Rob Perks's Blog: U.S. Law and Policy

Remembering Kingston: Why the Obama Administration Must Regulate Coal Ash and Rein in TVA

2009-12-14T19:30:43Z

It was the nightmare before Christmas.

On Dec. 22, 2008, the stockings were hung by the chimney with care, but homeowners sleeping snugly along the banks of the Emory River received far worse than a lump of coal. Residents of Harriman, Tennessee bore the brunt of a wall of toxic coal waste, which sprang from a leaking storage impoundment adjacent to the Kingston Fossil Plant, operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. This massive spill at the TVA power plant near Knoxville dumped more than a billion tons of toxic coal ash and buried more than 300 acres of homes and farmland in thick gray sludge.

The incident ranks as the largest coal ash disaster in American history -- and was 100 times worse than the infamous Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska 20 years ago.

The Kingston catastrophe revealed the dirty lilttle secret that there are no federal rules setting standards for the safe disposal of ash or limiting the discharge of toxic leachate into our waterways. In the wake of the sludge spill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it will propose regulations for disposal of coal ash by the end of this year.

(The 1.1 billion gallon coal sludge spill in Tennessee is costing TVA an estimated $1 million per day to clean up.)

As everyone waits for EPA to act, the anniversary of the coal ash disaster in Tennessee looms. New EPA and TVA data from the spill, analyzed by the Environmental Integrity Project, reveal that coal ash that coated the community contains an estimated 140,000 pounds of arsenic -- more than twice the reported amount of the toxin discharged into U.S. waterways from all U.S. power plants in 2007.

Data also show that the Kingston ash spill deposited nearly 320 tons of vanadium in the Emory River, or more than seven times the total discharge of this radioactive pollutant from all power plants in 2007. The Kingston facility singlehandedly discharged more than of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel into the Emory River last year than reported discharges of those pollutants from the entire U.S. power industry in 2007.

The EIP analysis of the new data finds a total of 2.66 million pounds of 10 toxic pollutants – arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc. That compares to the much lower 2.04 million pounds of such discharges from all U.S. power plants into surface waters in 2007. The 2.66 million pound of toxic pollutants dumped into the Emory River in 2008 is nearly 45 times higher than the 59,950 pounds of such materials the TVA reported that released into all U.S. waterways in 2007. (Click here to see a detailed chart comparing the TVA versus all U.S. power plant toxic pollution levels.)

"Now that EPA is expected to finally propose standards for ash disposal sites by the end of this month," says EIP Director Eric Schaeffer, "let’s hope these overdue regulations lead to the shutdown of unsafe and outdated ash ponds like the one that burst its banks in Tennessee one year ago."

Indeed, EPA must swiftly fulfill its pledge to issue regulations that will at long last protect Americans from hazardous coal combustion waste. You can help by urging the agency to act quickly.

In addition, NRDC -- in a coalition led by EIP -- also is seeking to hold TVA more accountable to federal environmental laws and to restore EPA's authority to enforce environmental laws against the federally owned utility. The coalition is calling on the White House and Congressional leaders to end TVA’s special protections from environmental enforcement actions, environmental penalties and competition in the TVA region. In addition, the groups are requesting that the Obama administration seek to address TVA's environmental problems by appointing nominess to TVA's board who will transform this federal utility into a leader in advancing clean energy resources and sustainable resource management.

Tell the Army Corps to Dump Mountaintop Removal Permits

2009-10-20T21:20:09Z

Now that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made it clear that mountaintop removal coal mining poses a severe threat to the environment -- most notably to water quality -- in Appalachia, the fate of this abominable practice appears to rest in the hands of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

You see, coal companies conduct mountaintop removal operations today with the blessing of the Corps, the federal agency responsible for issuing Clean Water Act permits for discharges of "fill material" into the nation's waterways. For too long, the Corps has routinely "rubber-stamped" permits for these projects, which involve the dumping of tons of mining waste into valley streams.

One mechanism by which the Corps traditionally authorized these mines was Nationwide Permit (NWP 21), a fast-track Clean Water Act permit for "fills" associated with certain coal mining activities. According to my colleague Jon Devine, an attorney and water law expert, a nationwide permit is one kind of "general" permit that is only supposed to be used when the environmental impacts are minimal. One could hardly consider burying headwater streams with coal mine waste "minimal," and thereby worthy of "streamlined" approval.

Fortunately, in March a federal court ruled against this type of permit (in case brought by NRDC and other partners). As a result of that decision, the Corps is now seeking public comment on its plan to suspend and then modify NWP 21 to prohibit its use in Appalachia. Instead, coal companies would have to apply for "individual" permits, which could only be granted on a case-by-case basis. More importantly, this process would provide for public input on proposed projects -- presumably making it tougher for companies to receive quick, blanket approvals for mountaintop removal.

The Corps is conducting a series of public hearings on this matter throughout Appalachia. Unfortunately, the coal industry is sowing fear and confusion amongst its work force to gin up massive crowds of angry miners to shout down concerned citizens who support reforming the permit process to be more protective of the environment.

You can help your fellow citizens in the coalfields by taking a moment to comment on the Corps' proposal -- simply click here. The deadline for comments is Monday, October 26th.

If you can spare the time to comment and are in the market for suggested points to make to the Corps, here are a couple:

We need to end mountaintop removal. The Corps must stop permitting waste dumps in Appalachian streams and other water bodies. Doing so means reversing the Bush administration's 2002 "fill rule," which classified a host of solid wastes, including mining wastes, as "fill material" that the Corps could allow to be placed in the nation's waters. The Obama administration should begin the process of undoing this terrible rule right away.
In the meantime, the Corps should end the use of NWP 21 altogether. The permit should never have been issued, given the enormity of the impacts and the inability of so-called "mitigation" efforts to reliably ameliorate those harms. It therefore should not be allowed to be used in any fashion; the court ruled that the permit was unlawful, and halting it in Appalachia is only a partial response.

With new direction coming from a new administration, there is genuine hope in the coalfields that mountaintop removal may be on its way out. But your help is urgently needed to make this change come true. Thank you in advance for taking a moment to help save the Appalachians from the travesty of mountaintop removal coal mining.

Congress Gets in the Act on Coal Ash

2009-10-16T20:00:39Z

Kudos to Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) for bird-dogging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the need to regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants. Yesterday, Rep. Markey sent a letter to EPA requesting information on the agency's findings related to the health and environmental risks posed by coal ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal for electricity which contains high levels of toxic substances like arsenic.

The EPA stepped up its assessment of coal ash in the wake of last year's disaster in Tennessee, in which a coal-fired power plant operated by the nation's largest public utility -- the Tennessee Valley Authority -- experienced a breach in one of its "wet" storage impoundments, sending over a billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge into the Emory River and the downstream community. After years of delay and disinterest, the EPA has pledged to finally issue regulations for the disposal of this coal waste.

Rep. Markey chairs a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that has jurisdiction over electricity generation and protection of drinking water. In his letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Markey says that he is "deeply concerned about the risks posed by disposal of waste from coal-fired power plants" and that he supports "swift and vigorous action to protect public health and the environment."

NRDC is working with a broad coalition of environmental and health allies to bolster support in Congress on this important issue. The EPA has identified 584 ponds, located in 35 states, which hold back hundreds of billions of gallons of coal waste. These toxic sludge ponds are a threat to communities across the nation -- and it is long past time for federal regulations that will guarantee safe disposal and protection for all citizens.

How serious is this threat? The EPA's data show clearly that coal ash, when mismanaged, poses severe risks to our health and environment. The agency's 2007 risk assessment reveals that, at the worst facilities, people living near unlined coal ash impoundments have as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from drinking water contaminated by arsenic leaking from the sites. Studies have shown that residents near such waste sites are more likely to be low income and communities of color.

Damage to our health and the environment is also costly in economic terms, as evidenced by the $1.1 billion cost of the TVA cleanup in Kingston, Tennessee. These conditions cannot be allowed to continue.

Fortunately, the EPA can solve the problem and provide all Americans with necessary protection by phasing out coal ash ponds and promulgating federally enforceable regulations.

Please help by taking a moment to urge EPA to crack down on pollution from coal plants.

Stephen Colbert Slams Supreme Court for Terrible Toxic 'Fill' Ruling

2009-07-02T13:40:13Z

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court made a dreadful decision to allow the dumping of toxic gold mine waste into a pristine Alaskan lake. The court deemed this pollution allowable as "fill material" under the Clean Water Act.

Well, last night on The Colbert Report, the hilarious host pilloried the Supremes for its ridiculous ruling in his segment "Judge, Jury and Executioner."

Watch the clip (the piece starts at the 1:51 minute mark):

Unless the Obama administration fixes the fraudulant 'fill rule' imposed by the Bush administration back in 2002, we might as well start calling the nation's premier environmental protection law the Clean Watered Down Act.

The Murky Morass That is Mountaintop Removal

2009-05-30T02:39:45Z

Here we go again: Today the federal appeals court (4th Circuit) in Richmond rejected a request by public interest groups to reconsider its decision last month to overturn a lower court ruling that had curtailed mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. With a 4-3 majority ruling against a rehearing, it looks like the Army Corps of Engineers can proceed with its plans to issue permits that will result in coal companies filling more valleys (and burying more headwater streams) with mining waste.

Of the judges who favored a new review of the case, Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson hit the nail on the head by writing in his dissent:

"...West Virginia is witnessing in the Appalachian headwaters the long, sad decline that Virginia and Maryland have seen with the Chesapeake Bay. Once the ecologies of streams and rivers and bays and oceans turn, they cannot easily be reclaimed. Most often than not, the waterway is simply gone for good."

Sad to say, but with the U.S. Court of Appeals continuing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the prospect of stopping mountaintop removal once and for all in the courts appears to be a long shot

Since the legal system seems to provide little or no recourse these days, it's up to our elected officials to finally do the right thing. All the more reason to wonder (and worry over) why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently opted to allow more than three dozen mountaintop removal permits in West Virginia to proceed.

The current situation is more than a bit muddled and I certainly don't presume to know what's going on at the moment. But let's step back and assess where we find ourselves in this fight right now...

UPDATE: In a front-page story today, the Los Angeles Times reports on the Obama administration's perplexing policy position on mountaintop removal.

First off, there is no doubt that the Obama administration is infinitely better than the Bush administration on this issue -- that's primarily because the previous administration was so horrible. Clearly, the new administration has taken a couple of positive steps forward. Carefully examining the environmental impact of proposed mountaintop removal operations, as EPA has done in some cases, is necessary. It is also heartening that the Interior Department has moved to rescind the Bush administration's weakening changes to the long-standing stream buffer zone rule. But these necessary and appropriate steps fall far short of what is sufficient.

The Obama administration seems to be assuming that some mountaintop removal mining -- perhaps even a lot of it -- is okay. But the people who live in Appalachia know better. Mountaintop removal, the world's worst strip mining, is unacceptable. Period. Objecting to some proposed mining permits, but green-lighting others, does not recognize this basic fact. Nor does reinstating the old, more stringent buffer zone rule without committing to enforce it, as prior administrations had unfortunately done.

To do right by the people of Appalachia, President Obama needs to end mountaintop removal. There are bi-partisan bills in Congress right now -- the Clean Water Protection Act in the House and the Appalachia Restoration Act in the Senate -- that target the practice, and the president can announce his intent to sign legislation that ends mountaintop removal once and for all.

Similarly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Enginneers can immediately take steps to reverse the administrative regulation they adopted in 2002 that gave the Corps the authority to permit the dumping of waste in surface waters, which also would curtail mountaintop removal coal mining.

You'd think that halting the Appalachian Apocalypse would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the false perception still holds that coal is the economic engine of the region's downtrodden economy. This is a myth perpetuated by the politically powerful coal industry. Consider West Virginia as an example. Jobs from mining account for just 3.3% employment in the Mountain State -- we're talking less than 20,000 jobs total, compared to the halcion days back in 1940 when there were more than 130,000 coal miners in the state.

It's important to note that back then practically all coal miners worked underground. Whereas an undergound operation might employ hundreds of miners for several years, the typical mountaintop removal operation -- which is far more environmentally destructive -- is largely mechanized and therefore employs only a handful of miners for several months or a few years at most. Think about it this way: banning mountaintop removal would actually INCREASE jobs because more miners would be needed to go back inside the mountain to dig out the coal rather than blowing the top off the mountain with high explosives and filling the valleys and streams down below with toxic debris.

I encourage everyone to consider the compelling -- and common sense --economic case against mountaintop removal.

Simply put, if we're banking our country's energy future on the dirty energy of the past -- particularly that which is produced by sacrificing Appalachia's mountains, streams, forests, wildlife, and fellow Americans living in the coalfields -- then we risk undermining the Obama administration's investments in 21st Century clean energy solutions that will protect our planet, produce more jobs and preserve our natural resources.

Court Ruling Could Open Floodgates for More Mountaintop Mining

2009-02-27T13:30:49Z

Earlier this month -- on Friday the 13th -- a federal appeals court in Richmond, VA dealt a devastating blow to the environment by overturning a 2007 lower court decision curtailing mountaintop removal, the world's most destructive coal mining technique. I blogged this bad news.

Clearly, the coal industry has reason to cheer their court victory. The implications for Appalachia could be devastating. In fact, an analysis by the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment reveals that mining permits pending at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could result in the burial of more than 218 miles of streams in Southern West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky. The damage would be done by more than 100 permits, covering more than 63,000 acres -- nearly 100 square miles -- and including 441 valley fills. Just what Appalachia needs, more mountains converted to moonscapes like the mining operation below.

This legal setback doesn't have to be the end of the story. Congress has the power to put a stop to mountaintop removal by passing legislation -- the Clean Water Protection Act -- that would prevent companies from continuing to dump mining waste into valley streams. Soon this bill will be introduced in the new Congress and nearly 100 members of the House of Representatives are ready to co-sponsor it.

You can help. First, click here to find out if your representative is one of the co-sponsors. If your representative isn't on the list, please take a moment to send an email urging them stand against mountaintop removal coal mining by supporting the Clean Water Protection Act.

Another sure-fire way to curtail mountaintop mining is to persuade the Obama administration to reverse the Bush EPA's regulatory change last year that makes it even easier for coal companies to bury valley streams under tons of rock, rubble and other mining debris. NRDC and our allies hope to sit down soon with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to discuss how her agency can address this problem.

Although the courts remain a problem, mountaintop removal is a loser in the court of public opinion. With your help, we can finally bring an end to this travesty.

Friday 13th Brings Bad Luck in Fight Against Mountaintop Mining

2009-02-13T20:38:38Z

On this unluckiest of all days, there is a horror story for those trying to save Appalachia's mountains from senseless destruction in pursuit of the world's dirtiest fossil fuel. A federal appeals court today overturned a lower court ruling curtailing mountaintop removal -- the world's most destructive coal mining technique.

For the past decade -- escalating during the Bush administration thanks to weakened regulations and lax enforcement -- this extreme strip mining has devastated the Appalachian region. Using high explosives and heavy equipment, mining companies have literally decapitated nearly 500 hundred mountains to access thin seams of coal below.

Two years ago, Judge Robert Chambers of the Southern District of West Virginia, issued a ruling effectively stopping the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from permitting mountaintop mining operations. Judge Roberts determined that the Corps erred in allowing coal companies to blast mountains to smithereens and dump the mining debris into the valley streams below -- a clear violation of the Clean Water Act.

Now comes a 2-1 decision by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Virginia reversing Judge Chambers' ruling. Read press coverage here and the appeals court decision here.

The environmental plaintiff's in this court battle are now evaluating the full implications of today's legal defeat, but it's safe to say that Massey Energy and other practitioners of mountaintop removal are cheering. They are delighted at the prospect of the Corps returning to form as a 'rubber stamp' permitting factory for the coal industry.

Burying Mountain Streams Under Mining Rubble

2008-10-23T18:53:42Z

When is a stream no longer a stream? In other words, if you fill it, will it still flow?

When mountaintop mining occurs the waste rock, rubble, dirt and other debris that results from blasting gets push off the cleared ridge-top and unceremoniously dumped down the mountainside. Not only does the hyrdology change due to the drastic topographic and vegetative alterations of the landscape, but the streams flowing down the mountainsides and through the valleys below disappear. Burying waterways under tons of mining waste -- otherwise known as a 'valley fill' -- simply obliterates them.

The question then is whether it is possible for the mining companies to mitigate the damage by restoring or re-engineering the destroyed waterways. The common-sense response is absolutely not. In both appearance in function, these former streams no longer exist after mining. But in Appalachia, the mining companies routinely get the benefit of doubt from federal regulators, resulting time and time again in permits issued by the U.S. Corps of Engineers that allow rivers, creeks and streams to be filled with waste from mountaintop removal mining.

In a case playing out right now in federal court in West Virginia, environmental lawyers are taking on the coal industry over this very topic. Scientists testified yesterday that there is little evidence to support the claim that streams buried by mountaintop mining can be rebuilt. However, they say regulators routinely approve such projects anyway, through a fatally flawed formula and a review process that stifles public input.

Mark Brinson, an East Carolina University biologist, told the judge the Army Corps of Engineers' formula would not score well if a student submitted it in one of his classes. "I wouldn't even grade it," he said.

Emily Bernhardt, a Duke University stream ecologist, said the corps' formula does not even spell out how it accounts for the core role of streams in the movement of water, energy and nutrients. "I don't see how you can assess something as basic as hydrology without knowing anything about water flow," she said.

Brinson agreed. "You need to be able to measure some of these functions, otherwise, you're just whistling in the dark," Brinson said.

Brinson and Bernhardt both testified that the corps' new formula is not nearly detailed enough to truly measure what is lost when headwater streams are buried, let alone decide if mine operator proposals to replace lost ecological functions will work.

Bernhardt said, "There isn't a great deal of evidence -- some would argue no evidence at all -- that recreating streams" will work on mountaintop removal sites. "The likelihood of achieving true biological re-creation is very limited."

Lawyers for the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy filed the lawsuit to block a permit for two adjacent strip mines that would mountaintop-remove nearly 10 million tons of coal from a 900-acre area in Lilly Fork of Buffalo Creek near the town of Gilboa. In the process, more than five miles of streams would be buried beneath 10 valley fills, according to permit documents.

Company officials propose to offset this loss by restoring or creating nearly five miles of streams on a separate reclaimed mine site. (The company already buried more than 500 feet of streams without the proper permit but Corps officials took no enforcement action, concluding that the violation did "not present an immediate threat to life or property.")

Let's hope the judge in this case listens to the scientists, not the mining engineers and agency 'experts', when deciding when a stream is no longer a stream thanks to mountaintop mining.

Bush Admin Loves Coal Mining, Hates Mountains

2008-10-21T21:45:45Z

The moonscape below is a former fully-functioning ecosystem -- now devoid of forests, wildlife, wetlands and waterways that are characteristic of a mountain.

This is so-called mountaintop removal coal mining -- the most destructive strip mining practice on earth -- which is ravaging Appalachia. To date, coal companies have leveled nearly 500 mountaintops throughout the region. They have the Bush administration to thank for that.

Here is an excellent New York Times editorial, and a Washington Post story about the issue.

This environmental tragedy is a national travesty, although most people outside West Virginia don't even know that mountaintop mining is happening. This has to change, especially since the Interior Department last week proposed relaxing rules to permit the dumping of mining waste in the valleys, burying the rivers and streams below.

The sad fact is that mining companies routinely do this without fear of enforcement from state and federal environmental agencies. But now the Bush administration wants to legalize this appalling activity as a parting gift to its Big Coal benefactors.

The proposed rule would rewrite a regulation enacted 25 years ago that bars mining companies from dumping tons of rock, debris and other waste within 100 feet of any intermittent or perennial stream if the disposal affects water quality or quantity. Despite the 100-foot buffer requirement, over a thousand miles of streams have already been polluted or buried due to lax enforcement over the past eight years.

Obviously, the Bush administration wants to codify this illegal activity before a new administration takes office. The public has 30 days to comment before the rule is finalized.

NRDC is committed to fighting mountaintop removal. You can help by submitting your comments.

End of an Era: Offshore Drilling Ban to Expire

2008-09-29T16:43:42Z

At midnight on Tuesday, September 30th, the federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) will be no more. The OCS drilling ban, renewed every year by Congress since its enactment in 1981, will be allowed to lapse. The action becomes final with the passage of a $600 billion continuing resolution, which President Bush is expected to sign, that for the first time in 27 years is missing language to extend the annual ban.

This important coastal protection had withstood every effort to repeal it over the years but withered for lack of political will in the face of high gas prices. The oil companies finally achieved success by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a PR-fueled lobby blitz that saw members of both parties in Congress exploiting the "drill, baby, drill" mantra. People fed up with $4/gallon gas wanted action - any action! - and so they were hoodwinked by snake-oil peddling and political pandering.

Sadly, many elected officials who get that drilling won't lower prices at the pump or put a dent in our country's oil dependence nevertheless were unable to stop Big Oil and its friends in Congress. And in this election year, President Bush's threatened veto of a federal spending bill authorizing renewal of the drilling ban made the risk of a government shutdown too great for the Democrats to ignore.

So what happens now? With the expiration of the OCS moratorium, new drill rigs could be placed only three miles from the shoreline anywhere on the entire Atlantic and Pacific coast, as well as a part of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. (However, leasing will remain banned within 125 miles or more of Florida's gulf shores until 2022, per a compromise law passed in 2006 that opened more than 8 million acres of the gulf acreage to new leasing in exchange for bigger shore buffer protection.)

The first question is whether any coastal states will let that happen. No doubt some, like Louisiana and Texas, would welcome more rigs but others, like Florida and New Jersey, would surely use any legal means at their disposal to protect their beaches and coastal economies.

Then there's the typical bureaucratic process for leasing federal areas for drilling, which realistically means that the first exploratory drilling rigs wouldn't be up until five years from now at the earliest. That is, unless the new president or a new Congress decided to reinstate either the executive or congressional OCS moratoriums - or both.

So the oil industry may have won the fight, but the war over offshore drilling is far from over. Stay tuned.

Big Oil’s Big Friends in Congress

2008-09-10T16:13:37Z

House Republicans gathered en masse on the steps of the Capitol this week, ready to launch a choreographed full-throated cheer for more drilling before the Washington press corps. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. The politicians were met by a throng of protestors who effectively drowned out the “drill everywhere” chorus with their own chants and cheers. The Repubs tried to shout “drill, baby, drill” and “all of the above” but all the reporters were able to hear was the crowd yelling back “spill, baby, spill!” and “all about oil”, among other creative cat-calls.

Like cockroaches fleeing a dirty kitchen when the lights go on, the pols abruptly ended their ‘news’ conference and scurried back into the Capitol. Read some of the coverage here and here to get a flavor of the follies.

Though it seems crazy that any responsible elected official would support policies that feed the nation’s dangerous addiction to oil, it’s probably not surprising when you consider the motivation of those most eager to drill our coasts and special places. As this analysis (PDF) by NRDC reveals, Big Oil’s biggest boosters in Congress voted consistently against clean energy solutions…not once, not twice, but a whopping 61 times.

We’re talking about measures that would have increased renewable energy and improved energy efficiency – real solutions that trump any potential benefit from more drilling. Indeed, NRDC’s latest analysis (PDF) confirms that clean energy is the quickest and cheapest way to lower gas prices by guaranteeing immediate and sustained oil savings for consumers.

Now if we could only harness the power of all that hot air emanating from the halls of Congress, America’s energy crisis would be solved. Until then, let’s hope our elected leaders stop pushing to increase oil company profits at the expense of real changes in our nation’s energy policy that will actually help ease people’s pain at the pump and break America’s oil addiction.

Ask the Candidates, Get Candid Answers

2008-08-13T19:00:53Z

We expect much from our elected leaders yet rarely do we get the opportunity to engage them on the issues we care about. So many members of Congress, yet so little chance to actually ask them where they stand on important issues of the day.

Those running for office and their opponents spend most of the time on the campaign trail speaking to us rather than with us, it seems. They tell us what they believe – or usually just what they think we want to hear.

It’s time all of us got the chance to question those seeking our vote. Now it’s easy to do: www.CandidAnswers.org .

This website is the first-ever online survey that allows users to directly ask their candidates for Congress specific questions about key environmental policy issues. And when they answer, the site serves as an online voter guide so people can compare their candidates’ positions side-by-side. NRDC Action Fund and a host of partners are sponsoring the site. Policy experts at these groups developed the questions, which were reviewed and approved by a bi-partisan panel that included a former Congressman, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). Straightforward questions in search of candid answers – that’s what the website is about!

The only time I actually succeeded in asking a candidate – face to face – his position on an issue I cared about was when I was running the PIRG canvass in Miami back in 1992. I read in the paper that presidential candidate Bill Clinton was going to be in town addressing Democratic state legislators at their annual conference.

At the time we were working to prevent drilling off the Florida coast (déjà vu!) and trying to drum up support for a proposal in Congress to buy back the federal leases held by some oil companies in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. I drove a few volunteers over to the convention site and we quietly slipped into the ballroom. Our plan was simple: spread out and try to position ourselves along the receiving line after Gov. Clinton finished his speech. Whoever got to him would ask him a question about drilling.

I worked my way up to the front of the audience, against the wall near a set of flag poles. Near the end of Clinton’s speech I saw a young campaign aide staging a group of military veterans near the flags. It seemed probable that the governor would head toward them for a photo op. Sure enough, after he finished talking Clinton offered perfunctory handshakes to a few officials below the podium and then strode briskly toward the old soldiers.

Just before he got to them I moved in and reached my hand over the velvet rope cordoning off the audience. The governor shook it – but I didn’t let go. I looked him in the eye and asked our set question: “Governor, if elected president would you support the plan to protect Florida’s coast by having the government buy back federal drilling leases in the Gulf?”

He smiled at me, paused, then with a slight shake of his head waved off a staffer approaching to hustle him away from me. At this point it seemed that all eyes in the room were focused on our exchange. Still smiling, Clinton asked, “What does Senator [Connie] Mack say about that?” I replied that the senator supported the buy-back plan. Without missing a beat he answered: “Then I would definitely support buying back those leases.”

Clinton then moved quickly on to those vets. But all of sudden I was surrounded by local reporters and a few TV cameras, all wanting to know what we discussed, why I asked, and who I was. The next day stories mentioned our exchange and one of the local news stations aired a brief interview with me about our campaign. And sure enough, after Clinton won the presidency the buy-back plan won approval in Congress.

Getting the chance to ask the future president a serious question was a unique thrill I’ll never forget. But like most people, I can forget getting such a lucky opportunity again. That's the beauty of CandidAnswers -- it enables everyone to seek answers from our congressional candidates. It's super easy to ask them via email and a convenient way for them to respond.

You ask, they answer. Simple. We hope you'll try it!

Border Puh-lease

2007-10-23T21:03:56Z

According to Robert Frost, fences make good neighbors. But I wonder what good ole Bob would have said if his neighbor had hastily erected a wall along the property line, in the process cutting down the apple trees, bulldozing the vegetable garden, killing the livestock and polluting the drinking well?

I seriously doubt that could happen in any town anywhere across America without sparking the neighborhood association’s ire, unwanted attention from the local permit police, criminal fines and a big fat lawsuit.

Now imagine that the barrier in question is a 700-mile, two-layer fence along the U.S.-Mexico border ostensibly intended to keep illegal immigrants out, but guaranteed to wreak havoc on the environment.

Today the Department of Homeland Security waived 19 environmental, cultural and other federal laws in order to proceed with construction of that border wall (and a road) in southeastern Arizona.

DHS Secretary Michael Cherthoff invoked this broad waiver for the first time – under authority granted by Congress in 2005 in the passage of the REAL ID Act – after a federal judge halted construction earlier this month to protect the ecologically fragile San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area.

You betcha, Sec. Cherthoff has the “right” to ignore any and all laws of the United States when it comes to constructing barriers along the border.

Certainly we can secure our borders without bulldozing America’s public lands.

In this case, the border wall threatens one of the last free-flowing rivers in the southwestern United States. This unique and biologically diverse watershed, internationally-renowned for its natural beauty, attracts visitors from around the world. Home to some 250 species of migratory birds, the San Pedro River region has been designated a Globally Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society, and a World Heritage Natural Area by the United Nations.

Aside from the habitat damage resulting from the controversial border fence, local residents should be concerned about their own quality of life. Aside from the fact that the river also supplies clean drinking water to thousands of residents (on both sides of the border), this action demonstrates that the director of Homeland Security has is a license to waive any law, for any reason – or for no reason at all.

Just consider this sample of the fundamental laws now rendered moot by the Bush administration:

Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Superfund
National Environmental Protection Act
National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
National Historic Preservation Act
Archeological Resources Protection Act
Historic Preservation Act
Antiquities Act
Noise Control Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Farmland Protection Act

Message from the Bush administration: America is a nation founded on the rule of law – but apparently not when the Homeland Security agency is involved.

Think about that for a moment. Laws that protect the environment, safeguard public health, ensure consumer and workplace safety, prevent unfair business practices, and ban discrimination – none of these laws (or any others for that matter) apply to the agency entrusted with protecting the American people.

Ironically, the one thing that pesky wall is keeping out of America is democracy itself.

There is a tiny sliver of hope, which is that Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would secure America’s border with Mexico while reducing the negative impact on local communities and natural resources, including national parks, wildlife refuges and monuments that are home to endangered species. The “Borderlands Security and Conservation Act of 2007” (H.R. 2593) would amend existing immigration and border security laws, including REAL ID and the “Secure Fence Act”, to help alleviate the impacts of border enforcement on public lands, wildlife and borderland communities.