Highlights:
FY 2018: Trump Proposed Eliminating All Of The EPA’s Geographic Programs, Including The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Cutting The Programs’ Budget From $427 Million To Zero. According to the White House, “Eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency's Geographic programs refocuses the agency on core national work. These programs perform local ecosystem protection and restoration activities, which are best handled by local and State entities. The Geographic Programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Chesapeake Bay Program, have received significant federal funding, coordination, and oversight to date. State and local groups are engaged and capable of taking on management of clean-up and restoration of these water bodies.” [White House, 5/23/17]
Trump’s FY 2020 Budget Included $30 Million For The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Down From $300 Million In Most Years. According to the Associated Press, “Governors of five states oppose President Donald Trump’s call for a 90 percent spending cut for a Great Lakes cleanup program. The president’s 2020 budget offers $30 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which gets $300 million most years. It removes toxic pollution, prevents algae blooms and species invasions, and restores wildlife habitat. The governors said Wednesday the cut would cost jobs, hurt tourism and jeopardize public health. They urged Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, a former Indiana governor, to fully fund the program. Issuing the statement were Democratic Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Tony Evers of Wisconsin, Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, along with Republican Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said numerous states, local governments and others also support the program and that more details on the federal role will be released later.” [Associated Press, 3/13/19]
Toxic Algae Can Cause Vomiting, Diarrhea, And Even Life-Threatening Illnesses In Humans And Pets Who Ingest It. According to Erie News Now, “As the temperatures rise, so does the threat for harmful algal blooms. Water sample testing recently prompted several algal advisories in Erie County. The tests showed high toxin levels at eight separate locations in Erie County, including parts of Presque Isle. You should watch out for a blue-green substance that is floating on the water’s surface. If ingested, the toxins can cause a variety of symptoms from vomiting to diarrhea and, in rare cases, life-threatening illness. The harmful blooms can appear and disappear quickly. People are urged to keep their dogs or other pets out of the water.The blooms are especially dangerous to pets because they can accidentally ingest more water than humans.” [Erie News Now, 5/28/18]
July 2012: Scientists And The National Park Services Saw The First Observed Blue-Green Algae Bloom In Lake Superior. According to the New York Times, “Scientists and National Park Service employees were unaware of any noticeable blue-green algae blooms in Lake Superior before July 2012, when visitors reported surface scum along a 15-mile stretch of shore near the Apostle Islands, Dr. Sterner said.” [New York Times, 8/29/18]
August 2018: Robert Sterner Pointed To Reports Of “The Largest, Most Intense Bloom Yet” Regarding Algae Along The Southern Shore Of Lake Superior Emerged. According to the New York Times, “Starting in August in Lake Superior, reports of the thick, green algae stretching along about 50 miles of the southern shore reached Robert Sterner, the director of the Large Lakes Observatory at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and his team. ‘We believe it to be the largest, most intense bloom yet,’ he said. ‘I have been emphasizing we are talking about a small volume of Lake Superior, but it is a very highly prized, recreational part of the lake.’ Dr. Sterner said that while scientists did not completely understand the causes and frequency of blooms, they start with warmer water. And Lake Superior, he said, ‘is one of the fastest-warming lakes on earth.’” [New York Times, 8/29/18]
YourErie.com: “Harmful Algae Blooms Cause Closure Of Some Presque Isle Beaches On The Fourth Of July.” [YourErie.com, 7/6/18]
May 2018: Tests Showed High Levels Of Toxic Algae At 8 Locations Around Erie County, Including Parts Of Presque Isle. According to Erie News Now, “As the temperatures rise, so does the threat for harmful algal blooms. Water sample testing recently prompted several algal advisories in Erie County. The tests showed high toxin levels at eight separate locations in Erie County, including parts of Presque Isle.” [Erie News Now, 5/28/18]
2014: Gov Kasich Declared State Of Emergency And Distributed Bottled Water In Toledo Because Of Algae Bloom. According to the Chicago Tribune, “Every year, an explosion of microscopic life reigns over western Lake Erie, forming a green slick of algae and bacteria so massive and vibrant that it can be seen from space. The harmful algae bloom slimes fishing boats, paints beaches in toxins and engulfs water intake cribs. In 2014, it left 400,000 people without drinking water for three days after toxins infiltrated Toledo’s water system. Then-Gov. John Kasich declared a state of emergency and called in the National Guard to distribute bottled water in an incident that served notice that drinking water from Lake Erie was in peril.” [Chicago Tribune, 11/14/19]
Trump Signed An Executive Order Commanding The U.S. Government To Review Its Social Cost Of Carbon Analysis. According to an executive order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth signed by President Donald Trump, “Review of Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide, and Methane for Regulatory Impact Analysis. (a) In order to ensure sound regulatory decision making, it is essential that agencies use estimates of costs and benefits in their regulatory analyses that are based on the best available science and economics.” [White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” 3/28/17]
2020 Projection: After The Trump-Ordered Revisions, The Projected Social Cost Of Carbon For The Year 2020 Was Reduced From $50 To A Range Of $1 To $7. A Cut Of 86 To 98%. According to the New York Times, “In its rollback proposals, the Trump administration argued that each ton of carbon dioxide emitted by a car or a coal plant in 2020 would only cause around $1 to $7 in economic damages. That’s far lower than the Obama administration’s central estimate, which, after adjusting for inflation, argued that same ton of carbon dioxide would cause roughly $50 in total damages.” [New York Times, 8/23/18]
Utilizing The Lower Social Cost Of Carbon, The Trump Administration Would Be Able To Minimize Claims That Carbon Dioxide Hurts The Economy. According to the New York Times, “That change will make a big difference for the cost-benefit analyses that agencies are required to conduct for new rules. If the Trump administration can successfully claim that carbon dioxide causes relatively little harm to the economy, then it can more easily justify moves like replacing the Clean Power Plan, an ambitious Obama-era program to cut pollution from coal plants, with a less-stringent rule.” [New York Times, 8/23/18]
December 2018: Trump’s EPA Issued A Proposed Mercury Emissions Rule That Changed Cost-Benefit Analysis Rules. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration proposed on Friday major changes to the way the federal government calculates the benefits, in human health and safety, of restricting mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. In the proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a finding declaring that federal rules imposed on mercury by the Obama administration are too costly to justify. It drastically changed the formula the government uses in its required cost-benefit analysis of the regulation by taking into account only certain effects that can be measured in dollars, while ignoring or playing down other health benefits.” [New York Times, 12/28/18]
May 2020: Trump’s EPA Finalized The Rule Change “Correcting Flaws In The 2016 Supplemental Cost Finding.” According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA published the completed reconsideration of the appropriate and necessary finding for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, correcting flaws in the 2016 supplemental cost finding while ensuring that power plants will emit no more mercury to the air than before.” [Environmental Protection Agency, 5/22/20]
The Trump Administration Changed The Formula For Environmental Cost-Benefit Analyses To Only Account For Effects That Can Be Measured In Dollars. According to the New York Times, “It drastically changed the formula the government uses in its required cost-benefit analysis of the regulation by taking into account only certain effects that can be measured in dollars, while ignoring or playing down other health benefits. The result could set a precedent reaching far beyond mercury rules. ‘It will make it much more difficult for the government to justify environmental regulations in many cases,’ said Robert N. Stavins, a professor of environmental economics at Harvard University.” [New York Times, 12/28/18]
By Discounting Public Health Co-Benefits, Trump’s EPA Changed Obama’s Mercury Emission Restrictions From Having A Net-Benefit Of More Than $70 Billion Per Year, To A Net-Cost Of $9.6 Billion. According to the New York Times, “Fossil fuel companies have long asserted that the economic formulas used by the federal government to justify pollution controls have unfairly harmed them. During the Obama administration, the E.P.A. drafted a rule to limit toxic mercury pollution from power plants, estimating that it would cost the electric utility industry $9.6 billion a year. But an initial analysis found that reducing mercury would save just $6 million annually in health costs. To justify that stark imbalance, the Obama administration found an additional $80 billion in health ‘co-benefits’ from the incidental reduction of soot and nitrogen oxide that would occur as side effects of controlling mercury. Last month, the Trump administration completed a rollback of that Obama mercury rule that discounted such co-benefits.” [New York Times, 6/4/20]
Trump Ordered The EPA To “Suspend, Revise, Or Rescind” Aspects Of The Clean Power Plan That Weren’t Necessary To “Protect The Public Interest.” According to an executive order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth signed by President Donald Trump, “The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator) shall immediately take all steps necessary to review the final rules set forth in subsections (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of this section […] and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules. […] This section applies to […] The final rule entitled ‘Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,’ 80 Fed. Reg. 64661 (October 23, 2015) (Clean Power Plan)” [White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” 3/28/17]
The Clean Power Plan Was Expected To Generate An Estimated $55 - $93 Billion In Annual Climate And Health Benefits In 2030. According to the Environment Protection Agency, “These reductions will lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030.” [Environment Protection Agency, accessed 2/21/17]
The Clean Power Plan Was Expected To Prevent 700 To 6,600 Premature Deaths And 140,000 To 150,000 Asthma Attacks In Children In 2030. According to the Environment Protection Agency, “These reductions will lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030. This includes avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.” [Environment Protection Agency, accessed 2/21/17]
1986: The EPA Established The Toxic Release Inventory To Give Citizens “Information About Toxic Releases In And Around Their Communities.” According to Earthworks, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (or TRI) gives citizens information about toxic releases in and around their communities. With this information citizens can encourage mining companies to reduce their toxic releases and/or agree to more vigorous oversight of their mines. Established in 1986 by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), TRI requires industrial facilities to annually disclose to the public the amount of pollutants they have discharged into the air, water, and land or transferred to other sites for incineration, recycling and disposal. The TRI allows citizens and communities to know, facility-by-facility, county-by-county, state-by-state and industry-by-industry, where the toxics are, and where they're coming from.” [Earthworks, accessed 6/17/20]
November 2015: A Study Published In Environmental Research Letters Concluded That Polluters Actively Located Near Racially And/Or Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Communities. According to a study by Paul Mohai And Robin Saha in Environmental Research Letters, “Although a large body of quantitative environmental justice research exists, only a handful of studies have examined the processes by which racial and socioeconomic disparities in the location of polluting industrial facilities can occur. These studies have had mixed results, we contend, principally because of methodological differences, that is, the use of the unit-hazard coincidence method as compared to distance-based methods. This study is the first national-level environmental justice study to conduct longitudinal analyses using distance-based methods. Our purposes are to: (1) determine whether disparate siting, post-siting demographic change, or a combination of the two created present-day disparities; (2) test related explanations; and (3) determine whether the application of distance-based methods helps resolve the inconsistent findings of previous research. We used a national database of commercial hazardous waste facilities sited from 1966 to 1995 and examined the demographic composition of host neighborhoods around the time of siting and demographic changes that occurred after siting. We found strong evidence of disparate siting for facilities sited in all time periods. Although we found some evidence of post-siting demographic changes, they were mostly a continuation of changes that occurred in the decade or two prior to siting, suggesting that neighborhood transition serves to attract noxious facilities rather than the facilities themselves attracting people of color and low income populations. Our findings help resolve inconsistencies among the longitudinal studies and builds on the evidence from other subnational studies that used distance-based methods. We conclude that racial discrimination and sociopolitical explanations (i.e., the proposition that siting decisions follow the 'path of least resistance') best explain present-day inequities.” [Environmental Research Letters-Mohai and Saha, 11/18/15]
January 2016: A Study Looking At The Concentration Of Hyper-Polluters, Who Generate The Majority Of Exposure To Industrial Toxins, “Disproportionately Expose Communities Of Color.” According to a study by Mary B. Collins, Ian Munoz, and Joseph JaJa published in Environmental Research Letters, “Several key studies have found that a small minority of producers, polluting at levels far exceeding group averages, generate the majority of overall exposure to industrial toxics. Frequently, such patterns go unnoticed and are understudied outside of the academic community. To our knowledge, no research to date has systematically described the scope and extent of extreme variations in industrially based exposure estimates and sought to link inequities in harm produced to inequities in exposure. In an analysis of all permitted industrial facilities across the United States, we show that there exists a class of hyper-polluters—the worst-of-the-worst—that disproportionately expose communities of color and low income populations to chemical releases. This study hopes to move beyond a traditional environmental justice research frame, bringing new computational methods and perspectives aimed at the empirical study of societal power dynamics. Our findings suggest the possibility that substantial environmental gains may be made through selective environmental enforcement, rather than sweeping initiatives.” [Environmental Research Letters-Collins, Munoz, and JaJa, 1/26/16]
FY 2018: The Trump Administration Proposed A 37% Funding Cut To The Toxics Release Inventory. According to Pacific Standard, “In a proposal for 2018, the administration suggested cutting the Toxics Release Inventory budget by more than $5 million, or 37 percent. It also called for cutting the science budget for the EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment program—which studies what levels of certain chemicals are safe—by more than $15 million, or 40 percent. Such drastic cuts may have trouble making it through Congress, but they show the administration's intent to reduce data programs to their bare-bones legal obligations.” [Pacific Standard, 11/2/17]
FY 2019: Trump’s Budget Called For The TRI Budget To Be Cut By 45% Over The Previous Year. According to the EPA’s FY 2019 Congressional Budget Justification, the “TRI / Right to Know” program listed on page 226 was shown with an annualized CR for FY 2018 at $14,187,000 and with a “FY 2019 Pres Budget” at $7,726,000. The difference between FY18 and the request for FY19, $6,461,000, over FY 18, $14,187,000, showed the cut amounted to about 45%. [EPA FY 2019 Congressional Budget Justification, February 2018]
FY 2020: Trump’s Budget Called For The TRI Budget To Be Cut By 38% Over The Previous Year. According to the EPA’s FY 2020 Congressional Budget Justification for the Appropriations Committee, the “TRI / Right to Know” program listed on page 247 was shown with an annualized CR for FY 19 at $12,783,000 and with a “FY 2020 Pres Budget” listed at $7,811,000. The difference between the FY 2019 CR and the FY 2020 Trump budget was 38%. [EPA Congressional Budget Justification, March 2019]
FY 2021: Trump’s Budget Called For The TRI Budget To Be Cut By 33% Over The Previous Year. According to the EPA’s FY 2020 Congressional Budget Justification for the Appropriations Committee, the “TRI / Right to Know” program listed on page 276 was shown with an annualized CR for FY 20 at $12,155,000 and with a “FY 2021 Pres Budget” listed at $8,065,000. The difference between the Estimated FY 2020 Enacted budget and the FY 2021 Trump budget was 33%. A Congressional Budget Justification, February 2020]
2004: The U.S. National Library Of Medicine Launched Toxmap, A Free Online Tool Mapping Toxic Releases And Superfund Sites Overlaid With Detailed Information About Each One. According to Mother Jones, “Fifteen years ago, the US National Library of Medicine launched Toxmap, a free, interactive online application that combines pollution data from at least a dozen US government sources. A Toxmap user could pan and zoom across a map of the United States sprinkled with thousands of blue and red dots, with each blue dot representing a factory, coal-fired power plant, or other facility that has released certain toxic chemicals into the environment, and each red dot marking a Superfund program site—'some of the nation’s most contaminated land,’ according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Toxmap allowed users to pull up detailed EPA data for each toxic release site, and to overlay other information, such as mortality statistics, onto those maps. And it’s precisely those capabilities that earned Toxmap a devoted following among researchers, students, activists, and other people keen to identify sources of pollution in their communities.” [Mother Jones, 12/24/20]
December 2019: Toxmap Was Retired By The Trump Administration Without A Replacement That Offered The Same Scope And Simplicity. According to Mother Jones, “Earlier this year, with little explanation, the NLM announced that it would be ‘retiring’ the Toxmap website on Dec. 16, 2019. The library did not respond directly to queries on Monday about what was meant by ‘retiring,’ but by Tuesday morning, the Toxmap website had been taken down and visitors to the former URL were met with a message acknowledging the closure and pointing visitors to other potential sources of information. (An archived version of the old Toxmap landing page is preserved at the Internet Archive.) […] NLM has offered only brief explanations for its decision. […] In particular, the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) site allows people to enter a zip code and view nearby pollution sources, along with some data about their toxic releases. But those alternatives, researchers say, simply do not offer the same scope and simplicity as Toxmap. ‘Because this information has gotten so complex, and there’s so much of it, it’s very difficult for someone who’s not really trained in the area to navigate it,’ said Sellers.” [Mother Jones, 12/24/20]
January 2018: Trump’s EPA Created A Loophole In The Clean Air Act For Polluters To Stop Using The Best Available Technology And Equipment To Mitigate Their Pollution. According to Vox, “The Environmental Protection Agency just took a dramatic step toward deregulating some major sources of toxic air pollution, which could have huge implications for public health. Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to regulate facilities that emit one or more of 189 hazardous air toxics like benzene, dioxin, and lead that cause health problems such as cancer and birth defects. A facility like a chemical plant or a factory is classified as ‘major’ by the Clear Air Act if it has the potential to emit more than 10 tons of an individual toxic chemical or 25 tons of a combination of toxics into the air per year. Those that cross this line have to deploy the ‘maximum achievable control technology’ (MACT) to reduce pollution as much as possible with the best hardware that’s available.” [Vox, 1/26/18]
Once Initial Reductions Were Achieved, The Guidance Later Left Them Unregulated. According to Vox, “Pollution sources that are regulated under this major sources standard are subject to these regulations indefinitely. But the new EPA guidance, detailed in a memo published Thursday, ends the ‘once in, always in’ policy based on a ‘plain language reading’ of the Clean Air Act. That means that once a pollution source brought its air emissions below the threshold for a major source, it would be held to the standard for an ‘area source,’ or anything that isn’t a ‘major source,’ instead. In other words, once a ‘major source’ reduces its pollution below the line, it doesn’t have to keep using the best equipment to continue reducing pollution. Crucially, this rating downgrade means that air pollution from some of these facilities would suddenly be completely unregulated.” [Vox, 1/26/18]
Rolling Back The Regulation Benefited The Steel, Paper, And Chemical Industries. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The change will primarily help steel, paper and chemical makers among other manufacturing sites, said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at law and lobbying firm Bracewell LLP, who led the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation during Mr. Bush’s first term. NRDC says hundreds of plants could be affected. The number is unclear, Mr. Holmstead said, and they would all need to go through a recertification process to benefit, he added.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/25/18]
March 2020: Trump’s EPA Allowed Polluters To Self-Regulate With A Moratorium On Fines For Violations. According to the New York Times, “The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday announced a sweeping relaxation of environmental rules in response to the coronavirus pandemic, allowing power plants, factories and other facilities to determine for themselves if they are able to meet legal requirements on reporting air and water pollution. The move comes amid an influx of requests from businesses for a relaxation of regulations as they face layoffs, personnel restrictions and other problems related to the coronavirus outbreak. Issued by the E.P.A.’s top compliance official, Susan P. Bodine, the policy sets new guidelines for companies to monitor themselves for an undetermined period of time during the outbreak and says that the agency will not issue fines for violations of certain air, water and hazardous-waste-reporting requirements. Companies are normally required to report when their factories discharge certain levels of pollution into the air or water.” [New York Times, 3/26/20]
April 2020: EPA Administrator Wheeler Declined To Lower Annual Particulate Matter Standards, Despite Estimates That It Would Save Over 12,000 Lives Per Year. According to the Washington Post, “The Trump administration opted Tuesday not to set stricter national air quality standards, despite a growing body of scientific evidence linking air pollution to lethal outcomes from respiratory diseases such as covid-19. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced Tuesday that the agency would maintain the current standards for fine particulate matter, otherwise known as soot, the country’s most widespread deadly pollutant. The EPA’s staff scientists recommended lowering the annual particulate matter standard to between 8 and 10 micrograms per cubic meter in a draft report last year, citing estimates that reducing the limit to 9 could save roughly 12,200 lives a year. The EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was split on the question, with some members calling for tighter standards and others saying the current one is sufficient.” [Washington Post, 4/14/20]
Long-Term Exposure To Fine Particulate Matter Among Americans Of Color Increased The Risks Of Covid-19. According to the Washington Post, “Poor and minority communities in the United States tend to be exposed to greater air pollution, including soot, because they often live closer to highways or industrial facilities. A 2019 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that on average, communities of color in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic breathe 66 percent more air pollution from vehicles than white residents. This long-term exposure has increased the risks Americans of color face when it comes to heart and respiratory illness, including covid-19, which is disproportionately killing African Americans. University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine professor John Balmes, who is working with covid-19 patients at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, said there’s ‘good evidence’ communities of color are exposed to more soot pollution, the effects of which are compounded by factors including poverty and a lack of access to health care. ‘You add air pollution to these underlying vulnerabilities, and you have greater exposure. It’s no accident that we see greater covid-19 deaths in African American communities,’ said Balmes, who serves as a voluntary medical spokesman for the American Lung Association and had advised the EPA on fine particle pollution until the Trump administration disbanded his panel.” [Washington Post, 4/14/20]
Harvard T.H. Chan School Of Public Health Study: An Increase In Long-Term Exposure To Fine Particulate Pollution Of 1 g Per Cubic Meter Was Associated With A 15% Increase In Covid-19 Mortality. According to the Washington Post, “One study published this month from researchers at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health concluded that even a small increase in long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution causes a large increase in the risk of dying of covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The study, which examined 3,080 U.S. counties, found that an increase in long-term exposure to fine particulate pollution of just one microgram per cubic meter is associated with a 15 percent greater likelihood of dying of covid-19. This stark difference may be explained by the lung damage such pollution causes over time.” [Washington Post, 4/14/20]
June 2020: Trump’s EPA Proposed A Rule That Further Weakened The Value Of Public Health In Cost-Benefit Analysis For Clean Air Act Regulations. According to the New York Times, “President Trump signed an executive order that calls on agencies to waive required environmental reviews of infrastructure projects to be built during the pandemic-driven economic crisis. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new rule that changes the way the agency uses cost-benefit analyses to enact Clean Air Act regulations, effectively limiting the strength of future air pollution controls. By changing the way the government weighs the value of the public health benefits, Andrew Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator, would allow the agency to justify weakening clean air and climate change regulations with economic arguments. Mr. Trump’s executive order would use ‘emergency authorities’ to waive parts of the cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act to spur the construction of highways, pipelines and other infrastructure projects. Environmental activists and lawyers questioned the legality of the move and accused the administration of using the coronavirus pandemic and national unrest to speed up actions that have been moving slowly through the regulatory process.” [New York Times, 6/4/20]
2011: The Obama Administration Agreed To Set A Limit To The Amount Of Perchlorate In Water. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The EPA’s original decision to regulate came as part of a lawsuit NRDC filed over perchlorate dating back to the Obama administration. It never finalized the chemical’s regulation, but EPA signed a court-approved agreement with NRDC to do so. Mr. Olson said Thursday’s decision violates that agreement, filed in a U.S. district court in Manhattan. EPA officials plan to ask the court to terminate that agreement, arguing that withdrawing the 2011 decision removes its legal underpinnings.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/18/20]
June 2020: Trump’s EPA Decided Not To Regulate Perchlorate, A Rocket Fuel Additive, Claiming It Was Too Rare In Public Water Supplies. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it won’t regulate perchlorate in public water supplies, reversing a decision by the Obama administration to mandate limits on the toxic chemical used as an additive in rocket fuel. The EPA made the decision after a new analysis showed perchlorate is too rare in public water supplies to meet the legal test to set a federal limit, according to senior agency officials. EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler signed an order Thursday withdrawing the 2011 order that called for limits. ‘Today’s decision is built on science and local success stories and fulfills President Trump’s promise to pare back burdensome “one-size-fits-all” overregulation for the American people,’ Mr. Wheeler said. ‘State and local water systems are effectively and efficiently managing levels of perchlorate.’” [Wall Street Journal, 6/18/20]
EPA: Perchlorate Can Limit The Thyroid’s Ability To Absorb Iodine, Resulting In Hormonal Deficiencies. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The EPA has acknowledged that perchlorate can limit the thyroid’s ability to absorb iodine and result in hormonal deficiencies, and can harm children in the womb. That can result in brain damage and reduced intelligence.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/18/20]
The Waters Of The United States Rule, Instituted By The Obama Administration And The Army Corps Of Engineers Gave The Government The Ability To Regulate All Streams And Wetlands That Drained Into Major Bodies Of Water. According to the New York Times, “The E.P.A. and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly proposed the rule, known as Waters of the United States, last spring. The agency has held more than 400 meetings about it with outside groups and read more than one million public comments as it wrote the final language. The rule is being issued under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which gave the federal government broad authority to limit pollution in major water bodies, like Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi River and Puget Sound, as well as streams and wetlands that drain into those larger waters.” [New York Times, 5/27/15]
First Day In Office: The Trump Administration Announced That It Was “Committed To Eliminating” The Waters Of The U.S. Rule. According to Reuters, “'President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years,' the website said..” [Reuters, 1/20/17]
Following Trump’s Executive Order, Then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Filed The Official Documentation To Suspend The Rule. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration has formally suspended a major Obama-era clean water regulation ahead of plans to issue its own version of the rule later this year. President Trump has taken aim at the bitterly contested rule, known as Waters of the United States, since his campaign, calling it ‘one of the worst examples of federal regulation.’ Among Mr. Trump’s first actions in office was an executive order directing his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, to begin the legal process of rescinding the rule and replacing it with a more industry-friendly alternative. On Wednesday, Mr. Pruitt took a major step toward completing that task, filing the legal documents required to suspend the Obama rule for two years. The rule was set to be implemented in the coming weeks, following a Supreme Court decision last week that gave jurisdiction of the matter to district courts.” [New York Times, 1/31/18]
February 2017: Trump Signed An Executive Order Instructing The EPA Administrator And The Assistant Secretary Of The Army For Civil Works To Review The Clean Water Rule For Possible Rescission Or Revision. According to an executive order signed by Trump, “Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation's navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. […] The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Assistant Secretary) shall review the final rule entitled "Clean Water Rule: Definition of 'Waters of the United States,'" 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015), for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.” [White House, 2/28/17]
January 2018: The Trump Administration Suspended WOTUS For Two Years. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration has formally suspended a major Obama-era clean water regulation ahead of plans to issue its own version of the rule later this year. President Trump has taken aim at the bitterly contested rule, known as Waters of the United States, since his campaign, calling it ‘one of the worst examples of federal regulation.’ Among Mr. Trump’s first actions in office was an executive order directing his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, to begin the legal process of rescinding the rule and replacing it with a more industry-friendly alternative. On Wednesday, Mr. Pruitt took a major step toward completing that task, filing the legal documents required to suspend the Obama rule for two years. The rule was set to be implemented in the coming weeks, following a Supreme Court decision last week that gave jurisdiction of the matter to district courts.” [New York Times, 1/31/18]
September 2019: The Trump Administration Announced The Formal Repeal Of WOTUS. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration on Thursday announced the repeal of a major Obama-era clean water regulation that had placed limits on polluting chemicals that could be used near streams, wetlands and other bodies of water. The rollback of the 2015 measure, known as the Waters of the United States rule, adds to a lengthy list of environmental rules that the administration has worked to weaken or undo over the past two and a half years. […] An immediate effect of the clean water repeal is that polluters will no longer need a permit to discharge potentially harmful substances into many streams and wetlands. But the measure, which is expected to take effect in a matter of weeks, has implications far beyond the pollution that will now be allowed to flow freely into waterways.” [New York Times, 9/12/19]
January 2020: The Trump Administration Finalized The Replacement For WOTUS. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration on Thursday finalized a rule to strip away environmental protections for streams, wetlands and groundwater, handing a victory to farmers, fossil fuel producers and real estate developers who said Obama-era rules had shackled them with onerous and unnecessary burdens. […] His administration had completed the first step of its demise in September with the rule’s repeal. Mr. Trump’s replacement, called the ‘Navigable Waters Protection Rule,’ finishes the process. It not only rolls back key portions of the 2015 rule that had guaranteed protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act to certain wetlands and streams that run intermittently or run temporarily underground, but also relieves landowners of the need to seek permits that the Environmental Protection Agency had considered on a case-by-case basis before the Obama rule. […] The new water rule for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into hundreds of thousands of waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects.” [New York Times, 1/22/20]
April 2020: The EPA Published Trump’s WOTUS Replacement, Starting A 60 Day Countdown To The Rule Going Into Effect. According to E&E News, “The Trump administration today finalized its controversial definition of what marshes, wetlands and streams quality for protections under the Clean Water Act. But don't expect regulatory certainty anytime soon. EPA published its Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the Federal Register this morning, nearly four months after the administration unveiled the rule. Publication starts a 60-day clock before the rule goes into effect and waves a green flag for an onslaught of lawsuits likely to be filed around the country. The litigation will undoubtedly run beyond Election Day, so the future of the rule likely depends on whether Trump wins a second term.” [E&E News, 4/21/20]
June 2020: Trump’s WOTUS Replacement Went Into Effect On June 22, 2020. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army are publishing a final rule defining the scope of waters federally regulated under the Clean Water Act. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule is the second step in a comprehensive, two-step process intended to review and revise the definition of ‘waters of the United States’ consistent with the Executive Order signed on February 28, 2017, ‘Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.’ Once effective, it replaces the rule published on October 22, 2019. This final rule implements the overall objective of the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters by maintaining federal authority over those waters that Congress determined should be regulated by the Federal government under its Commerce Clause powers, while adhering to Congress' policy directive to preserve States' primary authority over land and water resources. This final definition increases the predictability and consistency of Clean Water Act programs by clarifying the scope of ‘waters of the United States’ federally regulated under the Act.” [Environmental Protection Agency, 6/22/20]
Under The Obama Administration Trump’s Golf Clubs, Including His Flagship Doral Courses, Were Subject To Regulation Under An Expanded Waters Of The United States Rule. According to NPR, “Here’s where Trump is different from his peers: He gets to name the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and this week, the president may appoint a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, which soon will hear a case involving the environmental rule. […] At a campaign event in October, Trump said he was especially proud of Doral’s four golf courses. ‘As you know, the Blue Monster is one of the great courses of the world,’ he said. But like any golf course, it is subject to various regulations. And there’s a pending rule that the golf industry hates. In 2015, under the Obama administration, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized the Waters of the United States rule to apply clean water regulations to thousands of new streams, lakes and wetlands. Under the rule, the Blue Monster — and all golf courses in the U.S. — would be subject to closer federal regulation. The rule is opposed by a long list of industries, including manufacturers, farmers and golf course owners like Trump.” [NPR, 1/29/17]
December 2018: Real Estate Developers And Golf Course Owners Supported The Water Protection Rollback. According to ThinkProgress, “Farmers, real estate developers, and golf course owners — all industries that have long lobbied against clean water rules — are cheering President Donald Trump’s plan to massively roll back water protections on Tuesday, while climate advocates and environmentalists have already expressed dismay and horror. In a long-anticipated move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers announced this week the Trump administration’s proposed withdrawal of water protections for thousands of wetlands and waterways across the country. That change to the Obama-era ‘waters of the United States’ rule (WOTUS) is a massive shift from both the Obama administration’s interpretation of U.S. water protections as well as from historical enforcement of the 1972 Clean Water Act more generally. Under the new plan, waters that only occur during rains or snow melts — such as seasonal streams and rivers — would not be considered federally protected; nor would wetlands not connected to other federally protected waterways.” [ThinkProgress, 12/11/18]
March 2017: Trump’s EPA Rejected The Guidance Of Their Own Chemical Safety Experts In Refusing To Ban Chlorpyrifos. According to the New York Times, “Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers. The ruling by Mr. Pruitt, in one of his first formal actions as the nation’s top environmental official, rejected a petition filed a decade ago by two environmental groups that had asked that the agency ban all uses of chlorpyrifos. The chemical was banned in 2000 for use in most household settings, but still today is used at about 40,000 farms on about 50 different types of crops, ranging from almonds to apples. Late last year, and based in part on research conducted at Columbia University, E.P.A. scientists concluded that exposure to the chemical that has been in use since 1965 was potentially causing significant health consequences. They included learning and memory declines, particularly among farm workers and young children who may be exposed through drinking water and other sources.” [New York Times, 3/29/17]
March 2010: Columbia University Researchers Found A Link Between Chlorpyrifos And Early Childhood Developmental Delays, Confirming Results From Earlier Research. According to the Columbia Mailman School Of Public Health, “Exposure to the pesticide chlorpyrifos—which is banned for use in U.S. households but is still widely used throughout the agricultural industry—is associated with early childhood developmental delays, according to a study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. Findings of the study, ‘Chlorpyrifos Exposure and Urban Residential Environment Characteristics as Determinants of Early Childhood Neurodevelopment,’ are online in the American Journal of Public Health. The study examined the association between exposure to the pesticide and mental and physical impairments in children in low-income areas of New York City neighborhoods in the South Bronx and Northern Manhattan. Chlorpyrifos was commonly used in these neighborhoods until it was banned for household use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2001. It is still used as an agricultural pesticide on fruits and vegetables. The EPA registration of chlorpyrifos for agricultural use is currently under review, with a public comment period scheduled for the coming months. ‘This study helps to fill in the gaps about what is known about the effect of the pesticide chlorpyrifos on the development of young children by showing that there is a clear-cut association between this chemical and delayed mental and motor skill development in children even when there are other potentially harmful environmental factors present,’ said Gina Lovasi, PhD, lead author and Mailman School of Public Health assistant professor of epidemiology. Dr. Lovasi conducted the research as a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholar at the Mailman School. As in previous research in the same study population, published in Pediatrics in 2006, this study controlled for gender, gestational age at birth, ethnicity, maternal education, maternal intelligence quotient, and exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy. What this study adds is that building dilapidation and community-level factors such as percentage of residents living in poverty do not explain the association. After controlling for these factors, the research indicates that high chlorpyrifos exposure (greater than 6.17 pg/g in umbilical cord blood at the time of birth) was associated with a 6.5-point decrease in the Psychomotor Development Index score and a 3.3-point decrease in the Mental Development Index score in 3-year-olds. ‘These associations remained statistically significant and similar in magnitude after accounting for dilapidated housing and neighborhood characteristics,’ noted Dr. Lovasi.” [Columbia School Of Public Health, 3/22/10]
March 2017: Trump Signed An Executive Order Instructing The Interior Department To Review An Obama Administration Rule On Hydraulic Fracturing On Federal And Indian Lands. According to an executive order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth signed by President Donald Trump, “The Secretary of the Interior shall review the following final rules, and any rules and guidance issued pursuant to them, for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules: (i) The final rule entitled ‘Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands,’ 80 Fed. Reg. 16128 (March 26, 2015)” [White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” 3/28/17]
December 2017: The Bureau Of Land Management Rescinded The Obama-Era Rule. According to The Bureau of Land Management, “On March 26, 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published in the Federal Register a final rule entitled, ‘Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands’ (2015 rule). With this final rule, the BLM is rescinding the 2015 rule because we believe it imposes administrative burdens and compliance costs that are not justified.” [Bureau Of Land Management, 12/29/17]
Johns Hopkins School Of Public Health Research Found That Fracking Has Converted The Air Quality Of Some “Pristine” Rural Areas To Those Of “Heavily Trafficked Industrial Areas.” According to Forbes, “Cough, shortness of breath and wheezing are the most common complaints of residents living near fracked wells. Toxic gases like benzene are released from the rock by fracking. Similarly, a toxic waste brew of water and chemicals is often stored in open pits, releasing volatile organic compounds into the air. These noxious chemicals and particulates are also released by the diesel powered pumps used to inject the water. An epidemiological study of more than 400,000 patients of Pennsylvania’s Geisinger clinic, done with Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, found a significant association between fracking and increases in mild, moderate and severe cases of asthma (odds ratios 4.4 to 1.5). Hopkins’ Dr. Brian Schwartz cautions that residents should be aware of this hazard as ‘some ‘pristine’ rural areas are converted to heavily trafficked industrial areas.’” [Forbes, 2/23/17]
A 2014 Study Found That People Living Near Natural-Gas Wells Were More Than Twice As Likely To Report Upper-Respiratory And Skin Problems Than Those Farther Away. According to USA Today, “Another study this year in Environmental Health Perspectives found that people living near natural-gas wells were more than twice as likely to report upper-respiratory and skin problems than those farther away.” [USA Today, 12/17/14]
Fracking Has Been Linked To Cough, Shortness Of Breath, Wheezing, And Asthma. According to Forbes, “Cough, shortness of breath and wheezing are the most common complaints of residents living near fracked wells. Toxic gases like benzene are released from the rock by fracking. Similarly, a toxic waste brew of water and chemicals is often stored in open pits, releasing volatile organic compounds into the air. These noxious chemicals and particulates are also released by the diesel powered pumps used to inject the water. An epidemiological study of more than 400,000 patients of Pennsylvania’s Geisinger clinic, done with Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, found a significant association between fracking and increases in mild, moderate and severe cases of asthma (odds ratios 4.4 to 1.5). Hopkins’ Dr. Brian Schwartz cautions that residents should be aware of this hazard as ‘some ‘pristine’ rural areas are converted to heavily trafficked industrial areas.’” [Forbes, 2/23/17]
A Hopkins/Geisinger Study Found That Fracking Has Been Linked To A 40% Increase In Having A Premature Baby And A 30% Risk Of Having The Pregnancy Be Classified As High-Risk. According to Forbes, “Fracking chemicals are harmful to pregnant women and their developing babies. West Virginia researchers found endocrine-disrupting chemicals in surface waters near wastewater disposal sites; these types of chemicals can hurt the developing fetus even when present at very low concentrations. Another Hopkins/Geisinger study looked at records of almost 11,000 women with newborns who lived near fracking sites and found a 40% increased chance of having a premature baby and a 30% risk of having the pregnancy be classified as ‘high-risk,’ though they controlled for socioeconomic status and other risk factors. Contributing factors likely include air and water pollution, stress from the noise and traffic (1,000 tankers/well on average).” [Forbes, 2/23/17]
The Trump Administration Proposed A Two-Year Stay On An Obama-Era Rule Requiring Companies To Detect And Capture Leaking Methane Emissions. According to Reuters, “The move is part of an effort by President Donald Trump, a Republican, to roll back the environmental regulations of former President Barack Obama, a Democrat. The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday said it would propose a two-year stay on another Obama methane rule requiring companies to detect and capture leaking emissions.” [Reuters, 6/14/17]
The Rule Required Oil And Gas Companies To Monitor And Plug Methane Leaks From Well Sites And Compressor Stations. According to the Guardian, “The EPA said it had received petitions from ‘interested parties’ to reconsider the rule, which is designed to reduce methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and emissions that can cause smog. Oil and gas companies are required to monitor and plug any leaks from well sites and compressor stations under the regulation.” [Guardian, 6/14/17]
August 2019: The Trump Administration Announced It Planned To Let Methane Producers Self Regulate Emissions. According to the Washington Post, “The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it plans to loosen federal rules on methane by allowing oil and gas operators to largely police themselves when it comes to preventing the powerful greenhouse gas from leaking out of new wells, pipelines and other infrastructure. It also challenges the notion, championed under the Obama administration, that the federal government has the authority to regulate methane without first making a detailed determination that it qualifies as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.” [Washington Post, 8/29/19]
April 2017: Trump Instructed Interior Secretary Zinke To Review The Obama Administration’s Plan For Where Offshore Drilling Could And Could Not Take Place Between 2017 And 2022. According to the New York Times, “Among other directives, the order instructs Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review an Obama administration plan that delineated where offshore drilling could and could not take place between 2017 to 2022. The plan put the entire southeast Atlantic coast and large portions of the Arctic Ocean off limits to drilling.” [New York Times, 4/27/17]
January 2018: Trump Opened Nearly All Coastal Waters To Offshore Drilling. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration said Thursday it would allow new offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all United States coastal waters, giving energy companies access to leases off California for the first time in decades and opening more than a billion acres in the Arctic and along the Eastern Seaboard.” [New York Times, 1/4/18]
January 9, 2018: Interior Secretary Zinke Exempted Florida After Lobbying From Trump Ally Florida Governor Rick Scott. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration’s move to open nearly all of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling would give energy companies access to more than a billion acres off the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts. Mr. Trump’s plan upends a decades-long effort to balance the nation’s energy needs with protecting ocean ecosystems, and it is meeting stiff resistance from governors up and down the coasts. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced on Jan. 9 that Florida was off the table after meeting the state’s governor, Rick Scott. But 10 days later, a senior Interior official appeared to contradict Mr. Zinke, telling a congressional hearing that the secretary’s decision was not final.” [New York Times, 1/23/18]
June 2020: Trump’s Department Of The Interior Planned To Announce Plans For Drilling Off The Coast Of Florida After The November 3 Election. According to Politico, “The Trump administration is preparing to open the door to oil and gas drilling off Florida’s coast — but will wait until after the November election to avoid blowback in a swing state whose waters both parties have long considered sacrosanct, according to four people familiar with the plan. Drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would fulfill a long-sought goal of energy companies, giving them access to potentially billions of barrels of oil that have been off-limits since the federal government withdrew leases it had sold in 1985. […] ‘Whatever is decided is expected to come out within two to three weeks of the election,’ said one person who has had recent discussions with Interior officials about the issue and who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity. The eastern Gulf is the ‘golden trophy’ for the industry because it could be producing oil within 10 years using existing infrastructure from the Gulf’s western portion, the person said. A second person who recently spoke to Interior officials said they had predicted that the plan would probably come out after the Nov. 3 election but before Trump’s current term ends in January. The timing was driven partly by the sensitive politics in Florida, but also because Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was conducting reviews to ensure it was legally defensible, the person said.” [Politico, 6/10/20]
May 2019: Trump Administration Rolled Back Offshore Drilling Safety Rules Put In Place After Deepwater Horizon Explosion In 2010. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration on Thursday made public its rollback of a major offshore-drilling safety regulation, significantly weakening an Obama-era rule that was put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed 11 people and sent 4.9 million barrels of oil gushing into the sea, causing the worst oil spill in American history.” [New York Times, 5/2/19]
During Offshore Drilling Safety Rules Review, Bureau Of Safety And Environmental Enforcement Director Appointed By Trump’s Interior Secretary Zinke Told Staff Engineer To Delete Language From Memo Showing Changes Would Contradict Guidance By Staff Engineers. According to the Wall Street Journal, “As the offshore oil industry’s federal regulator completed its overhaul of a major well-drilling safety rule in 2018, the agency’s director picked up the phone to a staff engineer to order up some changes. Scott Angelle, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, told the engineer to delete language from memos showing that the changes would contradict guidance from the agency’s own engineers, according to emails and memos reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The memos were subsequently revised but with no indication that Mr. Angelle had personally ordered the changes, the records show.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/26/20]
The Deepwater Horizon Killed 11 People And Spilled 4.9 Million Barrels Of Oil Into The Sea. According to the New York Times, “In the final years of the Obama administration, the Interior Department implemented several new rules aimed at improving the safety of specific pieces of offshore drilling equipment that had failed during the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and were found to have been responsible for the deadly BP oil rig explosion that caused that spill. The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon killed 11, set off a weeks-long crisis for the Obama administration and spilled 4.9 million barrels of oil into the sea.” [New York Times, 4/27/17]
More Than 3 Million Barrels Of Crude Oil Reached U.S. Beaches And Wetlands Spanning From Texas To Florida. According to NPR, “In the spring and summer of 2010, oil gushed from the Macondo well for nearly three months. More than 3 million barrels of Louisiana light crude fouled beaches and wetlands from Texas to Florida, affecting wildlife and livelihoods.” [NPR, 4/20/15]
The Oil Spilled As A Result Of The Deepwater Horizon Explosion Stained 1,100 Miles Of Coastline. According to the Telegraph, “It was five years ago today that an undersea BP oil well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico 40 miles off the Louisiana coastline, killing 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon rig and causing one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. […] Roughly 3.2 million barrels (134 million gallons) of crude oil spilled over the course of 87 days, staining 1,100 miles of coastline.” [The Telegraph, 4/20/15]
Oil Residues From The 2010 Deepwater Horizon Disaster Were Still Present In The Surroundings Ten Years Later. According to Frontiers Science News, “Small amounts of highly weathered oil residues from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster were still present in the surroundings ten years later, shows a new report. Crude oil is a complex mixture with many components that undergo chemical reactions in the environment.” [Frontiers Science News, 8/9/22]
Islands Off The Coast Of Louisiana Disappeared After Oil Killed The Mangrove Trees Holding Them Together. According to NPR, “That's because some of the oil was buried beneath the sand just offshore, and it gets churned up when the surf is rough. Back out on Barataria Bay, Marshall points to where roots jut up in the open water. These used to be mangrove islands. ‘The oil coated the roots of those mangrove trees and then they died,’ Marshall says. ‘And without the mangroves to hold the islands together, within three years most of those islands were gone.’” [NPR, 4/20/15]
Dolphins In Barataria Bay, Which Was Affected By The Oil Spill, Were Dying At A Higher-Than-Normal Rate, And Showed Signs Of Oil Poisoning. According to NPR, “Louisiana was already losing land at an alarming rate, but scientists confirm that the oil spill accelerated the pace. Barataria Bay has lost key bird nesting islands, and federal government studies indicate that dolphins here in the bay are sick and dying at a higher rate than normal and show signs of oil poisoning. On an afternoon boat tour, Marshall sees something that worries him. ‘There's another dead dolphin. That's the second one we've seen,’ he notes.” [NPR, 4/20/15]
The Oil Spill Impacted Oyster Production In One Of The Most Productive Oyster Reefs In The U.S. According to NPR, “Nelson is on the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. He says one of the most productive public oyster reefs in the country — east of the Mississippi river off the Louisiana coast — is not producing like it should. ‘That was maybe not coincidentally the closest place to where the spill was occurring, where the leak was,’ Nelson says. ‘That area still has not produced an appreciable number of oysters, and has not recruited any young oysters to speak of since the spill.’ Nelson says it's not clear whether the reef was harmed by exposure to oil, or by the freshwater that was released in Louisiana in hopes of pushing it away. Either way, he says, it's a problem that needs resolving.” [NPR, 4/20/15]
The Cleanup Operation And Legal Fees For The Oil Spilled After The Deepwater Horizon Explosion Cost $63.4 Billion As Of January 2018. According to Reuters, “BP paid around $63.4 billion by the end of September to cover clean-up costs and legal fees linked to the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history where 11 rig workers were killed. Charges over the spill have steadily grown since the company reached a landmark $19-billion settlement of federal and state claims in July 2015.” [Reuters, 1/16/18]
February 2017: Trump And Congressional Republicans Killed The Stream Protection Rule Through The Congressional Review Act. According to Vox, “In early February, the House and Senate voted to repeal the so-called ‘stream protection rule’ — using a regulation-killing tool known as the Congressional Review Act. On Thursday, President Trump signed the bill, which means the stream protection rule is now dead. Coal companies will have a freer hand in dumping mining debris in streams.” [Vox, 2/16/17]
The Rule Required Mining Companies To Monitor Water Quality And Protect Local Communities From Mining Techniques Like Mountain Top Removal. According to Bloomberg, “The Stream Protection Rule was worked on throughout the Obama administration, finally getting published in its waning days. […] The Interior Department rule requires mining companies such as Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp. to monitor water quality and to take other safeguards to protect surrounding communities from the impacts of mountain top removal and other mining techniques.” [Bloomberg, 2/2/17]
The Rule Would Have Helped Affected Communities Take Legal Action Against Coal Companies That Polluted Under The Clean Water Act. According to the New York Times, “The goal of the Interior Department’s ‘stream protection rule’ was to prohibit mining practices that permanently pollute streams, destroy drinking water sources and threaten forests. It requires coal companies to compile and provide information about contamination, so affected communities could take legal action against polluters under the Clean Water Act.” [New York Times, 2/10/17]
2011: EPA Biologist Found That More Than 90% Of 27 Appalachian Streams Located Below Mining Fill Sites Did Not Meet Clean Water Act Standards, While All Sampled Streams In Non-Mined Streams Met Standards. According to an article written by David C. Holzman for Environmental Health Perspectives, “Health studies that have been conducted in Appalachia have revealed direct and indirect links to MTR mining. For starters, Gregory J. Pond, an environmental biologist with EPA Region 3 in Wheeling, showed that more than 90% of 27 Appalachian streams below valley fill sites were impaired as per Clean Water Act standards, while none of 10 streams sampled in nonmined valleys were impaired.” [David C. Holzman – Environmental Health Perspectives, 11/1/11]
According To Sierra Club Ohio Chapter Director Jen Miller, Streams In Ohio Ran Orange And White As A Result Of Pollution From Toxins. According to the Post Athens, “The Stream Protection Rule, in addition to regulating mining companies' dumping of waste, would require streams and mined areas to be returned to pre-development conditions. There would also be more monitoring of streams, and companies found polluting would be held financially accountable. ‘I think the communities in southeast Ohio are no stranger to the impact that (mining) has on the region,’ Jen Miller, director of the Ohio chapter of environmental group Sierra Club, said. ‘(There are) streams that run orange and run white because they’re so full of dangerous toxins.’” [The Post, 2/15/17]
The Ecological Impairment Of Streams From Coal Mining Was Found To Correlate To Human Cancer Mortality Rates In Surrounding Areas. According to the abstract of an article written by U.S. Geological Survey research fish biologist Nathaniel P. Hitt and Indiana University School of Public Health applied health science professor Michael Hendryx for EcoHealth, “Coal mining was significantly associated with ecological disintegrity and higher cancer mortality. Spatial analyses also revealed cancer clusters that corresponded to areas of high coal mining intensity. Our results demonstrated significant relationships between ecological integrity and human cancer mortality in West Virginia, and suggested important effects of coal mining on ecological communities and public health. […] In a novel investigation, Hitt and Hendryx found that ecological impairment of streams correlated with human cancer mortality rates in surrounding areas. First they calculated a ‘stream condition index,’ which reflects the presence of a healthy, well-functioning ecosystem. In this case they used metrics including the sum of taxonomic groups present, the sum of individuals from three specific taxa, and percentages from various other taxa. The cancers that rose with the declining stream condition index measure of impairment included respiratory, breast, and urinary cancers. Poverty, smoking, and urbanization, which predict cancer mortality, failed to account for the observed correlations.” [Nathaniel P. Hitt and Michael Hendryx – EcoHealth, August 2010]
Trump Signed An Executive Order Instructing The Secretary Of The Interior To “Amend Or Withdraw” An Obama Administration Moratorium On Federal Coal Leasing. According to an executive order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth signed by President Donald Trump, “The Secretary of the Interior shall take all steps necessary and appropriate to amend or withdraw Secretary's Order 3338 dated January 15, 2016 (Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to Modernize the Federal Coal Program), and to lift any and all moratoria on Federal land coal leasing activities related to Order 3338. The Secretary shall commence Federal coal leasing activities consistent with all applicable laws and regulations.” [White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” 3/28/17]
2019: The Trump Administration Has Opened Up More Than Ten Million Acres Of Public Land For Mining. According to the Center for American Progress, “But Zinke, Trump, and Bernhardt have overturned far more acres of mineral withdrawals than they have protected. Other sensitive landscapes that the administration has opened to mining include: nearly 10 million acres of sage-grouse habitat; the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness; and lands bordering Joshua Tree and Death Valley national parks in the California desert.” [Center for American Progress, 3/20/19]
December 2017: Trump’s EPA, With The Support Of The National Mining Association, Dropped An Obama-Era Rule Mandating Hard Rock Mining Operators Prove They Had The Means To Mitigate Future Pollution. According to the Guardian, “In order to stop future such abuses, the Obama administration moved to require hard rock mining operations to prove they had the financial means to clean up future pollution. The rule, published just three days after Obama left office, was meant to aid cash-strapped ‘Superfund’ cleanups of areas contaminated by hazardous waste and was aimed at an industry with a long history of polluting streams and groundwater and leaving taxpayers to foot the cleanup bill. Now the Trump administration – cheered by mining firms – has moved to transfer the cost of cleaning up back to federal and state agencies. Last week Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, dropped the Obama-era rule, claiming modern mining practices, as well as other state and federal requirements, made the financial responsibility rule superfluous. ‘Additional financial assurance requirements are unnecessary and would impose an undue burden on this important sector of the American economy and rural America, where most of these mining jobs are based,’ he said. The move was lauded by the Western Governors’ Association – which said states already had financial responsibility requirements in place – and received support from the governors of Arizona, Idaho and Nevada and from the National Mining Association.” [Guardian, 12/17/17]
January 2017: President Trump Signed An Executive Action Intended To Advance The Construction Of The Keystone XL Pipeline. According to the New York Daily News, “President Trump signed two executive actions Tuesday that will advance construction of the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. […] Trump’s executive actions make good on campaign promises to help move the pipelines forward and adhere to his oft-stated desire to ease, or eliminate altogether, regulations, including ones pertaining to the environment, to help spur economic growth.” [New York Daily News, 1/24/17]
Trump Reversed An Army Corps Of Engineers Decision To Deny Energy Transfer Partners’ Request To Extend The Dakota Access Pipeline Under A Section Of The Missouri River That Included A Reservoir Providing Drinking Water To The Region. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Trump also reversed an Army Corps of Engineers decision last month to deny Energy Transfer Partners’ request to extend the Dakota Access pipeline under a section of the Missouri River that included a reservoir providing drinking water to the region.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/24/17]
January 18, 2017: The Department Of The Army Announced It Was Beginning The Process Necessary To Prepare An Environmental Assessment For The Dakota Access Project. According to a notice by the Army Department in the Federal Register, “This notice advises the public that the Department of the Army (Army), as lead agency, is gathering information necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with Dakota Access, LLC's request to grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe, which is on the Missouri River and owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). This notice opens the public scoping phase and invites interested parties to identify potential issues, concerns, and reasonable alternatives that should be considered in an EIS.” [Army Department – Federal Register, 1/18/17]
January 24, 2017: Trump Ordered That The Environmental Assessment Issued In July 2016 Be Considered “As Satisfying All Applicable Requirements Of The National Environmental Policy Act.” According to a presidential memorandum signed by Trump, “[C]onsider, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, prior reviews and determinations, including the Environmental Assessment issued in July of 2016 for the DAPL, as satisfying all applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and any other provision of law that requires executive agency consultation or review (including the consultation or review required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a))[.]” [White House, 1/24/17]
Trump Ordered The Consideration Of Whether To Rescind Or Modify The December 2016 Memorandum By The Assistant Secretary Of The Army For Civil Works. According to a presidential memorandum signed by Trump, “[C]onsider, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, whether to rescind or modify the memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works dated December 4, 2016 (Proposed Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing at Lake Oahe, North Dakota), and whether to withdraw the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in Connection with Dakota Access, LLC's Request for an Easement to Cross Lake Oahe, North Dakota, dated January 18, 2017, and published at 82 Fed. Reg. 5543[.]” [White House, 1/24/17]
The December 2016 Memorandum Granted A New Environmental-Impact Statement For Lake Oahe. According to the Atlantic, “In the second, he asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ‘review and approve in an expedited manner’ the Dakota Access pipeline. He also asked the Corps’s director to ‘consider, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, whether to rescind or modify the memorandum’ from December that granted a new environmental-impact statement for Lake Oahe.” [Atlantic, 1/25/17]
February 2017 The Army Corps of Engineers Granted The Final Easement Needed For Completion Of The Dakota Access Pipeline, Clearing The Way For Construction To Resume After The Army Corps Announced It No Longer Saw The Need For An Expanded Environmental Review. According to the Los Angeles Times, “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Wednesday granted the final easement needed for completion of the Dakota Access pipeline, clearing the way for construction to resume and stirring uncertainty about the historic protest that has tried to stop it. ‘With this action, Dakota Access now has received all federal authorizations necessary to proceed expeditiously to complete construction of the pipeline,’ Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, said late Wednesday. […] On Tuesday, the Army Corps announced that it no longer saw the need for an expanded environmental review and expected to issue the easement on Wednesday.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/8/17]
Construction Crews Resumed Work Almost Immediately After The Army Corps Of Engineers Announced Final Approval. According to the Daily Beast, “On Feb. 7, the Army Corps of Engineers, on the orders of President Trump, announced its final approval of the project. Construction crews resumed work almost immediately, despite vows by the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes to stop the pipeline in court. Native opponents and their supporters have pledged to block the pipeline to prevent contamination of the Missouri River, a source of water for the Sioux people and at least 10 million others downstream.” [Daily Beast, 2/22/17]
Trump Owned Stock In The Pipeline Builder, Energy Transfer Partners, And Phillips 66, An Energy Company That Owned One-Quarter Of The Pipeline. According to the Associated Press, “President-elect Donald Trump supports completion of the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline in the Midwest, based on policy and not the billionaire businessman's investments in a partnership building the $3.8 billion pipeline, according to an aide's memo. […] Trump's most recent federal disclosure forms, filed in May, show he owned a small amount of stock in Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline builder, and at least $100,000 in Phillips 66, an energy company that owns one-quarter of the pipeline.” [Associated Press, 12/2/16]
Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren Donated $100,000 To A Committee Supporting Trump’s Election. According to the Huffington Post, “In May 2015, according to campaign disclosure reports, Trump owned between $500,000 and $1 million worth of shares of Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline’s lead developer, but had less than $50,000 invested when he sold off the remainder of his shares this summer, according to The Washington Post. As of last May, Trump had at least $100,000 invested in Phillips 66, which owns a quarter of the oil line, according to the AP. There was mutual support, as Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren had donated $100,000 to a committee supporting Trump’s election.” [Huffington Post, 12/2/16]
Senior White House Advisor At The Department Of Transportation Anthony Pugliese Owned TransCanada Corporation Stock Worth Up To $15,000. According to the Office of Government Ethics Form 278e filed by Anthony Pugliese, Senior White House Advisor at the Department of Transportation, Pugliese owned stock in the TransCanada Corporation valued between $1,001 and $15,000. [Anthony Pugliese – OGE Form 278e, 3/15/17] [Anthony Pugliese – OGE Form 278e, 3/15/17]
Perry Sat On The Board Of Energy Transfer Partners That “Has A Subsidiary Known As Dakota Access LLC, Which Is Attempting To Build The Dakota Access Pipeline.” According to CBS News, “The former Texas governor sits on two corporate boards – one of them is Energy Transfer Partners – and that may present a confirmation issue. Energy Transfer Partners has a subsidiary known as Dakota Access LLC, which is attempting to build the Dakota Access Pipeline. That Dakota Access Pipeline has been the subject of public protests over its potential environmental impact and damage to Native American lands.” [CBS News, 12/12/16]
Energy Transfer Partners Employees Donated A Total Of $1,518,500 To Perry's Campaign And Outside Groups Supporting Him. According to CNBC, “For the 2016 election, Energy Transfer Partners employees donated a total of $1,518,500 to Perry's campaign and outside groups supporting him, according to a list compiled by Open Secrets.” [CNBC, 12/13/16]
January 2020: Perry Rejoined Energy Transfer Partners After Stepping Down From The DOE According to the Hill, “Former Energy Secretary Rick Perry was appointed to the board of the general partner that controls pipeline company Energy Transfer LP following his exit from the Trump administration. Perry was appointed as a director of LE GP LLC, the general partner of the company Energy Transfer, on Jan. 1, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.” [Hill, 1/4/20]
The Keystone XL Pipeline Was Designed To Export 1.1 Million Barrels Of Canadian Crude Oil Per Day. According to the New York Times, “A much longer pipeline to Texas, called Keystone XL, is still under federal review. If fully developed as proposed, the system would allow Canada to export an additional 1.1 million barrels of oil a day.” [New York Times, 5/18/10]
A Keystone XL Spill Could Contaminate The Ogallala Aquifer, Which Stretches From Texas To South Dakota. According to Bloomberg, “Advisers to Donald Trump are exploring ways he can green light the Keystone XL oil pipeline on the day he is sworn into office, including by rescinding a 48-year-old presidential order. […] Landowners in the pipeline’s path warned that a spill of dense oil sands crude could contaminate the Ogallala aquifer, a source of drinking water that stretches from Texas to South Dakota.” [Bloomberg, 11/23/16]
The Crude Extracted From The Alberta Oil Sands Would Sink In Water; Advocates Say It Would Make Clean Up Efforts Nearly Impossible. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Specifically, the crude extracted from the Alberta oil sands is a heavy, black, viscous oil that is expected to be blended with other toxic hydrocarbons for pipeline transport and which sinks in water. Pointing to recent pipeline spills of a similar crude, in Michigan in 2010 and in Arkansas this year, opponents say a spill into the Ogallala aquifer could be environmentally and economically devastating to local communities and nearly impossible to clean up.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
The Keystone XL Pipeline Was Expected To Run Within A Mile Of More Than 3,000 Wells. According to an opinion by Natural Resources Defense Council Canada Project director Anthony Swift for the National Resources Defense Council, “In those three states, the pipeline would cross 1,073 rivers, lakes and streams—from the Yellowstone River in Montana to the Platte River in Nebraska—along with tens of thousands of acres of wetlands, including those in the famed Prairie Pothole Region that makes up 10 percent of the waterfowl breeding habitat in the Continental United States. It would run within a mile of more than 3,000 wells that provide drinking and irrigation water in those states.” [Anthony Swift – Natural Resources Defense Council, 1/23/17]
The Keystone XL Pipeline Would Need To Be Spilling More Than 12,000 Barrels Of Crude Per Day Before Its Internal Spill-Detection System Would Be Triggered. According to Bloomberg, “Keystone XL would have to be spilling more than 12,000 barrels a day -- or 1.5 percent of its 830,000 barrel capacity - - before its currently planned internal spill-detection systems would trigger an alarm, according to the U.S. State Department, which is reviewing the proposal.” [Bloomberg, 6/18/13]
Trump Lied That He Had The Best Environmental Record Ever And That He Oversaw “Immaculate” Air And Water. According to the Associated Press, “TRUMP, touting his environmental record, said that ‘during my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever’ and that he supports ‘immaculate’ air and water. THE FACTS: That’s far from the whole story. During his presidency, Trump rolled back some provisions of the Clean Water Act, eased regulations on coal, oil and gas companies and pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. When wildfires struck California in 2020, Trump dismissed the scientific consensus that climate change had played a role. Trump also dismissed scientists’ warnings about climate change and routinely proposed deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency. Those reductions were blocked by Democratic and Republican lawmakers.” [Associated Press, 6/28/24]
Since 1968, California Had Been Allowed By The Clean Air Act To Set Stricter Rules On Pollution Than The Country As A Whole. According to Vox, “California has had an exemption under the federal Clean Air Act since 1968 to set its own rules for vehicle emissions, which were often stricter than those set by the EPA. Carmakers weren’t big fans of this exception because it meant that they would either have to design cars specifically to comply with California rules or effectively California would set the standard for the rest of the country.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
2012: The Obama Administration Announced Emissions Regulations That Would Bring The Country’s Standards In Line With California’s. According to Vox, “In 2012, the Obama administration worked with California, the EPA, and the Department of Transportation to set a similar benchmark for fuel economy across the country. Under the Obama-era car emissions regulations, companies would have had to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 if they were solely to meet the emissions target by increasing fuel efficiency. Shortly before leaving office, the Obama administration conducted a midterm evaluation to see if these targets were still achievable and concluded they were.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
March 2017: The EPA Announced That It Intended To Reconsider Greenhouse Gas Standards For Light-Duty Vehicles Produced For Model Years 2022-2025. According to a notice by the Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA announces its intention to reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles and to coordinate its reconsideration with the parallel process to be undertaken by the DOT’s NHTSA regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks for the same model years.” [Environmental Protection Agency, 3/13/17]
2017: Automakers Petitioned The Trump Administration For Relief From Fuel Economy Standards. According to Vox, “Car companies disagreed. They complained that these standards were too ambitious, that customers preferred larger crossover SUVs to small, fuel-efficient sedans, and that the midterm evaluation was rushed. So when Trump took office, several automakers and the oil industry petitioned to have the EPA re-assess the regulation.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
2017: The Trump Administration Reduced The Standards By Nearly 32 Percent; More Than The Automakers Had Asked For. According to Vox, “But car companies got more than they bargained for when the EPA announced instead that it was going to hold fuel economy standards at 2020 levels, which would set average fuel economy at 37 miles per gallon. The EPA justified this weaker rule, known as the SAFE rule, on safety grounds. They used the tortured reasoning that newer cars are safer than old ones and that tough fuel-economy rules make new cars more expensive. By weakening fuel-efficiency regulations, drivers can upgrade to newer, safer cars more easily. But leaked emails showed that analysts inside the EPA determined that the revisions would actually lead to more deaths.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
July 2019: Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, And BMW Agreed To Stricter Fuel Economy Standards Than The Trump Administration Had Imposed. According to Vox, “First reported by the Washington Post, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) alongside Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen AG, Honda Motor Company Ltd., and BMW of North America agreed to increase vehicle fuel economy of their fleets 3.7 percent year over year between model year 2022 and model year 2026. Meeting this goal with just fuel-efficiency improvements would require car companies to average 51 miles per gallon by 2026 across all of their offerings. But the recent agreement lets automakers meet this target in other ways too, like selling more electric cars and plug-in hybrids. And while the agreement is only with California, the benchmarks are determined based on a car company’s national fleet rather than just within the state, which gives carmakers more flexibility.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
September 2019: Trump’s Justice Department Launched An Antitrust Investigation Into The Automakers Involved In The Higher Efficiency Deal With California. According to NPR, “The Trump administration says a deal between California and four carmakers to improve fuel efficiency may be illegal. The Justice Department has also launched a probe to see whether it violates antitrust laws. Together, the moves raise the stakes in a months-long standoff over efforts to weaken a key Obama-era climate rule. The administration is moving to roll back fuel economy standards despite resistance from some in the industry. In July, BMW, Ford, Honda and Volkswagen reached a deal with the state to keep improving fuel efficiency even if federal standards are weakened. The antitrust probe seeks to challenge that deal. T.R. Reid, a spokesperson for Ford, said in a statement that the company ‘will cooperate with respect to any inquiry.’ Also at stake is a decades-old waiver that lets California set its own, stricter emissions standards, which a dozen other states also follow. On Friday, the EPA and Department of Transportation sent the California Air Resources Board a two-page notice warning that its deal with the four automakers ‘appears to be inconsistent with Federal law.’ It said that under the Clean Air Act, only the federal government has authority to set tailpipe pollution standards.” [NPR, 9/6/19]
September 2019: The Trump Administration Revoked The Waiver Allowing California To Set Its Own Car Emissions Standards. According to NPR, “The Trump administration has been picking fights with California over environmental regulations recently. Last week the administration said it will revoke a waiver that allows California to set stricter car emission standards. A senior EPA official said the two actions were not linked and that California is the focus now because it represents the largest share of backlogged plans. Even though other states have similar backlogs, the administration has not sent letters to them.” [NPR, 9/24/19]
March 2020: The Trump Administration Rolled Back Obama-Era Regulations Of Fuel Efficiency Standards. According to the Guardian, “The Trump administration is rolling back the US government’s strongest attempt to combat the climate crisis, weakening rules which compel auto companies to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Critics say the move will lead to more life-threatening air pollution and force Americans to spend more on gasoline. The changes to Obama-era regulations will allow vehicles to emit about a billion more tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide – equivalent to roughly a fifth of annual US emissions. The rollback is one of dozens Trump officials have ushered to completion, seeking to bolster the fossil fuel industry amid intense opposition from Democratic-led states and pushback from world leaders.” [Guardian, 3/31/20]
Trump’s FY 2018 Budget Proposed A 30% Cut To The Superfund Program. According to USA Today, “As part of his initial 2018 budget proposal, President Trump is proposing to slash $330 million out of the nearly $1.1 billion Superfund initiative. That’s a 30% reduction to an Environmental Protection Agency program already struggling to keep pace with a growing inventory of hazardous hot spots that pose dangers to public health and the local environment.” [USA Today, 4/7/17]
Trump’s FY 2019 Budget Proposed A 30% Cut To The Superfund Program Relative To The 2017 Enacted Level. According to the president's FY 2019 budget, the FY 2017 enacted budget for Superfund Sites Was $1,089,000,000 and the FY 2019 request was $762,000,000. [White House, 2/12/18]
FY 2020: Trump Proposed A 9.4% Cut To The Superfund Program. According to the president’s FY 2020 budget, the FY 2020 proposed a 9.4% cut to the superfund program. [Environmental Protection Agency, 03/19]
Trump’s FY 2021 Budget Proposed A 10% Cut To The Superfund Program. According to the president's FY 2021 budget, the FY 2020 enacted budget for Superfund Sites Was $1,185,000,000 and the FY 2021 request was $1,072,000,000 [White House, 2/10/20]
April, 2017: Trump’s EPA Proposed Eliminating Programs Focused On Limiting Children’s Exposure To Lead-Based Paint, Which Is Known To Cause Damage To Developing Brains And Nervous Systems. According to the Washington Post, “Environmental Protection Agency officials are proposing to eliminate two programs focused on limiting children’s exposure to lead-based paint, which is known to cause damage to developing brains and nervous systems. The proposed cuts, outlined in a 64-page budget memo revealed by The Washington Post on Friday, would roll back programs aimed at reducing lead risks by $16.61 million and more than 70 employees, in line with a broader project by the Trump administration to devolve responsibility for environmental and health protection to state and local governments.” [Washington Post, 4/5/17]
Trump’s EPA Would Cut $16.61 Million And More Than 70 Employees Related To Reducing Lead Risks. According to the Washington Post, “Environmental Protection Agency officials are proposing to eliminate two programs focused on limiting children’s exposure to lead-based paint, which is known to cause damage to developing brains and nervous systems. The proposed cuts, outlined in a 64-page budget memo revealed by The Washington Post on Friday, would roll back programs aimed at reducing lead risks by $16.61 million and more than 70 employees, in line with a broader project by the Trump administration to devolve responsibility for environmental and health protection to state and local governments.” [Washington Post, 4/5/17]
The Cuts Were In Line With A Broader Project By The Trump Administration To Devolve Responsibility For Environmental And Health Protection To State And Local Governments. According to the Washington Post, “Environmental Protection Agency officials are proposing to eliminate two programs focused on limiting children’s exposure to lead-based paint, which is known to cause damage to developing brains and nervous systems. The proposed cuts, outlined in a 64-page budget memo revealed by The Washington Post on Friday, would roll back programs aimed at reducing lead risks by $16.61 million and more than 70 employees, in line with a broader project by the Trump administration to devolve responsibility for environmental and health protection to state and local governments.” [Washington Post, 4/5/17]
Only 14 States Had Their Own Programs Addressing Lead-Based Paint Risks, And The Rest Relied On The Federal Government. According to The Washington Post, “Fourteen states — Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin — run programs to train contractors how to properly handle renovations involving lead paint, according to the EPA’s website. The rest rely on the federal government to provide training.” [Washington Post, 4/5/17]
October 2019: Trump’s EPA Announced New Regulations On Lead And Copper Pipes Excluding Replacing Lead Pipes Leading To 6 Million Homes. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration on Thursday proposed new regulations on lead and copper in drinking water, updating a nearly 30-year-old rule that may have contributed to the lead-tainted water crisis in Flint, Mich., that began in 2015. The draft plan, announced by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Andrew Wheeler, at a news conference in Green Bay, Wis., includes some provisions designed to strengthen oversight of lead in drinking water. But it skips a pricey safety proposal advocated by public health groups and water utilities: the immediate replacement of six million lead pipes that connect homes to main water pipes.” [New York Times, 10/10/19]
FY 2018: Trump’s Budget Proposed Eliminating EPA’s Indoor Air Radon Program. According to the FY 2018 EPA Congressional Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations, “Indoor Air: Radon Program” was listed with a “Total Budget Authority / Obligations” of $3,076,000 for the FY 2017 CR and $0 under the “FY 2018 Pres Bud.” [Environment Protection Agency, May 2017]
FY 2019: Trump’s Budget Proposed Eliminating EPA’s Indoor Air Radon Program. According to the FY 2019 EPA Congressional Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations, “Indoor Air: Radon Program” was listed with a “Total Budget Authority / Obligations” of $3,273,000 for the FY 2018 CR and $0 under the “FY 2019 Pres Budget.” [Environment Protection Agency, February 2018]
FY 2020: Trump’s Budget Proposed Eliminating EPA’s Indoor Air Radon Program. According to the FY 2020 EPA Congressional Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations, “Indoor Air: Radon Program” was listed with a “Total Budget Authority / Obligations” of $3,295,000 for the FY 2018 CR and $0 under the “FY 2020 Pres Budget.” [Environment Protection Agency, March 2019]
FY 2021: Trump’s Budget Proposed Eliminating EPA’s Indoor Air Radon Program. According to the FY 2021 EPA Congressional Budget Justification for the Committee on Appropriations, “Indoor Air: Radon Program” was listed with a “Total Budget Authority / Obligations” of $3,279,000 for the FY 2020 Enacted amount and $0 under the “FY 2021 Pres Budget.” [Environment Protection Agency, February 2020]
EPA: Around 2,900 Non-Smokers Die Of Lung Cancer Due To Radon Annually. According to the Environment Protection Agency, “Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked.” [Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 5/30/19]
Trump Appointee To EPA Radiation Advisory Panel Subscribed To Theory That Small Doses Of Radiation Are Beneficial To Human Health. According to the Center for Public Integrity, “Until the Trump era, opponents of the rules have gotten little traction in trying to upend low-dose radiation protections – such as isolation units, elaborate shielding, specialized air cleaners, and elaborate worker training — in federal regulations. But proposed relaxations have been percolating in recent months, courtesy of a little-known advocacy group called Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, or SARI. Members of the group, which claims its ideas have been wrongly dismissed and belittled by mainstream scientists, subscribe to a minority theory known as ‘hormesis.’ It defies conventional wisdom by holding that damaging things that are dangerous in high doses might actually be beneficial to human health in small doses. Despite swimming against the tide in the past, one of the group’s members has just been appointed to head a Radiation Advisory Panel at the Environmental Protection Agency, which helps set federal standards for radiation doses received by the public and by workers. And several of its recommendations to ease radiation protections are presently under active consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” [Center for Public Integrity, 2/27/19]
Trump Has Appointed Industry Insiders To The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to the Center for Public Integrity, “The commission has had a pro-industry Republican majority since May 2018, when three Trump nominees to it were confirmed. One was Annie Caputo, a former staff member for Republican Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.) that previously worked as a nuclear engineer for the Exelon Corp. a major utility; and the second was David A. Wright, a nuclear industry consultant and retired South Carolina public service commission member. Trump also tapped as the NRC chair Kristine Svinicki, a former Energy Department employee and nuclear engineer well-known for supporting industry as a commission member since 2008. Trump handed her a new five-year term. This year, these three have already undone a draft rule written during the Obama administration – and hated by industry – requiring new protections at nuclear plants against floods and earthquakes like those at Fukushima. The Jan. 24 vote was a straight party-line 3-2 decision.” [Center for Public Integrity, 2/27/19]
Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Known As PFAS, Are Prevalent Man-Made Chemicals That Do Not Break Down And Accumulate Over Time In The Environment And Human Body. According to the Environment Protection Agency, “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and many other chemicals. PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries around the globe, including in the United States since the 1940s. PFOA and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals. Both chemicals are very persistent in the environment and in the human body – meaning they don’t break down and they can accumulate over time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects.” [Environment Protection Agency, accessed 3/8/19]
PFAS Can Be Found In Food Packaging, Commercial Household Products, Factories, Drinking Water, And Living Organisms. According to the Environment Protection Agency, “PFAS can be found in: - Food packaged in PFAS-containing materials, processed with equipment that used PFAS, or grown in PFAS-contaminated soil or water. - Commercial household products, including stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams (a major source of groundwater contamination at airports and military bases where firefighting training occurs). - Workplace, including production facilities or industries (e.g., chrome plating, electronics manufacturing or oil recovery) that use PFAS. - Drinking water, typically localized and associated with a specific facility (e.g., manufacturer, landfill, wastewater treatment plant, firefighter training facility). - Living organisms, including fish, animals and humans, where PFAS have the ability to build up and persist over time.” [Environment Protection Agency, accessed 3/8/19]
PFAS Can Cause Reproductive, Developmental, And Immunological Effects, As Well As Tumors, Increased Cholesterol Levels, Low Infant Birth Weight, And Thyroid Hormone Disruption. According to the Environment Protection Agency, “PFAS are found in a wide range of consumer products that people use daily such as cookware, pizza boxes and stain repellants. Most people have been exposed to PFAS. Certain PFAS can accumulate and stay in the human body for long periods of time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. The most-studied PFAS chemicals are PFOA and PFOS. Studies indicate that PFOA and PFOS can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals. Both chemicals have caused tumors in animals. The most consistent findings are increased cholesterol levels among exposed populations, with more limited findings related to: low infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS).” [Environment Protection Agency, accessed 3/8/19]
The Trump Administration’s Work On PFAS Has Been Backed By Chemical Industry And Defense Department, Both Of Whom Face Significant PFAS Liabilities. According to Politico, “Industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, have backed the Trump administration's work on the class of chemicals, expecting that it will be as industry-friendly as they can hope for. The Trump administration's approach to PFOA and PFOS has also been shaped by the Defense Department, which faces potentially massive liability for the hundreds of contaminated sites it owns around the country.” [Politico, 1/28/19]
January 2018: Trump’s EPA And The White House Tried To Block Publication Of An HHS Study On The Dangers Of PFAS, Fearing “The Public, Media, And Congressional Reaction” To The Information. According to Politico, “Scott Pruitt’s EPA and the White House sought to block publication of a federal health study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis, after one Trump administration aide warned it would cause a ‘public relations nightmare,’ newly disclosed emails reveal. The intervention early this year — not previously disclosed — came as HHS’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry was preparing to publish its assessment of a class of toxic chemicals that has contaminated water supplies near military bases, chemical plants and other sites from New York to Michigan to West Virginia. The study would show that the chemicals endanger human health at a far lower level than EPA has previously called safe, according to the emails. ‘The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge,’ one unidentified White House aide said in an email forwarded on Jan. 30 by James Herz, a political appointee who oversees environmental issues at the OMB. The email added: ‘The impact to EPA and [the Defense Department] is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.’ More than three months later, the draft study remains unpublished, and the HHS unit says it has no scheduled date to release it for public comment. Critics say the delay shows the Trump administration is placing politics ahead of an urgent public health concern — something they had feared would happen after agency leaders like Pruitt started placing industry advocates in charge of issues like chemical safety.” [Politico, 5/14/18]
June 2018: The Report Was Released. According to CNN, “A long-awaited government study on the toxicity levels chemicals commonly used in manufacturing was made public on Wednesday, months after a White House official warned that it could be a ‘potential public relations nightmare.’ […] The 800-plus-page draft report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, indicates that the ‘minimal risk levels’ for oral exposure to two chemicals known as PFOS and PFOA are lower than the threshold currently recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s levels are 10 and 6.7 times higher, respectively.” [CNN, 6/20/18]
HHS Study Found Risk Levels Of PFAS Were Seven To 10 Times Higher Than EPA Estimated In 2016 Study. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “The new report concluded the risk level of the chemicals — known as per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and used on the local bases mainly in firefighting foam — is "roughly seven- to tenfold" higher than what the EPA used in its study, said Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist with the Environmental Working Group, which has pushed for stricter drinking water standards. That could have implications for the drinking water guidelines, although the numbers used for risk levels and drinking water cannot be directly compared. The ATSDR used more and newer data in its study than the EPA had for its 2016 report.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/20/18]
July 2019: Trump Threatened To Veto The 2020 NDAA In Part Over PFAS Clean Up Provisions. According to the Hill, “One day after President Trump delivered a speech preaching of his administration’s environmental achievements, he threatened to veto a military spending bill in part due to provisions that aim to clean up a toxic, cancer-linked chemical found near military bases. ‘If H.R. 2500 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he veto it,’ the White House wrote in a statement Tuesday night. The House has not yet voted on its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) but Trump on Tuesday highlighted among its various sticking points two provisions that would address the clean up of a class of chemicals abbreviated as PFAS.” [Hill, 7/10/19]
The Trump Administration Included PFAS Measures That Were To Be Removed From The NDAA. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “In July, the Trump administration included some PFAS measures in a list of provisions it wanted eliminated from the defense spending bill, threatening a veto if they remained. The measures ultimately removed from the final bill had been passed in the House version. Democrats said Senate Republicans would not negotiate.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/10/19]
Democrats Said Senate Republicans Would Not Negotiate. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “In July, the Trump administration included some PFAS measures in a list of provisions it wanted eliminated from the defense spending bill, threatening a veto if they remained. The measures ultimately removed from the final bill had been passed in the House version. Democrats said Senate Republicans would not negotiate.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/10/19]
Final 2020 NDAA Did Not Have Provision For PFAS National Regulation. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “The defense spending bill does include the most PFAS-related legislation passed to date. But the changes, coming after months of negotiations, mean there will continue to be no federal regulations for the chemicals, which are linked to cancers and other health problems.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/10/19]
2019: EPA Said It Would Designate PFOA And PFOS As Hazardous Chemicals Under Superfund Law, But Did Not Do So. According to Bloomberg Environment, “The Superfund designation could help states get federal assistance with contamination cleanup, but water utility associations said in a joint statement Jan. 9 that it could leave them with financial liabilities for contaminants someone else created. In 2019, the EPA indicated it would make the Superfund designation for PFOA and PFOS, but has not yet done so.” [Bloomberg, 1/10/20]
Superfund Designation Would Help States With Federal Assistance For Cleanup. According to Bloomberg Environment, “The Superfund designation could help states get federal assistance with contamination cleanup, but water utility associations said in a joint statement Jan. 9 that it could leave them with financial liabilities for contaminants someone else created. In 2019, the EPA indicated it would make the Superfund designation for PFOA and PFOS, but has not yet done so.” [Bloomberg, 1/10/20]
February 20, 2020: EPA Announced It Would Regulate PFAS Starting Three And A Half Year Process. According to The Hill, “EPA’s decision to regulate PFAS kicks off a two-year period for the agency to determine what the new mandatory maximum contamination level should be. Once that is formally proposed, the agency has another 18 months to finalize its drinking water requirement.” [Hill, 2/20/20]
Trump Threatened To Veto House Passed PFAS Bill That Sought To Establish A National Drinking Water Standard And Clean Up PFAS Across The Country. According to the Detroit Free Press, “Hundreds if not thousands of sites in Michigan and across the U.S. contaminated with PFAS could be cleaned up and a drinking water standard for the chemicals set under U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell's bill passed by the House on Friday. But the legislation, which passed the House 247-159, faces an uncertain future in the Republican-led Senate, with President Donald Trump threatening to veto the bill.” [Detroit Free Press, 1/10/20]
Bill Would Establish PFAS As A Hazardous Substance Under The Superfund Law. According to Bloomberg Environment, “The House expects to begin considering a bill Jan. 9 (H.R.535) that would push the Environmental Protection Agency to create nationwide protective measures against poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, and could vote on passage Jan. 10, according to an aide to House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) introduced the bill last January. At that time, the bill only would have required the EPA to declare PFAS hazardous substances under Superfund law, giving the agency a year to do so. After a House Energy and Commerce Committee review, 11 other pieces of legislation were wrapped into the bill.” [Bloomberg, 1/2/20]
Trump’s Nominee For EPA Chemical Safety Division Had Reputation For Producing Science Favorable To His Funders. According to Politico, “Adam Finkel, an environmental health science professor at the University of Michigan who has worked with Dourson in the past, said he has a reputation among industry for producing science that is ‘favorable to what the funders want to hear’ while at the same time cultivating an appearance of impartiality. ‘There are plenty of unbalanced groups around, but I don’t know of too many others who are as unbalanced as his are who are as aggressively promoting the fact that they are balanced,’ Finkel said.” [Politico, 1/13/19]
December 2017: Trump’s Nominee To Head EPA Chemical Safety Office Withdrew Due To PFAS History. According to Politico, “In December, the Trump administration's nominee to head the agency's chemical safety office, industry consultant Michael Dourson, withdrew his nomination after North Carolina's Republican senators said they would not support him, in large part because of their state's struggles with PFAS contamination. Dourson's previous research on the subject has been criticized as too favorable to the chemical industry.” [Politico, 5/14/18]
Following His Withdrawal, Dourson Has Continued To Produce Industry Favoring Work On PFAS Pollution. According to Politico, “Since Dourson's EPA nomination was defeated, he has restarted work on the class of chemicals, including filing comments to a federal study on PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals this summer that made the case for less stringent safety limits. Adam Finkel, an environmental health science professor at the University of Michigan who has worked with Dourson in the past, said he has a reputation among industry for producing science that is ‘favorable to what the funders want to hear’ while at the same time cultivating an appearance of impartiality. ‘There are plenty of unbalanced groups around, but I don’t know of too many others who are as unbalanced as his are who are as aggressively promoting the fact that they are balanced,’ Finkel said.” [Politico, 1/13/19]