By now, you’ve probably heard a thing or two about the Circ, a proposed frivolous $60 million dollar highway project that threatens to rip through some of our state’s most pristine farmlands and wetlands. It’s unnecessary and destructive—and there are cheaper and cleaner alternatives.

What you may not have heard is that fewer than 20 people (according to the Burlington Free Press) have submitted comments voicing their opinion. No, that’s not a typo. Fewer than 20 people have spoken up about the Circ. We need to change that, and we need to change it now.

Here’s what we need you to do:

1. Submit a comment online against the proposed highway before the Friday, August 27 deadline.
2. Share this blog post via Twitter and Facebook with your family, friends and neighbors, asking them to submit a comment.

Not sure what to say in your comment to decisionmakers? Feel free to copy and paste the sample comment below:

The proposed Circ project is a bad idea for Vermont. The Circ will contribute harmful greenhouse gases, destroy farmlands and fragile wetlands, limit transportation choices, increase congestion—all while providing little benefit in travel time saved. Fixing existing roads and providing alternatives to driving—like freight rail, buses, carpooling and bike lanes—is cleaner, cheaper and more effective than the proposed Circ Highway project.

Comments are due by August 27—that’s this Friday! So please don’t wait. Our decisionmakers are listening, and we need as many people to speak up as possible. After you take action, please share this blog post far and wide to help get the word out.

Thank you for helping us put the breaks on the Circ project: Vermont deserves better!

Click the “like” button below to share this post on Facebook.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ announcement that he will retire from the United States Supreme Court will bring some much needed attention to the larger issue of judicial nominations under the Obama Administration. 

These days, it is hard to  find a good word to say about the ultraconservative majority of the United States Supreme Court that Justice Stevens has tried, with limited success, to counterbalance.  That’s especially true for those who care about clean water (query: because clean water is fundamental to human survival and prosperity, shouldn’t we all care about clean water?)  In a few short years, the Roberts’ Court’s rulings have managed to seriously undermine and restrict one of America’s most important and successful laws–the Clean Water Act. 

For example, the NewYork Times recently reported on the chaos one of the Court’s rulings has created:

Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.   As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them.  And pollution rates are rising.

A majority of these Justices seems intent on handing down a death sentence to the Clean Water Act

In another example from 2009, Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Corps., the Court badly misinterpreted the CLEAN WATER ACT to reach the conclusion that a gold mining operation was entitled to a permit allowing it to discharge “210,000 gallons per day of mining waste into Lower Slate Lake, a 23-acre subalpine lake in Tongass National Forest,” even though the ” ‘tailings slurry’ ” would “contain concentrations of aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury” and would “kill all of the lake’s fish and nearly all of its other aquatic life.” 

President Obama has an important opportunity, actually I would argue it’s a responsibility, to rebalance the federal judiciary after years of ultraconservative domination and transformation.  (If you want to understand how the judiciary was so effectively radicalized by the right, read Jeffrey Toobin’s book “The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.”).  The administration’s slow pace and cautious character in nominating people to fill court vacancies has been drawing criticism since November of last year as evidenced by this New York Times editorial.  Unfortunately, recent reporting in the L.A. Times indicates that President Obama still hasn’t made much progress due to a combination of White House inattention and timidity and Republican obstructionism in the Senate.

Terrible judicial decisions, like those discussed above, are turning this country’s essential environmental protection laws on their heads and at the same time putting the public health and environmental sustainability of this country at great risk.  America has some excellent environmental laws.  To be sure, we need to make them stronger to deal more effectively with newly-understood challenges like global climate chaos.  But when we have judges who are ideologically unwilling to affirm the pollution-controlling principles set forth in the laws, we have no hope of achieving the level of environmental protection essential for our continued national prosperity.  

If we want to ensure that our environmental laws work to keep us healthy and happy, we must urge President Obama to follow the lead of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in appointing judges like the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. 

Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood the purpose of our environmental laws and the values that motivated their enactment by bi-partisan majorities of Congress

Justice Douglas truly understood the values that informed Congress’ adoption of such successful laws as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Wilderness Act.  In his 1961 memoir “My Wilderness; East to Katahdin,” Douglas expounded on the value of rivers as public resources:

“Rivers are choice national assests reserved for all the people.  Industry that pours its refuse into rivers and the other commercial interests that use these water highways do not have monopoly rights.  People have broader interests than moneymaking. Recreation, health, and enjoyment of aesthetic values are part of man’s liberty.  Rivers play an important role in keeping this idea of liberty alive.”

For this and all the other ideas of liberty that are threatened by a judiciary dominated by radical conservatives, we must take action.  Call or email the White House and ask president Obama to find us the men and women who will follow in the tradition of Justice Douglas, and help the president fight to get them appointed to the federal courts.

I hope the band-aids used to fix leaks at Vermont Yankee hold.  I wish I had faith in the statement “they’ve stopped a leak.”  Perhaps this is one statement from Entergy’s out-of-state corporate executives that acutally is true and reliable.  Unfortunately, the public’s confidence in Vermont Yankee is badly torn, and not easily mended. 

Even if the broken pipes are repaired, all the problems are not fixed.  Vermont Yankee and regulators allowed leaks to pollute the enviornment for over two months. 

Uncontrolled and unmonitored releases of radioactiviely contaminated water are illegal.  The pollution from these leaks is still in the ground and in our water.  This is unacceptable.

There are still old, underground pipes at Vermont Yankee.  The fact that there were leaks in these old pipes that Energy denied even existed, indicates there are bigger problems.  Lax oversight, sloppy management, and poor performance allowed problems to sit and fester.  These old pipes and this old plant are not safe or reliable.

The Massachusetts’ Water Resource Authority’s decision to release 15 million gallons of untreated sewage into Boston Harbor’s Quincy Bay during last weekend’s storm felt to many like a giant step backward in the decades-long fight to clean up Boston Harbor. The good news is that there are actions that can be taken today that could have kept MWRA officials from having to make that decision in the future—implementing green stormwater infrastructure to reduce the burden on our sewer pipes, reduce flooding and make communities more resilient to climate change.

Many of our state’s aging sewer systems become overwhelmed with a mix of rainwater and sewage during large storms. That’s why MWRA officials were stuck between a rock and a hard place, forced to choose between quietly releasing 15 million gallons of untreated sewage into Quincy Bay or letting the water flood the station and release that sewage into basements, but sparing the Harbor. The problem runs deeper than this one incident—during last week’s storm, there were equally damaging releases of raw sewage into neighborhoods and into the Mystic and Charles Rivers as well. (See video footage here).

Massachusetts can stop these incidents by investing in green stormwater management techniques to enable communities to better prevent sewer overflows and save money over the long term. Some of these techniques include the use of permeable pavement, green roofs, rain barrels, even gravel—anything that will absorb stormwater and diminish runoff from hard surfaces. These actions can be taken by homeowners in and around their homes, at the city scale by greening streets, parking lots, and alleys, and at the state level, by greening state highways and universities.  Massachusetts residents can urge their towns to adopt bylaws requiring green stormwater and green building techniques to be used in all new construction or infrastructure projects. Cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York are already rolling out these techniques and finding that they are both cost-effective and environmentally sustainable.

Fortunately, we have a chance RIGHT NOW to tell the state of Massachusetts how important it is to us to keep stormwater in check. The U.S. EPA is currently working on a stormwater permit that will govern the stormwater management of communities across Massachusetts for the next five years.

Help Massachusetts prepare for the next storm before it happens. Tell our government that we need a stronger stormwater permit to govern Massachusetts waterways and keep our communities pollution-free.

Vermont Yankee will be allowed to continue to leak and pollute.  On March 10, 2010, the Vermont Public Service Board held an initial hearing on CLF’s request to close the plant until the leaks are repaired.  

Unfortunately, Yankee will continue to operate at least until it shuts down for refueling in late April.  I have little doubt that when it does shut down for refueling, the leaks will be found and repaired.  The sad part is that since early January, Vermont Yankee has been allowed to continue to operate with ongoing leaks of radioactive waste from pipes Yankee told regulators never even existed.  The leaks and the lies should stop.  Entergy should not get a free pass to pollute.

If my car is leaking oil, I stop the car and fix the leak.  We should expect the same from an operator of a nuclear power plant.

Entergy — the owner of Vermont Yankee — claimed yesterday it should not be required to give regulators accurate information on the leaks, the impacts of the leaks and its efforts to stop them.  They are busy trying to fix the leaks and the requested reporting apparently would be some sort of distraction.  CLF responded that a company as large as Entergy should be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time.”  If Entergy has time to make daily public announcements about what is going on, why can’t they make those statements under oath?  And if they can’t, what are they hiding?

Join CLF in asking the VT Public Service Board, the NRC and the VT health Department to shut Vermont Yankee down until the leaks are repaired.

Learn more about CLF VT Yankee Advocacy

Yesterday’s Boston Globe editorial in response to Monday’s New York Times article on the Clean Water Act makes the point that Massachusetts is in a unique position because the state’s waterways are regulated under a more flexible state water act enforced by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). However, that’s not a panacea. Massachusetts must still support and enforce the terms of the federal Clean Water Act to keep pollution at bay.

While the DEP may enforce discharge permits in Massachusetts, it’s the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has primary responsibility for issuing them. Two US Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 have undermined the authority of the EPA by calling into question what defines a waterway eligible for protection under the Clean Water Act.  The confusion over which of these waterways are legally protected has left 52% of Massachusetts’ waterways at risk for increased pollution, because EPA is no longer asserting its jurisdiction to regulate pollution flowing into them.

Congress needs to act quickly convey that the Clean Water Act applies to all waterways and must be enforced broadly and effectively.

The Clean Water Restoration Act, first introduced in Congress in April 2009, would amend the Clean Water Act to clarify that the Act applies to all US waterways as it did prior to the Supreme Court decisions. Passing the CWRA will send a message to polluters that all waterways merit equal protection under the law, and that the EPA will continue to enforce the terms of the CWA to prevent further environmental damage.

If we want clean waterways, not just for Massachusetts but throughout New England, here’s our chance to make sure that the EPA has full authority to do its job right, by passing the Clean Water Restoration Act.

Support the Clean Water Restoration Act

Much like a joy-riding ATVer testing the power of his off-road machine, the leadership of Vermont’s Natural Resources agency seems hell-bent on riding roughshod over any obstacle in the way of its proposal to open state-owned forests, parks, and wildlife areas to recreational ATV trails.

As I wrote earlier on this blog, the agency leadership revved its engines and ran right over opposition from concerned members of the public who commented on the rule–by the agency’s own estimate, commenters opposed the proposal by a ratio of 4-to-1.  The professional objections of its own scientists, game wardens, and on-the-ground land managers didn’t slow agency leaders down either.  In public documents obtained by CLF and reported in the press, career Agency employees expressed concerns about the damage to public and private property caused by illegal ATV use that ANR already struggles to control with existing resources.  They also worried about the strain that managing the numerous public safety and environmental impacts surrounding ATV trails would place on an understaffed agency reeling from more job cuts.  

Vermont’s legislative process and the rule of law is the last obstacle in the way of ANR’s ATV proposal.  With your help, this could be the obstacle that stops this irresponsible proposal in its tracks.

Prior to a hearing of the legislative committee that serves as an important check against arbitrary and illegal power-grabs by the political appointees who run state agencies, news reports indicated that a bi-partisan majority of the committee’s legislators are prepared to formally object to the Agency’s proposal.  At the hearing, legislators listened politely as the agency’s top lawyer and its Secretary essentially claimed that the Secretary has inherent authority to allow state lands to be used however he sees fit and further that a single ambiguous sentence in a 1983 motor vehicle law specifically grants the Secretary unfettered discretion to write rules opening state lands to ATVs.  But the legislators had done their homework and had an answer for the agency’s questionable legal analysis. 

Representative Richard Marek (D-Newfane) proposed that the committee adopt a written objection to the rule that debunks the Agency’s claims demonstrating how it is contrary to the legislature’s intent and beyond the authority the legislature has granted to the agency.  You can read the committee’s proposed objection on CLF’s web site.  In keeping with the narrow focus of the committee, the proposed objection articulates reasons why the rule is an affront to good government process and the rule of law.  It doesn’t mention the many policy reasons why the ATV proposal is deeply flawed because those questions are best left to the full legislature.  It’s pretty clear that is where this issue may be headed come January.  A defiant agency leadership seems poised to adopt the rule even if the committee formally votes to object at its next meeting on December 15.

This sets the agency and the full legislature on a potential collision course and may also land the agency in court.  Though ANR can adopt the rule over the objection of the rules committee, the legislature could completely repeal the rule by passing a new law.  State law also makes it much easier for groups like CLF to challenge illegal rules when an agency moves forward in spite of a legislative objection. 

Here are three ways you can help protect Vermont forests, parks, and wildlife areas from being transformed into motorized theme parks by ANR:

1. Call your legislator and voice your opposition.  This is especially important if your legislator is on the administrative rules committee scheduled to vote on December 15.
2. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper expressing your opposition.
3. Make a donation to CLF so that we can continue our efforts to protect state lands in the legislature and, if need be, in court.

Georges Bank is the underwater icon of New England – a place of legendary bounty for those fishermen willing to brave dangerous storms in search of Atlantic cod. But, the Bank has always been more than a popular and productive fishing ground. In New England, it’s comparable to the Grand Canyon for its popular resonance and cultural significance. Georges Bank is part of our cultural heritage that ties us to New England.

Between 1976 and 1982, three oil companies drilled ten oil and natural gas wells on Georges Bank. They were stopped from additional drilling by Conservation Law Foundation, working fishermen and citizens from around the region. In 1998, President Clinton issued an Executive Order that prevented the leasing of any area in the North Atlantic and, as a result, all of the 1979 Georges Bank leases have been relinquished or have expired. However, in 2008 President Bush removed the moratorium on oil and natural gas drilling and the day before he left office. Georges Bank and the rest of New England’s ocean are again at risk of drilling.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the entire Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, which includes Georges Bank, has 3.82 billion barrels of oil. This represents a meager 3.31% of all known and predicted US OCS reserves. According to the US Energy Information Administration statistics, US consumers would use up this oil supply in less than 185 days and the natural gas available would consumed in about 585 days.

We don’t need to gamble with New England’s oceans, wildlife and coastal communities by drilling for oil in the North Atlantic. The Mineral Management Service is taking comments until September 21st on a pro-drilling plan that was designed by the Bush administration to drill in New England’s ocean. Please click here to send a pre-written letter urging the MMS to protect our oceans and wildlife and to promote clean, renewable energy. After you take action, please share this post with family and friends. We need everyone to participate!

The health and security of our oceans, wildlife, coasts and communities depend upon an energy plan that protects and conserves our ocean wildlife and their important habitat areas.

Click here to act now.

The Boston Globe today presents an excellent editorial on the misguided proposal for the power plant in Somerset Massachusetts:

ONE OF THE state’s “Filthy Five’’ coal-burning power plants is trying to turn itself into a Cinderella of clean-burning electricity generation. Since the makeover includes a first-in-the-nation commercial use of a certain technology to reduce dirty emissions, the state should give it a closer environmental review. (MORE)

This particular proposal is one that CLF is engaging in many ways, including in a pending court case (somerset-sc-clfs-memo-suppt-of-jdgmt-8-10-09).  And earlier on in the legal process this plant was (among other issues) discussed in an Op-Ed by Dr. James Hansen.  It has been the subject of ongoing upset, protests and opposition.

If you want to support our work on cases like this – go for it – or just comment below if you have a local coal fired power plant giving you gas.