Learn more

You might already know that power plants, and coal plants specifically, contribute to global warming and pollute our air. But did you also know that power plants are the worst water polluters in the country? Power plants contribute more than 50% of the toxic water pollution in the US, dumping billions of pounds of pollutants like mercury and arsenic into our water each year. Talk about threatening “Pure Michigan”.  There’s good news though – the EPA has just proposed long-overdue power plant pollution standards to limit the amount of toxic metals and other chemicals that can be dumped in our water. You can join me and support Clean Water Action’s campaign to reduce toxic discharges by urging the EPA finalize a strong rule to protect our rivers, lakes and streams from toxic power plant wastewater.

The last thing any dad wants to worry about when spending time outdoors with the kids is being exposed to dangerous coal pollution. That’s why it’s so important that power companies move away from their reliance on dirty coal and invest in clean energy and energy efficiency. If we replace aging coal plants with clean energy sources like wind and solar, then we protect our health, the environment, and our economy for future generations. In the meantime, they need to clean up their act and stop dumping toxic pollution into our water!

I joined the fight to stop power plant water pollution and move Michigan towards a clean energy future, but I can’t do it alone. TAKE ACTION and submit your comment to the EPA today!

Jack Luna
Father and Clean Water Action Member

Join Senator Whitehouse – Send a message today!

By Jamie Rhodes, Rhode Island Director

We are in the midst of a dangerous conversation across this nation about the interplay of our economy and our environment. Claims that laws and regulations designed to protect the environment, public health and natural resources are a barrier to economic growth are ceaseless. These arguments attempt to create false choice for our elected decision makers – either the environment or the economy – when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.

In Rhode Island, there has been an effort to move environmental and coastal permitting to an Executive Office of Commerce in order to “reduce red tape.” A worthy goal in theory, but it practice it can mean threatening hard-earned public health and environmental protections. This week, Senator Whitehouse and five others signed a letter to the President stating concerns that the White House’s Office Management and Budget is unnecessarily delaying federal health and environmental safeguards.  It is the same fight in two places.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you for calling for the release of our captive safeguards. Thank you for pushing for more protection of our vital waterways. Thank you for supporting the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to protect the public from known toxic chemicals. Thank you for being a voice of reason as our political gridlock continues to undermine national progress.

Protecting our environment and public health does not always fit neatly into the mold of a cost/benefit analysis or scrutiny under a theory of unnecessary red tape. We need to do better at expressing the benefits of protecting human health by requiring a change in chemicals used in consumer products, for example. Why is permitting to protect fragile ecosystems and limited coastlines considered red tape? The public has a vested interest in its health and that of our planet since it’s our life support system.

When we scrutinize protections, which is a valid endeavor, we need to take all this into consideration in a much for formal way. We got to the point of needing a federal environmental agency because private interests ‘cost/benefit analysis’ simply will not lead to the actions needed to protect the common good and our life support systems. Love Canal and the fire on the Cuyahoga are not so long ago. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for your continued support for common sense government programs which benefit us all.  I thought that is what government was designed to do, but sometimes we all need a little push.

A 2011 Coal Ash Spill on Lake Michigan

Congressman David McKinley (R-WV) is at it again. Late Tuesday night, he introduced a slightly revised version of the “Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act” (H.R. 2218). This bill is very similar to Representative McKinley’s terrible coal ash that passed the House of Representatives last Congress.

Coal ash, the toxic byproduct of burning coal, contains heavy metals and other chemicals known to be harmful to people and wildlife. People can be exposed to dangerous metals like arsenic and mercury when they drink water contaminated with coal ash. There are no federal regulations to protect communities from this waste and since most states also have no safeguards, coal ash has contaminated land, air or water more than 200 times in at least 37 states. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first-ever federal safeguards for the management and disposal of coal ash, but three years later the Agency has failed to issue a final rule.

McKinley claims his bill will protect public health and the environment, but it won’t. His bill ignores science and will essentially codify the status quo of coal ash disposal. Power companies will be able to continue to dump their waste in unlined and unmonitored ponds and landfills. This bill does nothing to address the legacy of abandoned coal ash dumps that have been contaminating water and land with toxic metals for decades. Worse, this bill would prevent EPA from establishing or enforcing minimum safeguards to protect communities, even when states fail to do so.

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment and Economy will begin debating this bill later today followed by a panel vote later in the evening or on Thursday morning. The “Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act” is a bad bill – it will continue to allow communities to be needlessly exposed to toxic metals that can harm us and cause cancer. Congress should reject this bill and allow EPA to finalize minimum standards that will actually protect our communities from this dangerous waste.

In February two reports about Californians’ drinking water quality were delivered to the state legislature. The first report “Californians with Contaminated Groundwater” found that the source water for 21 million Californians is contaminated and that nearly half a million Californians have unsafe water at the tap (see footnote 1) .  The second report “Recommendations Addressing Nitrate in Groundwater” provides 15 recommendations  to prevent continued contamination of groundwater by nitrate and provide safe drinking water in two of California’s most intensively cultivated agricultural areas.

The highest priority recommendation from California’s State Water Quality Control Board is that  “a new funding source be established to ensure that all Californians, including those in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) have access to safe drinking water.”  

In light of this recommendation, Legislators were shocked on April 18 when US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of non-compliance to California’s Department of Public Health (DPH). DPH runs the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (Fund), a federally program that is the primary source of infrastructure funding for small communities. Simply put – it’s how small communities get the money needed to build and maintain drinking water systems. California receives over $80 million per year to provide grants and loans to improve drinking water systems.  The reason for the notice?  The Department has $455 million in undisbursed federal grant funds, the largest unspent balance in the country!!  How can one state agency urge the need for a new funding source, while another has more than 5 years worth of unspent funds?  And how can so much money remain unspent, while so many Californians lack safe drinking water?

There are no easy answers, as the State Senate’s Committee on Environmental Quality found out on Wednesday.  The Committee called on a number of experts and I was asked to identify why the money was unspent and how the situation could be resolved.  Watch that hearing here (my testimony begins at 2:44).

Some of the major issues include staff losses and furloughs due to the recession, a lack of financial management, and limited flexibility due to the Department’s onerous regulatory process. Also, the Department has long failed to prioritize safe drinking water.   In response, Clean Water Action is sponsoring a bill (AB 145, Perea) that would remove the Drinking Water Program from the Department and combine it with the State Water Quality Control Board.

The Department has 60 days to provide a plan to US EPA on how they plan to address their non-compliance.  Advocates for communities without safe drinking water fear that the pressure to spend this money will mean that a few well-heeled water agencies will be provided with interest free loans. Meanwhile, more than 600 projects to address public health issues (more than 2/3 for projects to deal with nitrate and/or arsenic contamination), more than 150 from disadvantaged communities, may be left on the shelf.

Because of the EPA’s action, we now know that communities were deprived of available funding due to the Department’s inability to address clear and growing management problems.  The fear is that the communities most in need of funding will be deprived again when the Department prioritizes high-dollar, shovel-ready projects in order to bring down their unspent Fund balance.

Unfortunately, this unnecessary emergency also crowds out a needed discussion about the best ways to help communities achieve and sustain safe drinking water.  The Legislature passed the Human Right to Water Initiative last year; but for that initiative to result in real improvements, state government needs to evolve.

[1] This report counted only community water systems that provide drinking water to at least 15 service connections; this covers about 1/3 of the 7500 public water systems in California. About two million Californians are not served by a community water system, but rely on a private well for their water supply.

Gina McCarthy

By Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Director

Ed. note – Gina McCarthy’s nomination passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May 16th. She is currently awaiting confirmation by the full Senate, which may not happen until July. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) currently has a hold on the nomination.

Today the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was supposed to vote on the nomination of Gina McCarthy to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Clean Water Action fully supports this nomination, and we fully support letting EPA do its job.

I’ve been hearing a lot of Senate Republicans criticizing McCarthy and the EPA’s work. This morning they boycotted the hearing due to a perceived lack of “transparency.” And, because all 8 Republicans stayed home the Committee couldn’t vote. The nomination can’t move forward until they show up and vote. It is unacceptable obstructionism. It makes me wonder – who are they representing (hint – it’s not you and me)?

Maybe a return to civics class is in order here.  EPA has only one job and that is to implement the laws that Congress has passed to protect public health and our natural resources.  When EPA develops Clean Air Act programs to protect the most vulnerable people, including children, from mercury and other toxic air pollution they are doing so because the law requires it.  With EPA’s upcoming controls on water pollution from power plants, the largest point source of water pollution (which has been left uncontrolled for 30 years), they are finally conducting unfinished business of the landmark Clean Water Act, passed over 40 years ago with bi-partisan support.

EPA does not just make things up – they follow the law.  There are some days people like me wish they could, but our system of government and its checks and balances don’t work that way.  When our elected officials in the U.S. Congress come to agreement and pass a law related to EPA’s work, then EPA gets down to business and gets it done.  Conversely, when the President nominates a highly qualified person for the job, the U.S. Senate should do its due diligence but not hold this nomination up for inappropriate reasons.

McCarthy is known as a common-sense policy expert and an effective manager, and she has worked under both Republican and Democratic Governors.  Her work at EPA over the last several years demonstrates extraordinary stakeholder engagement and transparency, as does all of EPA’s work in the last few years.  (See my blog about EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Hydraulic Fracturing Panel, which met this week in public to consult with EPA about its study on the potential impacts of this activity on drinking water resources.)

We’re urging U.S. Senators to support Gina McCarthy’s nomination, and you can too!

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at the direction of Congress, is conducting a multi-faceted scientific study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.  Because this study is being conducted in a transparent, peer-reviewed process, EPA is consulting with its Science Advisory Board which convened a special panel to answer specific questions related to the five aspects of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle being covered in the project.

We think it’s a good way to celebrate Drinking Water Week.

You can read Clean Water Action’s comments to the Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Panel here. You can learn more about the Study of Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources here.

The average family comes into contact with toxic chemicals on a daily basis. More often than not they have no idea that everyday consumer products contain chemicals shown to cause harm. Children across America are playing with toys manufactured with phthalates. Moms are making dinner with non-stick pans coated in perfluorooctanoic acid. Dads are serving fruit and vegetables from cans lined with Bisphenol A (BPA). Families are using personal care products laced with endocrine disruptors. Classrooms are full of oil-based art supplies that give off dangerous fumes. These products are all readily available on store shelves typically without a list of ingredients or a warning label. The time for toxic chemical reform is now.

The toxic chemical problem is twofold: the public is unaware, and the government is failing to act. Clean Water Action is working with Physicians for Social Responsibility and other national partners to support federal regulation of the most dangerous toxic chemicals, and here in Florida to bring much-needed awareness to this complex issue. By educating families about the dangers of toxics in many everyday products, we can empower consumers to make healthier choices when purchasing goods for their homes, schools, and businesses.

One obstacle we face in educating the public about toxic exposure in consumer products is the lack of reliable and accurate resources – particularly ones that are easy to obtain, use and understand. People shouldn’t need an advanced degree in chemistry to know which shampoo or laundry detergent is free of toxic chemicals!

Earlier this year, Clean Water Action worked with our allies in the Florida Legislature to introduce the “Chemicals of High Concern” bill in both the Florida Senate and the House of Representatives. If passed, the legislation would require the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to publish a list of the 50-100 most dangerous toxic chemicals in consumer products for pregnant women and children. The list would be available online as an easy-to-understand resource to anyone seeking to learn more about reducing daily toxic exposure through personal spending decisions.

Unfortunately, the “Chemicals of High Concern” bill was not scheduled for a hearing, which would have provided us an opportunity to educate lawmakers about the merits of the bill. One of the major challenges we face in trying to eliminate the incredible health impacts of toxics in consumer products is that this issue is not easily visible to the public eye. Many other types of toxic exposure are easy to see: we can watch smoke puffs emerge from cigarettes and smog pollution materialize from polluting factories, but when we look at a rubber duck we don’t see the dangerous phthalates laced inside its plastic coating. It’s difficult to rally a community in support of an issue they can’t easily see. That’s why Clean Water Action is already working on educating the public and enlisting support from allies on the need to pass the “Chemicals of High Concern” bill in 2014. Parents have enough on their plate as it is, they shouldn’t have to worry about toxic chemicals in their children’s toys. It’s never too late to keep this issue alive; we don’t have any time to waste.

While we continue to push forward with state-level efforts, Clean Water Action is also working with our national allies and supporters to pass national toxic reform. The Safe Chemicals Act of 2013 was recently introduced to the United States Senate by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) and 29 additional co-sponsors, including Florida Senator Bill Nelson.

The Safe Chemicals Act would require chemical manufacturers to test the chemicals they produce and provide accurate health and safety information for their products to remain on the market. It would also give the United States Environmental Protection Agency the authority to identify and regulate the most dangerous toxic chemicals to ensure that America’s families are protected using 21st century science.

The road to a consumer market free of toxic chemicals is a long one. At times the task can seem daunting. There are hundreds of thousands of chemicals used in all types of products – furniture, cookware, clothing, office supplies, soaps, food packaging, toys, costume jewelry, cosmetics – that need to be tested and assessed for health and environmental impacts. But this journey is full of exciting opportunities, as well. Opportunities for chemists, engineers, and inventors to come up with new, safer, cleaner products that will serve our communities without endangering the public.

It will take the hard work of many committed people over many years to ensure that every American is protected from toxic chemical exposure. Clean Water Action will be there every step of the way fighting at the state and national level to protect our communities, our businesses, and of course our nation’s incredible water resources. Please join us – get involved today.

A version of this appear here

By Erin Adair, Colorado Program Coordinator

In Colorado, we’ve been extremely engaged on oil and gas issues from fracking on federal public lands down to the fights local communities are waging with the State to keep fracking out of their neighborhoods and away from schools. Recently, the State went through a rulemaking process to increase drill site setback and create drill site groundwater monitoring standards. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is appointed by the Governor and oversees oil and gas operations in the state. The COGCC heard testimony and public comment from many stakeholders including our members and other activists concerned with the impacts of drilling and fracking close to homes and schools.

The rulemaking process fell short of anything that would protect Front Range citizens from the dangerous impacts fracking has on air and water quality. The new rules were finalized the week before the 2013 legislative session began and it was clear that state lawmakers would have to step in to protect Coloradans’ health and quality of life.

For the last three months our members have been writing letters to, and calling, House Speaker Ferrandino and Senate President Morse to urge them to use their leadership positions to create strong regulations on drilling and fracking to protect public health and safety. People we talk to at the door are extremely concerned about fracking in Colorado and many are experiencing these impacts first hand as oil and gas companies are drilling in their neighborhoods or near their children’s school.  We collected over three thousand hand-written letters from members asking for stronger protections on drilling and fracking.

Last November’s election created a thin environmental majority in the Colorado State House and State Senate. And, it’s been busy – many of our lawmakers had a lot of work they wanted to accomplish this session. We didn’t see any oil and gas bills introduced until late in the session. Many of the bills have dealt with the mechanics of the oil and gas operations, like increasing fines, tightening requirements for spill reporting, and increasing the number of inspectors in the state. A few addressed some of the more serious issues in Colorado, like reducing the conflict of interest in the COGCC and closing the loophole in the recent groundwater monitoring rule that exempts Weld, Boulder, Larimer, and Adams county from the state-wide water testing requirements.

Last week, our whole staff trekked down to the State Capitol to deliver over 3,400 hand-written letters to Speaker Ferrandino and President Morse. Protecting public health from drilling and fracking is an important message these two leaders need to pass along to their fellow lawmakers. All but one of these bills passed through their assigned committee, but all a face perilous forward. It is unclear if they will pass a floor vote, but the bigger question remains will Governor Hickenlooper sign these bills or veto them if they make it to his desk?