In Houston’s Fifth Ward, Concern Over Superfund Site Grows With EPA Budget Cuts

Written by

Houston Press
By Dianna Wray
Original article here

Houston-area activists gathered on a street corner in Fifth Ward on Tuesday, just across from the Many Diversified Interests Inc. Superfund site — which is currently under redevelopment after the federal Environmental Protection Agency allowed years to pass without cleaning up the lead-contaminated site — to announce that they are joining organizers from across the country in influencing how the EPA deals with the Superfund program.

The location of the announcement was no accident. Instead of cleaning up MDI — a 35-acre tract of land that was the location of a foundry from 1926 to 1992 that left the the site, along with the groundwater beneath it, laced with lead — the EPA took the site off its priority list in 2010, and allowed a developer to get to work redeveloping it.

Now, as the construction on the site continues, local activists are pointing to the MDI site as an example of what may happen if Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator, follows through on his plan to cut $330 million of the Superfund program’s $1.1. billion budget, a reduction of 30 percent.

“Scott Pruitt’s plan to streamline the Superfund process in favor of cutting costs will lead to incomplete cleanups of contaminated neighborhoods, as demonstrated in the past at sites like MDI in Houston’s 5th Ward,” Rosanne Barone, the Houston program director for Texas Campaign for the Environment, said in a statement. “Painted as a quick way to boost economic development, Pruitt’s recommendations are more akin to a fast track to injustice.”

Cutting the Superfund program’s budget may not sound like a big deal, but that’s just because you haven’t been up close and personal, wondering if you are drinking lead-laced groundwater from the MDI site or dealing with any of the toxic sludge leaking out from the San Jacinto Waste Pits or any of the other 13 federally designated Superfund sites in Harris County.

Pruitt has talked a good game since he was confirmed as the Trump administration’s EPA head earlier this year. Pruitt has said that he is intent on focusing on one of the most important missions the EPA is tasked with, cleaning up the toxic, sometimes carcinogenic Superfund sites that dot the landscape of the United States.

In fact, Pruitt has stated that cleaning up Superfund sites would be returned “to their rightful place at the center of the EPA’s core mission.” He even put together a task force last month to get advice on how to handle Superfund, the federal program created more than 30 years ago to fund the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants.

However, it seems Pruitt has been talking through his hat when it comes to the Superfund program, because despite all the promises of a real focus on Superfund sites, the proposed 2018 budget includes those massive cuts to the program’s actual budget.

Local Superfund organizers were wary but hopeful when Pruitt initially supported a focus on the Superfund sites — after all, this is the man who rivaled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the record of lawsuits filed against the EPA — but when they learned about the budget cuts, they went to work.

So the plan was cooked up to launch the People’s Task Force, an entity aimed at pushing their own recommendations for the Superfund program based on their collective years of boots-on-the-ground experience in dealing with the problems at various sites. Based on the proposed budget cuts, area activists believe that Pruitt will also be inclined to use cost-cutting measures like the ones employed with the MDI site.

“Environmental justice communities have long been forced to contend with the negative impacts of lax environmental clean-up and lax enforcement thereof in communities of color,” Juan Parras, director of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, said in a statement. “It is unconscionable that the EPA and TCEQ are comfortable with members of our community being exposed to elevated levels of lead when, as stated by the CDC, any level of lead is unsafe.”

The Reverend James Caldwell also sounded off, pointing to the MDI site as the standard Texans can expect if the Superfund budget is actually cut in 2018. “The MDI site was contaminated with lead, and elevated levels have been identified in the community. This is not only an environmental justice concern but one of public health,” Caldwell stated. “This site was not properly addressed; this is a failure of the EPA, TCEQ and these partnership agreements. This was a cost-saving tactic. We cannot sacrifice our communities or our children. We must take a stand and say enough is enough.”

There’s no telling if Pruitt or anyone else in the EPA will actually take any of the advice the People’s Task Force comes up with, but at least if the EPA decides to sell the San Jacinto Waste Pits, for example, instead of going through the costly planned cleanup, nobody in the agency will be able to say that he was not warned that kind of approach could be a bad idea.

Clarification, August 3: Local activists are concerned about the groundwater below and around the MDI Site, which the EPA has continued to monitor, not necessarily the site itself.

Pruitt to Tap Private Sector to Hasten Superfund Cleanups

Written by

Bloomberg News
By Sylvia Carignan
Original article here

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is embracing public-private partnerships and setting aggressive agency deadlines to move languishing Superfund site cleanups forward.

The administrative overhaul opens up opportunities for private parties to take on Superfund cleanups and for the Environmental Protection Agency to more quickly get contaminated sites off its National Priorities List.

Pruitt’s Task Force

Pruitt’s Superfund task force—called together in May—focused on changes that could be made to the Superfund program outside of legislation. The task force’s recommendations were built into a plan with deadlines for the agency. The plan, recommendations,, and a memo from the administrator to regional offices were released July 25.

The task force’s recommendations describe administrative changes to accelerate cleanup, especially for sites that have been on the the National Priorities List for years. As of June 21, there were 1,336 sites on the list, of which 1,179 are private sites and 157 are federal facilities, according to the EPA.

“This is truly about us identifying what proper remediation means,” Pruitt said at a media roundtable July 25.

But environmentalists and other groups say he’s leaving out people most affected by cleanup decisions—local residents.

Rosanne Barone, Houston program director for the Texas Campaign for the Environment, worries that Pruitt’s emphasis on getting sites off the National Priorities List faster will lead to decisions that compromise public health. “He’s completely leaving out the people who are living in these communities, who are the real stakeholders,” she said.

Addressing Liability

Lenny Siegel, executive director for the Center for Public Environmental Oversight in California, favors the recommendations, but worried about their implementation. “Their application may have a negative effect if budget and staffing are cut by a third,” he told Bloomberg BNA.

The recommendations are “consistent with this administration’s goals to engage the private sector, and thereby shift some of the cost and burden away from the federal government,” said Peter Hsiao, a partner at Morrison Foerster.

The recommendations offer some of the financial risk to third parties—such as nonprofit organizations or land banks—which are not potentially responsible for contamination but sometimes offer to assist with funding cleanup. “The problem is going to be finding somebody who wants the liability,” Hsiao said.

The agency will also focus on communicating with potentially responsible parties who have already been identified for particular sites. They also will create a work group to review existing state programs and identify opportunities for parties to perform specific tasks at waste sites.

Superfund sites that have spent years without a cleanup decision—but have identified responsible parties—may see positive change as a result of the agency’s new Superfund plan, Pruitt said. “If you’re a [potentially responsible party] and you’re in that situation, guess what? We’re going to be talking to you very soon,” he said.

Recommended Changes

The task force, which involved more than 80 members, issued 42 recommendations. Their recommendations became part of EPA’s new Superfund plan, released July 25.

The changes the agency will make to the Superfund program have deadlines ranging from the last quarter of fiscal year 2017 to the last quarter of fiscal year 2018.

The recommendations include:

  • Directing resources toward sites that have been on the National Priorities List for five years or longer where little progress has been made,
  • Prioritizing Superfund sites where remedies have already been selected,
  • Pushing potentially responsible parties and agency personnel to adhere to project deadlines,
  • Identifying sites where land can be re-used in order to promote third party investments, and
  • Using the Superfund alternative approach to finance site cleanups.

The Superfund alternative approach involves the same site investigation process, but avoids adding the site to the National Priorities List. For some companies and communities, becoming involved with a listed site carries a stigma.

Hsiao told Bloomberg BNA that those involved with Superfund in the private sector have been expecting some of these changes, including an emphasis on third-party investments, for some time.

“I think most sophisticated practitioners believe that the process could be improved substantially, and many of these recommendations, I think, follow the ways people think the process could be improved,” he said.

Bart Seitz, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker Botts LLP, said it’s “laudable” to see the agency embarking on this plan, but says it’s still early in its development.

“As the saying goes, ‘The devil will be in the details,’ as this gets rolled out,” he told Bloomberg BNA.

Members of Fifth Ward community protest budget cuts to superfund site

Written by

CW39 Houston
By G. Trudeau
Original article here

HOUSTON – In Houston’s historic Fifth Ward, neighbors worry that politics and profits are taking priority over cleaning up their community.

“We’re boxed in with toxic hazards, and that is unacceptable,” says Joetta Stevenson with the Fifth Ward Super Neighborhood Civic Club. “To prioritize quick development over the full cleanup of a contaminated neighborhood is not just only gentrification at its worst, it’s environmental racism.”

The M.D.I. Superfund site is a 35-acre tract of land contaminated from a foundry that went bankrupt in 1992.

“A history of contamination with lead followed this entire community starting with the relocation of Bruce Elementary where every single child in the elementary school had elevated levels of lead,” says Yvette Arellano with the environmental group T.E.J.A.S.

And just because you don’t call the downtown area home, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be concerned.

“In this case we’re talking about soil, we’re talking about a city that when it rains, water stands, or it flows,” says Stevenson.

The community rejects the Trump administration’s proposed budget that cuts superfund money by 30%.

Demonstrators also reject recommendations from the task force set up by the new EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

“These recommendations encourage private investment in the site cleanups that allow quick inadequate remediation. This site here is not fully cleaned up, with the evaluation process near complete and once completed, it will be deleted from the list of EPA’s national priorities,” explains Rosanne Barone with the Texas Campaign for the Environment.

They also fear a developer that purchased the land wants to build luxury condominiums A.S.A.P. Development, they say, will skimp on cleanup, and price them out of their homes.

Folks here cite that as recently at 2016, 3% of children in the area, 15 and under, were still testing above the acceptable level of lead in their system.

Washington, D.C. decisions hitting home, and for H-town, a community resisting profits over progress.

One Bin for All is dead. So how should Houston handle its trash?

Written by

Houston Chronicle Op-Ed
By Rosanne Barone

It’s unfortunate that the recent discussions in City Hall regarding Houston’s plan to sign a long-term recycling contract have been clouded by the ghost of One Bin for All.

That idea would have made Houstonians combine all their discards into one bin. It was adamantly rejected by the recycling industry, environmental justice advocates and many others.

The national Paper Recycling Coalition, Steel Recycling Institute, Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries and others knew that when used materials, food and pet waste are all combined together, it is also known as another name — “trash” — and so they wrote letters to then-Mayor Annise Parker advising her against this policy.

Thankfully, when Mayor Turner took office in 2016, he knew the best practice for Houston is to keep recyclable materials separate and clean so they can be sold to commodity markets and generate revenue for the City.

Turner himself reminded us at a press conference on June 28 that he has no interest in bringing back a proposal that would reverse Houston’s progress on sustainability, so let’s drop it.

Instead, let’s talk about the guaranteed economic opportunities and environmental protections that are now on the horizon as the city works to improve curbside recycling. According to the Houston-Galveston Area Council, when we include composters, hard-plastics reclaimers, electronics processors, construction- and demolition-debris recyclers and manufacturers of goods made from recycled items, we have 21,550 recycling jobs in our region and an industrial output of $4.5 billion per year.

Who knew recycling was so vital for Houston’s economy? Additionally, throwing all discards into landfills supports a disposable, wasteful culture while doing real damage to our environment. There are 56 leaking landfills in the state of Texas, four in Harris County and one in Fort Bend County. Landfills are also more often than not located in low-income neighborhoods, so trashing valuable materials also perpetuates environmental injustice.

Houston should instead follow other U.S. cities committed to sustainability by developing a zero-waste plan. Out of the nation’s 10 largest cities, Houston is the only one lacking a zero-waste plan, or at least a plan to get closer to it, like in San Antonio.

For many cities, zero waste means more than 90 percent of materials will be diverted from landfills through recycling, composting and reuse.

That sounds like a big goal, but it’s also a process that we can take time one step at a time. Like any plan for successful progress, there should be measurable benchmarks to help us get where we need to be.

For example, some cities focus on launching composting pilot programs within a few years, while others aim to offer recycling at all multifamily housing, including offering training to residents. Houston is unique, and we can create our own individualized plan.

My number one recommendation to start is to expand recycling to apartments. When I mentioned to City Council recently that 40 percent of Houston residents live in apartments and have no way to recycle other than collecting materials in their own personal bins and bringing them to a recycling facility themselves, some council members recognized this as an urgent problem.

Another immediate step would be to provide recycling to businesses and commercial industries in Houston, accounting for a huge amount of waste produced by people at work.

And a pilot program for curbside composting would be a huge way to reduce organic matter in landfills which contributes significantly to the emission of greenhouse gases.

The City must lead by example, and should start by offering recycling in all public buildings, outdoor recreation spaces and on public transportation. In many cities with a zero-waste goal, the city offers recycling training and education to residents. The more the public feels involved in the process, the more likely they are to participate.

An improved recycling system for Houston isn’t just about catching up to other cities or becoming a global leader. It’s about responsibly reusing our resources to create jobs and improve not just some communities, but to provide recycling for all.

Rosanne Barone is the Houston Program Director for Texas Campaign for the Environment.

Legislative efforts to curtail local environmental rules faltered

Written by

Austin American-Statesman
By Asher Price

Five months ago, conservative lawmakers had high hopes of loosening environmental regulations, especially those enacted by progressive-minded cities like Austin.

In the 2015 legislative session, lawmakers passed a measure overriding the city of Denton’s voter-approved ban on hydraulic fracturing, a type of gas drilling. This year, conservative Republicans had bag bans and tree ordinances in their sights.

But as the Legislature wrapped up its biennial confab on Monday, the committee room floors were littered with conservative-minded bills that never made it anywhere. Two bills that would have targeted Austin and some other Central Texas cities were:

  • Senate Bill 103, which would have barred a city from regulating bags offered at retail checkout counters. The measure, filed by Sen. Bob Hall, R-Rockwall, who won election as part of a tea party wave in 2014, authorizes a business to provide a bag “made from any material” at the point of sale. It never came up for a vote in committee.
  • SB 782, by Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, would have limited the mitigation fee that a local government can impose on a landowner for removing trees greater than 10 inches in girth. Testimony was not taken, let alone a committee vote.

It could be that the action taken on fracking in 2015 left lawmakers less likely to take action this time around. That activity “sucked up most of the air and energy around pre-emption,” said Robin Schneider of Texas Campaign for the Environment.

In a modest victory for environmentalists, House Bill 3482, by Rep. Gina Hinojosa, D-Austin, a bill that clarifies that local governments can pass single-use bag ordinances, was approved by the House Urban Affairs Committee. It didn’t progress further, however.

Legislation targeting bag bans failed to gain traction for at least the third session in a row, suggesting lawmakers are more likely to tackle local control issues if deep-pocketed industries are involved — such as oil and gas or ride-hailing service companies Uber and Lyft — or if it’s a hot-button issue — such as transgender bathroom use or “sanctuary city” policies.

Here’s a roundup of other environmental bills and their fates:

  • A measure that would have protected ExxonMobil in an ongoing dispute about whether it had misled investors on the dangers of climate change wasn’t given a committee hearing. HB 420, by Rep. James White, R-Hillister, would have barred a defendant’s theories on climate change from being used as evidence in a fraud or deceptive practice case.
  • A series of bills that appeared designed to water down oversight on groundwater pumping in the Hill Country — and to help a politically connected property owner — were essentially shelved after the American-Statesman shed light on them.
  • HB 2802 would have repealed a law subjecting the Lower Colorado River Authority and a host of other river authorities to sunset review. River authorities said the reviews are costly; critics of the authorities said the reviews are necessary for the purpose of transparency. It passed the House but died in the Senate.
  • HB 3451 by Rep. Lynn Stucky, R-Sanger, would have required a study on the impact of poison proposed for use on feral hogs before its use is allowed. The bill was prompted by a backlash to Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller’s pronouncement in February that a new bait would hasten the “feral hog apocalypse.” An unusual coalition of hunters and environmentalists coalesced, worried the bait, which was laced with warfarin — used as rat poison and as a blood thinner in humans — could jeopardize wildlife. The measure passed the House but was left pending in a Senate committee.

Tire crumb – dangerous or safe for your kids?

Written by

KVUE News Austin
By Christy Millweard
Original story here

videokvue1

CENTRAL TEXAS – We’re days away from learning if a rubber material used on playgrounds and athletic fields are safe for children. Three federal agencies are researching the health risks of rubber tire crumb. Their research began in early 2016, and they’re expected to release a report soon.

The work began as a solution to a problem; old tires can’t go in landfills because they are not biodegradable. So, companies began shredding them and putting them on playgrounds and artificial fields to prevent injury.

Zac Trahan and Virginia Fugman say they take their 1-year-old son Dario to explore the park.

“We go outside every day,” said Fugman.

But Trahan and Fugman say they’re are concerned about the dangers of rubber crumb used to pad their son’s fall at some parks.

“There’s no way I’m going to take him to a playscape or playground that has rubber just because I don’t know,” said Fugman.

It’s the same worries parents across the country have about the rubber crumb used in synthetic turf fields under the Friday night lights. Nancy Alderman, the president of Environment and Human Health Inc., a nonprofit based in Connecticut, said their group of physicians, toxicologists, and public health professionals has been researching tire crumbs for nine years.

“The reason we researched it is because nobody else was, and because we felt there was an inherent danger,” said Alderman.

A Yale University analysis, commissioned by EHHI, found 11 carcinogens, or cancer-causing substances, and 20 irritants in a small rubber crumb sample. The findings present a potential danger for students athletes who come in close contact with it.

“These crumb rubber are small enough they get into ears, eyes, nose, mouths, clothes, they get into people houses on their clothes, they get into the washing machines,” said Alderman. “Why would anybody want to put our children on any surface that have known carcinogens on it, why do we do this?”

Currently, three federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission and Center for Disease Control and Prevention, are studying the issue. They’re looking at 40 fields and nine tire crumb manufacturing plants across the country to determine if there are potential health risks in the material. A spokeswoman for the EPA says almost 50 federal employees are working on the project and it’s estimated to cost about $2 million dollars.

But people like Trahan, who is also the program director at Texas Campaign for the Environment, are asking why the government didn’t do their study before tire crumbs were used on playgrounds and turf soccer fields.

“Only after evidence starts coming to light that it may be dangerous do we actually study it to see if it’s safe, it doesn’t make any sense at all,” said Trahan. “If it turns out the study shows that this stuff is completely 100 percent safe, then you can start using it again, but why have it there in the meantime.”

The Recycled Rubber Council sent KVUE the following statement:

“The recycled rubber industry is committed to transparency and welcomes all additional scientific-based testing and collaboration to ensure the safety of children who play on our products. While we encourage decision-makers to look at the body of research that has already been done, we’re fully supportive of the current multi-agency effort to examine the claims regarding potential risks associated with playing on artificial turf fields and playgrounds with recycled rubber infill.

We strongly reaffirm, however, that based on dozens of reports, including peer-reviewed academic studies and federal and state government analyses—recycled rubber has no link to any health issues. The product in media reports is the same recycled rubber used in a variety of products that are widely considered to be safe, such as sneakers, garden hoses, hospital floors, surgical gloves, and an array of other uses.

In an ideal world the federal government’s involvement, which we encouraged for years, would settle this matter once and for all, put parents’ minds at ease, and validate past and recent due diligence by public officials. At the same time, we have some concern that because of the way the study is currently designed, it may not provide the level of closure to the issue that the public is seeking.

First, the EPA stated the study will not investigate natural grass fields, which would provide critical context given the EPA’s note that metals of concern within fields containing recycled rubber are likely to be present in natural grass fields, too. Secondly, the EPA will not be testing a control group by looking at the grass and soil adjacent to synthetic turf fields being studied to see if any possible contamination derives instead from environmental factors.

When the findings of this study are reported, it would be misleading to report the existence of chemicals without including this necessary context. The EPA has acknowledged a desire to investigate each ofthese, but cited time and resource constraints. We hope to see this revisited, as such context lends to sound science and sensible policies to instill the confidence policymakers sought with this study.”

tire-crumbs

Here in Central Texas, you can find pieces of the rubber at Fuentes Elementary in Kyle. Tim Savoy with Hays CISD said the district tried it out on 5 playgrounds in 2010 in order to go green.

“It has great properties in terms of being safe when a kid falls because it’s very cushy; it will stop a fall,” said Savoy.

But, they’re now phasing the rubber crumb out.

“We just made the decision that it’s not the material that we want to use,” said Savoy.

He said the main reason is because the pieces blow away, and it’s hard to maintain. But he also said they want to be proactive, in case the research finds health risks in the rubber.

“You start seeing the concerns that are raised, is it harmful, are there chemicals in those tires that are not good for children,” said Savoy.

The change will cost about $6,000 dollars, but Savoy said it’s well worth it.

“For the peace of mind, that’s worth the price,” said Savoy.

We talked to several other school districts in Central Texas who say they use a virgin rubber mix on their fields and playgrounds. A spokeswoman with Hellas Construction based in Austin said that mix is made of new rubber, not old tires. In 2013, Frank Petrini with Hellas Construction said they also created an alternative.

“There’s cork in it, and the cork allows for a bit more cushioning,” said Petrini.

Petrini said the Geo Plus infill, made of coconut and cork, is an organic alternative that helps keep fields 40 degrees cooler than the rubber fill.

“The biggest complaints of artificial turf is that they’re super-hot,” said Petrini.

While the company does still install rubber, Petrini said the organic option has taken off. For 2016, he said the organic mix will be more than 20 percent of their sales, 3 years ago it was less than 5 percent.

“You don’t get rubber splashed everywhere, in your uniforms, in your car, at your house, it’s a much more natural type product so it feels like natural grass,” said Petrini.

But he said they’re not convinced the rubber is harmful.

“There’s multiple tests done on rubber, it’s always been inconclusive, as far as health standards on it,” said Petrini.

Until the federal study is complete, Trahan and Fugman feel it’s up to parents.

“It’s definitely going to impact where we go in the future,” said Fugman.

A decision that may impact the future of their son.

KVUE talked to several school districts in Central Texas to find out which products schools are using. So far we’ve counted 34 fields that use a rubber infill, either the cut up tires, or the clean rubber mix. Mike Kelly, the Managing engineer for the City of Austin says they have regulations to make sure products like these tire crumb pieces don’t get into the water stream.

What a Trump win might mean for Texas’ environment

Written by

San Antonio Express-News
By Brendan Gibbons
Original article here

Depending on one’s point of view, Donald Trump’s election as president can be seen as either a chance to pull back on federal regulatory overreach or to undo any recent progress made on the environment.

Experts on both sides say climate change, energy, the Environmental Protection Agency’s relationship with the states, endangered species and land use are some of the most important environmental issues that Trump’s leadership will alter. That could be especially true in Texas.

Still, nobody knows exactly what Trump will do. Compared with immigration and health care, the environment received little attention from either side in the presidential campaign. Trump also has made conflicting statements about his plans for the EPA.

Trump’s pick of transition advisers and possible future Cabinet members offers some clues. He appointed two climate change skeptics: Myron Ebell to head his EPA transition team and a North Dakota Republican congressman, Kevin Cramer, as an energy adviser. Trump is reportedly considering oil executive Forrest Lucas for interior secretary, which would put him in control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and other federal agencies with vast land holdings. Other potential picks include Oklahoma oil tycoon Harold Hamm for energy secretary.

As for Trump’s policies, environmentalists and business and energy advocates in Texas and elsewhere are looking to his transition website, along with his Twitter account and a few public statements, for clues.

Climate and Energy

Most everyone agrees that the Obama administration’s policies to address climate change, including cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, are doomed. Trump has vowed to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and “scrap” the Clean Power Plan, the first-ever attempt to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the highest-emitting sector in the U.S.

That’s good news for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton’s office joined 24 states in a lawsuit challenging the plan, and the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay in February.

Texas generates more electricity and produces more greenhouse gas emissions from power plants than any other state and is the only one to operate its own electrical grid. Texas also ranks No. 1 in wind power and No. 10 in solar.

The Clean Power Plan would have required Texas to cut its emissions to 33 percent of 2012 levels by 2030 but would have allowed the state to decide for itself how to do so. As of July, Texas generated 51 percent of its electricity from natural gas, 29 percent from coal, 12 percent from renewable sources and 8 percent from nuclear power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. If that mix changes, federal mandates will not be the cause.

Texas’ challenge to the Clean Power Plan will still be underway when Trump takes office, and his administration has several options to change the rules or settle with Texas and the other states, said Scott Segal, head of the policy group at Bracewell, an international law firm that advises San Antonio-based oil refiners Valero Energy and Tesoro.

Besides the Clean Power Plan, Texas has seven other pending lawsuits against the federal government over air regulations covering oil field methane emissions, particulates, sulfur dioxide and more. For Texas’ top Republican officeholders, including Abbott, that litigation has been key to keeping the Obama administration in check.

“For the first time since 2008, we won’t have a White House that we have to constantly sue to protect the rights of Texans,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement after Trump’s election.

Under Trump, the EPA will “settle in Texas’ favor if they can,” said Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project, who for five years served as director of the EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement. “I’m hoping they don’t do that every single time on every single issue. That would be foolish if they did because obviously they’ll be setting up for a backlash.”

Robin Schneider, director of Texas Campaign for the Environment, also has little hope for Obama’s fossil-fuel regulations but did not think it would spell the end for renewable energy sources. “The thing is, the momentum for clean energy, for wind and solar, is very strong already,” she said.

Trade groups that represent Texas power producers offered little insight into their thinking about Trump’s administration. The Association of Electric Companies of Texas, which represents generators dominated both by renewable sources and fossil fuels, declined to comment.

Lindsey Hughes, director of Texas Competitive Power Advocates, said in an email that the group will support “a market that brings investment in clean and diversified energy resources to provide ample, reliable and affordable electricity choices for Texas consumers.” She did not mention Trump.

EPA Enforcement

Trump’s team mentions the EPA briefly on its transition website, saying it “will refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.”

It included one specific measure: The president-elect said he would “eliminate” the “highly invasive” Waters of the U.S. rule. That’s shorthand for a rule that said that the Clean Water Act applies to wetlands and ephemeral streams that are headwaters for larger tributaries and rivers. The EPA framed it as clarifying the law, while opponents considered it an overreach.

Schaeffer, whose group often sues the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality over the issue of weak enforcement of environmental laws, thinks Obama’s EPA was already fairly soft on the TCEQ. Texans should now expect even less from the EPA and must take matters into their own hands, he said.

“If you’re living downwind or downriver from polluters, you’re less able to depend on some kind of backstop from EPA,” he said. “You’re going to need to start taking your own agency on and holding them accountable.”

There may be one place for common ground. Trump has proposed a $550 billion investment in the country’s infrastructure, though he has not explained how it would be funded. That could include some money to upgrade the nation’s drinking water systems.

Endangered Species

Trump and his advisers have said next to nothing about endangered species, except for one reference on the transition site to protecting habitat. This is an environmental fight that often plays out in Texas. Recent battles have been waged over the lesser prairie chicken, the dunes sagebrush lizard and the golden-cheeked warbler, whose habitats often overlap with land coveted by oil and gas companies or developers.

With Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, Robert Henneke, general counsel for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank, said he was hopeful for what he said is a needed reform of the Endangered Species Act. His group joined a petition last year to take the golden-cheeked warbler off the endangered species list.

“The purpose of the Endangered Species Act needs to be restored to protecting endangered and threatened species and not land control and encumbrance of private property,” he said, adding that the federal government should still have a role for migratory species that cross state boundaries.

The day after the election, Center for Biological Diversity Director Kierán Suckling called Trump’s win a “disaster.” The environmental group has fought for protection of several Texas species, including the dunes sagebrush lizard, a species of mussel native to the Rio Grande, endangered salamanders and the warbler.

“Trump’s vision is dark. Dangerous,” Suckling said in the statement, adding that his organization will “regroup, re-energize and carry on the good fight to save life on Earth.”

Use of Federal Land

One issue that has environmentalists reeling may be less of a concern in Texas: opening up federal lands for energy development. Unlike most of the West, Texas has few federal lands outside of Big Bend National Park, some U.S. Forest Service land in East Texas, North Texas and the Panhandle, and a smattering of wildlife refuges along the Gulf Coast.

Trump’s transition page calls for “opening onshore and offshore (energy) leasing on federal lands and waters.” It vows to repeal a moratorium on federal coal mining leasing while “ensuring proper stewardship of our National Parks’ crown jewels.”

“To the extent that the limited federal lands in Texas would be productive economically,” Henneke said, “then they should be developed with the same types of environmental safeguards that have always existed.”

On the other side, Schneider said any extreme ideas such as privatizing national parks “will ignite a firestorm.”

With Republicans set to control the White House and Congress, perhaps environmentalists across the country can learn a thing or two from those working in Texas.

“We’ve been dealing with people in power in both houses of the Legislature, in the Governor’s Mansion, in the lieutenant governor’s chair and at the Texas Supreme Court,” Schneider said. “Very few of these people get elected on a pro-environment platform.”

She said groups such as hers succeed in this state by finding unlikely allies. Canvassing door to door has taught her that many Republicans and conservatives support certain conservation measures.

“We learned how to talk to people across the political spectrum,” she said. “Not that we always win by a long shot, but we have been very successful on a lot of fronts.”

Will the Railroad Commission ever be accurately named?

Written by

Texas Observer
By Naveena Sadasivam
Original article here

Though the Railroad Commission of Texas hasn’t overseen trains for more than three decades, some members of the Legislature and the oil and gas lobby continue to fight to keep the agency’s misleading name. And in the 2017 session they’re likely to win.

Scott Towery/flickr/creative commons
Scott Towery/flickr/creative commons

On Thursday morning, the Sunset Commission — a 12-member board of legislators and public members that reviews state agencies’ operations — nixed a recommendation to change the Railroad Commission’s name to one that actually describes its role regulating oil and gas. In an April report, Sunset staff suggested that lawmakers rename the agency to the Texas Energy Resources Commission. But at a hearing today, the Sunset Commission members dropped the recommendation without publicly offering a reason.

The Railroad Commission’s review is its third since 2010. Previous attempts to pass reforms recommended by the Sunset Commission failed in the Legislature in part due to lawmakers squabbling over the name change. In 2013 and 2015, conservative legislators blocked bills that would’ve changed the agency’s name to the Texas Energy Commission or the Texas Oil and Gas Commission, arguing that it would be too costly and that the name has a historical significance.

Those issues have resurfaced this year. In August, Republican state Representative Dan Flynn told other Sunset Commission members at a hearing that “it doesn’t take long to figure out what [the Railroad Commission] is if you’re in the business.”

He added:“I just think it seems like we’re getting drawn into this political correctness business.”

But environmental and consumer advocates say lawmakers’ refusal to change the agency’s name is symbolic of its deep ties to the oil and gas industry. Rebranding to, say, the Texas Oil and Gas Commission would increase transparency and better reflect its responsibilities, they say. Sunset Commission staff have also recommended changing the agency’s name to the Texas Energy Resources Commission.

“It’s been a red herring in that it distracts Texans from what the agency is actually doing,” said Andrew Dobbs, Central Texas program director for Texas Campaign for the Environment. “But at the end of the day if we have a better agency under a not-so-great name, we’ll have to deal with it.”

A report published Thursday by Texans for Public Justice, Sierra Club and Public Citizen found that 60 percent of the $11 million in campaign contributions to the three elected commissioners who oversee the Railroad Commission came from the oil and gas industry. That’s the kind of money that can not only buy influence but prevent what seems like the kind of agency rebranding that should’ve happened decades ago. Changing the name might also help voters better understand its functions and choose candidates uninfluenced by the oil and gas industry, environmental groups say.

At the hearing Thursday morning, the Sunset Commission also removed recommendations to require the State Office of Administrative Hearings to take on gas utility cases and increase bond requirements so that the Railroad Commission has sufficient money to plug wells should an operator abandon it. Dobbs said the commission was likely dropping more controversial recommendations so that a bill reauthorizing the Railroad Commission for 12 years had a better chance of passing.

The commission’s recommendations will be submitted to the Legislature, which is scheduled to convene on January 10.

Texas & national bag reduction advocates blast Texas Attorney General’s assault on local bag law

Written by

Media Release

Contacts:
Robin Schneider, Texas Campaign for the Environment, 512-326-5655
Rob Nixon, Surfrider Foundation, 956-433-1472

Texas & National Bag Reduction Advocates Blast Texas Attorney General’s Assault on Bag Law
Wildlife, Livestock, Clean-up Costs to Local Governments, Flooding & Local Solutions are At Stake

State and national bag law advocates convened this week to defend bag ordinances in the wake of embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against Texas’ first local law against bag pollution in Brownsville. A range of organizations plan to assist as this issue lands in the lap of the Texas Supreme Court with the City of Laredo appealing a recent decision striking down that city’s bag law.

“The reasons for bag laws are as diverse as Texas,” said Robin Schneider, Executive Director of Texas Campaign for the Environment, who played a leading role in passing the Austin bag ordinance and successfully defeating attempts to preempt bag ordinances at the state legislature since 2009. “For the West Texas city of Fort Stockton it was the death of livestock that ingest ‘plastic tumbleweed’ and ruin the desert landscape getting caught on cactus and barbed wire, while on the coast it’s concern over sea turtles, plastic in the food chain and beach pollution.”

The benefits of local ordinances have been obvious.

“As a resident of the Rio Grande Valley, I have seen the very positive effects of the Bag Ordinances in Laguna Vista, South Padre Island and especially Brownsville. One would not recognize Brownsville today compared to 2010 when the city very wisely passed their bag law,” said Rob Nixon, Chairman of the Surfrider Foundation South Texas Chapter and Surfrider Foundation National Boardmember. “Attorney General Ken Paxton’s claim of the ‘buck a bag’ fee is disingenuous and not true. If you need a plastic bag at one of only the seven retailers that got exemptions and implemented the fee, it is $1 for as many bags as you require for the purchase. That fee goes to a fund to clean up the bags that are dispersed from the exemptions,” he concluded.

As Texas groups organize into a statewide network, national bag reduction advocates are also assisting.

“State preemption of local plastic bag laws is an issue that has become much more prevalent nationally the last few years,” said Jennie Romer, attorney and founder of plasticbaglaws.org. “What’s unique about preemption disputes in Texas right now is that they’re new fights about old laws: the provision that allegedly preempts local bag laws in Brownsville and Laredo has been on the books since 1993 and Brownsville’s ordinance was adopted in 2009.”

“Single-use plastic bags may seem convenient, but that is far outweighed by their impact—which is far-reaching and ubiquitous. Every square inch of the planet is affected. Legislation to reduce or eliminate the consumption of single-use bags has proven to be effective.” said Christopher Chin, Executive Director of the Center for Oceanic Awareness Research and Education (COARE).

ocean-pollution-001

Laredo’s bag ordinance came together with the help of students, business owners and city leaders in 2015. The Fourth Court of Appeals, based in San Antonio, overturned the ordinance in August of this year.

“Doesn’t the state have anything better to do than to crush the will of the people and its locally elected officials, to suit just a few business interests?”asked Tricia Cortez, director of the Rio Grande International Study Center, and the primary advocate for the ordinance. “Conservation of our environment, and the protection of local wildlife and precious tax dollars, is at the heart of these plastic bag ordinances. Why should protecting the wallets of the plastic bag industry be considered more important than protecting the long-term health, financial well-being, and beauty of our cities? It’s a disgrace what is happening behind closed doors in Austin right now on this issue, that attempts to address a pervasive local and global problem in our communities,” Cortez concluded.

Wildlife groups including Sea Turtle Inc. and the Turtle Island Restoration Network are concerned about the impact of bag pollution on these iconic Texas animals.

“Turtle Island Restoration Network has been working with Surfrider Foundation, Galveston Chapter for two years to educate our residents and visitors about the impact of single-use plastic bags on the marine environment. With our close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, Galveston and West Bay, there is a strong possibility for single-use bags to enter our waterway,” said Joanie Steinhaus, Turtle Island Restoration Network’s Program Director for the Gulf of Mexico.

Additionally, there are many cities that have not yet enacted ordinances but which have been exploring them for some time now. These communities are looking to protect their rights to protect their environment.

“The Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club has campaigned for the last three years for a bag ordinance in Fort Worth,” said Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club Conservation Chair John MacFarlane. “We believe that an ordinance to phase out these single use bags will improve the aesthetic of Fort Worth, help to mitigate storm drain clogging, and will help save aquatic animals and terrestrial wildlife from a slow toxic death. Attorney General Ken Paxton should spend his time solving problems, not attacking good local policies that are protecting wildlife, livestock, water resources and the environment.”

Many groups are coming together to support the legal efforts to defend bag ordinances and to work at the Legislature in the 2017 session. These new threats have sparked the formation of a new network among advocates from across Texas with the input of national bag ordinance experts.

The Texas communities with bag ordinances on the books include: Brownsville, South Padre Island, Laguna Vista, Fort Stockton, Laredo, Austin, Freer, Sunset Valley, Kermit and Port Aransas.

###

Environmental groups worry if Houston can limit oil drilling near drinking water source

Written by

Houston Public Media
By Dave Fehling
Original article here

hpm
Sharon Mohr lives near Lake Houston. Photo by Dave Fehling

“We’re not trying to shut oil & gas development down,” said Zac Hildebrand, a scientist at the University of Texas Arlington. He’s done extensive testing and research into oil & gas drilling’s impact on the environment.

Hildebrand was on a speaker phone talking to a handful of people gathered at the First Unitarian Universalist Church in the Museum District. They came here to learn about oil drilling after some news that caught some by surprise.

The state has issued a permit for a Houston company to drill an oil well 37-hundred feet from the northeast shore of Lake Houston.

“And I said: What? I knew there were some old wells out there but I didn’t realize was anything active. We’ve got tons of old wells in the Humble-Kingwood-Atascocita area. So I was immediately concerned,” said Sharon Mohr who lives near the lake.

As we reported Monday, the City of Houston issues its own, restrictive permits for drilling near the lake — a major source of the city’s drinking water — and is currently reviewing the application for the proposed well.

But the Texas legislature last year passed an industry-backed state law that limits what cities can do to regulate oil & gas drilling.

“What the law says is cities cannot pass limits on oil and gas operations that threaten commercial activity….they have to be commercially reasonable restrictions,” said Melanie Scruggs with Texas Campaign for the Environment.

Residents and environmentalists say a big concern is that if the proposed well is successful, it’ll start a rush by other drillers to look for oil near the shores of Lake Houston.