House Democrats Deliver an Ambitious Climate Action Plan

In mid-June, U.S. House Democrats released a comprehensive 538-page climate crisis action plan. The goal of the plan is to bring U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. The plan is built on the following 12 pillars:

  • Invest in Infrastructure to Build a Just, Equitable, and Resilient Clean Energy Economy
  • Drive Innovation and Deployment of Clean Energy and Deep Decarbonization Technologies
  • Transform U.S. Industry and Expand Domestic Manufacturing of Clean Energy and Zero-Emission Technologies
  • Break Down Barriers for Clean Energy Technologies
  • Invest in America’s Workers and Build a Fairer Economy
  • Invest in Disproportionately Exposed Communities to Cut Pollution and Advance Environmental Justice
  • Improve Public Health and Manage Climate Risks to Health Infrastructure
  • Invest in American Agriculture for Climate Solutions
  • Make U.S. Communities More Resilient to the Impacts of Climate Change
  • Protect and Restore America’s Lands, Waters, Ocean, and Wildlife
  • Confront Climate Risks to America’s National Security and Restore America’s Leadership on the International Stage
  • Strengthen America’s Core Institutions to Facilitate Climate Action

More specifically, from the perspective of water policy, the plan calls for “Water infrastructure resilience” standards to provide clean water and mitigate flooding, droughts and erosion. The plan also calls for the reduction of water pollution through the safe disposal of hazardous wastes from the oil and gas industry, and a recommendation to protect “at least 30% of all U.S. lands and ocean areas by 2030.”

To view the plan in its entirety, click here. To read more about the development and implementation of the plan click here and here.

Is Federal Disaster & Hazard Mitigation Aid Getting to Those Communities Most in Need?

Flooding in Golovin, Alaska

In August 2020, National Public Radio’s Ted Talk broadcast an episode entitled “Our Relationship with Water” in which Colette Pichon Battle who is an attorney turned climate activist who grew up in Bayou Liberty just north of New Orleans.[1] She says she was thrown into her new role because rising sea levels, flooding and other climate factors are threatening the land that has been in her family for generations. Pichon-Battle says “’I work at the community level to make sure that black folks, poor folks and native folks are part of thia climate conversation’” including to communicate the policy and science of climate change to her neighbors and that the scientific community and policy makers listen to the traditional knowledge that the community can provide about the area.[2]

After Hurrican Katrina caused a tidal surge from the Gulf that swept her entire community into Lake Pontchartrain, she found that the surge was caused by sea level rise and the absence of barrier islands, now gone because of oil and gas drilling, which use to block such surges. Once she realized that hurricans like Katrina and likely worse are her to stay and in looking at flood maps of Lousiana she realized that her community along with other African American, Native American and impoverished communities would likely simply disappear before the end of the century. Quechon-Battle, notes that she was invited to the Whitehouse during the Obama administration to talk with the Federal Emergency Management Service, the agency primarily responsible for assisting communities with disaster and hazard mitigation preparedness in relation to flooding and other natural events, about how her community could obtain assistance to prepare for future flooding events. She says that during this conversation “the FEMA administrator said ‘I understand what your saying, but the FEMA regulations are’nt ment for the most vulnerable communities.’ The disaster assistance process for this country are ment for the middle class.” Despite the double take she made when she heard this statement she firmly believes that “This was an honest comment from FEMA. This is what you realize when you recognize that you recognize that the structures that are in place right now are absolutely not meant for me.”[3]

Arctic Native communities which have been experiencing increased permafrost melt, loss of sea ice, extreme weather events, flooding and erosion that may make current residences and settlements uninhabitable in the near future, no all to well about competition for limited federal disaster and hazard mitigation funding to defend against the inevitable march of climate change. In addition to what communities like Quechon-Battle’s experienced when approaching FEMA for help, in many cases, agencies require cost-benefit analysis, plans, environmental analysis, or other measures above and beyond analysis or strategies contained in Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) or other plans before such communities qualify to apply for funds. Similarly, because standard arctic community HMPs do not contain a detailed cost-benefit analysis of natural hazards affecting water resources, such communities cannot obtain high rankings that larger cities can to qualify for competitive funding or other federal or state assistance needed to address such impacts. Finally, the villages cannot afford to hire consultants or even staff to conduct climate adaption planning on behalf of such communities to include more meaningful consideration of economic impacts and risks associated with coastal water resource management resiliency strategies, in order to move beyond the planning phase and into on the ground project implementation.

There is a need, therefore, to conduct economic risk-benefit and environmental analysis and otherwise close the gap between Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other governmental funding and technical assistance programs such so that North Bering Sea communities can implement on-the-ground projects that will address the Villages’ climate-related coastal water resources management challenges.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/899845219/our-relationship-with-water.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

 

EPA Should Veto Pebble Permit

In 2017, the US Army Corps of Engineers released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to develop the world’s largest copper mine in the Bristol Bay watershed, located in the sensitive headwaters of Bristol Bay in Southwestern Alaska. The Mine which is proposed by the foreign-based Pebble Limited Partnership would destroy several miles of streams which are critical the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world and upon which twenty-five federally recognized tribal governments depend for subsistence. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Corp was chartered with drafting the EIS to analyze in detail, the environmental impacts of proposed projects.

Next to the Project Chariot when, in the 1950s, the United States Atomic Energy Commission proposed to detonate an atomic bomb off the coast of the Chukchi Sea in order to create harbor there, the Pebble Mine could be the most contentious industrial development activity ever proposed in Alaska. Due to its potential impact on water and salmon resources, it risks the economic and cultural lifeblood of the region. As a result, the mine is opposed not only by 80 percent of Bristol Bay’s residents but also by a broad spectrum of entities that include commercial fishermen, businesses, sportsmen, and conservation groups.

Yet, despite the fact that public citizens, commercial interests, tribes, conservation organizations, and even an international mining corporation oppose this environmentally and economically disastrous Mine, the Corps under the Trump Administration, established a flawed NEPA analysis in its rush to permit it. As a result, the Pebble Mine has been referred to by the conservation community as “quite simply one of the most reckless Projects anywhere in the world today.” Last year, when opening the Oversight Committee hearings regarding the mine, Congressman Peter DeFazio, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called it “an abomination” and stated that “the Pebble Mine proposal is a bad idea made even worse by the sham review process currently underway.”

Under the current proposal and future development plans, the mine would be so destructive to the environment and the Alaska economy that there has been a consistent pattern of major investors walking away from the project once they understand the overwhelming opposition and unavoidable environmental and economic risks. The fourth major firm to abandon the project since 2011, First Quantum Minerals Ltd., which had provided $37.5 million upfront and pledged $150 million over the following three years to fund the permitting process in exchange for a 50 percent share, pulled out in late May of 2018.

When the Final EIS for the project was released last month, a string of politicians, and other public figures came out in opposition to Pebble. For the first time cracks in the Trump Administration’s relentless anti-environmental regulatory strategy arose when Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted “As a sportsman who has spent plenty of time in the area I agree [that] the headwaters of Bristol Bay and surrounding fishery are too unique and fragile to take any chances with…Pebble Mine.” Similarly, long time extraction industry supporter, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, who after reviewing the Final EIS stated:

“… I am increasingly concerned that the final EIS may not adequately address the issues identified in the draft EIS regarding the full risks of the project as proposed to the Bristol Bay watershed and fishery… These processes should also not be rushed or fast-tracked, especially given the size and complexity of this particular project.”

While Sen. Sullivan, however, has expressed concern for the obviously flawed EIS process, so far, he is not off the fence yet as indicated by his statement that “While it is a major step in the permitting process, it must be emphasized that the Final EIS is not a decision document. The final EIS for the Pebble Mine is the first step in a long, demanding permitting process….”

In 30 years of working in the area of environmental law and policy, however, unless stopped by a lawsuit or legislation, I can’t remember a single project that was not given the go-ahead after it was recommended in a Final EIS.

When the FEIS was released on July 24, there are now, less than a couple of weeks remaining before the final decision on the permit and for the Environmental Protection Agency to veto the project. Dan Sullivan and other politicians need to take a firm stand and pressure the agency to do just that.

New Global Database Spotlights Freshwater Fish and Climate Change

Research findings on inland fish and impacts from climate change are now available in an updatable, searchable database, thanks to a team effort by the National CASC, USGS, and University partners. FiCli (the Fish and Climate Change Database) contains a breadth of peer-reviewed literature spanning geographic regions on a global scale. The data, which will continue to grow as more data are added, will help inform resource managers and spur future studies on fish health and climate.

Southwestern Alaska’s Salmon Face a Grim Climate Future

Using past weather data and future weather pattern predictions in Southwestern Alaska, the National Park Service foresees both a significant decrease in precipitation in the form of snow and a shorter snow season. Over the next fifty years, according to the study, low-lying regions in the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, and in the Lake Clark, Katmai, and Kenai Fjords National Parks are likely to transition from snow-dominant to rain-dominant. This shift will reduce overall snowpack and decrease instream flow during summer months unless glacial melt or rain boost runoff. The timing of runoff may negatively impact salmon runs in the summer months, while an increase in streamflow in the winter months, as snow transitions to rain, will threaten salmon eggs with scouring. Warmer air temperatures in the summer months are expected to raise temperatures in non-glacial streams, impeding salmon survival throughout all life stages. It is unlikely that salmon will adjust quickly enough to accommodate to these changes.

Read more.

 

 

Bringing Water Justice to the Arctic

 

Responding to the current focus on anti-discrimination and the need to provide clean water to communities as a means of preventing infection and spread of the Pandemic, the decades old environmental justice and human right to water movements have combined to create new terminologies such as “Water Ethics” and “Water Justice.” House Democrats responded to the call by proposing a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill that would include everything from tax incentives for clean energy businesses, funding for drinking water programs and for climate resiliency upgrades to public housing. They hope to submit the bill to Congress by the 4th of July holiday.

The need to shore up water infrastructure is even getting attention in the Arctic these days where, as part of the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2020, the plan to expand and deepen the city of Nome’s port was recently approved by the Army Corp of part of Engineers. Because the purpose of the expansion is primarily to extend the harbor into Norton Sound and dredge the outer area so that it is deep enough to accommodate big vessels like fuel tankers and large cargo and cruise ships, it’s main effect will be to further open the Arctic to commerce and development. In their present form , therefore, both infrastructure bills are missing an opportunity to effectively respond to the Pandemic and increase climate resiliency by incorporating adequate water infrastructure for indigenous communities, including many Arctic Native communities who have never had running water.

It’s easy to imagine , for example, many of the Alaska Native communities who have never had access to running water, shaking their heads in response to recent federal and state health agency cries to “Wash Your Hands!.” According to water justice advocates, “more than 2 million Americans who lack indoor plumbing or wastewater services live in remote areas, or come from high-risk groups like the elderly, disabled, homebound and homeless.” Closing the access gap, therefore, should include the use of “existing disaster response protocols to close this access gap and prioritize communities where local capacity is limited. It should partner with state and local municipalities for both immediate and long-term solutions.”

Water ethics is also getting media attention these days in the form of the disproportionate impact of oil and gas development on Arctic Native communities as it relates to climate change. Last month, for example in the worst environmental disaster in Russian history, tons of water spilled into the Ambarnaya River in Siberia, due in part to rapidly melting permafrost at the Nornickel plant. As with so many industrial crises, the damage from the spill landed heaviest on the nearby indigenous peoples of the Taimyr Krasnoyarsk Territory.

In a bizarre twist on the water injustice of oil and gas drilling, however, the Alaska Delegation has managed to turn recent attention on the problem of discrimination on it’s head, by requesting that the federal government investigate recent global banking policies to forego loans and investments with companies that produce oil and other fossil fuels. Their argument? Such policies harm local Alaska Native communities who rely on drilling in the Arctic for jobs. Noticeably absent from the letter that Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan and Don Young sent to the comptroller of the currency and the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp , however, is the discriminatory effects of carbon producing drilling activity on these same communities who rely on the unraveling fresh water and marine ecosystems in the rapidly heating Arctic for subsistence.

Still, our response to COVID-19 may provide an opportunity to address climate change in the Arctic. At least for now, airlines and other businesses are in slowdown around the globe and in some countries, CO2 emissions and air pollution are at their lowest in many years. To some extent, house democrats are using the opportunity provided by the Pandemic to address the need to convert to clean energy and focus on environmental justice by introducing climate change legislations which calls for net-zero CO2 emissions over the next 30 years and reducing pollution in communities that are disproportionately affected.

Why not go a step further and take the hint when Mother Nature is trying to send us a message? Could we, for example, use the opportunity from reduced travel and other CO2 emitting activities to switch to flying less, making a quicker switch to electric cars and focusing less on infrastructure that supports carbon producing industrial development, and more on providing water accessibility and applying nature-based solutions related to water issues?

Clean Water Act Dries Up Under Trump Administration Rule

Hot Springs Creek Below the Proposed Graphite One Mine Site

A coalition of Democratic attorneys general attempted, without success, to delay the implementation of a new definition of streams and wetlands put forth by the Trump administration. The new “Waters of the U.S.” Rule or WOTUS removes environmental protections for streams, wetlands and groundwater, and is seen as a major win for farmers and land developers. Under the new ruling, pesticides and fertilizers can now be dumped directly into waterways, and wetlands can be destroyed or filled in to accommodate construction projects. Contamination of drinking water from unregulated pollutants puts millions of Americans at risk. The ruling went into effect on June 29th. Read more here.

In another effort to stop implementation of the Rule, the Navajo Nation and several environmental groups filed suite in U.S. District Court in New Mexico against the Trump Administration. The law suit which also includes Amigos Bravos, the New Mexico Acequia Association, the Gila Resources Information Project and the Environmental Integrity Project and other environmental groups also claims that the Administration failed to consider the impacts of Climate Change on western watersheds that are already affected by over a decade of drought. As a result, smaller systems which are affected more by low flows and higher temperatures from drought conditions will be impacted more significantly by reduced protection from polluters. Agricultural and other livelihoods will that rely on Acequia and other non-industrial irrigation systems dependent upon adequate and timely snow, rain and runoff for crops will be put at risk.

According to Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez, “At this point in time, with climate change occurring around the world, it’s more prudent than ever to protect our land, water and air. We, as Diné People, have a duty to preserve and conserve our natural resources to ensure that our future generations have access to clean water, air and land.”

Melting Permafrost Linked to Russian Oil Spill

In late May of this year, a huge oil tank collapsed in Norilsk, an industrial city in north-central Siberia. An estimated 21,000 tons of diesel fuel spilled into the Ambarnaya and Daldykan rivers coating the water with an oily crimson layer. A failed attempt to contain the spill lead to further contamination downstream as the oil spread northward, entering the 45-mile-long Lake Pyasino, a on its way to the Arctic ocean. One of the largest spills documented in the Arctic, the Norilsk spill has been compared to Alaska’s 1989 ExxonValdez oil spill.  As with the ExxonValdez, the spill occurred during spring migration, poisoning the waters just as fish and birds are returning to their natal grounds.

Russian mining firms identified melting permafrost as the culprit – destabilizing the soil under the tank. Clearly, as the arctic warms, the potential for lethal spills increases.  Better surveillance of melting permafrost with inexpensive temperature probes would likely have prevented the spill. Despite the up-front costs, preventative measures save hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up efforts and safeguard wetlands and the wildlife and human inhabitants they support.

Voluntary compensation for damages from Norilsk Nickle in the amount of $148 billion rubles, or $2 billion dollars.

Read more here and here.

A Green Recovery from the Pandemic?

House Democrats are writing a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill that would fund everything from education to rural broadband to clean water, with an eye toward charting the path toward a green recovery from the pandemic. POLITICO’s Kathryn A. Wolfe reports that Democrats appear to be building from the $494 billion transportation bill making its way through the chamber and hope to have a full package passed before the July 4 recess. It also will include $70 billion for “clean energy,” $25 billion for drinking water programs, $35 billion for health care infrastructure and $100 billion for broadband, House Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) told reporters. The legislation is also expected to contain $1 billion for climate resiliency upgrades to public housing, among other programs in that area.

The bill is likely to encounter resistance from the President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans, as past Democratic proposals have. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi projected optimism at a press conference Thursday. “When people see the legislation, and people see how it does affect their areas — this is not just a matter of transportation, it’s a matter of clean air, clean water,” Pelosi said. “So, we think that this will be nonpartisan, very bipartisan, and we look forward to working together — House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and the White House.”

USDA Forest Service Updated “Forests to Faucets” Data released

Forests to Faucets premiered in 2011 to portray the relationship between forests and source water across the U.S. The updated version 2.0 (F2F2) dataset released in April assesses all 88,000 HUC12 watersheds in the U.S. to identify those forests important to downstream surface drinking water supplies and evaluate each watershed’s natural ability to produce clean water. F2F2 includes future risks to watersheds such as development, wildfire or climate-induced changes to water quantity. More information available, here.