lovers everywhere – and make the water cleaner into the future.

If you’re heading to the beach this Independence Day, here are some tips for a safe and healthy trip.

House Committee Rushes to Gut Clean Water Act -- Who Voted for Dirty Water?

2011-06-22T19:56:43Z

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

The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, led by Chairman John Mica of Florida with the cooperation of the panel's lead Democrat, Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, today approved a bill to repeal key components of the Clean Water Act.

Surprised? You're not alone -- the committee only announced Monday that it would consider this bill, bypassing the usual legislative niceties (hearings, consideration of the bill by the expert subcommittee), and ramming it through in one of the shortest such committee meetings I've ever seen. The proponents of the bill must know that deliberate consideration of the legislation would be bad for their agenda, which, among other things, aims to kill initiatives the Environmental Protection Agency has launched to protect Florida waters from pollution that fuels slimy algae outbreaks and to safeguard Appalachian streams from the effects of mountaintop removal coal mining.

My colleagues David Beckman and Steve Fleischli blogged yesterday about the legislation, and we will continue to evaluate the bill as it gets hurried to the House floor, but suffice it to say that one of the big things that it does is make it harder for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect states that are downstream of pollution sources in other states from degradation. Taking away this safety net is wrongheaded, as it potentially affects every state in the continental U.S. With that in mind, here's a list of the committee members who voted today for this dirty water bill, accompanied by the name of an interstate water that flows into or borders their state -- by their actions today, these members effectively voted to make it easier for other states' polluters to sully these waters before they get to the citizens of the members' own states. By the way, I got this list of interstate waters from a brief that over 30 states filed in a Supreme Court case a few years back, urging the Court to uphold critical federal protections under the Clean Water Act.

Representative	Party/State	Interstate Water (Upstream or Bordering States)
Mica	R-FL	Appalachicola River (GA)
Rahall	D-WV	Ohio River (PA, OH)
Altmire	D-PA	Delaware River (NY, NJ)
Barletta	R-PA	Delaware River (NY, NJ)
Boswell	D-IA	Missouri River (MT, ND, SD, NE)
Bucshon	R-IN	Lake Michigan (MI, WI, IL)
Capito	R-WV	Ohio River (PA, OH)
Coble	R-NC	Roanoke River (VA)
Costello	D-IL	Lake Michigan (MI, WI, IN)
Cravaack	R-MN	Mississippi River (WI)
Crawford	R-AR	Arkansas River (CO, KS, OK)
Denham	R-CA	Colorado River (CO, UT, AZ, NV)
Duncan	R-TN	Mississippi River (MN, WI, IA, IL, MO, KY, AR)
Farenthold	R-TX	Rio Grande (CO, NM)
Fleischmann	R-TN	Mississippi River (MN, Wi, IA, IL, MO, KY, AR)
Gibbs	R-OH	Ohio River (PA, WV, KY)
Guinta	R-NH	Piscataqua River (ME)
Hanna	R-NY	Delaware River (PA)
Harris	R-MD	Potomac River (WV, VA, DC)
Herrera Beutler	R-WA	Columbia River (OR)
Holden	D-PA	Delaware River (NY, NJ)
Hultgren	R-IL	Lake Michigan (MI, WI, IN)
Hunter	R-CA	Colorado River (CO, UT, AZ, NV)
Landry	R-LA	Mississippi River (MN, WI, IA, IL, MO, KY, TN, AR, MS)
Lankford	R-OK	Arkansas River (CO, KS)
LoBiondo	R-NJ	Delaware River (NY, PA, DE)
Long	R-MO	Missouri River (MT, ND, SD, NE, IA, KS)
Meehan	R-PA	Delaware River (NY, NJ)
Miller, Gary	R-CA	Colorado River (CO, UT, AZ, NV)
Miller, Candice	R-MI	Lake Michigan (IN, WI, IL)
Petri	R-WI	Mississippi River (MN, IA)
Ribble	R-WI	Mississippi River (MN, IA)
Schmidt	R-OH	Ohio River (PA, WV, KY)
Shuster	R-PA	Delaware River (NY, NJ)
Southerland	R-FL	Appalachicola River (GA)

By contrast, several members spoke today in defense of clean water, led by Representative Bishop (D-NY). In particular, Representatives DeFazio (D-OR), Capuano (D-MA), Brown (D-FL), Johnson (D-TX), Hirono (D-HI), Norton (D-DC) and Cohen (D-TN) urged their colleagues to support clean water, and several others voted to uphold the law that's so fundamental to our lives and our economy.

Update 6/23: I'm a dummy -- forgot to mention Representative Nadler (D-NY), who was terrific in defense of the Act and who really gets to the nub of a particular problem -- the bill undermines the national backstop with respect to updating standards to keep pace with science. See for yourself -- there's a video of the proceedings here, and Mr. Nadler starts speaking right around the 1 hr, 1 min. point.

Rough Rider Revisited: Who Flip-Flopped on Clean Water?

2011-06-16T20:57:27Z

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

On Tuesday, I wrote about a dirty water rider in the appropriations bill for energy and water development for fiscal year 2012. In addition to being bad legislating – it co-opts the usual process of considering major policy changes and instead shoves the idea on to a spending bill – it’s bad, bad legislation. It prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers from partnering with the Environmental Protection Agency to provide much-needed clarity about which small streams and wetlands are protected by the nation’s vanguard law governing water pollution: the Clean Water Act.

I am sorry to report that the rider survived yesterday’s consideration of the bill by the House Appropriations Committee. In the process, the committee rejected an amendment by Representative James Moran (D-VA) to allow the Corps to proceed as long as it considered public input as part of its initiative (which it is doing already) and as long as it did not over-reach and try to apply the law to some currently unregulated activities (which it could not do, and which it had no intention of doing anyway). In other words, the amendment sought to educate members that the Corps/EPA effort is both modest and transparent. Unfortunately, Mr. Moran’s amendment was voted down on a party-line vote.

A couple observations on the vote:

Representative Moran (who coincidentally represents my family and me in Congress, as well as our local creek, Four Mile Run, pictured here) deserves kudos for trying to stop this assault. Likewise, Representatives Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Peter Visclosky (D-IN), who spoke in support of the amendment, earned a clean water thumb’s-up yesterday, along with many other members of the committee who supported the amendment.
Three members of the committee – Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Steven LaTourette (R-OH), and Frank Wolf (R-VA) – abandoned pro-clean water stances they’d taken in the past. Representatives Frelinghuysen and LaTourette voted in 2006 to stop the Bush administration’s implementation of policy guidelines that had effectively denied Clean Water Act protection to a host of waters around the country, but voted yesterday to lock those same guidelines in place indefinitely. Similarly, Representative Wolf previously co-sponsored legislation that would have clearly protected the kinds of water bodies that are most at risk because of the policy rider in yesterday’s bill.

The bill now proceeds to the House floor. I also expect a similar fight in July on the same issue, as part of the spending bill that covers EPA. We’ll keep you posted on developments and let you know how to make your voice heard.

Rough Rider: A New Attack on Clean Water

2011-06-14T18:47:02Z

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

Uh oh. Here they go again.

You may remember that the new House leadership a couple months ago took the nation to the brink of a government shutdown, fighting for a spending bill to which they’d attached a pile of policy “riders” aimed at keeping the government from implementing various initiatives they opposed. Many of these riders were anti-environmental in nature, as my colleague David Goldston summarized, and a scary chunk of those were anti-clean-water. They also had nothing to do with saving money, and everything to do with trying to sneak major policy overhauls into must-pass legislation.

Though we dodged most of these bullets in the fight over the spending bill for the current fiscal year, we predicted that we had a lot more dodging in our future. As NRDC’s Water Program director David Beckman wrote in the wake of the budget fight:

We fully expect that many of the dirty policy riders we beat back this time will rear their heads again. They could appear in the appropriations bills for FY12, in the legislation that would raise the nation’s debt ceiling, and as stand-alone measures.

This week brings proof that we’re pretty psychic, or that polluter-friendly politicians are pretty predictable. Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee will consider a funding bill for Energy and Water Development, and one of the most egregious of the riders from earlier this year is back. As introduced, section 109 of the bill reads:

None of the funds made available by this Act or any subsequent Act making appropriations for Energy and Water Development may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or supplement to the rule dated November 13, 1986, or guidance documents dated January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

What that gobbledygook means is this: unless and until Congress changes the law, the Corps would be permanently prohibited from changing its rules defining what waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, or changing a pair of policy memoranda that EPA and the Corps issued during the Bush administration – memos that have had the real-world effect of denying Clean Water Act coverage to countless streams and wetlands. As I wrote a few weeks ago, EPA and the Corps recently took critical first steps to overhaul their guidelines and update their regulations to better protect important waters, so this rider seeks to kill this good government initiative.

Consequently, the rider threatens resources that are critical to public health, safety, and aquatic ecosystems. Headwaters and wetlands absorb flood waters (in light of recent events, an obvious public benefit), they filter pollutants from contaminated water, they contribute to the drinking water supply of over 117 million Americans, they support fish and waterfowl prized by anglers and hunters, and they feed our iconic rivers and lakes.

You don’t need to stand for this. You can show that you support clean water and urge decision-makers to reject this stealth attack on the protections that our treasured waters deserve. Here’s how:

Please check out the list of members of the House Appropriations Committee online, look up their office contact information, and ask them to oppose this rollback.
Tell EPA and the Corps that you support their initiative to clarify the law and protect critical water bodies.

Swim Smart this Summer: How to Steer Clear of Beach Pollution

2011-05-25T17:56:39Z

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

Memorial Day is this coming Monday. For me, the best part of the weekend is that my entire neighborhood gathers on the footbridge over Route 66 in Virginia to watch and wave to the veterans riding in the “Rolling Thunder” motorcycle parade, making their way to the National Mall.

But Memorial Day weekend is also generally recognized as the unofficial start of beach season, a time of the year when lots of folks’ thoughts turn to sand castles, body surfing, and drifting off to sleep on a towel to the white noise of a crowded beach.

Here at NRDC, because we’re working like mad on the 21st edition of “Testing the Waters,” our annual report on water quality and closings and advisories at coastal and Great Lakes beaches, our thoughts are in the gutter – the gutter that carries urban runoff, that is.

That's my eldest above, likely seconds before being assaulted by the younger one.

The primary focus of beach water monitoring and swimming advisories is on pathogens – bacteria, viruses, and other noxious things that can make people sick (with things like stomach flu) after jumping in the water. These pathogens come from a variety of sources, but two big ones are contaminated stormwater and sewage overflows. In coastal areas where urban runoff discharges directly to surface waters, it picks up all manner of things, including animal waste, as it makes its way to the ocean; this can result in contaminated beach water. In addition, over 700 communities, largely located in the Northeast and Great Lakes region, have “combined” sewer systems, meaning that sewage flushed from homes and businesses is carried by the same pipes that receive runoff from streets and other impervious areas when it rains. These systems were originally constructed many decades (in some cases over a century) ago, and are designed to allow the mix of raw sewage and runoff to overflow into our rivers when we have a significant enough rainfall.

Our experts are still crunching the numbers from last year's swimming season, so please check back here in about a month for the details about your favorite beach. But if past is prologue, many beaches around the country will still have water quality problems brought on by too much runoff.

The good news is that runoff pollution and combined sewer overflows can be reduced by using low-impact development techniques (also known as "green infrastructure"). Low-impact development techniques retain and filter rainwater where it falls and let it soak back into the ground, rather than dumping it into waterways or to sewage treatment systems. These techniques include strategically placed rain gardens in yards, tree boxes along city sidewalks, green roofs that use absorbent vegetation on top of buildings, and permeable pavement that allows water to penetrate the material, unlike asphalt or concrete. Another technique is to capture and store rainwater in rain barrels or cisterns so it can be reused for irrigation or other non-potable uses. Check out the video below for a great summary.

People can also help prevent beach pollution by taking simple steps, such as picking up pet waste, maintaining septic systems, putting swim diapers with plastic covers on babies, and keeping trash off the beach. EPA also has a useful list of beach dos and don’ts that gives a bunch of tips, including some to minimize pollution at the beach.

I hope you have a wonderful holiday weekend, and that many of you get out to enjoy the beach. Before you do, be sure to consult our guide to finding a clean beach. I also hope you'll think about how they can be made even cleaner, and remember to check back here for "Testing the Waters 2011" for lots more information about how we can get cleaner beach water.

Photo from 2007 Rolling Thunder Ride for Freedom by John J. Kruzel / U.S. Department of Defense.

A Shout-Out to Bureaucrats: Protecting Your Water

2011-04-27T17:15:00Z

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

Government staff are often lampooned as incompetent or maligned as indifferent to everyday Americans. Having worked in and with government for many years, spanning administrations I agreed with and those I didn't, I'm here to tell you that those caricatures are flat-out wrong. I find that the vast majority of public servants are hard-working, talented, and dedicated to doing right by the American people. In other words, they’re patriots.

I suspect that one reason these misperceptions stick is that government agencies don't have slick P.R. firms to promote their work, so a lot of the important things they do get lost in the policy weeds.

For example, what if I told you that today the US EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed to revise guidance to the agencies' field staff, which will explain how to identify "waters of the United States" in light of a pair of Supreme Court decisions? Snooze-fest, right?

But what if I told you instead that, thanks to the work of government scientists and lawyers, critical wetlands and streams will soon be covered under the Clean Water Act’s pollution control programs, after having been inadequately protected or denied protection altogether for much of the last decade? Now we’re talking good government!

And that’s what we have today. EPA and the Corps have announced proposed guidelines that clarify whether and under what circumstances the Clean Water Act – the nation’s vanguard law protecting surface waters – applies to rivers, lakes, marshes, streams, and more. This issue affects numerous programs under the law, including requirements that industrial and municipal dischargers must minimize their pollution, the provision that requires oil companies to have spill prevention and countermeasure plans, and the program to clean up polluted waters, to name a few.

Let’s talk about what that means outside of Washington, DC. Under the new guidelines, many streams that flow some parts of the year, but are dry at others, will be more likely to be covered by the Clean Water Act than under prior policies. (The photo below shows the Rillito River in Arizona, such an "ephemeral" stream, after a 3” rain.)

These waters are obviously significant; they can convey water, nutrients, and pollution downstream, so what happens to them is important to the health of the watershed. That’s why it’s crucial to make sure the Clean Water Act covers them.

The same is true for wetlands near small tributaries, like the one here in my neighborhood.

We know that these are important as well, as the sign right by this wetland summarizes.

Clean Water Act programs are good for America. Americans depend on and deserve clean water. People should feel safe when they swim that they will not get a water-borne illness. They should drink water from their taps with confidence that the streams that supply that water have not been polluted. They should have waters with abundant fish that are safe to eat, and they should be able to boat without fighting through rafts of disgusting, sometimes toxic, algae. Making sure that the Clean Water Act applies comprehensively to the nation’s aquatic resources will help make these goals real.

The agencies will be taking comments from the public on these new guidelines before putting them into action, and will also be developing an important follow-up regulation that will provide even greater surety that critical waters will be protected. You can bet that polluting industries will be pushing hard to weaken or kill these clean water initiatives. To make sure that doesn’t happen, we need to make our voices heard as well. Please watch this space for information on how to weigh in and support clean water.

If you’d like to find out more about the wonky inside-the-Beltway details of this issue, I have written about it many times before – see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But if you just want to know what’s important about today, know this: your government is working to keep your water clean.