Continue reading »]]> Today we submitted comments to the U.S. Dept. of Energy on behalf of our members and 8 other Riverkeeper organizations concerning its review of Dominion Cove Point LNG’s application to export natural gas to foreign countries. Dominions Cove Point (DCP) is a liquefied natural gas terminal located in Calvert County, Md. It has imported natural gas off-and-on for over 30 years. Now, due to the boom in high volume hydrofracking (HVHF) in mid-Atlantic shale plays among others, gas companies are experiencing a temporary glut as the market is saturated with gas. In an attempt to capitalize on their significant monetary investments, gas companies nationwide are eager to swap import facilities and turn them into export facilities. Suffice to say this is a terrible policy choice for the Susquehanna Watershed and America. If you want to know exactly why read our comments by clicking here.

Continue reading »]]> Today was the deadline for submitting comments to Pennsylvania concerning its Draft Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) required pursuant to the Bay TMDL. These WIPs are intended to provide detailed plans for how jurisdictions intend to reduce pollution contributions to local waterways and in so doing, improve not only their state waters, but the Chesapeake Bay. We’ve submitted technical comments to the Commonwealth that you can read by clicking here. On the whole we found the Pennsylvania’s Phase II WIP lacking in several crucial areas – namely verification, compliance, and enforcement protocols – and were mystified by the complete absence of a discussion concerning shale gas development sediment impacts on the Susquehanna Watershed. We are eager to read EPA’s comments on Pennsylvania’s Phase II WIP, due for publication in a few weeks, and hope for the sake of the Susquehanna and Bay’s health that the serious shortcomings in Pennsylvania’s WIP are remedied.

Continue reading »]]> As part of their duties to provide new science and studies as part of the relicensing process for Conowingo Dam, Exelon Corp. has just released a new study examining the bathymetry behind Conowingo Dam. Your Riverkeeper examined the data released to stakeholders so far and wrote a great overview of this study viewable here. You can also see the technical data Exelon provided in a powerpoint by clicking this link. We anticipate further scientific reports on this issue later this Spring.

Continue reading »]]> Stewards in Maryland, we need your help.  The University of Maryland Law Clinic has been a huge help to us in our efforts to reduce pollution in the Maryland part of the Lower Susquehanna and throughout the Chesapeake Watershed.  They are under attack by politicians and industry for helping us and they need your support.  Please download the attached letters: one to explain this more, and one to send to your Delegates, Senators, and the Governor.  Feel free to edit, but please do this ASAP!

Continue reading »]]> Controversy surrounding the impact of drilling on air and water quality has pitted industry and lease-holders against individuals and groups concerned with environmental protection and public health. Because animals often are exposed continually to air, soil, and groundwater and have more frequent reproductive cycles, animals can be used as sentinels to monitor impacts to human health. This scientific study involved assessment of animals from owners who live near gas drilling operations. The findings illustrate several aspects of the drilling process that may lead to health problems and suggest modifications that would lessen, but not eliminate impacts. The larger question remains: on the whole, are the risks outweighed by the benefits?

Continue reading »]]> The Environmental Protection Agency for the first time is making available detailed information on sources of greenhouse gas emissions, from the Mount Sinai Hospital heating plant in Manhattan to the nation’s largest coal-burning power plant in Georgia.

The agency unveiled a searchable computerized map on Wednesday, January 11 2012, that allows users to identify the nation’s major stationary sources of carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases, including power plants, refineries, chemical factories and paper mills. The data, which was drawn from 6,157 sources and is current through 2010, covers nearly 80 percent of the country’s greenhouse gases from large industrial sources. The new registry does not cover direct emissions from agriculture, forestry or transportation, which are not required to report them in detail.

Although sleekly presented, the E.P.A.’s registry has its limitations. It is neatly organized by state and emissions source, but that does not reflect the nature of the electric system, which is responsible for the bulk of the emissions in the inventory but is not divided by state lines. Interestingly, the data shows that power plants are responsible for 72.3 percent of reported emissions, with Texas by far the highest total emissions from power plants and refineries, with 294 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent spewed into the air, and Pennsylvania coming in as the #2 emitting state with 129 million metric tons.

Interested in seeing who the biggest GhG polluters are in your state? Check out the online interactive map by clicking here.

Continue reading »]]> Sweeping assertions about economic ruin caused by environmental regulations are nothing new, and many economists have concluded that there is no substance to them. Claims that a good quality of life demands a tradeoff between jobs and the environment have repeatedly been proven false over the last four decades.

In December 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay to accelerate its cleanup and the recovery of jobs which rely on clean water. The Chesapeake Bay “Total Maximum Daily Load,” or TMDL, requires watershed states to reduce pollution flowing into the estuary by 25 percent by 2025 and pushes states to follow through with clean-up promises they made in 2010, based on previous plans called Tributary Strategies, which were released in 2004 and 2005. Almost as soon as these pollution limits were announced, however, they were attacked as “job killers” by national agricultural and homebuilder lobbyists and their political allies.This rhetoric was part of a broad assault on environmental regulations, in general, spearheaded by some members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation just released a new report – “Debunking the Job Killer Myth” – which provides excellent economic and factual data proving strong environmental protections help economies, help local communities, and help clean up our watersheds. Take a look at the facts and remember, clean water equals strong communities!

Continue reading »]]>

This morning we submitted an official letter on behalf of our members and 6 conservation and environmental groups to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), asking the Commissioners to reconvene for the purposes of completing its meeting held on December 15 and pointing out that the Commission’s approval of 26 water withdrawal permits for shale gas development projects may not be legally effective because it occurred after the meeting was adjourned.

Continue reading »]]> EPA recently solicited comments from environmental NGOs on how it should best oversee Bay states’ implementation of pollution reductions mandated under the 2010 Bay TMDL, specifically via their respective nutrient trading programs. Nutrient trading is a relatively new and un-tested mechanism designed to reduce pollution in the most cost-efficient manner.

We do not believe nutrient trading is authorized under the Clean Water Act and that using such an unproven mechanism puts at risk the future vitality of the Bay and local waterways. Further, we believe the Clean Water Act possesses sufficient mechanisms that will allow states to reduce non-point source pollution and that the problem has been a lack of political will, rather than the failure of our landmark environmental laws that have significantly reduced pollution since inception nearly 40 years ago. However, because we also acknowledge the need to collaboratively discuss and educate those of differing opinions, we submitted these extensive comments to EPA on what an effective program should, at minimum, entail.

Continue reading »]]> On Friday, Dec. 16th the Choose Clean Water Coalition learned that lobbying for proper environmental funding for fiscal year 2012 was approved! In this tough economic climate this is truly a victory for clean water!

The Omnibus Appropriations Bill that Congress passed last night included language directing EPA to spend $2 million on the Chesapeake Small Watershed Grants Program and $8 million on the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grants.  In the past two weeks the Coalition sent two letters (one from the Co-chairs and one with 44 Coalition members signed on) to the Appropriation Committees in the House and Senate urging them to direct EPA not take funds from these two grants programs as they have done in the past few years.

Congress has done exactly what the Coalition requested, restoring these two programs to their previously highest level – which was back in 2008!

In addition, the Omnibus bill funded the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program at $57.391 million.  Although this is less than the President’s budget request for FY 2012 which the Coalition requested, it is an increase over last year’s $54.391 million and represents a record funding amount — which in this budget climate is extraordinary.

Read the letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee here.