Switchboard, from NRDC › Keren Murphy's Blog

A Fresh Look at Clean Water Act Enforcement

2009-10-15T21:41:22Z

Keren Murphy, Campaign Manager, Washington, D.C.

Instead of my normal morning bike commute, this morning I made the cold rain-filled walk to the Rayburn House Office Building for an early hearing. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing called "The Clean Water Act after 37 years: Recommitting to the Protection of the Nation's Waters." You can watch a video of the hearing here.

This oversight hearing explored whether the states and EPA have effectively used the enforcement tools at their disposal in responding to violations of the Clean Water Act.

I went to the hearing expecting to hear the normal political hoopla. What I didn't expect was Judy Treml's testimony. She said that every member of her family, including her infant daughter, became seriously ill from exposure to contaminated water. You see the Treml family lives across the street from a large scale animal feeding operation that, according to Mrs. Treml, spread 80,000 gallons of liquid manure across its fields in winter.

In her written testimony, Mrs Treml described how melting snow caused the manure to run off the field the field and into a neighboring stream:

My husband, Scott, came home from work and watched the tractor enter the field and begin spreading the liquid waste on the ground. He also watched as the manure ran into the ditch line and down the incline of the field towards School Creek, which runs under our road and through our property.

The way wastes are stored and applied has profound effects on human health and the environment. Releases from storage areas and runoff from manure spread on fields contain a host of nasty contaminants, including parasites and bacteria. This pollution can seep into drinking water and contaminate surface waters. An NRDC report documents the health effects associated with lagoon discharges and spraying fields with too much manure. According to the report, water contaminated by animal manure can contribute to human diseases such as acute gastroenteritis, fever, kidney failure, and even death.

Mrs. Treml talked in detail about her fear for her children. She even brought bottles of water collected from her home to show the House committee, explaining that this is the water that her three children were exposed to. In her written testimony Mrs. Treml described how her youngest daughter, then only a few months old, became ill shortly after they discovered the manure runoff.

All through that night and Saturday morning, we continued the best we could to push fluids. We could not feed her breast milk as we didn't know whether or not E. coli bacteria passed through breast milk and we pushed as much of the non‐milk formula we could. Every 6 hours our pediatrician called and by 9pm Saturday with no let up in the vomiting or bowel movements, we brought her into the local emergency room, to monitor her hydration. It was there the Emergency Room doctor told me what my daughter's doctor just didn't have the heart to tell me. When I asked the ER doctor, what she thought Samantha's illness was from she stated that in her medical opinion it was her exposure in her Sunday night bath that infected Samantha. I was devastated. I had unwittingly exposed my baby to E. coli contaminated water, because I trusted our safe water sample and I didn't have any knowledge that the manure applied to the land could cross under a road and contaminate our drinking water well.

Unfortunately, due to legal loopholes-such as an EPA regulation adopted late in the Bush administration — and weak enforcement, factory farms have often escaped needed pollution control. Animal factories are not the only pollution sources that have avoided requirements, a New York Times series called, 'Toxic Waters' reports that fewer than three percent of more than 500,000 violations of the Clean Water Act over the past five years by various facilities resulted in fines or other substantial penalties by state officials, and that 40 percent of the country's community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once last year. But just because under-enforcement is common doesn't make it acceptable for an industry as polluting as the industrial livestock sector.

The problems caused by animal factories can be addressed. EPA should adopt clearer, stronger regulations, and enforcement officials need to step up oversight of these operations. That kind of leadership will spur the use of more sustainable livestock production and alternative means of waste disposal. Hopefully today's hearing and Judy Treml's story will help us get there a little quicker.

What do Bikes and Weddings Have to do with Each Other?

2009-08-18T20:31:11Z

Keren Murphy, Campaign Manager, Washington, D.C.

I’ve been married for a little over a week now and during the months leading up to our big day, I had every intention of doing a series of blog posts about my progress with planning a green wedding. Much like the homemade cake toppers I planned, the blogging never happened.

Although, I am going to let you all in on something that took up a lot (if not the majority) of our wedding planning time---transportation planning. We spent weeks if not months mapping out routes, estimating costs and researching different transportation options in the Washington, DC area. Friends suggested we rent buses so we could all travel together. Others suggested we consider vintage cars so we can capture the charm of old Washington. None of the ideas people suggested to us seemed to fit our concept of an eco-wedding.

My fiancé and I had a few questions to answer: How would we transport 114 guests across town for the wedding? 2. How would we get ourselves and the wedding party to the ceremony? 3. How would we do this while adhering to our original goal of a green wedding? 4. Will our transportation choice reflect our everyday life (we asked this question before we made all our wedding planning choices)?

My fiancé (now husband) was the first to answer these questions (and with one easy to plan solution).

Bikes.

We would bike to the wedding (along with the wedding party) and ask the wedding guests who live locally to bike as well. What about our parents, grandparents, and guests who may not be able to bike across town (or who don’t want to ruin their hair) you ask? Well, after some research we booked a handful of pedicabs that would do the peddling for them.

Washington, DC is blessed with miles of bike lanes, an automated bike share system, and ample space for parking bikes. Thanks to the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, cyclists have access to a variety of area bike maps---including a detailed map of the downtown area that we handed out to our wedding guests.

Biking really was the best solution to our problem.

Bicycles provided an easy and fun way for our guests to get to and from the wedding—they are cheaper then taxis and faster then driving and even the Metro. Some even went to the National Mall a little early so they could take a bike tour of the all monuments. (Our wedding was going to take place at one of the monuments on The Mall.)

By biking instead of renting a limo or bus we minimized our costs---and anyone who has ever planned (or paid for) a wedding appreciates that.

Biking allowed us to avoid traffic jams and searching for a parking. This helped us get 114 across town without anyone being late.

While all weddings are going to cause CO2 emissions, biking helped to greatly reduce ours. Did you know that some are estimating the average American wedding puts out about 9 to 16 tons of carbon dioxide emissions? I know I didn't.

Not to mention, I got to pose for pictures with my little yellow beach cruiser*.

If you can’t tell, my husband and I share a passion for bike riding and the environment. Even though we ended up pedaling in the rain that morning, our wedding day was made a little more special because we incorporated what we love.

* I’d like to show you all that yes you can ride a bike in a full wedding gown but we haven’t received our wedding photos yet.

Déjà Vu: Violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

2009-08-14T19:33:11Z

Keren Murphy, Campaign Manager, Washington, D.C.

After reading some of the headlines this morning I felt like I had a serious case of déjà vu. All the major news outlets were reporting Exxon Mobil pleads guilty to violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Approximately 85 birds, including waterfowl, hawks and owls, died after landing in oily wastewater ponds and natural gas well reserve pits at a number of Exxon's natural gas operations in Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas. (Oh and did I mention Exxon Mobil was voted "The Green Company of the Year" by Forbes magazine last week?)

According to the Denver Post,

The company agreed to pay fines and community-service payments totaling $600,000 and will implement an environmental-compliance plan over the next three years aimed at preventing bird deaths on the company's facilities in the affected states.

But wait, didn't I just read about this happening somewhere else?

Oh yes, yes you did.

In February, Syncrude was charged under provincial environmental law and under the federal migratory bird law for the death of over 500 ducks in Canada.

Like I said déjà vu.

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, bird deaths can be prevented by scrubbing the water of contaminants before discharge, placing netting or plastic "bird balls" over the water to prevent contact, using closed systems, or cannon fire to deter birds from the area. They even mention that the fail-safe way to keep birds from landing in oil slicked ponds is to remove the pits or keep oil from entering them in the first place.

If you'd like to read more about how fuel development affects migratory birds read our Danger in the Nursery report that we put out with Boreal Songbird Initiative and Pembina Institute. The report projects that we could lose 6 million to as many as 166 million birds over the coming decades due to tar sands development.

River Revitalization with Street Project

2009-07-23T21:17:51Z

Keren Murphy, Campaign Manager, Washington, D.C.

The neighborhood I call home is only a few short blocks from the Anacostia River---a river plagued by pollution from stormwater and sewage overflow. You see, every time it rains metals, bacteria, sediments, and nutrients deposited on highways are discharged into the river. These pollutants come from vehicle exhaust, vehicle fluids and parts, road wear, use of fertilizer and deicing agents, waste spills, and wildlife.

This isn't a problem unique to Washington, DC. Nationwide, over 28,000 waterways currently don't meet EPA criteria (they are "impaired") for pollutants contained in highway runoff, including 9,000 waterways impaired for mercury and 6,000 each for sediment and nutrients. The problem being that when many highways were built, designers and regulators were not fully aware of the detrimental impact highways have on water quality.

One community upstream from The District has decided to take matters into their own hands. The Washington Post reported today about the Town of Edmonton's plan to install 'green streets.' Starting this summer local workers are going to be replacing the towns traditional impervious streets with porous brick, rain gardens, bike paths, and a drought-resistant tree canopy all of which will absorb stormwater and residue.

The article also cites the job created through this project:

Edmonston's "green" street will be its biggest public works project, employing about 40 workers from the town and neighboring communities. The project qualified for $1.3 million in federal stimulus money.

The goal of this project is decreased water pollution from stormwater runoff, less flooding, job creation, and a more natural-looking, aesthetically pleasing town center.

You can read how other communities are using green infrastructure to revitalize their neighborhood, create jobs, and revive their local waterway on NRDC's water program page.