New Law Places Warning on Fluorescent Lamps

Soon you’ll be seeing a label on some lights that you might buy for your house. The label will warn that the light bulbs contain mercury. It’s the result of a five-year court battle. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Soon you’ll be seeing a label on some lights that you might buy for your house. The label will
warn that the light bulbs contain mercury. It’s the result of a five-year court battle. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Fluorescent lamps need mercury to operate. But mercury is known to cause health problems. So,
keeping it out of the environment is important. The State of Vermont passed a law requiring a
label, warning of the mercury. The lamp makers fought it, but finally lost when the Supreme
Court refused to hear the case. It’s impossible to label just the bulbs sold in Vermont, so, that
means you’ll see the labels in your state too. That includes those newer energy efficient compact
fluorescent lights. Michael Bender is Director of the Mercury Policy Project and lobbied for the
Vermont law.


“We fully support and encourage people to use these energy efficient lights, but at the same time
we encourage consumers to be aware that they have mercury in them and that they should not be
disposed in the trash. Instead they should be kept intact and not broken and brought in for
recycling.”


The labels will begin appearing later this year.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Wetlands Policy Leaves Some High and Dry?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced
plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is
in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction
over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres
of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


More than ten years ago, 23 suburbs in the Chicago area wanted to convert an old stone quarry
into a landfill to combat a shortage of space to put trash. But in the 25 years since the quarry was
abandoned, it filled with water and became home to birds, fish and plants.


The federal government called the site a
wetland and blocked the landfill project citing the Clean Water Act. The Corps said the old
quarry was now an important part of the environment because it provided plant and wildlife
habitats and protected the surrounding area from floods. The communities sued the Army Corps
of Engineers over the issue.


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the federal government
can’t enforce the Clean Water Act on bodies of water that were isolated and not part of a larger
water system. The five to four decision of the court put that responsibility in the hands of the
states. The U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers recently released plans to abide by those
rules.


Cameron Davis is with the Lake Michigan Federation, an advocacy group focusing on
environmental issues in the Great Lakes region. He says the federal government is backing
down too quickly:


“Well, I think what we’re seeing is another example of the administration scaling back the federal
environmental protections. Especially at the time when the states simply are not well equipped to
be able to pick up where those federal protections leave off. In an ideal world, the type of
proposal we are seeing would have been done in coordination with the states. It would
have been done in a way that will not leave wetlands out to dry.”


Davis says the Supreme Court decision only specifically relates to one case, and the federal
government was too quick to expand those thoughts to other wetlands. Davis says a longer
review process of exactly which wetlands the federal government can regulate would provide
better policy and more clarity on the issue. But the EPA says it is not sidestepping its
responsibility. Ben Grumbles is with the EPA’s Office of Water. He says the agency is doing
what it feels it has to do to comply with the Supreme Court decision.


“It’s our intent to take the interpretation that is the most reasonable and the most defensible one
that is also consistent with our mission of protecting wetlands and watersheds. We are fully
committed to protecting wetlands and watersheds to the full extent under the Clean Water Act
and the Supreme Court decision.”


Grumbles says while the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are planning to abide by the high
court ruling, it will also be working with states to help them protect wetlands that fall outside of
the federal governments newly-defined jurisdiction. Grumbles also says the EPA is taking public
comment so it can better define what makes a body of water an isolated wetland. While the EPA
and advocacy groups have differing opinions of how to interpret the Supreme Court decision, the
legal debate might not be over.


Chris Shafer is a law professor at the Thomas Cooley Law
School in Lansing, Michigan. He says the high court made a mistake by
assuming isolated wetlands are not the responsibility of the federal government:


“I think the court also made a giant leap of logic by saying that, ‘Well, it’s not really a major issue
in terms of wetland protection because the states will take over this responsibility.’ That’s just
laughable because the states are not likely to take over wetland protection. It’s very
controversial, it’s very difficult, it’s very expensive.”


Shafer says the Supreme Court decision is so narrowly focused on such a small area of the law,
that clarification from Congress would remove any doubt as to where the federal government
could assert its authority in wetland issues. Right now there are no plans for such legislation, and
observers say it’s doubtful that a Republican-controlled Congress and the current administration
would address the issue. Environmental activists say in the mean time, they will turn their focus
to state legislatures to encourage them to pass laws to preserve these wetlands no longer protected
by the federal government.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.