35 Burst results for "Clean Water Act"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Be treated with dignity to all of you. We're making progress, but much more to do to finish the job. And the Supreme Court has now made finishing that job more difficult by limiting the Clean Water Act and slashing the power of federal regulators to protect the country's wetlands, a blow to environmentalists and the administration. All the justices agreed that an Idaho couple should win their 15 year battle to build a house on land federal regulators say is protected wetlands, but they divided on how far to go in limiting the authority of the EPA. The Majority opinion of five conservative justices established a new test saying that wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act only if they have a continuous surface connection to major waterways. Those justices like Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about the current test questioning the Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher during the oral arguments. How does anyone know, any reasonable person know, within maybe several hundred square miles in a watershed that drains into a body of water that is the water of the United States know whether or not their land is adjacent to? So I think we are talking about adjacency, and that may not be something that gives you bright line rules but it rules out things that are many miles away. Does it? Are you sure the EPA would take that view? But Justice Brett Kavanaugh who joined the liberal justices in disagreeing with the majority's new test questioned why the court should deviate from the test used for the last 46 years. In my understanding is every administration since 1977 but correct me if I'm wrong has stuck with adjacent wetland includes those wetlands separated by berms, dunes, dikes or levees from the navigable water. So why shouldn't we read adjacent wetland in the statute to mean what EPA said? Joining me is an expert in environmental law. Pat Parenteau a professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School. So explain what the supreme court did here. So in circuit two because this is the second round for the second case, Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion in which he has adopted a brand new test for determining the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act and it is of his own advice. It's not based on the text of the statute. It's not based on the historical way that the statutes been interpreted not only by the agency's FDA Corps of Engineers, but also by the courts lower courts as well as the Supreme Court and it's an interpretation that has been in existence for over 50 years spanning eight different administrations so it's a startling reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act and it does at least two things. One, it says that for streams and rivers and lakes they must be permanent relatively bodies of water like big rivers, big lakes in the ocean and then any wetlands that will be protected under the Clean Water Act must abut or adjoin those traditional sort of navigable waters. So it's going to be hard to estimate the full scope of damage the that this opinion will do to protection of wetlands protection of water quality protection of fisheries etc but it's for sure a low to conservation of aquatic natural resources and water quality. That much we we know for sure devastating. And the court was unanimous in siding with the landowners here that the specific wetlands shouldn't be subject to the Clean Water Act and that the court's prior tests should no longer determine the scope of the law. Isn't that surprising? Here's the explanation that Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson gave and they also joined with Kavanaugh and their rationale was you know what the significant nexus test may sound nice but it's not workable. Landowners can't tell when they've got wetlands. We need a concept that's at least a little crisper a little clearer than just this frankly pretty convoluted analysis of what constitutes significant nexus. So the sort of liberal wing of the court was more inclined to agree that the Ninth Circuit got it wrong and so we should reverse the Ninth Circuit and we should remand the case and we should provide some instructions to the agencies as how to they should revise their regulations but we shouldn't go so far as the majority wants to go to basically rewrite the statute and redraw the boundaries all across the United States. The most striking thing about this is you're talking about a tiny little wetland and parcel of land in northern Idaho as the predicate for designing this test that now will apply everywhere in the United States. I want to straighten out the confusing lineups in the concurrences here. So there was a concurring opinion by Justice Kagan that was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Justice Kagan said the court has appointed itself as the national decision maker on environmental policy. Then there was a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court's three liberals. But it sounded like these be more should dissents than concurrences. They certainly were dissents from Alito's majority opinion on the new test, no question. And I think it was striking that Kavanaugh went so far in his quote, concurring opinion, concurring in the judgment that the Ninth Circuit got it wrong. But he went to extraordinary lengths to take the Alito opinion apart piece by piece. His basic point was, we've had 45 years of history here of how this text of the statute should be interpreted. And you're coming out of nowhere with this idea that that's all wrong. And it's up to the court in the Sackett case to decide in the first instance, 50 years later, how much water in the United States is protected. And he took specific issue with about just each and every point. But the one thing for sure he said is, adjacent wetlands, which is kind of the concept that agencies the are using to regulate wetlands and adjoining, they're not the same. You at can look any dictionary off the shelf and see that adjoining and adjacent are not the same. It sounds trivial, but it has huge implications. You know, some of the studies that have been done say if you're not going to protect wetlands that are adjacent, meaning neighboring, close to, you could end up eliminating protection for half of the wetlands in the United States. This is the latest in a line of Supreme Court rulings that have restricted the authority of federal regulators and also that have been anti environmental, shall we say? Oh, for sure. You know, if you're an environmental rule, the last place in the world you want to be is on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. This is Alito the Court. And, you know, the tone of his decision, it has echoes of the Dobbs decision in terms of it has an element of bitterness to it that is disturbing. You know, I mean, Kavanaugh is certainly no liberal, but when you read Kavanaugh's The careful, meticulous analysis of text and history and all that, it just stands in stark contrast to Alito, who just comes right out of the box talking about how this is having severe impacts on private property. But there's never been an instance where the Clean Water Act has taken anybody's private property, none. And so this idea of creating this, I don't know, horror story from regulating water quality is just off the chart. So it's the Alito court. That's what we're dealing with, and we don't know what's next. But one thing's for sure, if review is granted in an environmental case, the environment is going to lose in this court. I know said you it will take a while before we realize the effects of this decision, but just tell us some of the effects that you can see right now. The studies have shown up to 50 % of the nation's wetlands, and remember, we've already lost 50 % of our historic wetlands. So of the remaining wetlands, up to 50 % are certainly at risk of losing entire protection as a result of this decision. We know it's going to be millions of acres, and we know it's going to be thousands of miles of streams. The Clean Water Act was all about addressing pollution at its source and preventing degradation from occurring downstream from upstream sources of pollution, and the Supreme Court has made that goal almost unattainable as a result of this decision. And if anyone thinks that the states are going to fill the gap, I've got bad news for you. 28 states have laws on the books that say their laws can be no stricter than federal. minute So the you shrink federal protection for streams and wetlands, you shrink it in those 28 states. Thanks so much, Pat. That's Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Coming up, the Texas Attorney General gets impeached. This is Bloomberg. Even in a time when almost nothing is easy, one thing has been effortless. Now, our most important stories of the morning. Accessing the world's latest financial and political news.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. I too am on a path in which there have been and will be highs and lows. In reaching this incredible milestone, I have already benefited from great good fortune, and as I undertake the role of an associate justice, there is no doubt that I will have my share of pure bad luck. Following the formal investiture ceremony to mark her arrival last Friday, justice Ketanji brown Jackson told a cheering audience at the Library of Congress that, as the first black female justice, she feels like a role model for a younger generation. I have a seat at the table now and I'm ready to work. And she did just that in her first two days on the bench. Unlike other jaws to have taken a backseat during their first oral arguments, justice Jackson jumped right in, asking lots of questions and follow-ups. Laying out her own views and even taking on her more conservative colleagues. In other words, The Rookie justice schooled the court. Let me try to bring some enlightenment to it by asking it this way. Joining me is Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store. So Greg, she really dominated these first two days of arguments in her first oral argument, she spoke more than 21 times. Yeah, she has been a very outspoken in court and she's been very willing to kind of stake out a position in that first case involved the scope of the clean water act and whether it covers this property in Idaho that is nearby a Lake in nearby a tributary to a Lake, but doesn't directly abut the Lake. And she made pretty clear in that case that her reading of the clean water act was that it covered this sort of property. She's done that in other cases too. She's very different from her predecessor, Stephen Breyer, who was much more openly kind of agonizing about how he might come down in the case. She's been pretty clear. Often the newest justices told back a little. You're right that they have generally been or frequently been a little more reticent. One difference is that justice Jackson has had months to prepare for this opening week of the term. Some of the other justices when they join the court like the two most recent ones justice Kavanaugh and justice Barrett joined the court after the term had already started. So not every justice is the same, certainly many of them come prepared and ready. But she is especially so especially ready to jump right in. I think a lot of people wanted to hear her voice in questioning on the Alabama redistricting case involving racial gerrymandering. Tell us about her questioning there or her comments. Yeah, she was very clear on a number of fronts there. I think most striking to me, she really took aim at this notion that the constitution is colorblind and requires colorblindness when states are doing redistricting and she talked about the history and the purpose of the post Civil War amendments the 14th and the 15th and that includes equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment and she said those were clearly race constants. Those were and statutes that were enacted at the time were passed with an eye towards helping explicitly black people freed slaves and she laid that out at some length and that's very likely going to be putting her in conflict head on with some of the more conservative justices both in this case and in the college affirmative action case the court will be hearing in a few weeks. Did she specifically take on some of the conservative justices either directly or indirectly? Yes, start with the clean water act case. There was an interesting moment there where just as Gorsuch, one of the conservatives was suggesting that people were at risk of criminal penalties being put in jail for violating the clean water act without having a chance to really understand what the statute covered. And that prompted her to the Justice Department lawyer to say actually there's a process that people
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"1.7%. Should point out that the Dow right now does remain below 30,000 to 29,378. Spot gold up 1.9% 1691 the ounce, gold right now, up $31, and we've got West Texas intermediate crude rallying 4.7%, 83 23 a barrel. I'm Charlie paladin, David Weston, is a Bloomberg business flash. Thank you so much, Charlie pellets. From the Bloomberg interactive broker student in New York, this is balance of power. I'm David Weston. Today is the first Monday in October, which means it's the beginning of a new term of the Supreme Court of the United States. And by the way, in some ways it's a new court because there's a new member on the court which always changes the dynamic. To take us through what we're looking forward to this term, we welcome now Greg store, our Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter. So Greg, thanks so much. As I understand you were there today, have we heard from justice Brown Jackson yet? We sure did. She was a very active questioner in the first case, David, in the case of nodding in the reach of the clean water act, very important case seeing weighted less than ten minutes to jump in. She was the fourth justice to ask a question. She repeatedly followed up on her own question. And at one point, she pushed back against the line of questioning asked by one of the conservative justices. That's interesting. It was very different from clarence Thomas when he took the bench, isn't it? Yeah, very, very different. I should say justice Thomas is, again, asking the very first question of the argument, that seems to be kind of behind the scenes agreement among the justices that he gets to go first. Yeah, which is, as I recall, started with the zoom arguments that they had. So give us a sense of this term last term was chockablock full of big cases and friendly controversial cases as well. What are the big ones this term, particularly things that might affect business? Yeah, this is going to be more of the same. Well, this clean water act case, as I mentioned, certainly could have affected business. It will determine where federal permitting requirements apply businesses including the oil industry have filed briefs in this case. We're going to have a couple of big race cases, one involving the continued use of rap is an admissions factor in college admissions. That's a case where businesses have filed a brief in support of continued use of affirmative action. We've got several big voting cases. We've got a case involving whether a business can sign a First Amendment reason for not providing services to a same sex wedding, that's also going to be a case of businesses watching closely. Well, we'll talk for a moment about that, whether you can take a race into account in admissions. I mean, that's often thought to affect particular universities. And graduate schools for that matter. Medical schools, the like. That's what the bakke case was about as I recall. At the same time, if the court were to rule that in the Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection clause, that it was unconstitutional for a state actor to take into account, is that a very far step away from saying it also applies to private employers through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yeah, that's a really good question. They are, of course, distinct legal issues, but you can certainly see that being in the next battleground if that's the direction this court is going to go. I mentioned the business has filed a brief in this case. Their primary interest was in saying, hey, we depend on a diverse workforce. We depend on universities to train diverse people because we're going to be hiring them. But certainly businesses have to be looking over their shoulders at that potential next issue to come up. There also was a case that they granted certiorari. I think just last week at the conference they had at the end of the summer. And that is the infamous section two 30 under the communications decency act in 1996, which has been talked about a lot. Including on Bloomberg because the immunity it gives for certain tech companies who are running Internet outfits, what's going on with that? Why did they take that case? Well, it's because it's a growing issue an issue that's not going away. This was a case where the social media companies actually didn't want the Supreme Court to take it up. They had won at the lower court level. It has to this particular case has to do with when a social media company recommends content. When its algorithm sort through things and suggests you might be interested in this, it comes in the context of some terrorist attacks and family members are saying that the social media companies bear some of the blame because they help spread ISIS material by recommending videos to other users. So as you say, the Internet companies that one below, I think there's a Facebook and a Twitter. Aren't there two different cases, perhaps? There are two different. There are two different cases. One involves Google and YouTube and the other one involves Twitter. Oh, I beg your pardon. Yeah, the overall position of the industry was, hey, we would rather you not take anything. But if you're going to take this bid to say that section two 30 does not exempt you from recommendations you make. We also want you to take these other issues that we think provide some protection for us. Well, and then the facts of the case are not particularly appealing, I suppose, from the Internet companies point of view because there was a young woman and one of the cases who died in a terrorist attack over in Paris, right? And the claim is that basically Google encouraged people to see ISIS. Yeah, exactly. It is a family member. This is the attacks that killed more than a 120 people in Paris in 2015. And the family members says, yes, exactly that. We recognize that section two 30 may provide some protection when all you're doing is say serving as a publisher in deciding whether you're going to take something down whether you're going to edit content, but here you did more than that here. You actually recommended this content to people. And so that's the claim that they're trying to make and saying that's at least one case where you can hold social media companies accountable. But Greg finally here, just to edit her. Given what's going on right now, including the section two 30 case, it doesn't look like this court is backing off of its willingness to take some pretty big controversial cases. Not at all. Both as we're seeing in this term, those business issues that are really important to get resolved and could be very divisive and potentially expensive. And those big social issues that are just dividing the country is going to be a big term for race. It's going to be a big term for voting. And on questionably, it's going to be a big term for more polarization. Fortunately, we'll have you there to report on it. That's Greg storer. He's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter. Coming up, Brazil held its inconclusive first round of presidential elections yesterday. We'll talk with Leo Sakura of advanced interactive media group about what the second round might hold. That's going to be up next on bounce a power on Bloomberg radio.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Clean water act. And so now they're back arguing about sort of the jurisdictional nexus when there is some body of water however small on one's property to actually trigger the federal clean water act. And this then raises the question of what is the proper definition of waters of the United States? And administrations have gone back and forth over the last decade or more about how broad or narrowly that definition should be written and the Supreme Court has divided on that in prior cases as well. So this is another opportunity for the court to revisit that issue. And it is one, as I say, that the court has struggled with before. So it will be interesting if they can come to a resolution on it in this case. Coming up, former U.S. listener general Gregory gar and I will discuss an upcoming case involving Andy Warhol and prince. This is Bloomberg. At Bloomberg surveillance, the markets is our language. Okay, well enough for the French. We'll leave it there. We're still working on French. Potatoes on the raw. Bloomberg surveillance with Tom Keene, Jonathan farrow and Lisa Romans. Nice work. It was terrible at French. I was so excited. We did mornings at 7 eastern on Bloomberg radio and Bloomberg television. I was in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean when it happened. There was a sudden jolt and our submarine crashed on the sea floor. We were in total darkness. That's doctor Dijon figueroa, a marine biologist, and stem teacher, talking about a deep sea dive she'll never forget. It's funny. When I was a kid, I was afraid of the ocean, and there I was, two miles below the surface. But as a scientist, you prepare for that. Using our training in a little creativity, we fix the sub and finish our experiments. The dive was just too
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Supreme Court first day hadn't shown any harm that had resulted by bids of that district court. And so as justice kavian pointed out to her dissent in that case, a case called Louisiana versus American rivers is the court's going to use the shadow docket in cases such as aren't emergencies like that case. Then the shadow Doc is not for emergencies at all. And all that's really happened is that these are thinly disguised and even more thinly. Narrative decisions and NASA imply that there are folks like me who have become so much more publicly critical of what the courts do in this context. Yeah, that caught my undoing an EPA rule on water quality standards. How did they even justify or they don't have to justify, I guess, taking that on emergency basis, it seems outlandish. And this is exactly where we are. I mean, I think that case is such a perfect crystallization where the hard to see what the emergency was, given that it had been 5 months since the district court had ruled, even if the court was sympathetic to Louisiana's claims on the merits, the district court had misread the clean water afterwards misapplied relevant precedents about administrative law. Why not just put that on the bed stock it and deal with it in due course? And what's so striking about that decision June is you ask, why did they do it, right? Well, we don't know. Because there was no majority opinion. There was no concurrent opinion. We know it was 5 to four, only because four justices publicly joined in the dissent and not just the three democratic appointees, chief justice John Roberts, joined justice Kagan's presenting opinion, which called out the majority for injustice, where is abusing the shadow docket. So I think what we're seeing is more and more public awareness of a trend that really started in 2017. And the clean water act case is especially as in Gaul in because the decision came just two days after justice Barrett gave this speech at the Ronald Reagan presidential library where she says, you know, if you really think we're politicians in robes and not judges, read our opinion, read the opinion and see for yourself if there are legal principles driving our decision making. Well, two days later, she is the decisive vote in the clean water act case in which there was no opinion to read. And in some of these cases, you have lower courts having trials on these issues, and then the Supreme Court comes along and says, no, we're reversing that. Without oral argument without any explanation, it's troubling as far as the rule of law. The key is that, I think there are a lot of folks out there who think that all that matters is the bottom line. And so if I save the bottom line is okay, then I don't care about how the court costs. But the process matters here, there's a more recent Louisiana case about redistricting that I think is really instructive here. So Louisiana, like a number of states, redrawing its congressional district after an the 2020s census, a district court after an extensive hearing, right this 152 page decision that carefully sets out why he believed Louisiana's maps violated the Voting Rights Act. Why he believed Louisiana was required to draw at least one more so called majority minority district to avoid violating section two of the Voting Rights Act and it is a full bore
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Court first day hadn't shown any harm that had resulted by vint of that district court. And so as justice kavian pointed out to her dissent in that case of his called Louisiana versus American rivers, if the court is going to use the shadow docket in cases that just aren't emergencies like that case, then the shadow dock is not for emergencies at all. And all that's really happening is that these are similarly disguised and even more thinly recent. Narrative decisions and NASA imply that there are folks like me who have become so much more publicly critical of what the courts do in this context. Yeah, that caught my eye undoing an EPA rule on water quality standards. How did they even justify or they don't have to justify guests taking that on emergency basis, it seems outlandish. And this is exactly where we are. I mean, I think that case is such a perfect crystallization where the hard to see what the emergency was, given that it had been 5 months since the district court had ruled, even if right the court was sympathetic to Louisiana's claims on the merits, the district court had misread the clean water act or misapplied relevant precedents about administrative law. Why not just put that on the merits docket? And deal with it in due course. And what's so striking about that decision June is you ask why did they do it? Well, we don't know. Because there was no majority opinion. There was no concurrent opinion. We know it was 5 to four, only because four justices publicly joined in the dissent and not just the three democratic appointees, chief justice John Roberts, joined justice Kagan's dissenting opinion, which called out the majority for in justice. Words of using the shadow docket. So I think what we're seeing is more and more public awareness of a trend that really started in 2017. And the clean water act case is especially as a gallon because the decision came just two days after justice Barrett gave this speech at the Ronald Reagan presidential library where she says, you know, if you really think we're politicians in robes and not judges, read our opinion. Read the opinion and see for yourself if there are legal principles driving our decision making, while two days later, she is the decisive vote in the clean water act case in which there was no opinion to read. And in some of these cases, you have lower courts having trials on these issues, and then the Supreme Court comes along and says, no, we're reversing that. Without oral argument without any explanation, it's troubling as far as the rule of law. The key is that, I think there are a lot of folks out there who that all that matters at the bottom line. And so if I save the bottom line is okay, then I don't care about how the court copied it. But the process matters here. There's a more recent Louisiana case about redistricting that I think is really instructive here. So Louisiana, like a number of states, redrawing its congressional district after and in light of the 2020 census, a district court after an extensive hearing right 152 page decision that carefully sets out why he believed Louisiana's maps violated the Voting Rights Act. Why he believed Louisiana was required to draw at least one more so called majority minority district to avoid violating section two of the Voting Rights Act and it is a full bore full sort of analysis. Louisiana
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Us to Supreme Court first day hadn't shown any harm that had resulted by bids of that district court. And so as justice kavian pointed out to her dissent in that case, it is called Louisiana versus American rivers. If the court is going to use the shadow docket in cases that just aren't emergencies like that case, then the shadow dock is not for emergencies at all. And all that's really happening is that these are thinly disguised and even more thinly recent. And that's imply there are folks like me who have become so much more publicly critical of what the courts do in this context. Yeah, that caught my eye undoing an EPA rule on water quality standards. How did they even justify or they don't have to justify guests taking that on emergency basis, it seems outlandish. And this is exactly where we are. I mean, I think that case is such a perfect crystallization where the hard to see what the emergency was, given that it had been 5 months since the district court had ruled, even if right the court was sympathetic to Louisiana's claims on the merits, the district court had misread the clean water act or misapplied relevant precedents about administrative law. Why not just put that on the bed? And deal with it in due course. And what's so striking about that decision June is you ask why did they do it? Well, we don't know. Because there was no majority opinion. There was no concurrent opinion. We know it was 5 to four, only because four justices publicly joined in the dissent and not just the three democratic appointees, chief assistant Roberts, joined justice Kagan's descending opinion, which called out the majority for in justice Kagan's words abusing the shadow docket. So I think what we're seeing is more and more public awareness of a trend that really started in 2017. And the clean water act is especially a gallon because the decision came just two days after justice Barrett gave this speech at the Ronald Reagan presidential library where she says, you know, if you really think we're politicians in robes and not judges, read our opinion. Read the opinion and see for yourself if there are legal principles driving our decision making, while two days later, she is the decisive vote in the clean water act case in which there was no opinion to read. And in some of these cases, you have lower courts having trials on these issues, and then the Supreme Court comes along and says, no, we're reversing that. Without oral argument without any explanation, it's troubling as far as the rule of law. The key is that, I think there are a lot of folks out there who think that all that matters at the bottom line. And so if I save the bottom line is okay, then I don't care about how the court copied it. But the process matters here. There's a more recent Louisiana case about redistricting that I think is really instructive here. So Louisiana, like a number of states, redrawing its congressional district after and in light of the 2020 census, a district court after an extensive hearing 152 page decision that carefully sets out why he believed Louisiana's maps violated the Voting Rights Act. Why we believed Louisiana was required to draw at least one more so called majority minority district to avoid violating section two of the Voting Rights Act. And it is a full bore full sort of analysis
Bloomberg Radio New York
"clean water act" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"That really started in 2017. And the clean water act case is especially as in Gaul in because the decision came just two days after justice Barrett gave this speech at the Ronald Reagan presidential library where she says, you know, if you really think we're politicians in robes and not judges, read our opinion, read the opinion and see for yourself if there are legal principles driving our decision making, while two days later, she is the decisive vote in the clean water act case in which there was no opinion to read. And in some of these cases, you have lower courts having trials on these issues, and then the Supreme Court comes along and says, no, we're reversing that on an emergency basis without oral argument without any explanation. I don't know what else to say that. It's sort of a jaw dropping. The key is that, I think there are a lot of folks out there who think that all that matters is the bottom line. And so if I save the bottom line is okay, then I don't care about how the court is. But the process matters here. There's a more recent Louisiana case about redistricting that I think is really instructive here. So Louisiana, like a number of states redrawing its congressional district after and in life of the 2020 census. A district court after an extensive hearing writes this 152 page decision that carefully sets out why he believed Louisiana's maps violated the Voting Rights Act, why we believed Louisiana was required to draw at least one more. So called majority minority district. To avoid violating section two of the Voting Rights Act, and you know, it is a
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
What Is Chief Justice John Roberts's Endgame Here?
"What's justice Roberts's game? I asked us because there's a new decision just out from the Supreme Court. Our side wins 5 to four, but why 5 to four? Shouldn't it be 63? It turns out that I've laid were winning a lot of these decisions 5 to four. And what that means is that justice Roberts is for whatever reason and we'll look at the reason in a moment, tilting on the liberal side almost as if to sort of balance out the scales. And this latest decision is not a very important decision on its merits, but it's just important for what it shows about the court. The court is actually making an emergency ruling here. In other words, it's operating out of what's called its emergency docket. And the issue here is whether states and we're talking mainly about democratic states. Can restrict projects, these are actually water projects under the clean water act because they claim that these projects are environmentally risky and unhelpful. So in other words, what we're dealing with here is the authority of democratic states to have their own in a de facto veto of federal projects by saying, yeah, we're not going to take that one because that one is going to create too many strip malls in California or this one is going to this hydroelectric project or this oil and gas pipeline is going to be bad for our state. So normally when there are federal laws, the states don't get to override them. And in this case, the states want to have that power. And so Republicans in those democratic states filed lawsuits. And those lawsuits were crawling their way up the courts and so they appealed to the Supreme Court to issue an emergency ruling that basically blocks these democratic states from having this kind of override. In other words, for reinstating a Trump administration rule that basically said the states do have to conform in this respect to federal law under the clean water act.
WMAL 630AM
"clean water act" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"Federal government expands federal regulatory power increases regulatory compliance costs. It causes possibly delays for businesses. Then the affordability crisis will get even worse. A federal judge in Arizona in late August struck down the Trump era rule backed by the N H B That limited the authority of the federal government to use the Clean Water Act to regulate construction well, the pandemic continues to find new ways to surprise real estate professionals. Ivan Kaufman, chairman and CEO of Arbor Realty Trust, told Yahoo Finance that the initial urban flight last year was not unexpected. With the pandemic. Having happened, everybody wanted to go out and buy a home and move out this summer. What we're surprised about is how strong we are. Urban areas still are and that we're seeing rents return in these different Areas to pre pandemic levels and now experiencing tremendous world. Kaufman also says it's unusual and very surprising to see both the purchase market and the rental market so hot at the same time. Almost nine out of 10 renters, said in a recent survey. They would rather be homeowners. But that same survey by lending tree revealed that almost half of those renters say they fear they may never be homeowners. They say they're discouraged by how hard it is to save for a down payment. The difficulty of qualifying for mortgage and how hard it is just to find a home they can afford. Well, you've heard of zoom rooms. Now there's some places being dubbed Zoom cities. And it's very good to be a home seller. If you live in one of those places, zoom cities tend to be those smaller, more affordable markets that are attracting people now free to work from home and live wherever they want. And, according to Redfin, zoom cities like Littleton, Colorado, or Tacoma, Washington have some of the fiercest competition for homes. Typically, Redfern says home to those markets, sell it less than a week. Stephen back to you. Thanks, Bill. Continuing now,.
KSFO-AM
"clean water act" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"New home. And those costs are on the rice that the federal government expands. Federal regulatory power increases regulatory compliance costs. It calls this costly delays for businesses. Then affordability crisis will get even worse. A federal judge in Arizona in late August struck down the Trump era rule backed by the N H B, that limited the authority of the federal government to use the Clean Water Act to regulate construction. Well, the pandemic continues to find new ways to surprise real estate professionals. Ivan Kaufman, chairman and CEO of Arbor Realty Trust, told Yahoo Finance that the initial urban flight last year was not unexpected. With the pandemic. Having happened, everybody wanted to go out and buy a home and move out this some herbs. What was surprised about is how strong we are. Urban areas still are and that we're seeing rents return in these different areas to prepare endemic levels and now experiencing tremendous world. Kaufman also says it's on Usual and very surprising to see both the purchase market and the rental market so hot. At the same time. Almost nine out of 10 renters, said in a recent survey. They would rather be homeowners. But that same survey by lending tree revealed that almost half of those renters say they fear they may never be homeowners. They say they're discouraged by how hard it is to save for a down payment. The difficulty of qualifying for mortgage and how hard it is just to find a home making afford. Well, you've heard of zoom rooms. Now there's some places being dubbed Zoom cities, and it's very good to be a home seller. If you live in one of those places, zoom cities tend to be those smaller, more affordable markets. That are attracting people now free to work from home and live wherever they want. And, according to Redfin, zoom cities like Littleton, Colorado, or Tacoma, Washington have some of the fiercest competition for homes. Typically, Redfin's has homes in those markets sell in less than a week. Stephen back to you. Thanks, Bill..
WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"clean water act" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"God reveals more be established that would protect smaller colleges and universities, as well as the student athletes to a not well positioned in compensation from the athletic pursuits. Howard University President Wayne Frederick. While we recognize the complexity of these issues, we also believe that there are compromises to be had That would appeal to all parties that have vested interest in potential legislative solutions. So far at least 18 states have signed in I L laws. Alex push a ABC NEWS Washington, the city of Quincy and the U. S attorney's office, agreeing on a plan to fix the issue of sewage laden storm water seeping into waterways. Details from WBC's Karen Regal It won't be cheap. The U. S attorney says the settlement is estimated to cost at least $100 million. Under the plan, Quincy will work to repair and update its drainage and sewage systems to bring it into compliance with the Clean Water Act. That would be the Clean Water Act of 1972, the U. S attorney says water sampling is found sewage discharge to be a problem at many Quincy stormwater outlets, including beaches. Quincey will also have to test regularly when it's raining, and when it is not and pay a fine of $115,000. Quincy isn't alone with sewage discharge problems of the Commonwealth WBZ NewsRadio has reported extensively on issues along the Merrimack River, for example. Karen Regal WBZ Boston's news radio. According to the Labor Department numbers, nine million Americans are without jobs right now. Yet employers are finding it tough to fill an opening. WBC's Chris Farmer tells us it's a by product of a changing market for employers. It's a matter of strategy or philosophy. You're going to go out there and either by that talent, or you going to grow that talent and from what Dan Hill, president of Wilmont and Associates placement agency sees a lot more organizations are now more willing to make the investment of people that don't have.
Native Opinion Podcast an American Indian Perspective
"clean water act" Discussed on Native Opinion Podcast an American Indian Perspective
"But in a in a late latest reversal in the latest reversal of past administration policy. This administration's environmental protection agency is restoring. Rules that grant states. In natives or native american tribes authority to block pipelines and other energy projects that can pollute water water water ways like rivers and streams and other waterways to include protecting Dumping in some of our coastal coastal waterways in. You know it's beyond me why anyone would want to allow something like that to happen. I say beyond me but it's not truly would take a person that cares nothing about the earth or themselves truly to allow something like that to happen or to yell fellow human beings. You can't drink dirty water. You can't clean up water. That's been polluted by oil and gas. Oh yes they can try to clean it up but the water is still contaminating. And let's hypothetically say even if they were able to clean it up and make it usable. Think of the billions or at least the millions upon millions of dollars to get the water back to some semblance of potability even or even to be used on crops. My grandmother used to say it's it's better to stay out of something than it is to try to get out of something and that that term applaud that ideology and adage applies to water as. Well it's easier and less expensive to keep the water clean that it is to try to clean up dirty water. It's it's not rocket science provision in the clean water act gibbs states and tribes power to block federal projects that could harm lakes streams rivers and wetlands within their borders but as we know the last administration curtail that review power complaints from members of the republican party and and other members of congress and the fossil fuel industry that state officials news. The permitting process to stop new energy projects. Okay so again. That's all motivated by greed. That's the impetus for that review process. Being stymied had nothing to do with anything but greed. So who cares. Who cares if the water gets polluted. Well i care in many other tribal nations out there care so. I'm glad that mister reagan has taken the efforts to put an end to or at least began to put an end to this ridiculous policy that the previous administration put in place now. The previous administration said it's actions would advance then President you know who go to fast track. Energy projects such as oil and natural gas pipelines. Were you know that to be a fact instead of a supposition washington state wasn't buying it though in twenty seventeen blocked the construction of a coal export terminal and they said that there were too many major harmful effects including air pollution which i mentioned earlier. Rail safety and vehicle. Traffic new york state wasn't buying it either. Their regulator stopped a natural gas pipeline. Saying it failed to meet standards to protect streamed wetlands and other water resources so i applaud those two states for saying no. You're not going to do this no matter what the previous administration said so in a statement to the associated press the epa administration administrator. Excuse me michael. Reagan said the nation has and i quote serious water challenges to address. He also said quoting he will not hesitate to correct decisions that weakened the authority of states and tribes to protect their waters in quote. I'm glad he's gone to that. Level of commitment and he also bowed to work with state tribal and local officials to protect water while encouraging sustainable economic development and vibrant communities. Well okay that could be Political speak but we're we're going to see what mister reagan is going to do now. The article says the rule. The trump era rule were will remain in place while the epa develops a revised rule. But let's see how long it takes them to do that. I hope not hong reagan says and i quote the agency will continue listening to states and tribes about their concerns and to help address these near term challenges in quote. Now mister reagan called the restoration of the section 401 provision an improvement and an important step to reaffirm the authority of states and tribes to regulate projects that affect water quality within the borders but under the provision a federal agency may not issue a license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into nabal waters unless the effect state or tribe certifies that the discharges and compliance with the clean. Water act act. Excuse me in state law or wave certification so that was an act of idiocy to strike down section for a one in the first place. It was just appear active idiocy. Why would somebody their right mind. Undermining the safety of our already stressed and endangered waterways doing little research folks. When you get a minute and find out how much drinkable water clean water. We actually have on this earth. It's not much it's not much at all so we need to stay on top of this. We need to hold politicians feet to the fire. When they tried to enact ludicrous laws and pass you know executive orders that threaten the lifestyle of everything on this earth. Everything living requires water clean water. You can't survive on dirty water..
WABE 90.1 FM
"clean water act" Discussed on WABE 90.1 FM
"This is climate one. I'm Greg Dalton. We're talking with lawyers. Rebecca associate Lindsay sh Roman Warren about the legal rights of Nature in 2019, the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, passed an anti fracking law that included the phrase quote. Natural communities and ecosystems possess unalienable and fundamental rights to exist and flourish. It also said resident shall possess legal standing to enforce those rights. Asked Rebecca SOC about the significance of that law. You think it is very significant and it's It's an area that is highly contested right now. So human rights Sort of movement really encompasses the needs of local communities to a great extent, right because the community is vulnerable in ways that maybe the national government doesn't see when it enacts the Clean air Act, er, the Clean Water act. And then somebody asked, enforced that and but we got the Flint Michigan case, right? Somebody wasn't enforcing what they should have been enforcing so Local communities suffer from that they get the lead right in their water. They get the pollutant and fracking is is very, very damaging too many communities on several levels, human health and property damage, so the idea that the community should have a right to protect itself against these harms that is separate and independent from the pollution control ordinances. Is very important. But there's also a strand. Lindsey talked about the the constitutional doctrine. So there are constitutional doctrines, both of standing how you get into federal court to vindicate your federal rights or how you get into state court to vindicate your state rights. But there are also Issues where you're having a human rights violation occur and those regimes do not. Recognize your standing to bring your claim. What do you do then? So those are the areas of constitutional law that still have to be adjudicated within the powers jurisprudence. Lindsay in the corporate sustainability world. There's a big effort called Ecosystem Services to basically put a monetary value on the services that nature provides two people. The idea is that if we for corporate, and this is a very corporate centric view that if something has a economic value on it, it can be measured. It can be protected. You know, a tree standing doesn't show up in the GDP, but a tree cut down and made into furniture or paper, you know, shows up in GDP, so We assign an economic value to a tree, providing shade and other ecosystem benefits. That's a good thing. Do you see that as a good thing supporting the rights of nature orm or exploitation and extraction? That is one of the questions that I am trying to figure out because I totally see how, as you just described if we don't Give value to something and measure that value. Our current system doesn't consider to have any worth and yet at the same time that valuing it is a form of commodification. On estrangement and alienation from things that are sacred or have value beyond their economic meaning. And potentially, the answer is will change the system. But you know exactly how do we do that? You know, to make a historical analogy, Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment that ended slavery accept his punishment for a crime. I didn't create justice for formerly enslave people. We are still wrestling with that today. I mean, 150, plus years later. And so if we don't if we only say, writes in nature and don't look at the economic implications, the monetary design and monetary policy implications Of our treatment of ecosystems. I don't think we're going to go all the way and we have to see the political the right space conversation as as tied together with economic Rebecca. If we give him or writes to nature are the rights of people reduced or demoted. I would like to say that everybody will benefit if we have a system of value. That is inclusive of human persons and other than human persons to use this frame if we if we look at many indigenous languages Rocks, mountains streams. They are entities that have value and they are specific values. That's not that they're fungible. Your job is a human being is to work with them, in their essence, and that's what Insurers sustainability over time, and those are the lessons embedded within what we now call traditional ecological knowledge, for example, But it's really a scientific system that says this is the way that the river operates. This is what happens when we have these cycles of drought. This is what people need to do to interact with that successfully and survived, so those lessons are embedded in it. A frame of rights tends to be oppositional. I have a right I sue you. You have to pay me. You're like me. You feel like you got the short end of the stick. That is the frame of rights discourse. If we go into indigenous epistemology is many times it's a relation ALS universe. That comes with mutual responsibility. So you do have a responsibility to other people to the natural environment. When you transgress that you are going to suffer, But you cause your own suffering. I believe that is probably what is happening right now. But we are not accustomed to thinking that we are causing our own suffering. So I think the frame of value and responsibility gets toward mutuality and reciprocal obligations. In a sense, everybody benefits from that. Yeah, I think the key word there is a relationship. Our relationship is broken, and we don't think about it as relationship we think about right. Rebecca, We've heard a lot recently about how the colonial mindset still pervades the way America was set up and how lands were stolen and still pervades kind of the patriarchy that we have today. What does it mean to de colonize the law? That is a great question..
Newsradio 700 WLW
"clean water act" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW
"Consent decree, Clean Water Act mandates and dramatically improve water quality in the Mill Creek. Diana Christie is the director of the Metropolitan Sewer District. The green space attracts visitors with the goal of revitalizing South Fairmont. Crisil and Westwood will both now have this beautiful gateway. That is positive. And softer. In the harsh Decline of the past that is Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley. President Biden, promoting the development of electric vehicles he visited. Afford electric vehicle facility in Michigan says that China has passed a spy and research and development. Let's check Wall Street now. The Dow is currently up. I'm sorry down by 109 points. NASDAQ Up 22 S and P s also down by 13 points. Learning from the new shopping habits during the pandemic, Macy's changing its lineup. New categories like toys, health, wellness, pets, home decor. Other stuff, The CEO says they're putting on their website. Hair products. Nail accessories. Gourmet Foods reds at home against the Giants Tonight 5 40 Air Times. 6 40 the first pitch right here. News radio 700 wlw The Reds lost to San Francisco last night to 35 next news of three Matt Reese News radio 700 wlw Getting I'm Dr Andrea Russo a cardiologists. Maybe you're waiting to talk to your doctor right now. But if you're having an irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue or light headedness. Don't.
KTAR 92.3FM
"clean water act" Discussed on KTAR 92.3FM
"Rights. A new law prevents the state from suing a member of the firearm industry for design, marketing, distribution and sale of firearms and ammunition to the public. This will also protect sellers and manufacturers from civil action resulting from criminal misuse of firearms. Fire danger as high across the state With almost 90% of Arizona and deep drought. The first round of fire restrictions is now in effect on state land in both Apache and Navajo counties. And in the Apache Sitgreaves National forests. First round of restrictions means no campfires outside of developed campgrounds or picnic areas. Arizona Forestry Stephanie Develops is no smoking a lot of leisure in a vehicle or a building and turn Shooting off limits. There is no target shooting or fireworks allowed on state land at any time of the year. We continue to have a huge problem with people shooting in restricted areas, and we continue to respond to multiple wildfires because of it. Fire restrictions will likely cover the entire state at some point, almost a million acres burned last year, and they're trying to prevent a repeat. Jim Cross Katie Arnie's. Meanwhile, governor do see signs a landmark water protection bill. Legislation is going to protect state waters that are no longer protected under the Clean Water Act. Trevor. But jury with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, says nearly 800 Arizona streams, lakes and Rivers lost protections last year when the federal Clean Water Act was rolled back channels like we're taking over where the federal government left off, But we believe that we're adding a streamlined approach, including clarity. This legislation protects and regulates discharges into Arizona surface water sources used for drinking fishing, Another recreational activities. Deborah Dale, Katya, our News Coming up White House reaction to this morning's job. Was report. But first check the traffic. Why, from the Valley Chevy Dealers traffic center Here's Larry Lewis. Well, Jeff Ellie freeways continue to look good so far this.
Newsradio 700 WLW
"clean water act" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW
"In participation may very cannot be combined with any offer a combo meal. This is news radio 700 w L W and we're back the big outdoors news radio 700 WLW since I had in the bottom of the hour, Gary Jeff is next and then following Gary Jeff, it's the rants of Michael. OK, Alan And I bet you I can. I can guess what that might be about. But Norm Schultz, Thank you for being with us this morning, it zits always wonderful to have you and to get the update on the boat shows the marine industry and By Gosha. If you haven't you if you haven't you better get out there and get that boat ordered. But in the meantime, What is what What's in the air on Lake Erie, and I know we talked last spring about the windmills. Is that still floating around? Yeah, it is, Unfortunately it actually the whole situation may end up in the aisle Supreme Court, But in the meantime, The Ohio Power, citing board did Grant a permit to a company called Lee Cho to develop. Wind turbines offically one in Lake Erie, and it's a six turbine supposed demonstration project, which has not in our opinion, been totally environmentally researched, but still they were given a permit to do it. But here's the long term, but it's a demonstration project and what they want to do. This demonstrates a chicken, build windmills and lay Gary and the long term plan is for something to 1600 of those in Lake area, if you know like, you're, you know, at anything seeing 1600 of these 500 ft windmills. Winning would be off horrible thing, but it's worse environmentally because it has It kills birds. We don't know the ramifications for the sentiment that's in the bottom of the lake from the drip from 100 Years of dredging zone, the kind of a river that contains carcinogens that just goes on and on ship. It makes little sense. Also, the cost of the power from those will be about 500% higher than you can by power off the grid right now. So where does it make sense to destroy? Lake Theory, which is Ohio's greatest natural resource is supposed to be held in public trust and industrialized with a bunch of windmills. Well, then I've read a number of articles recently. All over the last couple months is it's very problematic with with with oily with leaking oil and things like that, and then you know what to do with the blades after they need to be replaced, and just all kinds of You know other issues from a from a power source that just doesn't pay. And so you know. How do you? How do you How do they address that? Take that into account? At this a litany of those arguments that really haven't been answered. But what should have been required at the very beginning of this thing was an environmental impact statement. Now that is the gold standard. Environmental examination and study of all of the ramifications of any project. But that's in water in this country under the Clean Water Act anyway, and that that's a federal Required. Typically, you can't even build a bridge. And it should have been ordered by either Department of Energy of U. S Fish and Wildlife. But what happened when the lead Coke got its first permits and first funding to begin to develop all of this? Was that there was a rush to give green energy or clean energy permits for wind and solar, and they had the agency's had to approve it within two years of application, and so they would rush. Through and an environmental impact statement would take several years to do, And so they just ignored it. And in the end now we as lovers of Lake eerie And the citizens who only eerie Will be subject to potentially 1600 turbines. I mean, it's an unbelievable scene thought that that's it, So it's out of the hands of the state Legislature. So now it goes into Ah, through, you know, obviously legal challenges. I gotta believe where the Canadians can't be happy about this because it's you know. The waterfowl. Obviously, summer in Canada. They have to come through. This would eventually have to come through this. You know when the flyway is going south for the winner So that's got to be problematic. Also. Well, but we have a new administration. That's ah, very green. Well, I didn't want to get a little well, I didn't either, but I just thought I'd bring it up. We don't have to go anywhere with it, but it's there. Yeah. No, You're absolutely right. I see more federal dollars being made available to people like Lee Cho to do these kinds of things, but In terms of Canada's funny You would mention that this may shock you but Canada But the province of Ontario, which is the north side of Lake Erie and Lake, Ontario, Tech, barred any more wind turbines. In those provinces 10 years ago, and that included Lake eerie Now how come they were that far ahead of us and considering the environmental impacts? That's because they started smoking? Okay, Well, don't worry. We got to run. But we appreciate the update. You keep us posted on that. And, uh, we'll try And do we can from this in so all the best to you and, uh, good boating. Hey, good efficiency to partner. All right,.
Green Connections Radio - Insights on Innovation, Sustainability, Clean Energy, Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and Careers w Top Leaders, Women
Water Justice - Actress Gloria Reuben, Waterkeepers Alliance
"I'd like you to meet gloria reuben. Who was a trustee of the waterkeeper alliance from two thousand seven to two thousand ten and served as an advisor to former vice president. Al gore's environmental organization called the climate reality project and on other natural resources groups as well you will also likely recognize her from her appearances in television series like er and marvel's tv cloak and dagger among others as well as in movies like lincoln and a reasonable doubt. Welcome to green captions radio glorious. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for letting me join you. Joe. oh no problem. It's my pleasure my pleasure so let's start with. What condition is our water supply and today as president biden starts his first term as president. What is the water supply. He is inheriting well. I think we would all agree over these last four years the previous president did pretty much anything that he could to eviscerate our clean out air clean water regulations so it is very exciting last night to to witness our new president president. But i didn't as he signed the papers to rejoin the paris climate agreement and to roll back some of the deregulations that the former president clearly. There's a lot of work to be done but that once. We have obviously a leader in place president in place who believes in science and who listens to scientists and who believes in climate change and listens to the scientists gusta climate change and who obviously is a great advocate for the wellbeing of all americans of all peoples that is definitely a hopeful sign the destruction that happened in the last four years previous to President by being sworn in cannot be changed overnight but Reliance as very proud very excited to be on the front lines of this. Very important fight to have drinkable swimming. Fissionable waters for americans and for people around the globe. As you said. I mean it's extraordinary when you can get two point. Five million miles of waterways being protected from from our local over three hundred and fifty plus waterkeeper groups around globe. That's a huge thing. It's a lot of miles. So i'm really excited to join forces again rejoined forces again with this extra organization and in a leadership role so is the did the rollbacks that the trump administration did did they actually result in more water pollution. I mean we obviously have the flint michigan situation but that was not trump. That was the governor in michigan. Right when you talk about pollution in the waterways that goes very much to industries like fossil fuel industries of course like factory farming like businesses corporations. That are allowed to just kind of dump their way store there By rhonette of of making things of manufacturing into the waterways when there's no regulation The clearly people can just do what they want at their own. Well not have to pay any consequences you know it all comes down to first thing which is reenacting these laws again. Going back in place and then enforce laws are terrific things to have. But if they're not enforced than what's also it's important to remember that one of the things that president biden as well last night was to cancel the keystone pipeline. Which has as many of us know has been an ongoing issue for years now. And if i think about it the former president were elected. That very well may have happened. Now i've been to alberto into the athabasca river. I've seen the destruction that's happened with trying to suck out oil from sand. It's not an easy process. Takes more gallons of water from the athabasca river to make one barrel of oil and that is destruction destroy not just obviously the environment but the first nations people that have lived on that land for generations. So it's a it's a trickle down effect if you will of Polluters of Whether they be industries or or again corporations or even individuals whether or not brought to justice when when when there's no law to protect people that lived in that area then it's a free fall and You know. I was a newly appointed just over two months ago so the lot to catch up on. It's a lot of information that i'm soaking up. And we can't wait to be able to fly again safely obviously in good all corners of the world to to meet in person a lavar extraordinary water keepers are clean water warriors. I want i'm sure i'm sure. So does the waterkeeper alliance have a checklist of things that they want. The biden administration. To do i mean are there. Water infrastructure investments Besides putting back in place the clean water act. i mean. We hope that's happening soon. But maybe you're disappointed. It didn't happen right away. What kinds of investments and specifics are you looking for from president biden. Yes well. I think you know as you mentioned. Clean water act course. Everything can happen in one night. So we're confident that that will be reassigned. Only shocks right. I know but go back to the industry. Portion coal ash coal pollution cola. Hashes is definitely something that needs to be addressed in taken care of again. The factory farming issue is a huge thing. Learn in this country. North carolina again. I've been to north carolina. I've seen those ways. They call the ponds or lagoons. They tried to make these names. Sound like it's a recreational place yet now. These are ponds at are made of animal. Waste that seat into the waterway. So that's definitely something that needs to be handled in terrific water keepers in that region. An area that are that are winning lawsuits against not of these factory farms. I think that You know the overall climate issues that Is a abroad umbrella. You'll and plastics. We we all know again. You know plastics Issue jim global issue for sure so clean water act coal cocoa factory farming. These i think are are three very big tangible things that that can be addressed. Well we can he can pass. He can propose legislation that punishes. And as you say enforcement is critical these industrial polluters. It's you know taking a page out of the erin brockovich book relay right but these things also and i totally support on plastic pollution. To get me started on that one will be here for hours but a lot of these things require congressional approval and even though the democrats biden's party control both the house and the senate it's by d. Tiny itsy-bitsy margin right. So how do you. And i know that president by misspeaking bipartisanship since the very first days of his campaign and did so in his inaugural address etcetera but washington is still gridlock. So what's your outlook for whether for example getting factory farming in any kind of legislation. You know control of it. Is that realistic. Yes i think so for. Sure i mean again. These things take time an in carolina. I just wanted to north carolina. Just specifically in that region aren't bringing they aren't litigating certain cases in terms of factory farming. When it comes to the government The legislation in two to be passed in congress isn't going to be tricky but i am the only way to stay in this to even to say yes to this to stay because this is a long term long time mission is to is to keep positive and to just keep on doing. The things that we know will work again. The positive aspects are yes. We do have a house in the senate. So that's a hopeful thing at you know. We don't know what the future will hold of course but for right now we have the majority so that means that and again you know. We have leaders in place who do not deny the truce and they don't make falsities in order to remain in power. There are those who do that. But you know our president and vice president
Native America Calling
Line 3 pipeline lawsuit fails, campaigners want Kansas City name change, and Dakota Access pipeline protests continue
"This is national native news. Tonia gonzales tribes and environmental organizations lost a legal battle to stop construction of the line. Three pipeline in northern minnesota. But their attorney says there are still some good options in the fight against the pipeline as melinda to whose reports monet naismith is a staff attorney with earthjustice. She is representing the red lake band of chippewas. The white earth band of ojibway the indigenous rights group honor the earth and the sierra club. In fighting the three hundred forty mile pipeline tributary third. The minnesota court of appeals rejected the request for a preliminary injunction to stop work on it and bridge. The canadian company building line three claims it is exempt from needing a new presidential permit to cross the us. Canadian border because the pipeline is considered a replacement project and it secured that permit decades ago. However naismith says it's an entirely new pipeline along an entirely new route so it really is a new project. In any case she said the us president can resend the permit at will like president biden. Just did for the keystone excel tar sands pipeline. A second option is to get the army corps of engineers to resend several permits. She argues the core granted illegally last november under the clean water act which allowed construction to start but the law is very clear that before issuing a permit under the clean water act and an evaluation under the national environmental policy act or niba that the army corps needed to look at the risk of spills from the pipeline and needed to look at how that risk of spills would affect local tribes and tribal resources and they did neither here in the line. Three earthjustice filed a lawsuit in federal district court in washington. Dc last december seeking to get the permits overturned naismith also filed for a preliminary injunction which would allow her clients to have their day in court. Melinda to who's national native news members of indigenous groups demonstrated outside the tampa bay. Buccaneers that stadium in florida sunday as football fans headed in for the super bowl. They held change the name signs calling on the visiting kansas city team to end. Its use of native names and is a leash. Norris with the group. Florida indigenous rights and equality says much of the day was spent educating the public about indigenous people. Rethought we have to at least go stand and educate and make a statement that it's not okay to objectify and dehumanize indigenous people of our land inc. we're building awareness for sure and It's i think it's just interaction at a time so we've had a couple of positive interactions and then some that are not so positive but i think at any any type of interaction is a step in the right direction to create a shift and as soon as you turn the light on and bring awareness to something People have to think about it even if they don't want to and they're mad about it they still have to think about it so i think for that. We are building awareness in harboring is an education to this area on this issue members from the group not in our honor based in the kansas city area traveled to tampa to join the demonstration. Planes were also rented which flu around tampa over the weekend. With change the name banners the standing rock youth council is hosting a run to call on president biden to shut down the dakota access pipeline young people from the standing rock and cheyenne river sioux nations. Plan to run to the site of the no dapple resistance counts for years ago in north dakota. The run to the cannonball river is scheduled to begin on tuesday. I'm antonio
KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz
"clean water act" Discussed on KZSC 88.1 FM Santa Cruz
"You breaking news debates, Deep dimes reporting on City Hall and the statehouse, housing and transportation, prisons and police. And everything big that happened while you were sleeping. And it means the two of us get to hang out with you at 7 A.m. right after democracy now on up front. Study out today shows that a Russian vaccine is more than 90% effective against the coronavirus. The results of the peer reviewed studies were published in the British Medical Journal Lancet. The news is a boost for the shot that's increasingly being purchased by nations around the world or desperate to get a handle on the pandemic, researchers say. Based on their trial, which involved about 20,000 people in Russia last fall Vaccine is about 91% effective and that the shot also appeared to prevent people from becoming severely ill with covered 19. Sputnik five vaccine was approved by the Russian government with much fanfare on August 11th. The study was based on research involving about 20,000 people over age 18 at 25 hospitals in Moscow between September and November. Of whom three quarters got two doses of the Western vaccine 21 days apart. The remainder got placebo shots. The Palestinian Authority has administered its first known corona virus vaccine after receiving thousands of Moderna doses from Israel. First in line Frontline medical workers The Palestinians hope to acquire tens of thousands more days is in the coming weeks through a World Health Organization program. Even if those materialized, it could take several months to administer enough vaccines to bring the outbreak under control in the Israeli occupied West Bank and in Gaza. Israel's on track to vaccinate its entire adult population by the end of March, Authority inoculated more than a third of its people from a vaccination program that Began in December. Report by California's inspector general has says misguided attempts to protect inmates from the coronavirus that one prison caused the public health disaster at another. Outdated tests failed to the tech that some of the transferred inmates were already infected to them later died. Corrections officials reiterated that they had the best intentions, the report says, the transfer those inmates from one California institution for men East of Los Angeles to San Quentin State prison at the end of May lead to the deaths of 28 inmates and a correctional officer at the Bay Area prison. While infecting 75% of the inmates. State lawmakers introduced the bill today aimed a cleaning up California's waterways. California Clean Water Act would try to ensure that all bodies of water in the state are clean enough for drinking, swimming and fishing. Five years. 2050 KG Faith Sam Anderson reports. It's been almost 50 years since the federal government introduced the Clean Water Act in 1972. But despite that landmark legislation, water pollution is still a major problem, especially in California, where almost every body of water is in some way polluted or impaired. To remedy this problem. State Assembly member Robert Revis is introducing the California Clean Water Act on World Wetlands Day. As we now approach the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. We have nearly as many polluted waterways as ever roughly 19 out of 20 waterways in California are considered polluted. Or impaired. That includes 82% of rivers and streams, 93% of lakes and ponds and in astounding 99% of wetlands, bays and estuaries. There are three main parts to the bill. The first is to eliminate loopholes in the water board permits that allow companies to discharge unlawful amounts of waste into waterways. The second part would update waterboard enforcement procedures to make those who violate their permits, face penalties. In the third part of the bill would reallocate funds to clean up and remediate polluted waterways. Coalition of environmentalists, tribal representatives and businesses, including fishermen and oyster farmers are supporting the bill..
All Things Considered
Big Oil Evaded Regulation And Plastic Pellets Kept Spilling
"Plastic pellets have been spilling into oceans and rivers. The world over where birds and fish eat them. They are the building blocks of all plastic melts 350 of them. You get a yogurt cup 1000 gets you a water bottle. But an NPR and PBS frontline investigation found the oil and plastic industry has long known there an environmental problem. NPR's Laura Sullivan brings us this story about how the oil in plastic industry evaded regulation. Despite decades of spills. You probably haven't spent a lot of time standing on train tracks looking at your feet. We're looking at the edge of a highway outside of plastic manufacturer. If you did, there's a good chance you'll see them little plastic pellets. This is Kocsis Creek, and we're looking at fresh pellets. It has fallen out of the Terps. Ronnie hammering is standing on state Road 35 in Southeast Texas, rising four square miles. Behind him is the petrochemical plant, Formosa Plastics. And they're not just here. There over there. They're important Lakha. You're gonna find him down the road Hand looks not an anti plastic environmentalist. He's a former supervisor who worked to Formosa for 25 years, And while he worked there, he says he was told to cover up spills of classic pallets. I want you to put down a certain number. You know what I'm saying? They want to keep it love. So So you line so would you like That's my job. That's my bread and butter, so I got to do what they think. I got a family. What's striking about standing outside Formosa and finding pellets? 100 yards from the plant's edge is that last year for most agreed to pay $50 million to settle a lawsuit in which it agreed to zero discharge of pellets. And yet, here they are and down in the creek, where the plant drains thousands more. Ah federal judge called Formosa, a serial offender for most of says it's working to improve its containment systems. But Formosa is just one of thousands of companies that either make or use plastic pellets in the United States. The oil and plastic industry says it doesn't have a problem, Officials told me for most of it was simply a quote bad actor, while leading companies like Exxon and Chevron recently told shareholders that at their dozens of facilities worldwide Either lose, not a single pellet or just two sandwich bags full. And here's how they say they've done it. Thanks again for signing on the operation Clean Sweep Operation Clean Sweep is a voluntary program the industry came up with in 1991. Companies that joined watch videos and promised to keep pellets from spilling from plant truck ships and rail cars. There's no data required. No numbers, nothing public. The operation Clean sweep is truly making a difference. Together, we can achieve zero pellet flake and proud of us. The industry says it's been a success. Pellet containment is incredibly important to our members. Steve Russell was until recently the vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, which jointly runs the program, Nobody wants plastic in the environment. And if it still happens, and if we're gonna assume it's an accidental release, then it will be reported and remediation steps could be taken. Formosa is an operation Clean sweep member. So I asked to former workers and Ronnie Hamrick about it. I have no idea what you're even talking about. I've never heard it. There's evidence the industry does, in fact, have a pellet problem. Recent spills on beaches in Louisiana in South Carolina and studies show pellets are contaminating oceans, killing birds and fish and carrying toxins through rivers. There's also evidence the industry has known about this problem all along. In 2005, the industry participated in a study of 10 pellet plants. It found pellets washed away in heavy rain at every single facility and called Operation Clean sweep. Inadequate. But even long before that, there's a memo buried inside thousands of documents left over from old industry lawsuits. It was written in March. 1991 Thean Mysteries Trade Association warns top executives from Exxon, Chevron, Dow DuPont and others. But the EPA have recently found pellets to be quote ubiquitous in the environment. Regulation and permits are likely coming, the memo says. Unless they act quickly, it may still be possible to institute voluntary programs to address the pellet issue, it says. Unless this occurs, it is likely EPA will act independently. Then, just four months later, we developed a program that was called Operation Clean Sweep. Lou Freeman was a vice president at the time for the trade association, then called the Society of the Plastics industry. I don't recall any discussions. But quantitatively measuring the success of the program. It was being measured really about who is participating that what the results were, so it was a voluntary program without any metrics. Yeah, I would like to think that they were also doing it because it was the right thing to do. But I'd also be naive if I didn't think that much of the motivation was was governed by, you know. Keeping the regulators off our back today. The EPA doesn't regulate pellets and in the almost 30 years since, the agency told NPR it has brought just 10 Clean Water Act enforcement cases against facilities accused of spilling pellets. How would anyone really know if pellets were leaking? If you head down to the Gulf of Mexico pellet manufacturers like Chevron Phillips say they're not. I can tell you that. It's not a problem here at Chevron Phillips, we have almost no Let's leaving our sights. Jim Bakker is the
Environment: NPR
Big Oil Evaded Regulation And Plastic Pellets Kept Spilling
"Of tiny plastic pellets have been spilling into oceans and rivers the world over where birds and fish eat them. They are the building blocks of all plastic melts. Three hundred fifty of them. You get a yogurt cup thousand. Get you a water bottle. But an npr pbs frontline investigation found. The oil and plastic industry has long known there an environmental problem. Npr's laura sullivan brings us this story. About how the oil and plastic industry evaded regulation despite decades spills. You probably haven't spent a lot of time standing on train tracks looking at your feet or looking at the edge of a highway outside a plastic manufacturer. But if you did. There's a good chance you'll see them little plastic pellets. This is kocsis creek. In looking at fresh pellets that has fallen out of the turks. Ronnie hammer is standing on state road. Thirty five in southeast texas rising four square miles behind him as the petrochemical plant formosa plastics. There're not just here. They're over there. They're in portable alaka. You're gonna find them down the road not an anti plastic environmentalist. He's a former supervisor. Who worked at formosa for twenty five years. And while he worked there he says he was told to cover up spills of plastic pellets. I won't do to put down the phone number. You know what i'm saying. They want to keep it low. So so you lie. That's my job. This britain butter so i got to do what they say. You got a family. What's striking about standing outside formosa and finding pellets. A hundred yards from the plants edge. Is that last year. Formosa agreed to pay fifty million dollars to settle a lawsuit in which it agreed to zero discharge of pellets. And yet here they are and down in the creek where the plant drains thousands more a federal judge called formosa a serial offender. Formosa says it's working to improve its containment systems but formosa is just one of thousands of companies that either make or use plastic pellets in the united states. The oil and plastic industry says it doesn't have a problem. Officials told me formosa was simply a quote bad actor while leading companies like exxon and chevron recently told shareholders that their dozens of facilities worldwide the either lose not a single pellet or just to sandwich bags full. And here's how they say they've done thanks again for signing onto operation operation. Clean sweep is a voluntary program. The industry came up with in nineteen ninety-one companies that join watch videos and promised to keep pellets from spilling plants trucks ships and railcars. There's no data required no numbers nothing public. The operation clean sweep is truly making a difference together. We can achieve zero pellet flake and powder the industry says it's been a success. Pellet containment is incredibly important to our members. Steve russell was until recently the vice president of plastics. For the american chemistry council jointly runs the program. Nobody wants plastic in the environment. And if a spill happens and if we're gonna assume it's an accidental release then it will be reported and remediation steps can be taken for most. Isn't clean sweep member. So i asked to former workers an ronnie hammer about it. I have no idea what jeevan talking about. I've never heard of. There's evidence the industry does in fact have appellate problem recent spills on beaches in louisiana and south carolina and studies show pellets are contaminating killing birds and fish and carrying toxins through rivers. There's no evidence. The industry has known about this problem. All along in two thousand five industry participated in a study of ten pellet plance it found pellet washed away in heavy rain at every single facility and called operation clean sweep inadequate but even long before that there's a memo buried inside thousands of documents. Leftover from old industry lawsuits. It was written in march. Nineteen ninety-one the industry's trade association warns top executives from chevron dow dupont and others that the epa had recently found pellets to be quote ubiquitous in the environment regulation. Permits are likely coming. The memo says unless act quickly it may still be possible to institute voluntary programs to address the pellet issue it says unless this occurs. It is likely. Epa will act independently then just four months later. We developed a program that was called operation. Clean sweep lou. Freeman was a vice president at the time for the trade association then called the society of the plastics industry. I don't recall any discussions about quantitatively measuring the success of the program. It was being measured really about who is participating not what the results were. So is a voluntary program. Yes without any metrics. Yeah i would like to think that they were also doing it because it was the right thing to do. But it also be naive. If i didn't think that much of the motivation was was governed by keeping the regulators offer back today the epa doesn't regulate pellets and in the almost thirty years since the agency told npr. It has brought just ten clean water act enforcement cases against facilities accused of spilling pellets. But how would anyone really know if pellets wurley if you head down to the gulf of mexico pellet manufacturers like chevron phillips say they're not I can tell you that it's not a problem here. At chevron phillips we have almost no kellett's leaving our sites. Jim becker is the vice president of sustainability for chevron phillips he met me in a warehouse after plant officials showed me ponds and drains. They said catch all the pellets. You've heard a little bit about operation. Clean sweep we've been practicing that Since the company was formed having no that that you had almost no hell it's leaving your site. I feel i feel confident. We have multiple layers of protection to prevent that without any data. It's hard to know. But then you could go look hacksaw some and if you're gonna hunt pellets a mile up texas bite. You're gonna wanna bring diane wilson the woman who tracked formosa's leaking pellets for five years.
WTOP 24 Hour News
Army Corps of Engineers Denies Permit To Controversial Alaska Gold Mine
"A controversial golden copper mine in southwest Alaska were just killed by the Trump administration. The Army Corps of Engineers turned down a construction permit, which would have placed the mind your head waters of the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery. The Army Corps says the pebble mine permit was denied because it doesn't meet standards set by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and harbors Act. And that the project runs against the public interest.
Native America Calling
Harris mentions Indigenous people in DNC speech
"This is National Native News Antonio Gonzalez. The Keystone Excel pipeline hit a snag earlier this year when it's water crossing permit from the US, Army Corps of Engineers was vacated by federal judge the core ask the US Supreme Court to lift that order but the high court declined the fast track permit was a problem because it did not require extensive environmental review. Now, TC energy has applied to the core as well as the fish and Wildlife Service for permits that will undergo public scrutiny Victoria. Wicks has more Transcanada or TC. Energy has applied for permits the keystone xl pipeline under the Clean Water Act t C. as requesting those permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers and from state regulatory. Agencies in South Dakota Montana and Nebraska TC has also applied to the US fish and Wildlife Service for what's called an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act that allows the pipeline company to harm or destroy endangered or threatened species. If the destruction is incidental to the construction operation and maintenance of the Keystone Excel pipeline the species at issue is the American burying beetle in tripp county in South Dakota and four counties in Nebraska. The other permit application to the corps of Engineers allows the pipeline to cross more than seven hundred locations that would affect wetlands and water bodies in its public announcement. The court says it will balance the benefit of the pipeline against reasonably foreseeable harm the application to. The core covers clean water act requirements under section four, zero four. Another section for a one is regulated by states, Montana is holding its own hearings but South Dakota's Nebraska's are incorporated with the federal process deadline for public comment efficient wildlife is September sixteenth and deadline to the course September thirteenth the course says, after receiving comments, it will conduct public hearings and issue its findings later for national native news I'm Victoria wicks in rapid city south. Dakota Senator Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic Party nomination for Vice President Wednesday night and her speech to the. Democratic. National Convention Harris Mentioned Indigenous People twice once when talking about how cove in nineteen has disproportionately impacted people of Color and when talking about unity. With the Joe Biden. Presidential. Administration this week the DNC native American caucus has been rallying around the party's ticket touting the candidates knowledge of Indian country issues among backers or native American congresswomen, deb Holland, and cherise. David's here's David's speaking at an event earlier this week saying the upcoming election depends on putting people in office who are strong partners for native communities be heard it already, this is going to start with as electing vice president, Joe Biden until the White House and I know when elected vice president going to continue his commitment he's already been demonstrating it during his campaign, his Minton, the communities and I know he's going to ensure that the federal government upholds promises and obligations. Treaty. Treaty, obligations to Indian country in that native voices are going to be at the table they're to be. Heard in the ice levels of our government and. That's right now native participants of the Convention have discussed a number of Indian country issues from climate change to youth empowerment, messing and murdered indigenous people cove nineteen and the native vote. Thursday's the final day of the Convention, the native American Caucus will me and bite him. We'll take the stage to deliver a speech. The Cherokee nation has lost a treasured linguist among contributions. Durban feeling wrote the Cherokee. Dictionary. Helped get Cherokee syllabi on smartphones and developed language teaching materials feeling passed away this week at age seventy four. I'm Antonio, Gonzalez.
Native America Calling
Canadian officials dropped charges against a First Nations chief whose violent arrest sparked protests
"The National Native News Making Camera. Kim for Antonio Gonzalez tribal governments have joined environmentalists Labor activists sent a lawsuit against new rules that rollback federal, clean water regulations, earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of the possible Yawkey tribe of Arizona bad river band of Lake Superior Chippewa the on Indian nation of Washington State, the Fond Du Lac band of Lake Superior Chippewa of Minnesota. The menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin and the tonal autumn tribe of Arizona. A C central reports, the suit contends the new federal navigable waters protection role actually weakens expanded protection for streams and wetlands that were put in place by the Obama Administration. The new rule took effect this week. It eliminates intermittent and ephemeral streams from bodies of water, protected under the Clean Water Act. The possible Yawkey tribe is concerned. The rollback will lead to damage of a major water source state officials in Arizona have supported the federal rule change, even though environmentalists warned the state could lose protections for more than ninety percent of its water bodies under the new rule. In Canada charges have been dropped against northern Alberta first nations chief who is the subject of a violent arrest a couple of months ago as Dan Carpenter Chuck reports, the arrest caught by police dash camera led to anti-racism protests across Canada chief Alan Atom of the ATHABASCA one first nation, no longer faces charges for resisting arrest and assaulting a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer. Adam was the subject of a violent arrest in March. Police Dash Cam video showed him. Him, being tackled and punched in the head, he had been stopped for an expired license plate a statement from the Alberta. Prosecution Service says it had reassessed prosecution standard based on an examination of the available evidence, including the disclosure of relevant material and has withdrawn the charges. The arresting officers are under investigation over the incident chief atom says he's overwhelmed that the charges have been withdrawn having that it's time to move on a sign of relief in regards to. The whole ordeal that. Transpired under early mornings of Mark Steyn. And described that put aside in. Time to move on and continue on. Supposed to be doing. Adam called on Ottawa to address injustices against indigenous people, and said Canadians must open their eyes to the reality is that indigenous people have lived with for decades, the national chief of the Assembly of first nations welcomed the dropping of charges, but said it's clear that racism is embedded within most public institutions, especially the police Adams lawyer also said the decision throws a spotlight on systemic racism that has gone on for too long unchecked in Canada for national late of news I'm Dan Carpenter? In South Dakota the Cheyenne River Sioux. Tribe filed a lawsuit this week. Against the trump administration of what it says were threats to impede COVID, nineteen relief funds, and to take over policing on the reservation. The Grand Forks Herald reports. The tribe set up checkpoints leading into its lands in south. Dakota in April to protect tribal members from the spread of the corona virus. The lawsuit says pressure from Washington DC came after pleas for help from the state's governor and congressional delegation. The tribe is asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to block the federal government from taking over tribal policing and forcing it to remove its checkpoints. On the Navajo Nation this week president, Jonathan, Nez and Vice President Myron leuser issued a proclamation to fly all flags at half staff to honor Navajo. Police officer Michael Lee who passed away to covid nineteen on June nineteenth Nez said lease saved many lives during his twenty nine years of service, and give his own life to serve and protect the community the funeral for officer. Lee is being held on Thursday June. Twenty fifth in Chandler Arizona. For National, native news I make an camera.
Environment: NPR
As EPA Steps Back, States Face Wave Of Requests For Environmental Leniency
"Hundreds of factories, refineries, farms and mines across the country say they cannot comply with environmental regulations because of the pandemic. This is according to an NPR review of hundreds of state environmental records. Those records show that companies have asked for a wide range of special permission during this pandemic including things like delaying checking for leaks in storage tanks and measuring pollution from smokestacks and pure science reporter Rebecca Hersher is here to talk about this, Becky, hi, there. Okay, so industry is saying there's a pandemic. We need some special allowances here. What exactly are we talking about? Well, it's a real drag. Some of the issues are relatively minor like submitting an annual report late, but I also found a fair number of substantial requests, mostly from industries that release a lot of pollution like landfills have been asking states to relax pollution monitoring rules hog farms have asked for permission to house extra animals, because meatpacking plants per temporary closed and oil and gas companies ask for states back off and enforcement of a wide range of environmental regulations. I mean, be understand why an oil or gas company has trouble being able to check for pollution because of a pandemic. Well there are a couple of reasons. Navy furloughs get in the way like if employees who usually right in filed pollution appurtenant working because of the pandemic, another reason the companies gave is that a lot of pollution monitoring is done by outside contractors and they were trying to limit people coming onto facilities because of the virus. We know these details, though because a small number of states make them public, but another problem here is that no one is systematically keeping track of these types of nationwide requests. no-one keeps an eye on. Who On these industries and with? They're asking for right now. Why is that? Well in March? The Environmental Protection Agency the EPA put out a pandemic policy that said companies don't need to warn federal regulators if they feel like the pandemic interfering with routine pollution, monitoring or testing instead, they said states could keep track of that information if they choose to. The EPA says, this is out, works it partners with states, and that is how a lot of environmental regulation. Regulation works although former EPA officials say this policy gives industries a lot of leeway now some states are doing this kind of tracking, but I've found that most kids don't publish any information about which companies say. The pandemic is getting in the way, and that means most Americans who live near factories refineries farms. They have no way to know whether the pandemic is causing extra pollution. I mean that kind of uncertainty is is a big problem for for people who live near these sorts of facilities I would imagine. Especially for people who live downstream or down wind of facilities that have have violated environmental laws in the past on a found a fair number of examples like this, so for example there's a minor Indiana in early April, the mine said it was releasing wastewater with high levels of ammonia and small particles, because they were cleaning buildings with a lot of bleach to kill the virus that same mino ins repeatedly violated the clean water act passed by releasing water with two small particles in it and I talked to a local resident who lives downstream. He was really frustrated. John Blair. The air pollution is visible. The water pollution is less visible and you know I mean almost anything could be blamed on the virus I suppose. Now. The state told the mind to stop releasing water with titles, Manja and many of the requests I looked at were denied, but the only reason we know about that interaction is because Indiana published a publicly in most states are not doing which means most Americans are in the dark. Pure science reporter Rebecca Hersher. Becky thanks for that reporting. Thanks so
Native America Calling
AIM offers support to community and family of George Floyd
"The National Native News. I'm Antonio Gonzalez a federal court order vacating. Certain water crossing permits for oil and gas pipelines will stand for now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request from the trump administration. Tc Energy and other energy companies to lift a judge's order pending appeal Victoria wicks has more the keystone xl pipeline is routed to cross around seven hundred bodies of water in Montana. Kota in Nebraska. Federal Judge Brian Morris ruled in April that fast track permit used by the US. Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider endangered species and their Habitat Judge Morris then invalidated permit twelve for oil and gas pipelines. The trump administration and companies immediately appealed to the ninth circuit and ask the Appeals Court to lift the ruling. That request has been denied attorney. Anthony Swift is director of the natural resources. Defense Council candidate project. Unless there's a court decision reversing the ninth circuit the keystone pipeline for the most part is in limbo swift says. Tc energy could apply for a more stringent corps of engineers permit under the Clean Water Act. But that is a transparent process that takes time and requires consultation in public input. He says the pipeline. Ostensibly could still be built where it doesn't cross water but it's not likely and from a practical perspective you know it would be very difficult to move forward with construction on seven hundred segments without those seen water permit. The water permits remain vacated while the case moves through the ninth circuit which is scheduled to filing a brief until late. September for National Native News. I'm Victoria wicks in rapid city. South Dakota the native American Rights Fund in the University of Colorado Law. School have teamed up and launched a new online legal resource to help tribal self determination efforts during the covid. Nineteen Pandemic Christine Trudeau reports. The new site host resources for applying human rights protections through the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous people aimed at assisting tribal leadership lawyers judges and Council Members University of Colorado Law. School Professor Karen Carpenter says amidst the covid nineteen pandemic rights to ensure health protections for TRIBAL CITIZENS IS AT RISK. Glue seen for example. Some tried trying to set tech points or provide food and supplies for their members and sometimes the neighboring surrounding governments are not entirely supportive of those efforts to put it mildly. Those are cases where indigenous peoples rights are really at stake. I mean tribes have jurisdiction over their land. They have sovereignty and they need those rights to be protected so that they can take care of their members now more than ever carpenter says the site at UN Dash Declaration Dot North Dot. Org will expand the resource offerings more this summer with interactive webinars. End Muddle tribal codes and more. I'm Christine Trudeau. The stories a collaboration with the National Native News and the Solutions Journalism Network members of the American Indian Movement gathered Minneapolis Minnesota Thursday to make a public statement of support to the community and family. George Floyd an African American man who died in police custody this week co directors of aim say the movement was founded in the nineteen sixties in response to police brutality in the Minneapolis area which they say continues today. The group is calling for peace and encouraging community leaders and organizations in Minneapolis Metro area to do the same. After Floyd's death sparked as a protest which have included violence looting and arson about ten members of the American Indian Movement. Spoke during a press. Conference live streamed on social media offering support but calling for an end to the violence. Antonio Gonzales
AP News Radio
Supreme Court rejects EPA's narrow view of Clean Water Act
"The the nation's widow of highest country court singer has Joe ruled Diffie in favor denies of environmental conspiracy groups theories in a closely that say watched he did case not die involving of the permits new coronavirus under the clean water act emerges the are Supreme loaded Court with the ruled latest by a six to three vote that the discharge some social of media polluted users water into are claiming the ground the Joe rather Divis than death directly on March into twenty nearby ninth waterways was due to lung does cancer not relieve and sewage that health plants and and government other industries officials are blaming for environmental it on covert requirements nineteen to under exaggerate the clean water act the viruses the decision threats came in a case Diffey from Hawaii had announced about days whether before a sewage he treatment had tested plant needs positive a federal for permit the virus dissent his wastewater wife tera deep underground says in a statement instead if he of did discharging not have it directly long cancer into the Pacific and Ocean the conspiracy studies theories found are the false waste water and hurtful reaches the ocean anyway the confusion appears and damaged to have come a coral from reef an obituary near Maui beach for diffuse David father Hankin also a lawyer named for Earthjustice Joe Diffie who who argued died of cancer the case in the in High twenty Court eighteen said this is unquestionably a win for people who are concerned about protecting clean water in the United States Jennifer king Washington
AP News Radio
Supreme Court rejects EPA's narrow view of Clean Water Act
"The Supreme Court ruled by a six to three vote that the discharge of polluted water into the ground rather than directly into nearby waterways does not relieve sewage plants and other industries former environmental requirements under the clean water act the decision came in a case from Hawaii about whether a sewage treatment plant needs a federal permit dissent wastewater deep underground instead of discharging it directly into the Pacific Ocean studies found the waste water reaches the ocean anyway and damaged a coral reef near Maui beach David Hankin a lawyer for Earthjustice who argued the case in the High Court said this is unquestionably a win for people who are concerned about protecting clean water in the United States Jennifer king Washington
AP News Radio
Supreme Court rejects EPA's narrow view of Clean Water Act
"The Supreme Court ruled by a six to three vote that the discharge of polluted water into the ground rather than directly into nearby waterways does not relieve sewage plants and other industries former environmental requirements under the clean water act the decision came in a case from Hawaii about whether a sewage treatment plant needs a federal permit dissent wastewater deep underground instead of discharging it directly into the Pacific Ocean studies found the waste water reaches the ocean anyway and damaged a coral reef near Maui beach David Hankin a lawyer for Earthjustice who argued the case in the High Court said this is unquestionably a win for people who are concerned about protecting clean water in the United States Jennifer king Washington
AP News Radio
Trump rollback could leave waterways vulnerable to pollution
"Trump administration officials have signed off on a policy change the narrows the type of water ways to qualify for federal protection under the clean water act here's EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler landowners can finally re focus on providing the food shelter and other commodities Americans rely on every day instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and consultants not protected under the new rules features that only contain water in direct response to rainfall groundwater the local Hasen deputy legislative director for the Sierra Club says the policy change strips away environmental protections allowing businesses to fill in wetlands and pollute the water supply the trump administration and going backward on enforcing protections for our water with the dirty water will Jennifer king Washington
Environment: NPR
Trump EPA Dramatically Reduces Amount Of Waterways Under Federal Protection
"While much of Washington focuses on the impeachment trial of president trump his administration keeps advancing his deregulatory agenda today the environmental protection agency the finalized a rule that shrinks the number of waterways that are protected by the Clean Water Act. It's a major shift with implications for agriculture industry and water water-quality. NPR's Nathan joins us. Now he nate hale right so as new rule it limits the waterways that get federal protection. What is going on here all right? So what we're talking about here is really the scope of the clean water. ACT The clean. Water Act is pretty clear and that its purpose is to limit the type amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the country's streams rivers lakes all sorts of waterways where it's less clear is around the question of which of of those rivers and streams and waterways specifically should get that protection That has been appointed contention for decades. The Supreme Court has weighed in a couple of times. the Obama Administration in two thousand fifteen tried clarifying and in doing so it expanded the number of waterways got federal protection which was not well received unsurprisingly by farmers ranchers developers They called it a federal overreach. President trump being a developer himself felt very much the same way. He undid that Obama rule last year and this is his replacement it is more restrictive and and it is what we're seeing today so just helped me patriot. This what will not not get protection now under these new rules so I think it's important to really hammer home. A quick point the protections. We're talking about here. Are just federal the Environmental Protection Agency the EPA has been very keen to point out that state protections will still exist for many of these waterways. though you know also important protections vary state to state that said the biggest changes that will see under this new rule have to do with wetlands in smaller streams. It's estimated that about half of the nation's wetlands will lose federal protection under this new rule Which is noteworthy because wetlands not only provide habitat for tons of species But they also help with flood control and they filter a lot of the water. We drink ephemeral streams That's creeks or streams. It only run after rain or snow melt they are gonNA lose all federal protections. They are no longer covered under the clean water. ACT Under this new rule And that's a very big deal. Particularly you know in the arid southwest West California where I am where the vast majority of waterways are considered to be ephemeral. So I imagine that environmental groups are not happy about this change. You would be correct. They are not happy at all. They're worried that you know some of the impacts that just mentioned that this could have negative impacts on drinking water the habitat for species. Because you know as we all know waterways are connected there are also concerns at state. Environmental agencies will not be able to pick up the slack here In the main issue is over the science behind this decision a Science Advisory Board at the EPA posted draft letter last month saying that the new rule which was a proposed. I think at that point is quote in conflict with established sites The trump administration the EPA strongly disagrees with that assessment That assessment but I think ultimately you know like all of these environmental rollbacks. It's going to be decided in the courts the court so you expect groups to bring legal challenges to this rule change change. Yeah no question. Environmental Groups Democratic States which we've seen like I said with all of these trump rollbacks which makes the next election really interesting one of the many things that makes the next election that interesting because the long-term outlook of these rollbacks are really gonna depend on whether he's reelected that is NPR's nate rot? Thanks Nate Yeah yes thank you.
Environment: NPR
Supreme Court Case Could Reshape A Significant Environmental Law
"The US Supreme Court. Today here's a case that could reshape one of the country's most significant environmental laws it centers on a dispute over wastewater and coral coral reefs. Hawaii public radio's Ryan Finnerty reports on Maui. The local government has been injecting treated wastewater underground for decades it was viewed as safer and cheaper cheaper than discharging wastewater into the ocean. which would require a permit under the clean water act? That's because the nineteen seventy two act. Regulates the discharge of pollutants into surface purpose waters like Oceans Lakes rivers but it does not cover pollution of groundwater but in two thousand six. The Hawaii Department of land and natural resources found that coral reefs off the coast of West. Maui were dying. At a rapid rate community members suspected injection wells at the local wastewater treatment plant were to blame. Hannah Bernard is a Marine biologist and director of the Hawaii Wildlife Fund the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case we started organizing meetings and sharing that information and talking about it and then when we got in touch with EPA the Environmental Protection Agency eventually commission to study to find out if there was a physical link between the injection wells and the ocean university. The University of Hawaii geologist Craig Glenn Used Colored Dye to track where wastewater from the injection wells was going. He says the results were conclusive debatable evidenced instead the wastewater was reaching from those wells to the coastline Hindenburg. Yard and other environmentalists sued saying that since the discharge was reaching the ocean. The county was violating the clean water. Act They won twice in federal court but in a similar case from Kentucky. Different appeals court disagreed. The trump administration Chretien is backing Maui county in this case a reversal from the Obama era. EPA It's part of a broader effort to limit federal water protections in favor of state control. David even hank in an attorney representing the Mao plaintiff says the trump administration's stance on groundwater pollution is a departure from longstanding policy. Really it's every administration nations since the enactment of the Clean Water Act versus the trump administration environmentalists say discharging pollution into groundwater is exploiting a loophole. And not what Congress originally originally intended but if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Maui county that loophole could become law
Morning Edition
Showdown over Clean Water Act heads to Supreme Court
"The US Supreme Court today hears a case that could reshape one of the country's most significant environmental laws it centers on a dispute over waste water and coral reefs Hawaii public radio's Ryen Finnerty reports on Maui the local government has been injecting treated wastewater underground for decades it was viewed as safer and cheaper than discharging waste water into the ocean which would require a permit under the clean water act that's because the nineteen seventy to act regulates the discharge of pollutants into surface waters like oceans lakes and rivers but it does not cover pollution of groundwater but in two thousand six the Hawaii department of land and natural resources found that coral reefs off the coast of West now we were dying at a rapid rate community member suspected injection wells at the local wastewater treatment plant were to blame Hannah Bernard is a marine biologist and director of the Hawaii wildlife fund the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case we started organizing meetings and sharing information and talking about it and then we got patches are EPA the environmental protection agency eventually commissioned a study to find out if there was a physical link between the injection wells and the ocean university of Hawaii geologist Craig gland used color dye to track where waste water from the injection wells was going he says the results were conclusive I'm available evidence that the waste water was reaching from those walls to the coastline Hannah Bernard and other environmentalists sued saying that since the discharge was reaching the ocean the county was violating the clean water act they won twice in federal court but in a similar case from Kentucky a different appeals court disagreed the trump administration is backing now we county in this case a reversal from the obamacare EPA it's part of a broader effort to limit federal water protections in favor of state control David Hank in an attorney representing the Maui plaintiff says the trump administration stance on ground water pollution is a departure from long standing policy really every administration since the enactment of the clean water act versus the trump administration environmentalists say discharging pollution into groundwater is exploiting a loophole and not what Congress originally intended but if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Maui county that loophole could become
Casual Times
EPA Carries out Trump Threat, Cites San Francisco for Water Pollution Linked to Homeless Crisis
"Thing. where broadcasting today from San Francisco where president trump is continuing an all out attack on the city's homeless population and political leaders on Wednesday the trump administration filed an environmental notice of violation against San Francisco falsely claiming the city's homelessness crisis has caused water pollution this is trump announcing the move in a tirade against house speaker Nancy Pelosi who is home district is San Francisco. focus on our own district you see what's happening to our district we call it ten city it's terrible in fact we just sent a violation to the city of San Francisco unsafe water unsafe conditions environmental EPA are EPA which is doing a great job is sending Nancy Pelosi with all the talk about EPA. his needles and drugs all over the street this tense there's people that are dying in squalor. in the best location in San Francisco it used to be a great city now you have to see what's happened to San Francisco you happen to see what what's what the Democrats have allowed to happen. city officials have repeatedly rejected trump's unfounded claims that homelessness is connected to water quality the EPA's action comes a week after environmental protection agency chief financial Wheeler said in a letter to California governor Gavin Newsom that California's failing to enforce the clean water act Wheeler has also threatened to pull billions of dollars in federal highway funding to California accusing it of having the worst air quality in the United States a spokesperson for governor news and has called trump's most political retribution against California plain and simple California is home to twelve percent of the country's population but half of the country's on sheltered homeless people president trump has been pushing for a crackdown on the crisis for weeks The Washington Post reported last month trump ordered the White House officials to launch this effort and that his administration is considering actions like destroying homeless encampments California congressman roe kana told The Washington Post yet again this is bravado for trump's base with no interest in the actual policy experts recommendations to solve an issue conoce at for more we're joined here in San Francisco by two guests Jennifer Frieden Bach is the executive director of the coalition on homelessness and Paul Boden is the executive director of the western regional advocacy project or wrap a homeless advocacy group he was formerly homeless himself Jennifer freedom back let's begin with you the attack by president trump specifically on California now in San Francisco saying that homeless people are responsible for water pollution can you respond overall. yeah I mean it's it's ridiculous on on a few fronts first of all corsair Francisco filters its water there's there's no link to water pollution but more importantly is that trump himself is in a position where he could truly address this crises we have a situation where we have you know in San Francisco about twenty one thousand people experiencing homelessness every year and that can be traced right back to his feet on his wedding gauged in massive cuts to hide he's also done in action in restoring the hud budget which is where the roots of this crisis began when you know the hud budget has been cut so dramatically starting in the late seventies and through the early eighties and has continued since just this divestment from insuring that people in the US have a safe and decent place to call home so it's really ironic that he's complaining about it and then causing the problem and doing nothing to solve it. well I'd like to turn to had secretary that's housing and urban development secretary Ben Carson discussing California's housing crisis on fox news last month. a lot of these people have mental health issues a lot of men of drug addiction some of them simply have fallen on hard times and don't know how to deal with it but as a compassionate society it is something that we have to do something about we can't just talk about it should it be the responsibility of the federal government now these are local problems and the things that work best are when the local authorities take appropriate attention to these problems and then the federal government can help from the state government can help them. so that's had secretary Dr Ben Carson I po Boden if you could respond yeah it's just it's so profoundly ridiculous that this is the person that's running hi when you look at the nineteen thirty seven housing act that created. it said very clearly and that legislation that it was the federal government's responsibility to ensure that people have a clean safe adequate place to live in nineteen ninety eight they amended that to say the federal government cannot be held accountable to do that during the welfare reform must that Newt Gingrich and signed by Clinton but the reason hide was created in this is the individual charged with administering that that federal department is to ensure housing is available to poor people throughout the United States and this is in a California or a San Francisco issue sample California may have a larger number of people according to hides point in time head count but that's because they go out on January twenty fifth every other year and do a head count and that's how they did they come up with the number of homeless people in the United States that's ridiculous and of course warm weather climates are gonna have a higher number we don't know what the number of homeless people as with any specificity because it's something that poor people go in and out of all the time this is a federal responsibility to ensure that people in the United States have a decent place to live that they can afford and we now spend fifty four billion dollars a year in two thousand four constant dollars less on affordable housing than we did before the homeless crisis kicked in in the early nineteen eighties restore that funding look at the cause and effect of eliminating that funding and you'll see the numbers of homeless people go way down because we all know nothing and homelessness like a home. I'd like to turn to San Francisco mayor London braid talking about the causes of homelessness and San Francisco she was interviewed on PBS last month. housing affordability is at the core of what I know is a challenge for even middle income families struggling to live in San Francisco between twenty ten and twenty fifteen the city we concentrate on jobs jobs jobs with a two point six percent unemployment rate but during that same time for every eight jobs we create it we created one unit of housing and then it was like a battle between people who are moving here people have lived here folks are being pushed out of communities that they were born and raised in like my friends and family and and including the public housing I grew up in it was three hundred units it was torn down and only two hundred units were built so there were a lot of mistakes that were made around housing and housing production and over around a portable housing