San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signs mandatory composting into law (Photo courtesy of the Press Office of Mayor Newsom)
San Francisco already leads the
nation in recycling. Now, that
city has the first mandatory
composting law in the country.
Emily Wilson reports that’s got
some people worried about “garbage
cops”:
Transcript
San Francisco already leads the
nation in recycling. Now, that
city has the first mandatory
composting law in the country.
Emily Wilson reports that’s got
some people worried about “garbage
cops”:
Putting recyclables into the blue bin is second nature for people in San Francisco.
But this new law now means also putting coffee grounds and eggshells into a green bin.
There are some people who are concerned about Big Brother looking through their garbage. And then there’s the $100 fine.
Mark Westlund at the Department of the Environment says ‘no worries.’ Not much is going to change.
“Well, we get a lot of calls from people who are worried about garbage cops and that frankly is not going to happen. For years now we’ve been looking in peoples recycling to make sure they’re doing it correctly and if not, they get a tag and if they continue misusing it, they get a letter and a follow up call and then a visit.”
So there are warnings before the fine.
Cities across the country will be watching San Francisco’s mandatory composting law to see how it goes.
State legislatures and Congress could consider new laws to deal with pesticide regulations. That’s after an Oregon pest management company received what some consider to be a slap on the wrist by the Environmental Protection Agency. A bug killer sprayed in a home led to the death of an elderly woman. Angela Kellner reports:
Transcript
State legislatures and Congress could consider new laws to deal with pesticide regulations. That’s after an Oregon pest management company received what some consider to be a slap on the wrist by the Environmental Protection Agency. A bug killer sprayed in a home led to the death of an elderly woman. Angela Kellner reports:
76-year-old Florence Kolbeck died of cardiac arrest a few hours returning home, where Swanson’s pest management had fumigated. Her husband was hospitalized for respiratory distress. Six others who entered the home, including emergency responders, also became ill.
The EPA investigated and fined the company $4,550 for misusing the pesticides.
Chad Schulze with the EPA says that was the maximum fine allowed under the law.
“That does not take into account the seriousness of the results of the violations. It’s just the statutory max.”
The person who applied the pesticides had failed his licensing exam seven times.
The company denies liability and disagrees with the EPA’s decision.
A Government
Accountability Office report finds the EPA doesn't actually collect a lot of their fines (Photo by Lester Graham)
A government report reveals that some
polluters do the crime, but don’t pay the fine.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A government report reveals that some
polluters do the crime, but don’t pay the fine.
Lester Graham reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency issues a lot of press releases that announce
big fines against companies that have been caught polluting. But, a Government
Accountability Office report finds the EPA doesn’t actually collect a lot of those fines.
It still reports them as penalties against polluters.
Matt Madia is with the government watchdog group OMB Watch.
“First of all, EPA is not doing a good job collecting the fines that they do assess. And
across the board under the Bush administration there just simply hasn’t been a big
emphasis on enforcement. The second thing is that the public is really kept in the
dark about what EPA is doing.”
That’s because an EPA official says the public should not be told whether
the agency actually collects the fines, even though the agency is quick to announce
when it levies fines.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
One of the world’s largest oil companies
was hit with criminal indictments and hundreds of
millions of dollars in fines. Mark Brush has more on
the cases against British Petroleum:
Transcript
One of the world’s largest oil companies
was hit with criminal indictments and hundreds of
millions of dollars in fines. Mark Brush has more on
the cases against British Petroleum:
BP settled three different criminal cases brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of Justice.
The government found that the company ignored warning signs of a Texas refinery explosion
that killed 15 people. It was found negligent in a pipeline oil spill in Alaska. And BP
settled charges of a propane price fixing scheme. All told, the company with pay 373 million dollars in fines and restitution.
Eric Schaeffer is a former enforcement officer with the EPA. He says there’s a
philosophical divide between the company’s headquarters and it’s managers on the
ground:
“And that split in the company in their personality – that kind of schizophrenia – I hope is
going to go away after this settlement.”
BP apologized for breaking the law and say they will fix the problems.
Developers are feeling encouraged by last month’s US Supreme
Court ruling on wetlands. The High Court was deciding on which wetlands deserve protection under the Clean Water Act. Some say it’s more likely
they’ll get their building permits now. Defenders of the Clean Water Act
think those high hopes are premature. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton takes
us to the wetland where the fight began:
Transcript
Developers are feeling encouraged by last month’s U.S. Supreme Court
ruling on which wetlands deserve protection from development under the
Clean Water Act. Some say it’s more likely they’ll get their building
permits now. Defenders of the Clean Water Act think those high hopes are
premature. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton takes us to the wetland where the
fight began.
Wetlands are supposed to be wet, right? Certainly wetter than this mucky little forest in
a township in Southeast Michigan, surrounded by subdivisions and strip malls. Tim Stoepker
leads the way through battalions of attacking mosquitoes. He points at a big puddle:
“Basically, you have a forested wetland here, with no diversity of plant life because you have
such a thick canopy of trees and you don’t typically have all your wetland,
typical wetland plants on the interior here because of that and because there’s no standing
water, you don’t have any of your aquatic species.”
Stoepker’s business suit trousers are getting streaked with mud but he keeps going. Next stop
is a drainage ditch at the edge of the property. It’s pretty dry:
“Now, if we were to come out here in August or July, I mean, that ditch would even be, there
would be nothing in that ditch.”
Stoepker has represented landowner Keith Carabell since the mid-1980s. Carabell was denied a permit
to build senior condos on his property. He appealed it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Stoker thinks if the nine Supreme Court Justices had seen this ditch in person, last month’s
wetlands decision would have been different. A majority would have ruled that the test for
Clean Water Act protection is permanent surface water flowing into a navigable water. Even so,
he’s optimistic. Five Justices reaffirmed that the Clean Water Act pertains only to wetlands
with a “significant nexus,” or connection, to navigable waters. He says that’s not the case
here:
“It’s hydrologically isolated from receiving and sending waters.”
But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sees it differently. The Corps is the agency that decides
if a wetland falls under the Clean Water Act. If so, it then issues or denies building permits.
The Corps told field officers not to talk to reporters about this or any case pending guidance
from headquarters. But a source familiar with Corps regulations says water from this wetland
does flow into the ditch. From there, it empties into a drain, which dumps into a stream and
then leads to Lake St. Clair a mile away, one of the most polluted bodies of water in the Great
Lakes region. The source says the wetland also connects to the drain on another side of the
property, and it will meet the significant nexus test when the case goes back to the lower
court.
Environmentalists like Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation hope that’s true.
Murphy says small wetlands like this one need to be protected, despite their lack of surface
water and showy aquatic species:
“I think we make a mistake when we just feel that the only thing we need to protect are
charismatic wetlands, for a number of reasons. For one, even wetlands that don’t necessarily look that pretty
that pretty are oftentimes performing enormous functions, whether it be habitat, flood control,
water filtration….”
All functions that Army Corps of Engineers mentioned when it denied a permit in this case.
Murphy says the looming question now is, how will the agency react to the ruling? If they pull
back, he thinks we will lose wetlands at a much quicker pace. Or the Corps could interpret
the ruling as broadly as possible:
“We feel that if the Corps is willing to stand firm and be aggressive, that they can still
maintain protection for a good number of waters.”
Murphy thinks even at best, the Supreme Court ruling will encourage even more developers like
Keith Carabell to challenge permit denials in court. That may be true, but Tom Stoepker, the
attorney for Keith Caraball, says all that most developers want are more thoughtful decisions
from the Corps, and they want the Corps to back off from places it ought not to be. He says
that includes this wetland where anyone can see the water in it isn’t going anywhere.
An Illinois Congressman says all cities should follow
Chicago’s example and end sewage system overflows into the
Great Lakes. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
An Illinois Congressman say all cities should follow Chicago’s
example and end sewage system overflows into the Great Lakes. The GLRC’s
Tracy Samilton reports:
Many cities in the Great Lakes watershed have aging sewage systems that
can’t cope with heavy rains. That can result in untreated sewage being
dumped into the Great Lakes.
Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk says Milwaukee dumps a billion gallons of
untreated sewage into Lake Michigan every year. But he says cities in Indiana
and Michigan have also dumped sewage into the Lake. Kirk has co-authored a bill
that would give all cities in a Great Lakes watershed twenty years to fix problems.
After that, they’d would face fines of 100 thousand dollars a day per incident.
“The dumping of raw fecal matter into the lake, the alarming rise in beach closings…
20 years from now, that should all be part of our past and not our future.”
In the meantime, the bill would also require cities to let the public know
when they dump sewage into the Great Lakes.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that will determine how much power the federal government has over isolated wetlands - wetlands that aren't adjacent to lakes or streams. (Photo by Lester Graham)
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could
decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case
before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of
Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
The federal Clean Water Act is supposed to stop people from polluting
streams, wetlands and other waterways that are connected to the
country’s major lakes, rivers and coastal areas, but what if the wetland in
question is located 20-miles from the nearest major waterway? Is it
covered by the Clean Water Act? That’s the question the court will
consider.
In the 1980’s John Rapanos started moving sand from one part of
property he owned in Michigan to another, to fill in some wetlands. He
wanted to sell the land to a shopping mall developer. Trouble is, he
didn’t get permits from the Army Corps of Engineers to fill in the
wetlands. The government says he should have.
“The property has a drainage ditch that runs through it…”
Robin Rivett is a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. It’s a
property-rights group that is representing Rapanos.
“And because of the movement of the sand on the property, which is
characterized as wetlands, the government came in and has prosecuted
him for actually discharging fill material into the navigable waters.”
Rapanos was charged with violating the Clean Water Act. Washington is
demanding 13-million dollars in fines and fees, and wants him to set
aside about 80-acres as wetlands.
In another case, that’s been combined with the Rapanos matter,
developers in Southeast Michigan were denied permits to fill in wetlands
so they could build a condominium complex. That site is about two
miles from Lake St. Clair, which lies between lakes Huron and Erie.
In both cases, the federal government says the sites fall under the Clean
Water Act because they’re located near navigable waters. Actually, that
term – navigable waters – has evolved over the years and come to mean
“interstate or intrastate waters,” along with their wetlands and tributaries.
The plaintiffs, their attorneys and supporters say the land should be
governed by state environmental regulations, rather than the federal
Clean Water Act, but on the side of the government in this case is 35
state governments, along with many environmental and conservation
groups.
Jim Murphy is a lawyer for the National Wildlife Federation. His group
has filed briefs on behalf of more than a dozen organizations that support
the federal position.
“What is at stake here is the ability of the act to protect the vast number
of tributaries that flow into navigable waters and the wetlands that
surround and feed into those tributaries. If those tributaries and wetlands
aren’t protected under the federal Clean Water Act, it becomes difficult if not
impossible under the Clean Water Act to achieve its goal to protect water
quality.”
Murphy says if the Supreme Court rules that Congress did not intend to
protect wetlands like the ones in this case, then about half the wetlands in
the country could lose their federal protection. Murphy and others on his
side worry that wetlands could begin disappearing more quickly than
they already do today.
Scott Yaich directs conservation programs for Ducks Unlimited – a
wetlands protection group.
“The landowners who have those wetlands would no longer be subject to
getting the Corps of Engineers to review, so essentially they could do
anything they wanted.”
The lawyers for the landowners don’t see it that way. The Pacific Legal
Foundation’s Robin Rivett says individual states would have something
to say.
“I believe there are 47 states that have their own clean water programs.
If it is clear that the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over
local waters, the states will step in to protect those waters.”
Maybe they will; maybe they won’t, say environmental groups. They
fear a patchwork of water protection laws. They say it could mean
polluted water from a state with weaker laws could flow into a state with
stronger water protection laws.
Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation.
“The Clean Water Act provides a floor. It provides comprehensive
protection, a floor beyond which states must maintain that level of
protection.”
Those who support the property owners in this case say it’s about more
than clean water – it’s also about land use. They say if the court rules
that waterways and wetlands are interconnected and all deserving of
protection under the Clean Water Act, then what could be left out?
Duane Desiderio is with the National Association of Home Builders,
which has filed briefs supporting the property owners.
“All water flows somewhere. Every drop of water in the United States,
when it goes down the Continental Divide, is going to drain into the
Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico. Pretty much.”
Both sides are hoping the Supreme Court provides a clear definition of
which wetlands and tributaries Congress intended to protect when it
passed the Clean Water Act. A decision is expected this summer.
Deer hunting season is coming to an end across the region. But some people keep shooting deer despite the laws telling them not to. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Syth reports, these poachers might want to pay close attention to what they’re shooting at:
Transcript
Deer hunting season is coming to an end across the region, but some
people keep shooting deer despite the laws telling them not to. As the
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Syth reports, these poachers might
want to pay close attention to what they’re shooting at:
Wildlife officials throughout the region are using robotic deer to catch
poachers. The deer’s head and tail move by remote control. When a
hunter attempts to shoot the deer, wildlife officials move in.
Robo-deer are made from polyurethane foam and real hide. The latest
version is known as the “Stomper.” It retails for 17-hundred dollars, and
comes standard with a stomping front leg.
Brian Wolslegel is owner of Custom Robotic Wildlife, Incorporated. He
says these deer definitely work.
“Some guy was telling me about a guy that shot a decoy. They took his
gun, fined him – I think it was $2,000 and moved their operation a mile down
the road, and two hours later the same guy came back and shot at it again with
a different gun.”
Conservation officials in Wisconsin report that one robo-deer can rack up
to 30-thousand dollars in collected fines for the state.
Snails that can grow up to seven inches long have federal health officials cracking down on schools, pet shops and “pet swap meets” across the Midwest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Snails that can grow up to seven inches long have federal
health officials cracking down on schools, pet shops and ‘pet swap meets’
across the Midwest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Giant African Land Snails are a non-native species known to rapidly eat plants and
possibly spread disease. It’s illegal to possess the snails in the U.S. Federal and state
officials have seized more than 1000 of the snails from schools, pet shops and homes
in Wisconsin over the last few months.
Now, the warnings are going out across the region. David Robinson studies mollusks for
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He says the snails are not likely to survive an upper
Midwest winter. But Robinson doesn’t want the snails getting into warmer states and
their farm fields.
“There is always a possibility of someone taking a snail down south… very often when
people get tired of a pet…and this applies to any kind of pet… very often the temptation is
to release it to the environment.”
So far, government officials are not levying fines against anyone for
possessing the giant snails, contending most people don’t know about
the potential risk.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
A million dollar fine will be used in restocking and studying
freshwater mussels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:
Transcript
A million dollar fine will be used in restocking and studying freshwater
mussels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
A Japanese-owned company called Tennessee Shell Company has paid the first
installment of the million dollar fine. The company pleaded guilty to
illegally harvesting freshwater mussels in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and
West Virginia. The company places mussel shell material in oysters to grow
cultured pearls. Chuck Traxler is with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He
says the money from the fine won’t just go into the the agency’s general
account.
“The entire amount will be used for mussel research. This is unique
in that these funds are going to be used to help the species that was
damaged.”
Besides being over-harvested, native mussel populations have declined
because of poor water quality and because of invasive species such as the
zebra mussel.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signs mandatory composting into law (Photo courtesy of the Press Office of Mayor Newsom)
