The Capital of Annapolis reported recently on the alarmingly low penalties assessed by the Maryland Department of Environment for massive spills of raw sewage—containing a mix of untreated human, residential, agricultural, and industrial wastewater—into the state's waters. This article supports one of the key findings from CPR’s report, Failing the Bay: Clean Water Act Enforcement in Maryland Falling Short, released earlier this year. These low penalties, sometimes “about the same as a speeding ticket,” do not and cannot serve as the basis of an effective, deterrence-based enforcement program—precisely what is needed to compel compliance with the Clean Water Act and state water quality laws.
Full texta(broad) perspective
No single substance is more necessary to humans than water. For people in developed countries, clean, potable water arrives with the simple turn of a faucet knob. For much of the world’s population, however, getting access to clean water is much more complex, if not impossible, and not having clean water leads to a host of diseases and conflict and is intimately tied to poverty.
In late July, the 192-member General Assembly of the United Nations adopted, without opposition (though not unanimously), a resolution on the human right to water. Specifically, the General Assembly declared that “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.”. The resolution notes that approximately 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water and that more than 2.6 billion lack access to basic sanitation. As a result, approximately 1.5 million children under the age of 5 years old die and miss 443 million school days each year.
The United States was one of 41 countries that abstained from voting. In doing so, U.S. deputy representative to the U.N Economic and Social Council John Sammis cited ongoing work of other U.N. bodies to increase access to water and asserted that the resolution “was not drafted in a transparent, inclusive manner” with no thought to the legal implications of establishing this right.
Full textIn June, the Food and Drug Administration issued Draft Guidance on the Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobials in Food-Producing Animals. The FDA recognizes in the guidance that the “overall weight of evidence available… supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production or growth enhancing purposes… in food-producing animals is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.” The public health concern arises where bacteria in these animals develop resistance to the drugs and then are transmitted to food workers and consumers, who then introduce the drug-resistant bacteria into their communities.
In a new book, Superbug: The Fatal Menace of MRSA, journalist Maryn McKenna details the emergence of one of the most common and increasingly prevalent drug-resistant bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). While MRSA was once primarily found in hospitals, McKenna traces the emergence of community-based strains of the bug that evolved independently to also cause serious infections in people with no connection to the hospital or other traditional environments with MRSA. Her book also examines the ability of MRSA to use domestic pets as hosts and then infect their human owners, as well as the impact of antibiotic use in the food production sector (there's a great book interview from Fresh Air).
MRSA is part of the Staphylococcus genus, which includes a variety of ancient bacteria that are, as McKenna says, “probably one of mankind’s oldest evolutionary companions.” Staphylococcus aureus, or S. aureus, is mostly benign and at any given moment is present in nearly one-third of the population. Humans and our bacteria live in an intimate balance, but when that balance with S. aureus is toppled, the bacteria may turn extremely virulent and even deadly. S. aureus can attack the human body with rapid and devastating consequences, ranging from simple skin abscesses to muscle and bone infections, toxic shock, and pneumonia.
Full textIn June, I wrote about a settlement between EPA and environmental groups that requires EPA to publish guidance on the implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and to propose a rule to collect more information on these operations. In that post, I cited numbers from EPA showing that states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed had many CAFOs without NPDES permits; for some of the states, not a single CAFO was permitted. Maryland had an estimated 220 CAFOs and only 7 with NPDES CAFO permits.
In response, the Maryland Department of Environment’s Secretary Shari T. Wilson provided an update to the status of the state’s CAFO permitting program, showing nearly twice as many CAFOs and improvements in CAFO permitting statistics. The updated numbers are:
Full textIn the past 15 months, the combination of President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order and the EPA’s Bay-wide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process has established a framework for ensuring accountability and success in Bay restoration efforts. No aspect of this new framework is more important than the Bay states’ and the District of Columbia’s Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), which will demonstrate how they will meet the pollution targets in the applicable TMDLs. While the soundness of states’ WIPs depends on a broad array of technical, financial, and administrative factors, our bottom line expectation is that states write clear, objective, and transparent plans so that all watershed partners achieve their TMDL pollution reductions and ultimately restore the Chesapeake Bay. These WIPs will also enable the public to vigorously monitor the progress in meeting those commitments.
The Center for Progressive Reform has just issued a set of metrics for grading and evaluating the Chesapeake Bay states’ and the District of Columbia’s Phase I WIPs. The metrics will evaluate each Phase I WIP by assigning letter grades that evaluate (1) the transparency of information in the WIPs in providing key information about their pollution control programs and (2) the strength of the programs in making actual pollution reductions. The WIPs provide an unprecedented opportunity to objectively measure progress toward restoring the Bay on a state-by-state basis, and the assigned grades will provide a clear and understandable tool for monitoring each state’s commitment to restoration.
In partnership with the Choose Clean Water Coalition, we are sending each state governor and environmental agency head a copy of the metrics to provide ample notice of what specific information we believe the WIPs should include.
The Chesapeake Watershed states are required by EPA to publish their draft Phase I WIPs by September 24, 2010, at which point they will be open for public comment for 45 days. A three-member panel of CPR Member Scholars will evaluate the draft plans and release the grades during that period.
Full textJuly 1 marked the 35th anniversary of the effective date entry-into-force of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). While CITES is among the stronger international conventions, its strength is diminished by a lack of an enforcement mechanism and political maneuverings.
The arrests and cargo seizures may not make headlines often, but international trade in endangered species is one of the most valuable illegal markets, behind drugs but potentially comparable to arms and human trafficking. According to a 2008 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the global trade in illegal wildlife is valued at more than $5 billion and potentially exceeds $20 billion annually. For example, the Queen Alexandra’s Birdwing butterfly (Orinthoptera alexandrae), which can have a wingspan of up to 14 inches, sells for as much as $10,000! Some of the more valuable species commodities are tiger parts, caviar, elephant ivory, rhino horn, and exotic birds and reptiles. Although no official statistics exist, the CRS report estimates that the United States purchases as much as 20% of the global market in illegal species. Other main importers include China and countries in the European Union.
Full texta(broad) perspective
Across the Atlantic Ocean is another catastrophic, persistent, and pervasive oil disaster, ongoing for the past fifty years with no end in sight. The oil fields in the Niger Delta, occupying the southern tip of Nigeria, are rich with petroleum reserves, natural gas, and other natural resources. What should be a source of immense economic wealth for Nigeria instead turned into a poisonous cocktail of corruption and violence with disastrous consequences for the environment and human rights. The BP Oil Spill in our country has turned the spotlight on other oil disasters in international waters and foreign countries, and today’s international environmental post focuses on the devastation caused by oil operations in the Niger Delta.
The Niger Delta is one of the most densely populated regions on the African continent, home to 30 million people. The vast majority of this population relies on the Delta and its resources for economic livelihood and cultural identity; its water support the surrounding agricultural sectors. Blankets of mangrove and freshwater swamp forests provide rich breeding grounds for aquatic life and feeding grounds for many endemic birds, reptiles, and mammals. The largest wetland in Africa, the Niger Delta has unique and complex wildlife and ecosystems found nowhere else on the planet.
The region is also blessed with bountiful natural resources that the government and foreign companies have been exploiting since 1956. Nigeria is a primary oil producing state and a member of OPEC. The country gets 95% of its export earnings and 80% of its total revenue from oil. Nigeria is the fifth largest supplier of petroleum and crude oil for the United States.
Full textHundreds of offshore extraction platforms dot the world’s oceans, funneling millions of gallons each day of oil, natural gas, and other extracted resources to the surface. While these operations are regulated by the country where they’re located, they have the potential to cause international environmental disasters when located near boundary waters or near large currents. The New York Times looked at the international law implications of the ongoing BP Oil Spill and came to one conclusion: the international law governing oil pollution from offshore platforms is at best thin.
Much of the international law governing oil pollution applies directly to tankers and ships used to transport the oil, which makes sense since these transport vessels constantly cross in and out of territorial waters. But countries are increasingly exploring their offshore resources, leading to the need to create a stronger legal framework for international environmental harms that may be caused by these activities.
Full textEPA and a coalition of environmental groups recently settled ongoing litigation related to the regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The litigation dates back to 2003, when EPA finally proposed comprehensive regulation of CAFOs, and it centers on what actually constitutes a CAFO. The original Clean Water Act labeled CAFOs as point sources that require a permit to discharge pollution into water, but EPA dragged its feet not just on regulating CAFOs, but on deciding what was and wasn’t a CAFO. In 2003, EPA published a final rule that required all CAFOs to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit unless they could demonstrate that they have no potential to discharge pollution. In 2005, a federal court invalidated this rule, and the EPA reissued a rule in 2008 that was promptly challenged by environmental groups and industry. That’s the case that has just been settled.
Animal feeding operations (AFOs) are statutorily defined as lots or facilities where animals are kept for more than 45 days in a 12-month period, and where crops or vegetation are not grown during the normal growing season in any portion of the lot or facility. An AFO qualifies as a CAFO if the lot contains a certain threshold number of livestock, such as 1,000 cattle, 2,500 swine above 55 pounds, or 30,000 egg-laying hens. As discussed above, these operations are required to obtain NPDES permits when they propose to discharge, meaning that an unpermitted CAFO could later be required to apply for a permit when it proposes to discharge.
The recent settlement does not change the basic premise that CAFOs are required to obtain NPDES permits. However, it does cover two important aspects: It requires EPA to publish guidance on the implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for CAFOs, and it requires EPA to propose a rule to collect more information on these operations. Significantly, both aspects of this settlement increase oversight of land application of manure, which contributes large quantities of pollution in the form of runoff and seepage into water.
Full text
Today marks the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection, which commits federal agencies to a new leadership role in Bay restoration. This morning the Federal Leadership Committee, headed by EPA and comprised of many of the major federal agencies, released its final Strategy for Restoration and Protection of the Chesapeake Bay. While the final Strategy is not significantly different from the draft Strategy, it contains new detail about a watershed-wide nutrient trading program and the independent evaluator.
Since the Order was issued, the federal government has promised to take a strong leadership role in compelling state governments to fulfill a series of broken promises, demanding that states establish deadlines for concrete action that would trigger economic consequences if missed. Given stunning failures in 2000 and 2010 to meet pollution reduction goals, EPA’s commitment to become the enforcer and not just the collaborator with respect to restoration efforts is a welcome—although long overdue—change. However, translating this commitment into action will be a challenge for EPA, which must stand ready to both provide assistance and impose tough consequences.
The developments this week kick off a series of milestones that will play out over the coming months. In August, Bay states and the District of Columbia will submit their Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), which will describe how states and the District will achieve their target pollution reductions between now and 2025. In December, EPA will finalize the Bay-wide TMDL, the largest TMDL to date. Meanwhile, in Congress, Senator Cardin is working on securing passage of the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act.
Collectively, these developments establish a system of accountability that has been missing from past restoration efforts. This accountability system is key: it means that grand but empty promises by states are no longer acceptable and that EPA and the FLC stand ready with both assistance and discipline for states that scoff at their responsibilities. Past Bay restoration efforts ended up being disappointments, leaving the Bay with staggering ecological devastation. We expect more under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and we expect today’s final Strategy to deliver. To succeed, the Obama Administration will need to continue to exercise leadership on this issue and be willing to hold the states accountable.
Full text