US EPA

Press Release: Five-year Anniversary of Fuel Economy & Pollution Reduction Standards Affirms Rules Still Sound and Sensible

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Five-year Anniversary of Fuel Economy and Pollution Reduction Standards Affirms Rules Still Sound and Sensible

Recent EPA announcement to re-open review of common sense pollution reduction standards could cost people more at the gas pump, increase pollution harming health, and reduce America’s technological innovation leadership and global competitiveness 

STATEMENT BY HOWARD A. LEARNER         

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER

Howard Learner, ELPC’s Executive Director, said in connection to the five-year anniversary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation establishing joint fuel economy and pollution reduction standards for vehicle Model Years 2017-2025:

“Five years ago, the EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation issued fuel economy and pollution reduction standards for American automakers that are still sound and sensible today,” Learner said. “The standards EPA and DOT rolled out in 2012 ensure that America’s new cars and light trucks will use less oil and emit fewer greenhouse gases through 2025.

“Despite the success of Clean Car standards, the Trump administration is working to roll them back. Earlier this year, EPA determined its standards remained achievable and cost effective, but the agency has now taken the misguided step of reopening that review. DOT is also working to weaken its fuel efficiency standards. A rollback of the joint standards threaten to shift America into reverse and put U.S. car manufacturers behind in the global competition for cleaner, fuel efficient cars.

“Keeping the joint standards in place that were set five years ago will continue to drive innovation, maintain the American auto industry’s competitiveness, boost jobs in the Midwest, and save Americans money at the gas pump. Across the Midwest there are more than 150,000 jobs in 480 facilities engaged in making cleaner vehicles. Let’s keep the cleaner car job sector growing.”

###

Great Lakes Now: Chicago Group Files Suit Over Lake Erie Pollution

Great Lakes Now

Chicago Group Files Suit Over Lake Erie Pollution

By Gary Wilson

With the peak algae season nearing, pressure is mounting on the federal government and Ohio to be more aggressive in combating nutrient pollution from farms that discharge to Lake Erie.

Last week the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) filed suit in Ohio alleging that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to protect Lake Erie by not holding Ohio to its obligations under the Clean Water Act.

Specifically, the suit alleges that U.S. EPA should have disapproved Ohio’s list of officially designated “impaired waters” because western Lake Erie was not included.

“U.S. EPA illegally gave Ohio a pass on its obligation to recognize that harmful algal blooms are impacting more than just a few limited areas of Lake Erie,” said attorney Madeline Fleisher in an ELPC press release. Fleisher is based in Columbus, Ohio.

READ MORE

WATCH Gary Wilson’s interview with ELPC’s Kevin Brubaker

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Environmentalists Sue EPA to Designate Ohio’s Portion of Lake Erie ‘impaired’

Environmentalists Sue EPA to Designate Ohio’s Portion of Lake Erie as “Impaired”

By Eric Heisig

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Advocacy groups are challenging the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to accept Ohio’s assertion that its portion of Lake Erie does not meet the definition of impaired waters.

The Ohio EPA did not include the state’s open waters on a list of impaired waterways when it submitted the list to the U.S. EPA last fall.

The federal EPA approved the list May 17 and both the state and federal agencies’ decisions were met with criticism from environmentalists who say the designation is necessary to curb the encroachment of harmful algal blooms.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center and Advocates for a Clean Lake Erie contends in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that the federal EPA’s decision violates the Clean Water Act. More confounding is that the list of impaired waterways the state of Michigan submitted to the federal EPA included its portion of Lake Erie, and the agency approved Michigan’s list, the suit says.

READ MORE

Sandusky (Ohio) Register: ELPC & Others Sue to Have Lake Erie Declared ‘Impaired’

Sandusky Register

Groups Sue to Have Lake Erie Declared “Impaired”

by Tom Jackson

SANDUSKY — Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Toledo, seeking to have the open waters of Lake Erie declared “impaired” under the provisions of the Clean Water Act.

The lawsuit essentially seeks to overturn the U.S. EPA’s decision to approve a declaration by the Ohio EPA that the open waters of the lake are not impaired. Michigan, however, has declared that the lake is impaired.

The groups argue that harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie, an annual event, have impaired the lake’s waters. Hundreds of thousands of people in Toledo were told not to drink the water in August 2014 after toxins from that year’s HAB poisoned the water supply.

An attorney involved in the lawsuit says that designating the lake as impaired would force stronger action to deal with harmful algal blooms.

“U.S. EPA illegally gave Ohio a pass on its obligation to recognize that harmful algal blooms are impacting more than just a few limited areas of Lake Erie,” said Madeline Fleisher, staff attorney in Columbus, Ohio, for the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

READ MORE

 

Greenwire: Enviros Sue EPA Over Approving Ohio’s Lake Erie Plan

Greenwire
Enviros sue EPA over approving Ohio’s Lake Erie plan
By Ariel Wittenberg

In May, EPA approved Ohio EPA’s 2016 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, which found that certain sections of Lake Erie were “impaired,” a designation that has legal implications under the Clean Water Act.

Groups sued EPA to force a decision on the report. Now the Environmental Law & Policy Center and Advocates for a Clean Lake Erie are challenging that approval, filing a complaint today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The groups say that Ohio wrongly limited its impairment finding to shorelines and areas near drinking water intakes and that the open waters of Lake Erie are also impaired by the toxic algae blooms that have plagued the lake for many years. EPA, they say, approved Ohio’s determination without enough analysis.

“U.S. EPA rubber-stamped something that Ohio did that is not going to protect water quality in Lake Erie and isn’t fully recognizing a serious problem that the federal government is supposed to have a role in solving,” said a statement.

READ MORE

PRESS RELEASE: Environmental Groups Sue EPA for Rubber-stamping Ohio EPA’s Refusal to Call Open Waters of Lake Erie “Impaired”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                          Contact: Judith Nemes

July 18, 2017                                                                                                                                                                               

 Environmental Groups Sue EPA for Rubber-stamping Ohio EPA’s Refusal to Call Open Waters of Lake Erie “Impaired”

 ELPC warns nutrient pollution reduction won’t occur without comprehensive approach to algal bloom problem

Toledo, OH – Today, the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) and co-plaintiffs Advocates for a Clean Lake Erie (ACLE), Susan Matz, and Michael Ferner sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal court in Ohio to challenge its decision to approve Ohio EPA’s refusal to assess whether the open waters of Lake Erie are “impaired” under the Clean Water Act.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Toledo against the EPA, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and Acting Regional Administrator Robert Kaplan. The environmental groups charge the open waters of Lake Erie should be designated impaired under the Clean Water Act because harmful algal blooms that form there most years are preventing those waters from meeting basic state water quality standards.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has already designated the entire neighboring portion of Lake Erie within its boundaries as “impaired” by the same algal blooms.

“U.S. EPA illegally gave Ohio a pass on its obligation to recognize that harmful algal blooms are impacting more than just a few limited areas of Lake Erie,” said Madeline Fleisher, ELPC’s staff attorney in Columbus, Ohio. “The impairment designation is a key first step in the Clean Water Act’s process for addressing serious water quality issues. Without the impairment designation, Ohio is likely to continue relying on unenforceable, voluntary measures to reduce phosphorus pollution that won’t do enough to fix the problem.”

Ohio EPA recognized that algal bloom problems are impairing Lake Erie’s shoreline and areas which are used as a source of public drinking water. However, the agency refused to address the algal blooms’ effects on the full extent of the lake’s waters even though it’s a single water body.

The blooms can produce toxins that make people and pets seriously ill when ingested, and can also harm aquatic species by poisoning water or using up oxygen to create “dead zones” in the lake. The algal blooms are caused by phosphorus pollution that primarily comes from manure and fertilizer running off of agricultural land.

“The lake isn’t ‘sort of’ impaired in a couple places — it’s impaired throughout the western basin,” said Mike Ferner, ACLE coordinator. “Public officials need to acknowledge it will take mandatory steps to get Lake Erie back to health. Toledo spent tens of millions of dollars on chemicals and new facilities to decontaminate our drinking water after hundreds of factory farms in the watershed use it as their toilet.”

Earlier this year, Ohio Gov. Kasich’s Administration released an action plan for reducing nutrient pollution in Lake Erie, which contributes to toxic algae blooms that can endanger drinking water and make it unsafe for recreation. The plan was criticized for proposing very little action beyond voluntary measures that aren’t enough to achieve Ohio’s 40% phosphorus reduction commitment under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement intended to clean up the Great Lakes.

###

Christian Science Monitor: Battle Over the Clean Water Rule; What’s at Stake?

Christian Science Monitor

Battle over the Clean Water Rule: What’s at stake?

By Amanda Paulson

Just who gets to regulate America’s many seasonal streams and wetlands?

That’s a question that has long been contentious.

At the end of June, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt formally proposed revoking the Obama-era Clean Water Rule, also known as the “Waters of the US” rule, or WOTUS.

Mr. Pruitt was acting on an executive order signed by President Trump back in February. And depending on whom you talk to, the move to repeal the rule is either an environmental disaster that opens up America’s waterways to pollution and development and puts Americans’ drinking water at risk, or a common-sense action that gets rid of a rule particularly despised by many farmers, ranchers, and developers and returns regulatory authority to states.

Q: What is the rule?

The term “Waters of the United States” comes from the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act. The 2015 Clean Water Rule was designed to provide long-sought guidance on just which “navigable waters” fall under federal jurisdiction and are covered by the protections in that act.

Some waters, including permanent rivers and streams, clearly meet the definition. But many wetlands, seasonal streams, and ditches don’t necessarily qualify: They’re not connected to US waterways much of the time, even though they may ultimately feed into them.

In a 2006 US Supreme Court ruling to determine the jurisdiction, Rapanos v. United States, the court was split. Four conservative justices, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, offered a constrained definition that includes only “relatively permanent bodies of water.” Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred, but added that it should also include wetlands and intermittent streams that have a “significant nexus” to those waters – an opinion that has largely governed decisions since.

The Clean Water Rule carried over existing exemptions for things like agriculture and ranching. It has never taken effect, as lawsuits from states (including one involving Mr. Pruitt when he was Oklahoma attorney general) are working their way through the courts.

Q: What change is the EPA proposing?

The rule the EPA has put forward – currently in the 30-day comment period – would mean going back to the standards used 10 years ago. Since the Clean Water Rule is currently under a stay, it wouldn’t actually change practice on the ground.

There’s also some question about whether the repeal is fully legal – and it’s likely to be challenged in court. The EPA “can’t declare that within 30 days it’s going to stop following the law and ignore the standards that have been adopted” through long-standing administrative procedure, says Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, which supports the Clean Water Rule.

READ MORE

Reuters: ELPC’s Learner Says EPA Rollback of Clean Water Rule Imperils Safe Clean Drinking Water

Reuters
EPA and Army Corps seek to rescind clean water rule
June 27, 2017
By Valerie Volcovici 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers released a proposal on Tuesday to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, the latest move by the Trump administration to unwind environmental regulations put in place under former President Barack Obama.

The agencies are working to rescind the rule, known as the Waters of the United States rule, and reinstate the language of the rule before it was changed in 2015.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said.

In 2015, EPA and the Army Corps issued what they called the Waters of the United States rule to clarify which bodies of water should be regulated under the Clean Water Act.

The act, passed in 1972 and last amended in 1987, is intended to protect the nation’s waters from pollution.

In February, President Donald Trump said during the signing of an executive order calling for a review of the rule that the act should apply only to navigable waters that affect interstate commerce.

Some lawmakers from states with large rural areas praised the move.

“Out of state D.C. bureaucrats shouldn’t impose regulations that hurt Montana farmers, ranchers and landowners,” said the state’s Republican senator, Steve Daines.

Environmental groups criticized the move, saying it ignores public input and would put parts of the country like the Midwestern Great Lakes at risk.

“This foolish rollback of clean water standards rejects years of work building stakeholder input and scientific data support, and it imperils the progress for safe clean drinking water in the Midwest,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

READ MORE

 

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Lake Erie to Ohio EPA: Please, Call Me Impaired

 

 

Lake Erie to Ohio EPA: Please, Call Me Impaired

By Peter Krause

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved a list of impaired waters in Ohio, but to the disappointment of environmentalists, it doesn’t include the open waters of Lake Erie.

Designating the lake as “impaired” is critical to stemming the encroachment of harmful algal blooms, said Frank Szollosi. The category would require the state of Ohio to work with the U.S. EPA to develop a concrete plan to remediate the problem.

But the Ohio EPA did not include Erie’s open waters on a list of impaired waterways when it submitted it to the U.S. EPA last fall. The U.S. EPA approved the list May 18.

What frustrates Ohio environmentalists further is that Michigan included western Lake Erie on its list of impaired waters. That was approved by the U.S. EPA.

“This is not sensible,” U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur said in a statement Tuesday. Kaptur, a Democrat, represents a swath of shoreline from Toledo to Cleveland. “There is no imaginary line in the middle of Lake Erie where one side of the lake faces challenges that don’t impact the other side… Eleven million people depend on Lake Erie for their drinking water and this contradictory action fails to address the real danger they face from the presence of toxic algal blooms.”

A spokesperson for the Ohio EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal Clean Water Act sets a standards for impaired waters, Szollosi said. In the case of algae blooms and nutrient loading, the U.S. EPA would require that the sources and amounts of nutrients be identified and limits set.

“We want a legally enforceable measuring stick for progress,” he said.

Without the official limits, Szollosi said voluntary incentives simply won’t work.

Incentives were applied to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay for 20 years, he said, but not until pollution standards were put in place did any meaningful reduction of nutrients occur.

In Lake Erie, the major problem is farm fertilizers running off into the lake, primarily by way of the Maumee River in Toledo. Three years ago, 400,000 Toledo area residents were temporarily without drinking water after harmful toxins from algal blooms fouled the water supply.

Algae that spreads into the central basin of the lake can also create a massive dead zone.

The phosphorus in the fertilizer is the main problem, according to Jeff Reutter, former director of the Ohio State University’s Sea Grant College Program and Stone Lab, who discussed the issue with cleveland.com this month during a water summit in Cleveland sponsored by the Cleveland Water Alliance.

Other stewards of Lake Erie have are as indignant as Szollosi over Lake Erie being excluded from the list of impaired waters.

“The waters of the Great Lakes are the most critical asset we have,” said Dan Eichinger, executive director of Michigan United Conservation Clubs, in a prepared statement. “We are disappointed in the EPA decision to all Ohio to keep the status quo. Michigan can’t address Lake Erie’s issues alone. There must be a collective action and commitment to solve it.”

The Environmental Law & Policy Center also weighed in. “By passing the buck back and forth, EPA and Ohio EPA are ducking the real issue that Ohio’s reliance on unenforceable, voluntary measures will not get the job done in addressing phosphorus pollution in Lake Erie,” reads a written statement from center staff attorney Madeline Fleisher.

READ MORE

 

 

Toledo Blade: US EPA Won’t Push Ohio to Declare Lake Erie Impaired

 

 

 

Feds Won’t Push State to Declare Lake Erie Impaired
By Tom Henry

Documents released today show the federal government won’t compel the state of Ohio to declare Ohio’s portion of western Lake Erie as impaired, a move that environmentalists and Lucas County commissioners believe will hurt the lake’s future water quality.

And, in a separate-but-related matter, The Blade has learned through sources tracking Great Lakes issues that the Trump administration — when it releases its 2018 fiscal year budget plan at 9 p.m. eastern time tonight — will once again call for the elimination of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which since 2009 has provided roughly $300 million a year in new money for water quality improvement efforts from Duluth to Montreal. Western Lake Erie – the warmest, shallowest, and most biologically active area for region’s $7 billion fishery – stands to be hit hard by that decision.

Documents released today show the federal government won’t compel the state of Ohio to declare Ohio’s portion of western Lake Erie as impaired, a move that environmentalists and Lucas County commissioners believe will hurt the lake’s future water quality.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency quietly issued a long-awaited decision regarding Lake Erie’s proposed impairment designation for Ohio on Friday, just days after environmentalists filed a second federal lawsuit demanding a decision one way or the other. By law, the agency was supposed to issue a ruling back in November.

The document and cover letter were made public today, drawing a swift response from a cross-section of environmental groups as well as Lucas County commissioners.

The letter was addressed to Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler and signed by a former Ohio EPA director, Chris Korleski, who in recent years has been head of the U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office in Chicago. In January, Mr. Korleski was moved into the position of U.S. EPA Region 5 water director.

“In reaching its decision, [the U.S.] EPA has deferred to the State’s judgment not to assess the open waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie for the 2016 list,” Mr. Korleski wrote, referring to the state of Ohio’s list of impaired waters from last fall which fails to include western Lake Erie. He said the federal agency recognizes Ohio’s “ongoing efforts to control nutrient pollution.” Those efforts, according to critics, rely too heavily on voluntary incentives that are embraced in concept by the agricultural industry but not in practice by enough farmers.

The state of Michigan went the opposite direction in 2016, declaring its much smaller portion of western Lake Erie as impaired.

An impairment designation legally would set up the region for a more specific investigation into the sources of algae-growing phosphorus and nitrogen releases.

According to a statement from the Lucas County Board of Commissioners, the U.S. EPA “can’t have it both ways” by first agreeing with Michigan that the open waters of western Lake Erie are impaired by nutrients – then yielding to the state of Ohio’s opposition.

The trio of Democrats who comprise that county board described the situation as “foot-dragging by the Trump and Kasich administrations” that puts Toledo and Lucas County “in harm’s way.”

The Kasich administration has steadfastly said it can gain as many or more results with less regulation by sticking to voluntary incentives.

The U.S. EPA decision “preserves a status quo of insufficient action and lack of urgency in addressing one of the most vexing problems facing Lake Erie and the many people, communities, and businesses which rely on it for their drinking water, jobs, and way of life,” Frank Szollosi, a former Toledo city councilman now with the National Wildlife Federation, said in a joint statement issued by his group, the Environment Law & Policy Center, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Ohio Environmental Council, Alliance for the Great Lakes, and the Lake Erie Foundation.

Environmentalists reacted with equal outrage to the prospects of gearing up for another showdown with the Trump administration over the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative that has generated more than $2 billion for previously unfunded restoration work over the past eight years.

Howard Learner, executive director of the Chicago-based Environmental Law & Policy Center, said he has learned about the administration’s latest proposal to end funding for the GLRI in fiscal year 2018, calling it “foolish and misguided.”

“What could be more basic than restoring the Great Lakes and protecting safe, clean drinking water?” Mr. Learner asked, referring to how the lakes are the raw source of drinking water for 30 million Americans and 10 million Canadians.

READ MORE

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now