On:
In: Coupled Modeling, Great Lakes, lake effect snow, lake erie, Lake Michigan, Modeling, Research
If you live in the Great Lakes basin and have been on or even near a road recently, you might be feeling unreasonably ragey at the mere mention of lake effect snow. We get it. But bear with us, because … Continue reading →

Original Article

NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

https://noaaglerl.blog/2018/12/06/improving-lake-effect-snow-forecasts-by-making-models-talk-to-each-other/

Kaye LaFond

On:
In: Communication, experiment, Great Lakes, harmful algal blooms, lake erie, lakes, Modeling, observations, partners, Publications, Research, sampling, satellites, science, technology, winter
It’s nearly winter here in the Great Lakes—our buoys are in the warehouse, our boats are making their way onto dry land, and folks in the lab are working hard to assess observed data, experiments, and other results from this … Continue reading →

Original Article

NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

https://noaaglerl.blog/2018/12/03/the-hab-season-is-over-but-the-work-goes-on/

Nicole Rice

On:
In: Uncategorized

Beginning in early November and lasting for several months, a low-level helicopter will begin flying over parts of seven states in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, or MAP, to acquire a more robust picture of aquifers in the area.

 

This high-resolution, airborne geophysical survey, coordinated by U.S. Geological Survey scientists in partnership with local agencies, will provide critical data for the evaluation and management of groundwater resources in the region. This survey represents the second phase of the study as initial flights and data acquisition over the MAP started in February using the same helicopter system.

 

The helicopter and geophysical instrumentation is expected to arrive in Greenwood, Mississippi, on or around October 31. After arrival, setup and testing will occur, so the helicopter and device it tows beneath will be visible as soon as November 2-4. Once testing is completed, daily production flights in the region will begin, with flights operating out of Greenwood for approximately two weeks.

CGG RESOLVE helicopter system in Greenwood, Mississippi. The USGS is working with CGG and other partners to gather geophysical information related to the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. The helicopter will be deployed in several smaller focus areas of interest where a series of high-resolution survey grids will be acquired.

(Credit: Burke Minsley, USGS. Public domain.)

 

CGG Airborne of Ontario, Canada, under contract to the USGS, will make the daytime, low-level flights over more than 20 million acres within the MAP, including a buffer around the entire area. Experienced pilots who are specially trained and approved for low-level flying will operate the aircraft. All flights are coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure accordance with U.S. law.

The MAP is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the nation and depends on groundwater for irrigation. It constitutes the third largest area of irrigated cropland in the U.S., consisting of approximately 29,000 square miles, or 19 million acres, and includes parts of Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky and Illinois.

"This survey will allow the USGS to develop a high-resolution, three-dimensional representation of the groundwater resources for one the most important irrigated agricultural regions in the U.S.," said project lead and USGS scientist Wade H. Kress.

Instruments on the helicopter will collect information about the geology in shallow aquifers of the region. When the data analysis is complete, resulting state-of-the-art maps will help USGS researchers understand the aquifer system that supports groundwater resources at depths up to about 300 feet underground.

This survey will be flown along mainly east-west lines at about 200 feet above the ground. The helicopter will have an attached electromagnetic instrument housed in a cylinder called a bird that is towed about 100 feet beneath the aircraft.

The helicopter will also carry scientific instruments including a magnetometer and a gamma-ray spectrometer. None of the instruments pose a health risk to people or animals.

The survey is being conducted by the USGS Water Availability and Use Program as part of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Regional Water Availability Study.  More information about this project can be found online.

Map of Mississippi Alluvial Plain airborne geophysical flight plan. Black lines indicate planned flight paths for an upcoming low-level helicopter survey that will occur over several months. Flights are scheduled to begin in the first week of November, 2018, based out of Greenwood, Mississippi. Online map and status updates can be found at http://arcg.is/01nraa.

(Public domain.)

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/seeking-water-above-low-level-helicopter-fly-above-mississippi-alluvial-plain

USGS.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

Editor:  In the public interest and in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations, the USGS is announcing this low-level airborne project.  Your assistance informing the local communities is appreciated.  

Original Article

Region 3: Great Lakes

Region 3: Great Lakes

http://www.usgs.gov/news/state-news-release/seeking-water-above-low-level-helicopter-fly-above-mississippi-alluvial

hkoontz@usgs.gov

On:
In: Public Trust, Water Law Reform

The following guest post is by Jeffrey B. Hyman, Senior Staff Attorney with the Conservation Law Center in Bloomington, Indiana. Jeff is counsel for respondent/intervenors Alliance for the Great Lakes and Save the Dunes in the Gunderson v. State of Indiana litigation.

Early this year the Indiana Supreme Court delivered a landmark public trust and equal footing decision in Gunderson v. State of Indiana. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that at statehood, under these doctrines, Indiana acquired the bed of Lake Michigan within Indiana’s borders below the common-law “natural” ordinary high water mark (OHWM), including temporarily exposed shores. The Indiana Supreme Court also ruled that the state never conveyed the disputed shore to any private owner, including the Gundersons, and that the state continues to hold the shore in an inalienable trust for traditional public uses such as fishing and walking. With regard to ownership of the lakeshore, this is a unique decision for the Great Lakes region, where most states have relinquished their shores to private ownership.

The Indiana Supreme Court defined the natural OHWM based on the traditional concept used for non-tidal navigable waterbodies: the point on the shore where soil, vegetation, or other physical marks change from those characteristic of a water-influenced environment to those characteristic of terrestrial uplands.

The Gundersons had initiated their lawsuit in the trial court with the claim that under their private deed and plat, they held exclusive title to the disputed lakeshore down to the instant edge of the water where it laps at the shore at any given moment. The Gundersons were undoubtedly encouraged by recent public trust cases in Michigan and Ohio. In 2005, a majority of the Michigan Supreme Court held in Glass v. Goeckel that the public has the right to walk along the exposed shore below the traditional OHWM, even if the shore is privately owned to the low water mark. Even though this majority holding was not favorable for the Gundersons, the long and biting dissent in Glass argued that the boundary of public rights should instead be the instant water’s edge. In Ohio’s 2011 public trust case of State ex rel. Merrill, the Ohio Supreme Court came to a conclusion different from both the majority and the dissent in Glass, ruling that the boundary of state title and public rights on Lake Erie shores extends to the “line at which the water usually stands when free from disturbing causes.” Although the Merrill court did not explain this line in terms of physical marks, the court said that this line is not the traditional OHWM. But, said the Ohio court, neither is it the instant water’s edge. (For more on the Merrill decision, see Professor Ken Kilbert’s prior guest post.)

The defendant state and the two sets of intervenors argued that the case was governed not by the Gundersons’ private deed and plat but rather by the federal public trust and equal footing doctrines. According to these doctrines, upon winning the Revolutionary War, each of the original 13 states acquired title (previously held by the sovereign in England) to the beds of its navigable water bodies, up to the high-water mark, to hold in trust for its citizens. To ensure that each new state subsequently carved out of the territories is admitted to the Union on an “equal footing” with the original states, the equal footing doctrine constitutionally mandates that each new state automatically receive at statehood the same right of title to the beds of its navigable waterbodies as that held by the original states.

The Indiana trial court, intermediate appellate court, and high court all agreed that these doctrines governed the dispute, but with significant twists. The trial court ruled that the state acquired the shore under the equal footing doctrine, owns it up to an administrative water-elevation line advocated by the Indiana DNR, and holds it for general public recreational uses. (See this prior post on the trial court decision by Kyle Peczynski.) The intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the state acquired the shore to the natural OHWM, but now the Gundersons own legal title down to the low water mark, subject to public rights of use. The Indiana Supreme Court, unraveling the tangle, ruled that the state acquired exclusive title to the shore below the traditional natural OHWM and still owns it to that boundary, but that public rights on the shore are limited in scope. Update: In February 2019, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, preserving this landmark state court decision on the public trust doctrine.

Resources:

Gunderson v. State of Indiana, Indiana Supreme Court Opinion, published at 90 N.E.3d 1171 (2018)

Gunderson v. State of Indiana, Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States

Gunderson v. State of Indiana, Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, Supporting Appendix (includes all state court decisions)

Gunderson v. State of Indiana, Opposition to Certiorari by Alliance for the Great Lakes and Save the Dunes

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/NtcL_8Aox34/indiana-supreme-court-protects-the-public-trust-in-great-lakes-shorelines.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Uncategorized

The Great Lakes Environmental Law Center is proud to release its latest report, titled “Furthering Environmental Justice in Air Quality Enforcement with Supplemental Environmental Projects.” The report details how supplemental environmental projects may be used to promote environmental justice in the context of air quality enforcement, the current obstacles in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) policy that prevent the wider use of supplemental environmental projects, and provides recommendations for how the MDEQ’s policy may be amended to better promote environmental justice through the use of supplemental environmental projects.

Supplemental environmental projects are environmentally beneficial projects that a violator agrees to undertake pursuant to an enforcement action that was initiated due to a violation of an air quality standard. For example, a supplemental environmental project may consist of a violator of an air quality standard agreeing to purchase and install a state-of-the-art air filtration system in a nearby school to improve indoor air quality, or agreeing to replace or retrofit old diesel engines in the community to improve outdoor air quality.

Particularly in Michigan, environmental justice communities often prefer that an enforcement action include a supplemental environmental project (SEP) because monetary penalties for air quality violations go to the state general fund and fail to provide community members with any form of redress for the excessive risk they have been exposed to due to the violation. As a result, supplemental environmental projects are a key method to further environmental justice. However, the MDEQ’s current supplemental environmental project actively disincentivizes the inclusion of supplemental environmental projects in negotiated settlements because a settlement with a SEP is inevitably more expensive than a settlement without a SEP. As a result, supplemental environmental projects are an underutilized tool to further environmental justice in Michigan.

This report is meant to serve as a resource for organizations and residents that are interested in how air quality enforcement interacts with the concept of environmental justice, and how supplemental environmental projects may be used to promote environmental justice. It is also meant to serve as a resource for state environmental quality agencies, particularly the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, that are interested in promoting the use of supplemental environmental projects.

Read the full report here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HrL3ZTqAmmrA7joibGuOykiLJO264H1V

This report was made possible with funding from the Center for Urban Responses to Environmental Stressors (CURES), an environmental health sciences core center headquartered at Wayne State University. Please read more about their work at: https://cures.wayne.edu

Original Article

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

https://www.glelc.org/our-blog/2018/8/15/center-publishes-report-regarding-how-supplemental-environmental-projects-can-promote-environmental-justice-in-michigan

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

On:
In: Uncategorized

The Great Lakes Environmental Law Center visited two mosques in Detroit and Hamtramck before Friday prayer on July 20, 2018 and spoke to the respective congregations about the proposal to expand U.S. Ecology’s hazardous waste facility, as well as the need for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to provide translation services to the Yemeni and Bengali communities.

U.S. Ecology is a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility that is located at 6520 Georgia Street on Detroit’s east side. The facility has proposed a 9-fold expansion in its storage capacity, and a 3-fold expansion in its treatment capacity. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality held a public hearing regarding the proposal in 2015, but has refused requests from the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and the Coalition to Oppose the Expansion of U.S. Ecology to hold another public hearing.Pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has enacted regulations that requires any state environmental department that receives EPA assistance, including the MDEQ, to not discriminate on the basis of national origin. The prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin specifically prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on people that speak or understand limited English. As such, EPA regulations affirmatively requires the MDEQ to provide people that speak or understand limited English with the ability to meaningfully access its programs.

While the MDEQ has held a public hearing regarding the proposed expansion, as required by law, it did not provide any notice of the public hearing in Arabic or Bengali. It also did not translate other vital documents, such as the fact sheet that describes the basic information about U.S. Ecology’s proposal, into Arabic or Bengali.

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there are significant number of immigrants nearby U.S. Ecology, most of which are Yemeni or Bengali. One mosque that we visited on Friday is approximately 1,600 feet from the fence line of U.S. Ecology. Additionally, in the neighborhood surrounding the Hamtramck Public Library, which was the location of the MDEQ’s public hearing regarding U.S. Ecology in 2015, approximately 47% of people are immigrants and 20% speak limited English.

While the Center wrote a letter detailing these concerns to the MDEQ in early June, we have not received any response. We are urging concerned residents to contact Richard Conforti and Katie Kruse at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, whose contact information is provided below. Concerned residents should urge the MDEQ to:

  • Comply with EPA non-discrimination regulations, which prohibits the MDEQ from discriminating on the basis of national origin.
  • Hold an additional public hearing, with notice of the hearing provided in both Bengali and Arabic
  • Provide information regarding the proposed expansion of U.S. Ecology in both Arabic and Bengali so that all community residents can provide the MDEQ with meaningful input.

Richard Conforti, Waste Management and Radiological Protection Division

 

Katie Kruse, Environmental Justice Liaison:

Concerned residents can also distribute flyers with information about U.S. Ecology and the MDEQ’s obligation to provide information in Bengali and Arabic to others in their community. Flyers are available in Arabic, Bengali, and English via the links below:

Bengali Flyer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bw2H9ZdvjyoY43P9grE29wDWXss_Xfxr/view?usp=sharing

Arabic Flyer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JElTGNxud-fXjuePKt9dgMzpl6Yz1z8v/view?usp=sharing

English Flyer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U8v0TEdBVvpQqXhE9pzejahmzRy5JTr6/view?usp=sharing

Original Article

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

https://www.glelc.org/our-blog/2018/7/20/glelc-visits-mosques-to-discuss-the-michigan-department-of-environmental-qualitys-obligations-to-engage-yemeni-and-bengali-residents-regarding-proposal-to-expand-hazardous-waste-facility

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

On:
In: Uncategorized

This week, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a key ruling in an air permitting case involving AK Steel in South Dearborn. The Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and Olson, Bzdok & Howard P.C. served as plaintiff counsel in the case. Chris Bzdok from Olson, Bzdok & Howard P.C.  argued the case in the Michigan Supreme Court. In South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Association, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality, by a 4-3 decision, the court held that a petition for judicial review of the issuance or denial of a permit to install for an existing source must be filed within 90 days of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s final permit action. In ruling that the petition for review must be filed within 90 days, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, which found a petition for review must be filed within 60 days, and rejected the position of AK Steel and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, both of which argued that a petition for review must be filed within 21 days.

 

The ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court is significant for two primary reasons. First and foremost, since the plaintiff’s permit challenge was filed within 59 days, which is well within the 90-day filing period the court found to be applicable, the challenge can now move forward to the substantive issue. Second, this ruling is significant because it is generally favorable for environmental organizations that may seek to challenge permits to install for existing air pollution sources going forward. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the permit appeal at issue must have been filed within a 90 days, as opposed to the 60 days previously required by the Michigan Court of Appeals or the 21 days argued for by AK Steel and MDEQ. In doing so, it has ensured that residents and environmental organizations will have 90 days should they wish to challenge permits to install issued by the MDEQ to existing facilities. This grants residents and environmental organizations with a sufficient amount of time to file their appeal, and ensures that they will have their day in court.

With the decision from the Michigan Supreme Court, the case will now go back to the state circuit court for consideration of the substantive issues involved in the MDEQ’s permitting decision. The key substantive issue is whether the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality had the legal authority to issue a correction to an existing permit to install and to “grandfather” the correction by applying the laws and regulations that existed at the time when the original permit was issued, rather than at the time the revised permit. The Great Lakes Environmental Law Center has argued that the MDEQ lacked authority to revise a permit to install. Instead, it must issue a new permit to install and apply the more stringent air quality regulations that were in effect at the time of permitting. We’re looking forward to litigating the substantive issues in the case.

Original Article

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

https://www.glelc.org/our-blog/2018/7/19/michigan-supreme-court-issues-key-decision-in-favor-of-community-residents-and-environmental-organizations-in-south-dearborn-air-permitting-case

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

On:
In: Canada and Transboundary Waters, Water Law Reform

The US Supreme Court issued a pair of opinions this term dealing with the role of the federal government in ongoing interstate water disputes: (1) Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado; and (2) Florida v. Georgia. The cases are before the Court under “original jurisdiction” - they are being heard on first impression rather than on appeal (although they have been reviewed and reported on by appointed Special Masters).

Substantively, both cases involve disputes between neighboring states regarding obligations and rights to shared waters, whether by agreement (interstate compact) or common law (equitable apportionment). Texas argues that New Mexico is violating the terms of their 1938 Rio Grande Compact with a self-serving interpretation of that agreement’s obligation on New Mexico to deliver water to a reservoir (in New Mexico) for use in Texas. Florida argues that Georgia is taking more than its equitable share of water for municipal and agricultural use from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin and harming the downstream ecosystem in Florida. But before reaching the merits of these interstate disputes, the Court first had before it questions balancing federal and state control of shared interstate waters.

In the Rio Grande Compact dispute, the United States weighed in to protect downstream flows that it must deliver to Mexico pursuant to an international treaty. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, allowed the United States to bring its claims to defend "distinctly federal interests" - namely treaty obligations and the federal government's role in the Rio Grande compact operations. The case now moves forward with the United States as a key player.

In the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin dispute, Georgia argued that the Supreme Court could not decide the case without the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the table. The Corps controls the upstream water in Georgia that Florida wants conserved, and the United States sided with Georgia, stating it would not alter its control of the upstream water (ostensibly for navigation and flood control). The Special Master had sided with Georgia. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, instead sided with Florida and held that further proceedings were necessary to determine if the Court can provide redress for Florida's alleged harms.

For more detailed analysis of the Florida v. Georgia case and the Supreme Court's closely divided 2018 opinion, see Reed Benson's article: "Can a State's Water Rights Be Damned? Environmental Flows and Federal Dams in the Supreme Court." And check out the “infographic argument explainers” for Texas v. New Mexico and Florida v. Georgia at Subscript Law. 

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/N72Cydnx73A/supreme_court_considers_federal_interests_and_powers_in_interstate_water_cases.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Environmental Rights

A report by the National Sea Grant Law Center, "Comparison of State Right-to-Farm Laws That Include Aquaculture" authored by Amanda Nichols, Ocean and Coastal Law Fellow in June 2018. Note: this report only examines right-to-farm laws in the twenty-seven states that expressly include aquaculture within their laws’ definition of agriculture. For a complete 50-state survey, see the National Agricultural Law Center Research Right-to-Farm Laws summary chart.

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

https://www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/2018/06/comparison-of-state-right-to-farm-laws-that-include-aquaculture.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Detroit, Environmental Justice, Students

Equal Justice Works has awarded recent Wayne Law graduate (and former GLELC student fellow) Erin Mette a two-year fellowship to work with the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center on urban children’s health. Erin’s project will focus on protecting children in Detroit and Flint from home-based environmental health hazards. As a staff attorney with GLELC, Erin will provide legal counseling and representation to affected families and work for policies that address the root causes of this unique environmental justice issue.

For too many residents in environmental justice communities, their home is a hazard to their health. Home-based environmental health hazards include lead paint on the walls of older homes and a lack of access to clean drinking water due to lead contamination and water service shutoffs. Children are especially vulnerable to the life-long health impacts that these hazards cause. Additionally, these hazards disproportionately affect children in low-income communities of color, whose voices have typically been excluded from the process of creating and enforcing the standards meant to prevent such harms. The families impacted by home-based environmental health hazards overwhelmingly lack access to legal services to help them address these issues. Through her Equal Justice Works fellowship, Erin will provide a wide variety of direct legal services to families confronting home-based environmental health hazards to ensure that those families are being adequately protected from such hazards.

Erin’s Equal Justice Works two-year fellowship is sponsored by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and an anonymous donor. Equal Justice Works is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to creating a just society by mobilizing the next generation of lawyers committed to equal justice. Each year, it provides funding to a limited number of applicants that have proposed innovative public interest law projects that seek to address pressing legal issues around the country through a highly competitive and rigorous process. Erin is the GLELC’s second Equal Justice Works fellow. Nick Leonard, GLELC’s Executive Director, initially joined GLELC in 2014 through an Equal Justice Works fellowship.

Check out this story about Erin from the Washtenaw County Legal News. Thanks to GLELC’s blog for the cross-posting, and follow GLELC for updates on Erin’s work. 

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/0l58-NGQDbQ/equal-justice-works-fellow-erin-mette-joins-the-great-lakes-environmental-law-center.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Uncategorized

The Great Lakes Environmental Law Center is excited to announce that in September 2018 it will welcome Erin Mette, who will join the Center as an Equal Justice Works fellow. Erin’s fellowship project will focus on protecting children in Detroit and Flint from home-based environmental health hazards by providing legal counseling and representation to affected families and advocating for policy that addresses the root causes of this unique environmental justice issue.

For too many residents in environmental justice communities, their home is a hazard to their health. Home-based environmental health hazards include lead paint on the walls of older homes and a lack of access to clean drinking water due to lead contamination and water service shutoffs. Many of these homes that contain environmental health hazards are the homes of children, who are especially vulnerable to the life-long health impacts that these hazards cause. Additionally, these hazards disproportionately affect children in low-income communities of color, whose voices have typically been excluded from the process of creating and enforcing the standards meant to prevent such harms. The families impacted by home-based environmental health hazards overwhelmingly lack access to legal services to help them address these issues. Through her Equal Justice Works fellowship, Erin will provide a wide variety of direct legal services to families confronting home-based environmental health hazards to ensure that those families are being adequately protected from such hazards.

Erin’s Equal Justice Works fellowship is for a term of two years and is sponsored by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and an anonymous donor. Equal Justice Works is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to creating a just society by mobilizing the next generation of lawyers committed to equal justice. Each year, it provides funding to a limited number of applicants that have proposed innovative public interest law projects that seek to address pressing legal issues around the country through a highly competitive and rigorous process. Erin is the Center’s second Equal Justice Works fellow. The Center’s current staff attorney, Nick Leonard, initially joined the organization in 2014 through an Equal Justice Works fellowship.

Erin Mette is a 2018 graduate of Wayne Law and also holds a Master of Science from the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment as well as a Bachelor of Arts from Kalamazoo College. During her time at Wayne Law, she was a student in the Transnational Environmental Law Clinic. 

Original Article

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

https://www.glelc.org/our-blog/2018/6/20/say-hello-to-erin-mette-the-centers-2018-equal-justice-works-fellow

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

On:
In: Book Reviews, Environmental Rights, Students, Water Law Reform

Our new Second Edition of Modern Water Law: Private Property, Public Rights, and Environmental Protections has been published by Foundation Press and is available on Amazon. Co-authored again with Robert Adler, the Jefferson B. and Rita E. Fordham Presidential Dean, and Robin Kundis Craig, the James I. Farr Presidential Endowed Chair of Law, both at the University of Utah College of Law.

Modern Water Law provides a comprehensive text to study the range of legal issues and doctrines that affect water resources. We begin with private water use rights, including common law doctrines for riparian reasonable use and prior appropriation, as well as groundwater rights and the statutory schemes for administering water use rights. The book next details the range of public rights in water, including navigation, the public trust doctrine, federal reserved rights for tribal and public lands, and interstate water management. The book then explores modern challenges and environmental protection goals, focusing on the energy-water nexus, water pollution, and endangered species conflicts. The final chapters combine these concepts in the context of complex watershed restoration challenges and water rights takings litigation.

The second edition begins with entirely new coverage of the human right to water, including a 2017 federal case – Boler v. Earley/Mays. v. Snyder – regarding constitutional rights in the wake of the Flint, Michigan water crisis. (And great timing, as the Supreme Court denied review of the case just this week as our book came out in print.) Other major changes and developments include new cases on water use permitting, “takings” of private water rights, tribal rights to groundwater, interstate water disputes, and U.S.-Mexico water diplomacy. The second edition continues the logical organization that presents the field in appropriate depth for a semester course, with clear explanations and helpful questions and comments.

MWL2d_Mays_v_Snyder

Below is a summary of contents (for more details, see the full Table of Contents and Cases):

1. Introduction
PART I: PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS TO USE WATER
2. Riparian Law
3. History and Principles of Prior Appropriation
4. Groundwater
5. Modern Application of Water Law
PART II: PUBLIC RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN WATER
6. Control and Ownership of Navigable Waters
7. Public Rights in Water: The Public Trust Doctrine
8. Federal Water Interests
9. Interstate Water Pollution, Apportionment and Management
10. The Water-Energy Nexus
PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES
11. The Intersection of Water Quality and Water Quantity
12. The Federal Endangered Species Act, Water Management, and Water Rights
13. Protecting and Restoring Watersheds and Water Systems
14. Public Interests, Private Rights in Water, and Constitutional Takings Claims

 

 

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/HBalYLfDtbg/new-second-edition-of-modern-water-law-comprehensive-text-now-includes-human-right-to-water.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Uncategorized

During this string of intense storms, more than 100 USGS scientists and technicians were mobilized across the affected regions to keep the USGS’s streamgage network operational, perform on-site measurements of flooded rivers, install storm-tide and wave sensors prior to the nor’easter, and measure high-water marks as flood waters receded.

A second nor’easter was affecting areas from Virginia to Maine on March 7, and was expected to bring heavy snow to some areas already impacted by the nor’easter that hit the area March 2-3.

In the coming days and weeks, USGS specialists will continue to monitor streamgages, make on-site measurements of river discharge to determine how much water is flowing, and provide data to aid the response in the Midwest and Mississippi watershed. The data from the USGS’ nationwide streamgage network provides vital information to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Weather Service, and other state and local agencies, enabling them to make river forecasts, operate flood control structures, and make important emergency management decisions. Besides aiding first responders and other emergency managers during the flooding, USGS streamgage data and flood science is used in the aftermath of floods and coastal storms to make decisions for long-term recovery.

Meanwhile, in the Northeast, coastal communities are just beginning to recover from the first nor’easter. Its intense winds and storm surge caused coastal erosion and tidal flooding in some states, leading to several deaths and leaving almost a million people without power. USGS crews will continue to document coastal flooding in the affected areas by analyzing the data gathered by the storm-tide and wave sensors deployed before the storm, and by flagging and surveying high-water marks, which will indicate to scientists how high the flood waters reached.

As some states struck by the severe weather begin to return to normal, others are dealing with continued flooding and the dangers that come with it. Here’s a look at some ongoing field work the USGS has been involved with over the past few weeks.  

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee

David Crum, USGS hydrologic technician, prepares for a discharge measurement on the Mississippi River near Memphis, Tennessee February 27, 2018.  Photo by Jerry Garrett, USGS. (Public domain.)

From the upper Midwest to southern Mississippi, as much as 15 inches of rain fell during the past two weeks, causing major flooding in parts of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, and Tennessee. In some parts of Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana, as much as 10 inches of rain fell in a five-day period — equal to two months of rain in just a few days. Though recent drought meant that flooding wasn’t as extreme as it could have been, streams exceeded moderate to major flood levels in portions of these four states.

During the flooding, the states recorded numerous peaks of record, or measurements that were the highest ever recorded at those specific streamgages. Visit the Lower Mississippi Gulf Water Science Center website for current conditions of rivers and streams in the Lower Mississippi Gulf region.

Indiana

Beginning February 19, parts of Indiana saw up to seven inches of rain across northern portions of the state. This rain, which fell onto snow-covered frozen ground, increased runoff and caused flooding.

Communities along the Ohio River in the southern portion of the state, such as Evansville and New Albany, were affected. So were parts of South Bend, Elkhart, Goshen, and some smaller towns on the St. Joseph, Kankakee, Iroquois, and Tippecanoe rivers.

Twelve people from the Indianapolis office responded. During the flooding, Indiana saw six peaks of record. Visit the USGS website for current conditions of Indiana’s rivers and streams.

Michigan

On February 22, 2018, USGS hydrologic technician Thomas Morgan took a period of record discharge measurement on the St. Joseph River at Niles, MI. The measurement — of 23,200 cubic feet per second — is the highest ever made at this site, which has been in operation since 1931. Photo by Nathan Prokopec, USGS. (Public domain.)

In Michigan, heavy rain, melting snowpack, and frozen ground combined to create textbook conditions for flooding. Hundreds of homes and businesses in flood-prone areas of the Grand, Kalamazoo, and St. Joseph river watersheds were affected. Though high water has largely subsided, some waterways are still overflowing their banks.

More than 20 crews were deployed in Michigan to take streamflow and water-level measurements and the state recorded seven peaks of record. For up-to-date information on rivers and streams in Michigan, visit the USGS website.

Kentucky

USGS measures discharge at the Ohio River at Olmsted Lock and Dam. USGS photo. (Public domain.)

Heavy rainfall in late February across the upper portion of the watershed caused moderate to major flooding along the middle and lower Ohio River. At the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, researchers used a boat to make special discharge measurements at various locations downstream of Barkley and Kentucky lakes. The Corps had not released a volume of water this large from those reservoirs since 2010, and wanted to verify the amount to be released. Along the Ohio River, USGS crews collected the highest discharge measurements ever taken at three different gauges. Special water quality samples were also collected for the National Water Quality Program on the lower Ohio River at two locations. Thirteen people from the USGS offices in Murray and Louisville responded over the course of 10 days.

Ohio

As with other states, flooding in Ohio was caused by rain and snowpack thaw. While the state was spared more severe rainfall, the combination of an inch or two of rain daily on top of already saturated ground made for flooding.

The flooding in Ohio has now subsided but during the event, more than 10 crews in Ohio measured high flows in Ohio. Visit the USGS website for current conditions of rivers and streams in the state of Ohio.

The Northeastern states

On Friday, March 2, a powerful nor’easter struck the Mid-Atlantic and New England states for the second time this winter, similar to a storm that caused record-breaking flooding in parts of the region in January. With strong winds and high waves, a major nor’easter can lead to flooding equivalent to or greater than a hurricane’s effect.  

Sal Amador, a USGS hydrologic technician, flags a high-water mark on a utility pole in Boston, Massachusetts. Photo by Christopher Bruet, USGS. (Public domain.)

USGS field crews deployed over 50 storm-tide and wave sensors from Maine to Delaware the day before the March 2 storm made landfall. The sensors are part of a relatively new USGS mobile network of instruments, designed for rapid deployment in the path of an oncoming storm, called the Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network, or SWaTH Network. They continuously measure wave height and tide levels and provide information on the timing, duration, and extent of storm-tide flooding. Data are collected four times per second, providing a detailed picture of the storm.

Scientists went back to recover the sensors on March 5 and 6, as soon as it was safe to do so after the storm. All data from the sensors will be available via the USGS Flood Event Viewer later this week, and over the coming weeks USGS scientists will closely analyze the information.  

USGS research teams also spread out along the coast from Maine to Connecticut starting on March 4, to document the storm-tide flooding by flagging and surveying high-water marks, which are debris and dirt lines that reveal how high the flood waters reached. The teams’ first priority was to visit locations where high-water marks were found after a record-breaking blizzard that struck the region in 1978, and high-water mark locations from the January 2018 nor’easter, so the effects of those three significant storms can be carefully compared. Time was of the essence, since the winter storm of March 7 could wipe away the high-water marks.

The information gathered from the sensors and high-water marks will help officials understand coastal storms, prepare for their impacts, and ultimately build more resilient communities. Real-world data on a variety of storms and tracks allow for more precise and informed forecasts for future scenarios.

In southeast New York, USGS’ network of permanent real-time tide gauges recorded high water levels that persisted through six full cycles of high and low tides before gradually receding, with minor to moderate flooding recorded at 16 different gauges. Water levels reached major flood heights at one location, the Hudson Bay at Freeport, New York. That state’s crews were also out in the field collecting high-water marks and retrieving storm-tide and wave sensors soon after the high waters receded, and information about the New York coastal flooding is also available on the  USGS Flood Event Viewer.

Looking Toward the Future

Though flooding in the affected states has largely subsided, the USGS will continue to monitor stream conditions and use data collected to prepare for future disasters. For up-to-date info on conditions in your area visit the USGS WaterWatch website. Sign up for high-water alerts at the USGS WaterAlert website.

The USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal provides forecasts on the potential for beach erosion, overwash and inundation during hurricanes and other severe coastal storms.

Real-time, six-hour forecasts of storm-induced total water levels and potential coastal changes can be found through the USGS Total Water Level Viewer.

The USGS also operates a network of permanent tide gauges that provide real-time information through the National Water Information System. These gauges supplement NOAA's long-term network of gauges.

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-flood-experts-respond-high-water-central-northeastern-us

USGS.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

Crews from the U.S. Geological Survey have been in the field for weeks measuring flooding in the Midwest and in the Mississippi River watershed, and more recently flooding and storm tides on the Northern Atlantic coast, as higher temperatures, heavy rain, snowmelt and nor’easters affected numerous states. 

Original Article

Upper Midwest Water Science Center

Upper Midwest Water Science Center

http://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/usgs-flood-experts-respond-high-water-central-northeastern-us

hdewar@usgs.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

U.S. Geological Survey scientists will conduct a high-resolution airborne survey to study the geology under a region of the central Upper Peninsula, Michigan, until as late as July, 2018. The data will help USGS researchers improve their understanding of geology, including buried rock types and faults, in the region.

As part of this research, a low-flying airplane under contract to the USGS through EON Geosciences will be used. The aircraft will be operated by experienced pilots who are specially trained and approved for low-level flying. All flights are coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure accordance with United States law.

“This study will help the USGS and partnered scientists understand the region’s fundamental geology and tectonic history in much greater detail than is currently known,” said USGS scientist Benjamin Drenth, a Denver-based researcher leading the survey.

The airplane will carry instruments to measure variations in the earth's magnetic field. Because different rock types vary in content of magnetic minerals, the resulting maps allow visualization of the geologic structure below the surface. The instruments carried on the aircraft only make passive measurements, and thus pose no health risk to humans or animals.

This survey will be flown in a grid pattern. North-south lines will be flown approximately 500 feet apart at elevations from 250-1000 feet above the ground, and one mile apart in an east-west direction. All survey flights will occur during daylight hours.

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/media-advisory-low-flying-airplane-study-geology-central-upper-peninsula-michigan

USGS.gov

On:
In: Environmental Justice, Environmental Rights

Professor John Knox, a leading expert on international environmental and human rights law, is scheduled to present his final reports as Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment to the United Nations Human Rights Council this week. In July 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Professor Knox to a three-year mandate as its first Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and in March 2015, his mandate was extended for three years and his title changed to Special Rapporteur. He also serves as the Henry C. Lauerman Professor of International Law at Wake Forest University School of Law.

The main report presents 16 Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, which summarize the obligations of States under international human rights law relating to the environment, as they have been applied and clarified by human rights bodies. The obligations are based on a wide range of human rights, including rights to life and health. The role of human rights in international environmental law has expanded enormously over the last two decades (e.g., references to human rights in the Paris Agreement). And as Professor Knox notes, there is even more action in domestic law. More than 100 countries now have a constitutional right to a healthy environment (the United States is of course still a notable exception). Building on these developments, the report encourages the Human Rights Council to support recognition of the human right to a healthy environment for the first time in a global intergovernmental instrument, such as a resolution of the UN General Assembly.

Professor Knox summarized and briefly discussed the 16 Framework Principles in a series of tweets in his role as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment (twitter @SREnvironment). With his permission, I’ve compiled them for readers below:

The first Framework Principle is overarching: “States should ensure a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment in order to respect, protect and fulfill human rights.” It's a simple fact: we can't enjoy our rights to life, health, etc. without a healthy environment.

The second Principle is the converse of the first: “States should respect, protect and fulfill human rights to ensure a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” The exercise of rights to free expression, association, etc. is vital to environmental protection.

The first two Principles express the fundamental interdependence of human rights and the environment: we need a healthy environment to enjoy our human rights, and the exercise of human rights helps to protect the environment.

The third Framework Principle applies a basic human rights norm to environmental issues: States should prohibit discrimination and ensure equal and effective protection against discrimination in relation to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Discrimination may be direct or indirect. Direct discrimination in the environmental context includes failing to ensure that minorities have the same access as others to information about environmental matters, participation in decision-making, remedies for harm, etc.

Indirect discrimination includes measures such as authorizing hazardous facilities in minority communities. It is also prohibited unless it meets strict requirements of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality.

To address indirect as well as direct discrimination, States must recognize that environmental harm can both result from and reinforce existing patterns of discrimination, and take effective measures against the underlying conditions that cause or perpetuate discrimination.

The fourth Framework Principle on Human Rights and the Environment is that States should provide a safe and enabling environment in which those who work on human rights or environmental issues can operate free from threats, harassment, intimidation and violence.

As the Guardian has recently reminded us, environmental defenders are often harassed, attacked and even murdered - an average of 4 are killed every week. Members of indigenous peoples and traditional communities are especially at risk.

Because a healthy environment is necessary for the enjoyment of human rights, environmental defenders are human rights defenders, whether or not they identify themselves that way. States must do more to protect them and all other human rights defenders.

The fifth Framework Principle on Human Rights and the Environment is simple: States should respect and protect the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly in relation to environmental matters.

States often fail to protect these rights when they are exercised in opposition to the State, but that's when protecting them is most important. States must never respond with force or detention, the misuse of criminal laws, or the threats of such acts.

The sixth Framework Principle is: States should provide for education and public awareness on environmental matters. Environmental education should help students appreciate and enjoy the natural world, and strengthen their capacity to respond to environmental challenges.

Increasing public awareness of environmental matters should continue into adulthood. States should make the public aware of environmental risks that affect them, and build their capacity to understand environmental challenges and policies.

Framework Principle 7: States should provide public access to environmental information by collecting and disseminating information and by providing affordable, effective and timely access to information to any person upon request.

Principle 8, which is closely related to Principle 7, says: States should require the prior assessment of the possible environmental impacts of proposed projects and policies, including their potential effects on the enjoyment of human rights.

The ninth Framework Principle on Human Rights and the Environment is that States should provide for and facilitate public participation in decision-making related to the environment, and take the views of the public into account in the decision-making process.

Ensuring that environmental decisions take into account the views of those who are affected by them increases public support, promotes sustainable development and helps to protect the enjoyment of rights that depend on a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Principle 10: States should provide for access to effective remedies for violations of human rights and domestic laws relating to the environment.

Procedures must be impartial, independent, affordable, transparent and fair, and have the necessary expertise and resources.

Principle 11: States should establish and maintain substantive environmental standards that are non-discriminatory, non-retrogressive and otherwise respect, protect and fulfill human rights.

Limited resources may prevent immediate realization of standards that prevent all environmental interference with human rights. States have discretion to decide how to allocate their resources between environmental and other goals, but the discretion isn’t unlimited.

Substantive environmental standards must comply with obligations of non-discrimination, and there’s a strong presumption against retrogressive measures. The standards must not strike an unjustifiable or unreasonable balance between environmental protection and other goals.

Once environmental standards have been adopted, Framework Principle 12 says that States should ensure the effective enforcement of their environmental standards against public and private actors.

Businesses, too, have responsibilities to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through environmental harm, and to try to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts directly linked to their operations, products or services.

Principle 13: States should cooperate with each other to establish, maintain and enforce effective international legal frameworks in order to prevent, reduce and remedy transboundary and global environmental harm that interferes with the full enjoyment of human rights.

This includes not only negotiating and fulfilling environmental agreements, but also ensuring that other types of agreements, such as those on trade and investment, support, rather than hinder, human rights and a healthy environment.

Framework Principle 14: States should take additional measures to protect the rights of those who are most vulnerable to, or at particular risk from, environmental harm, taking into account their needs, risks and capacities.

Those who may be especially at risk from environmental harm include women, children, persons living in poverty, members of indigenous peoples and traditional communities, older persons, persons with disabilities, ethnic, racial or other minorities and displaced persons.

Persons may be especially vulnerable because they are unusually susceptible to certain types of environmental harm, or because they are prevented from exercising their human rights, or both.

States should protect the most vulnerable from environmental harm, including by carefully assessing the impacts of proposals on them, developing effective environmental education and awareness programmes, and facilitating their informed participation in decision-making.

Framework Principle 15: States should comply with their obligations to indigenous peoples and traditional communities, including by recognizing their rights to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or used.

States should consult with indigenous peoples and traditional communities and obtain their free, prior and informed consent before relocating them or taking other measures that may affect their relationship to their ancestral territories.

Principle 16: States should respect, protect and fulfill human rights in the actions they take to address environmental challenges and pursue sustainable development.

Even when States are taking steps to address environmental challenges or pursue sustainable development, they must still ensure that those actions are taken in accordance with their human rights obligations.

A human rights perspective informs and strengthens environmental policy-making. Ensuring that those most affected can obtain information, freely express their views and participate in decision-making makes policies more legitimate, coherent, robust and sustainable.

Along with these Framework Principles, the UN Human Rights Council will receive a companion report on the environment and rights of the child. It describes how environmental harm interferes with the ability of children to enjoy their rights and discusses the obligations of States to take measures to protect children from such interference.

My take - a terrible shortcoming of U.S. environmental law is the inequity it allows (and sometimes creates) in distributing pollution and environmental harms. Environmental law is about protecting life, human included. American law has the opportunity and need to expand our system of Constitutional protections to include human rights to basic environmental necessities - meaning equity and due process in providing safe drinking water, clean air to breathe, and healthy land and homes for dwelling.

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/ae_Dmh3sUBI/un-special-rapporteur-on-human-rights-and-the-environment-presents-16-framework-principles.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Uncategorized

In 2014-2016, the USGS and partners sampled study wells in northeast, northwest and central Minnesota—areas that commonly have elevated arsenic concentrations in well water—and examined the effects of various water-sampling methods for each of the wells. The researchers found that arsenic levels were most reliable when they were filtered, collected from household plumbing instead of from the drill rig pump or collected several months after well construction and installation.

“Improving the reliability of arsenic tests can help protect the health of people who drink well water in Minnesota by ensuring that residents receive the best possible information about the quality of their water,” said Melinda Erickson, a USGS hydrologist and the lead author of the study.

Chronic exposure to high levels of naturally occurring arsenic through drinking water is a human health hazard that can cause certain cancers, skin abnormalities and other adverse health effects. Minnesota state code requires that all new potable drinking wells be tested for arsenic. However, the code does not specify how to best collect samples for testing, and test results can vary depending on which sampling methods are used.

Particles and fine sediments within well water samples can result in inconsistent arsenic concentration measurements. The new study found that reducing the amount of sediments in water samples used for testing can improve the precision and consistency of arsenic measurements for private wells.

“Establishing guidance for drillers that includes specific sampling protocols for the filtration of water samples and/or collection of samples from household plumbing would improve the reliability of information provided to well owners because those samples have less undesirable sediment,” Erickson said.

Public water supplies are regulated by the U.S. EPA, but maintenance, testing and treatment of private water supplies are the sole responsibility of the homeowner. The maximum arsenic level allowed for public water supplies is 10 micrograms of arsenic per liter. In Minnesota, arsenic concentrations exceed 10 micrograms of arsenic per liter in about 11 percent of newly constructed private wells, and in certain counties, more than 35 percent of tested wells exceed the benchmark. 

The USGS partnered with the Minnesota Department of Health on the new study, which is published in the journal Groundwater. The research was funded by the State of Minnesota Clean Water Fund through the Minnesota Department of Health and the USGS Cooperative Matching Fund. The work was also supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program and an internship provided through the Graduate Research Internship Program.

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/not-all-arsenic-tests-are-created-equal

USGS.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

The reliability of arsenic testing for drinking water in Minnesota depends on how and when well water samples are collected, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey and the Minnesota Department of Health study, which highlights ways to improve the accuracy of arsenic tests for private wells.

Original Article

Upper Midwest Water Science Center

Upper Midwest Water Science Center

http://www.usgs.gov/news/technical-announcement/not-all-arsenic-tests-are-created-equal

mlubeck@usgs.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized
Landsat satellites captured this image of Lake Erie during a harmful algal bloom event. (Credit: USGS/NASA)

As part of the monitoring program, USGS scientists collected samples and used state-of-the-art sensors to gather water-quality data for 30 major Great Lakes tributaries during 2011 through 2013. Using sophisticated scientific models to analyze the data, scientists were able to more accurately estimate the amounts, or loads, of sediment and nutrients entering the Great Lakes from tributaries than by using traditional techniques. The program is highlighted in a new USGS publication.

“The approach we developed as part of the USGS water monitoring program provides an enhanced understanding of short-term variability and long-term changes in the quality of water from tributaries,” said Dale Robertson, a USGS scientist and the lead author of the report. “Understanding inputs from these rivers is important because they can affect the environmental health of the Great Lakes.”

Scientists collected and processed water-quality information from tributaries located in a wide range of land-use settings. Water-quality information included water flow; concentrations of total phosphorus, total nitrogen and suspended sediment; and data from sensors, such as turbidity.

“Taken together, the water-quality and input information from these rivers provide a broader and more accurate picture of how water from tributaries influences the environmental health of the Great Lakes, which are a multi-billion dollar per year resource,” Robertson said.

Due to the new methodology, the annual load estimates resulting from this water-quality monitoring effort may be different from previously released estimates by the USGS and other entities, according to Jon Hortness, the USGS Great Lakes Program Coordinator. 

The USGS Great Lakes tributary monitoring program can help evaluate the overall effects of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative management efforts.

The USGS monitoring program, its new scientific modeling approach and its water-quality estimates for 2011­ through 2013 are published in the Journal of Great Lakes Research.

For more information about USGS water studies in the Great Lakes and Midwest, please visit the USGS Upper Midwest Water Science Center or the USGS Great Lakes Restoration Initiative websites.

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/water-quality-monitoring-program-aids-restoration-great-lakes

USGS.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

A new water-quality monitoring program, established by the U.S. Geological Survey, can provide scientists and managers with the best available data to help evaluate the health of Great Lakes ecosystems and improve water quality for recreation and commercial fishing.

Original Article

Upper Midwest Water Science Center

Upper Midwest Water Science Center

http://www.usgs.gov/news/technical-announcement/water-quality-monitoring-program-aids-restoration-great-lakes

mlubeck@usgs.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

Dearborn Industrial Generation, owned by CMS Energy, has withdrawn its application to install an additional 263 megawatt combustion turbine generator at its natural gas-fired power plant located across from Salina Elementary School at 2400 Miller Road in Dearborn, Michigan. The expansion was estimated to result in significant increases in a number of air pollutants, including 416 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, 913 tons per year of carbon monoxide, and 167 tons per year of volatile organic compounds.

The power plant is located within 700 feet of Salina Elementary, and is nearby a community with a large immigrant population. It is located in close proximity to other major sources of air pollution, including AK Steel and the Ford Rouge Complex. At the public hearing, community residents expressed concerns about the potential health impacts that would result from allowing more air pollution to be emitted close to an elementary school in a neighborhood that already suffers from poor air quality. Many asserted that allowing a facility to increase its air pollution in a predominantly immigrant community would amount to an environmental injustice. 

Early on, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center identified the proposed expansion as a potential environmental justice issue. While the MDEQ initially proposed a 30-day public comment period in October, the Center identified that none of the public notice and comment documents provided by the MDEQ were available in Arabic despite 40% of residents in the community having limited English proficiency. Based on concerns raised by the Center that residents would not be able to effectively participate in the public comment process, the MDEQ extended the public comment period by two months and translated some of its public participation documents into Arabic. “When DEQ considers applications for facilities that will be located in areas where there is a significant minority or low income or non-native English speaking population, it must adhere to basic environmental justice principles,” said Oday Salim, Executive Director and Managing Attorney of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center. He  added “Providing 30 days of public comment with no real local outreach and no translation into Arabic and other relevant languages was inexcusable. Thank goodness the Southend Dearborn community was brave and resilient enough to make their voices heard.”

The Center worked with several residents and organizations to develop lengthy written comments in opposition to the proposed expansion. With the assistance of students from the Wayne State University Law School Transnational Environmental Law Clinic, the Center identified several legal issues regarding the proposed expansion and presented those concerns to the MDEQ. “The Clean Air Act requires that major modifications at major air pollution sources such as this facility install the best available control technology to control emissions and preserve air quality in the area. We identified other similar facilities that used more effective pollution control technology” said Nick Leonard, Staff Attorney of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.

All people, especially children, should be able to breathe freely in the places that they live, work, go to school, and play -- no matter their race, national origin, or income level. Moving forward, DEQ needs to learn from this experience and improve its permitting approach in environmental justice communities.

Original Article

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

https://www.glelc.org/our-blog/2018/1/29/after-public-hearing-consumers-energy-withdraws-application-to-expand-power-plant-across-from-salina-elementary-school

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

On:
In: Uncategorized

Dearborn Industrial Generation, owned by CMS Energy, has withdrawn its application to install an additional 263 megawatt combustion turbine generator at its natural gas-fired power plant located across from Salina Elementary School at 2400 Miller Road in Dearborn, Michigan. The expansion was estimated to result in significant increases in a number of air pollutants, including 416 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, 913 tons per year of carbon monoxide, and 167 tons per year of volatile organic compounds.

The power plant is located within 700 feet of Salina Elementary, and is nearby a community with a large immigrant population. It is located in close proximity to other major sources of air pollution, including AK Steel and the Ford Rouge Complex. At the public hearing, community residents expressed concerns about the potential health impacts that would result from allowing more air pollution to be emitted close to an elementary school in a neighborhood that already suffers from poor air quality. Many asserted that allowing a facility to increase its air pollution in a predominantly immigrant community would amount to an environmental injustice. 

Early on, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center identified the proposed expansion as a potential environmental justice issue. While the MDEQ initially proposed a 30-day public comment period in October, the Center identified that none of the public notice and comment documents provided by the MDEQ were available in Arabic despite 40% of residents in the community having limited English proficiency. Based on concerns raised by the Center that residents would not be able to effectively participate in the public comment process, the MDEQ extended the public comment period by two months and translated some of its public participation documents into Arabic. “When DEQ considers applications for facilities that will be located in areas where there is a significant minority or low income or non-native English speaking population, it must adhere to basic environmental justice principles,” said Oday Salim, Executive Director and Managing Attorney of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center. He  added “Providing 30 days of public comment with no real local outreach and no translation into Arabic and other relevant languages was inexcusable. Thank goodness the Southend Dearborn community was brave and resilient enough to make their voices heard.”

The Center worked with several residents and organizations to develop lengthy written comments in opposition to the proposed expansion. With the assistance of students from the Wayne State University Law School Transnational Environmental Law Clinic, the Center identified several legal issues regarding the proposed expansion and presented those concerns to the MDEQ. “The Clean Air Act requires that major modifications at major air pollution sources such as this facility install the best available control technology to control emissions and preserve air quality in the area. We identified other similar facilities that used more effective pollution control technology” said Nick Leonard, Staff Attorney of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.

All people, especially children, should be able to breathe freely in the places that they live, work, go to school, and play -- no matter their race, national origin, or income level. Moving forward, DEQ needs to learn from this experience and improve its permitting approach in environmental justice communities.

Original Article

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

https://www.glelc.org/our-blog/2018/1/29/after-public-hearing-consumers-energy-withdraws-application-to-expand-power-plant-across-from-salina-elementary-school

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

On:
In: Uncategorized
Meet the Midcontinent Rift, one of the most geologically fascinating regions in the United States and Canada.(Public domain.)

Now, you too can learn some of that history and see a small part of the mineral potential of the United States without leaving your comfortable chair! The USGS has just released a new interactive Story Map describing the Mineral Deposits of the Midcontinent Rift System.

The Midcontinent Rift System, which curves for more than 2000 km across the Upper Midwest, is one of the world’s great continental rifts. Rifting began about 1.1 billion years ago, when the Earth’s crust began to split along the margin of the Superior craton. Rifting ended before the crust completely opened to form a new ocean, and as time passed rift rocks were buried beneath younger rocks. With erosion and glaciation, the ancient rocks of the Midcontinent Rift were exposed in the Lake Superior region, creating much of its spectacular shoreline.

Learn the geologic history behind the mining history in the Great Lakes.(Public domain.)

In the Lake Superior region, rocks of the rift contain a wealth of mineral resources that formed by magmatic and hydrothermal processes during the ~30 million year course of rift development. Rift rocks are host to Michigan’s storied native copper deposits, and contain significant copper and nickel that were deposited during various stages of rift development.

In this Story Map, mineral deposit locations and descriptions, compiled from the USGS Mineral Resource Data System and the Ontario Geological Survey Mineral Deposit Inventory, are categorized by mineral commodity, mineral deposit type, and the relative time frame of mineralization.

The Midcontinent region is the focus of active mineral exploration, including for mineral deposit types previously unrecognized there.  Here, USGS scientists Laurel Woodruff and Suzanne Nicholson visit an anorthosite quarry, Duluth Complex, MN. Photo by K. Schulz, USGS.(Credit: Klaus, Schulz. Public domain.)

This Story Map also describes a new comprehensive digital Geographic Information System for the Midcontinent Rift System recently compiled by the USGS from numerous regional studies conducted over the last several decades.

Characterizing the mineral resources of the Midcontinent Rift System is a priority of the USGS Mineral Resources Program, and we hope you enjoy this Story Map that tells just part of the amazing story of this important geologic feature.

Much of the Great Lakes' mineral wealth can be traced to the Mid-Continent Rift. Here is a generalized geologic map of the Midcontinent Rift System. Modified from Dean Peterson, Duluth Metals.(Public domain.)

Read More:

Multidisciplinary Studies to Image and Characterize the Mineral Resource Potential of the Midcontinent Rift, USA Geophysics of the Midcontinent Rift Region Characterization of the Midcontinent Region Mineral Resources

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/understanding-mineral-resources-midcontinent-rift

apdemas@usgs.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

The first great geologic expeditions of the United States set off in the mid-1800s, equipped with mules, rifles, and early scientific instruments. Their goal: to uncover the great mineral wealth of the United States and learn about its earliest geologic history.

Original Article

Wisconsin

Wisconsin

http://www.usgs.gov/news/science-snippet/understanding-mineral-resources-midcontinent-rift

apdemas@usgs.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

The Center, on behalf of many individuals and organizations, commented to MDEQ about a bad air permit application related to a proposal to expand a power plant in Dearborn in an environmental justice area already full of air pollution.

Please read our comment.

Original Article

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

News - Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

https://www.glelc.org/our-blog/2018/1/19/the-centers-comment-to-mdeq-about-dearborn-industrial-generations-proposed-power-plant-expansion

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

On:
In: Conferences and Events, Detroit, Environmental Justice

Wayne Law is hosting a national conference on environmental justice Friday January 26, 2018. Environmental Justice in Practice features a superb line-up of advocates, attorneys, community leaders, organizers, and policy-makers.

Panels will cover energy and climate justice, water access and affordability, urban air quality, and careers in environmental justice. The conference is co-sponsored by Wayne Law's Transnational Environmental Law Clinic and Environmental Law Society, CURES at Wayne State, the University of Chicago Law School's Abrams Environmental Law Clinic, the American Bar Association's Environmental Justice Committee of the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, and the Environmental Law Institute.

The conference is free (even a free lunch), but you must register online by January 19, 2018. Tremendous thanks to my colleague Professor Nick Schroeck - email him for more details or questions.  

Program

Opening Remarks:

Dr. Agustin V. Arbulu, executive director, Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR)

Keynote Speaker:

Mustafa Santiago Ali, senior vice president of climate, environmental justice & community revitalization, Hip Hop Caucus

Panel 1 will cover Environmental Justice issues related to energy production and distribution and climate change impacts on EJ communities.

Energy and Climate Justice

  • Denise Abdul-Rahman, environmental climate justice chair, NAACP Indiana
  • Jacqui Patterson, director, Environmental and Climate Justice Program, NAACP (invited)
  • Juliana Pino, policy director, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) (invited)
  • Tony Reames, assistant professor, University of Michigan

Panel 2 will feature an in-depth exploration of Environmental Justice issues related to water access in Detroit, Chicago and Flint, including shutoffs and affordability challenges.

Water Access and Affordability

  • Mark P. Fancher, staff attorney, Racial Justice Project, ACLU of Michigan
  • Monica Lewis-Patrick, co-founder, president, and CEO, We The People Of Detroit
  • Cyndi Roper, senior policy advocate, Natural Resources Defense Council

Lunch featuring keynote speaker Charles Lee, senior policy advisor, Office of Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 3 will explore air quality challenges, regulation and enforcement in Environmental Justice communities, state and local perspectives.

Urban Air Quality

Panel 4 will feature professionals in the environmental field focusing on a variety of opportunities for new attorneys, organizers, and other roles.

Careers in Environmental Justice

  • Jeremy Orr, vice-chair, Environmental Justice Committee - Civil Rights & Social Justice Section, American Bar Association (ABA)
  • Marnese Jackson, regional field organizer, NAACP Environmental & Climate Justice Program
  • Maria Thomas, power up program leader, Soulardarity
  • Jalonne White-Newsome, senior program officer, Environment, The Kresge Foundation

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/WTnkHVkFBVc/ej-conf.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Book Reviews, Students

I’m teaching property again this semester and have compiled a new book for my students, Open Source Property: A Free Casebook. As the title describes, the book is available under open source licensing, totally free and public. Students and anyone else can have it at no cost (except for the time and energy downloading a 650-page book) at
http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/files/Open_Source_Property_Casebook_Hall.pdf.

B5A06ACE-CD19-43F3-BD57-666B432F59C9

In 16 chapters, the book covers:

1. Ownership
2. Subject Matter of Property
3. Property in Persons
4. Intangible Property
5. Intellectual Property
6. Allocation
7. Water and Oil
8. Property Torts and Claims
9. Found and Stolen Property
10. Adverse Possession
11. Co-ownership and Marital Property
12. Leasing Real Property
13. Nuisance
14. Zoning
15. Common-Interest Communities
16. Takings

The book builds on Open Source Property, copyright 2015-2017 by Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, Jeremy Sheff, and Rebecca Tushnet. The original materials may be reused under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International license.

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/NKaGNsygHGw/open-source-property-a-free-casebook.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Book Reviews, Students, Water Law Reform

Water_Law_Cover
I have a new book out this year – it’s about water law and aptly named “Water Law.” Water Law: Concepts and Insights (full title) is another collaboration with Robin Kundis Craig, the James I. Farr Presidential Endowed Chair of Law, and Robert Adler, the Jefferson B. and Rita E. Fordham Presidential Dean, both at the University of Utah College of Law. (The cover photo of the Detroit River was taken from Belle Isle State Park last fall.)

“Water Law” is intended for lawyers, students, and anyone interested in understanding what water law is all about and how it shapes freshwater use and protection in the United States. The book provides a general overview of basic water law doctrines and an exploration of how water law – the law and policies governing allocation of freshwater – fit into broader ecological and environmental issues. Presented in 14 chapters, it begins with an overview of water use and protection challenges (including climate change) and a ‘hydrology for lawyers’ crash course. The next several chapters cover private water use rights under state law – riparian reasonable use for lakes and rivers in the east, prior appropriation for water in the west, and a spectrum of groundwater rules across the 50 states. It then explores public rights to water, notably the public trust doctrine and water rights reserved for Native American tribes. Constitutional law melds with water law in chapters about interstate disputes and federal powers, focusing on compacts and treaties governing the Great Lakes and Colorado River. Final chapters put the laws governing water use into a broader context, exploring intersections with energy policy, water quality, endangered species protections, and broader watershed management. “Water Law” concludes by looking at conflicts between private rights to water (constitutionally protected as property) and public and governmental interests in water (commonly decried as “takings”).

The final chapter tees up the fundamental question of water law – is water a private good, a person’s property, to be bought and sold like books or stocks? Or is water something different, a public and common treasure for all, to be stewarded for the greater good as a human right? “Water Law” does not presume a single answer, but gives the reader an organized tour of the field so she can reach her own conclusions.

“Water Law: Concepts and Insights” (331 pages) is published by Foundation Press. Available on Amazon (and consider making Great Lakes Environmental Law Center your AmazonSmile charity), order through your favorite bookseller, check out on Google Books, and preview the table of contents.

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/PJC6Z_aG078/water-law-new-book-explores-private-rights-and-public-interests-in-freshwater.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Uncategorized

The Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system ranks ninth in the nation as a source of groundwater for public supply, providing 631 million gallons per day for this use. The aquifer underlies an area with a population of about 26 million people in parts of seven states and includes the metropolitan areas of Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.

USGS scientists tested for hundreds of water-quality constituents and characteristics in samples of untreated groundwater from 60 public-supply wells throughout the aquifer. Results were compared to human-health benchmarks.

Results show one or more inorganic constituents present at high concentrations, meaning at levels exceeding human-health benchmarks, in groundwater in about 50 percent of the study area. Manmade organic constituents, which include pesticides and volatile organic compounds, were not detected at high concentrations.

Many inorganic constituents, including trace elements and radioactive constituents, occur naturally in groundwater, although concentrations can be affected by human activities. Radioactive constituents were present at high levels in groundwater in about 45 percent of the study area. Most of the radioactivity in groundwater comes from the decay of isotopes of uranium and thorium that are naturally present in minerals found in aquifers. Other inorganic constituents, notably strontium, arsenic and fluoride, were detected at high levels in groundwater in about 12 percent of the study area.

“Nuisance” constituents—those that can affect water’s taste, color or odor—were present at high levels, meaning they exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s non-mandatory benchmarks, in 63 percent of the study area. Total dissolved solids, a measure of the salinity of groundwater, occurred at high levels in groundwater in 40 percent of the study area.

 

Groundwater provides nearly half of the nation’s drinking water. To help protect this vital resource, the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment, or NAWQA, Project of the National Water Quality Program assesses groundwater quality in aquifers that are important sources of drinking water.

Over the last two decades, USGS scientists have assessed water quality in untreated water from 6,600 wells in extensive regional aquifers that supply most of the groundwater pumped for the nation’s drinking water, irrigation and other uses. This comprehensive sampling, along with detailed information on geology, hydrology, geochemistry and chemical and water use, can be used to explain how and why aquifer vulnerability to contamination varies across the nation.

Between 2013 and 2023, NAWQA will continue to assess the quality of the nation’s groundwater by sampling about 2,300 shallow wells and 1,400 deep public-supply wells for a broad range of water-quality constituents. USGS-led national- and regional-scale modeling will provide a three-dimensional perspective of the quality of the nation’s groundwater. In conjunction, the data and modeling can be used to inform management decisions. More information on USGS regional aquifer assessments can be found in a previous USGS Featured Story. 

To learn more, visit these websites:
USGS National Summary Circular, Quality of the Nation's Groundwater Quality, 1991-2010
Regional reports on principal aquifers of the U.S.
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project
USGS Groundwater Information
WaterSMART

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/groundwater-quality-midwest-cambrian-ordovician-aquifer-system

jlavista@usgs.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

A regional assessment of untreated groundwater in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system, which includes parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri and Indiana, is now available from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Original Article

Wisconsin

Wisconsin

http://www.usgs.gov/news/technical-announcement/groundwater-quality-midwest-cambrian-ordovician-aquifer-system

jlavista@usgs.gov

On:
In: Uncategorized

U.S. Geological Survey scientists have shed new light on processes that happen deep underground.

These processes — which cause radium to leach from aquifer rocks into groundwater — are responsible for high concentrations of naturally occurring radium in groundwater from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer. This aquifer provides more than 630 million gallons of water a day for public supply to parts of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

A newly published USGS study helps explain how radium isotopes 224, 226, and 228 make their way into water in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer and where concentrations are highest. Knowing where and how much radium is in groundwater is important because of the health risks associated with drinking water that’s high in radioactive isotopes. Known health risks include bone cancer and leukemia.  

“Millions of people rely on the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer for drinking water,” said Paul Stackelberg, USGS hydrologist and study lead. “By helping to identify the conditions that cause high levels of radium in water from the aquifer, we can help water utilities and resource managers understand where radium levels are likely to be high and thereby prioritize resources for monitoring activities, alternative water resource development, and public education programs.”

Radium can be removed from drinking water through treatment, thereby limiting the health risks it poses. The groundwater tested in this study came from public supply wells, before treatment and distribution. Private wells were not tested during this study, however, more than half a million people get their drinking water from private wells that tap the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer. These homeowners might consider having their water tested for radium.

Previous water-quality testing by federal, state, and local agencies has found that radium isotopes 226 and 228 occur in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer at levels that exceed those in most other U.S. aquifers and that, in some locations, are higher than the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for radium.

The USGS study also measured a third radium isotope, 224, that was not tested for in previous studies. Radium 224 adds radioactivity to groundwater but has no EPA MCL because its risks to human health are lower than isotopes 226 and 228. The levels of isotope 224 were found to be nearly equal to 228 but generally less than 226.

This study, part of the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Project, investigated the conditions that cause higher-than-typical amounts of radium in water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer. By looking at variables like groundwater age, dissolved minerals, and dissolved oxygen levels in 80 samples collected across six states, researchers were able to better understand the conditions that cause radium to leach into groundwater at higher levels. Water that was recharged into the aquifer long ago, that contains greater amounts of dissolved minerals, and that is low in dissolved oxygen is more likely to leach radium from its surrounding rock.

Map: Concentrations of radium in samples of untreated groundwater from the confined parts of the Cambrian-Ordovician groundwater system frequently exceeded the USEPA maximum contaminant level of 5 picocuries per liter in Illinois, Iowa, and eastern Wisconsin, where wells tap deeper, older groundwater. Click map to enlarge.

"Radium mobility and the age of groundwater in public-drinking-water supplies from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system, north-central USA," is available online in the journal Applied Geochemistry.

Original Article

USGS.gov

USGS.gov

https://www.usgs.gov/news/scientists-home-causes-high-radium-levels-key-midwestern-aquifer

mdrane-maury@usgs.gov

On:
In: Detroit, Energy, Environmental Justice

Guest post by Great Lakes Environmental Law Center staff attorney Nick Leonard.

On a summer day in July of 2013, a dangerous dark cloud of dust blew along the Detroit River between Windsor, Canada and Detroit. Video captured by an individual showed several people standing along the riverfront transfixed by the dust cloud as it completely obscured their view of the Ambassador Bridge, a normally omnipresent visual landmark for Detroit and Windsor residents alike. The dust cloud was coming from massive piles of petroleum coke that were being stored on the banks of the Detroit River. For many Detroiters, particularly those in Southwest Detroit, the event was an egregious incident, but not an unfamiliar one. After all, many had been claiming that dust from the same petroleum coke piles that caused the dust cloud, as well as a number of other bulk material facilities, routinely blanketed everything in their neighborhood, right down to the kitchen table. Residents had been raising the alarm and had been asking a lot of good questions about the health risks for their families and what was being done about the problem. They wanted answers and needed solutions. The images and video of the dust cloud blowing across the Detroit River had gotten the attention of other advocates, legislators, and government agencies. The moment to take action had arrived and the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center got involved help residents frame their questions, search for answers, and push for solutions.

One of the first questions residents had was what were these materials that were being stored in huge, open piles in their neighborhood and along the Detroit River? One such material was petroleum coke, or “petcoke,” which is a solid waste byproduct created by the process of transforming dirty tar sands oil into useable gasoline. Petcoke piles began piling up in Southwest Detroit after the Marathon Petroleum oil refinery in the neighborhood had begun accepting large quantities of tar sands oil from Canada via pipelines that travel under the Great Lakes. While petcoke can be used as an industrial fuel, its use causes higher amounts of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions compared to coal. As such, it’s too polluting and inefficient to be of much use in the United States. While competitive markets for petcoke as a cheaper version of coal have existed in the developing world, the Supreme Court of India’s recent order banning the use of petcoke in certain states due to air quality concerns suggests these markets may be drying up. The piles of petcoke in Detroit were part of the chain of pollution and degradation that follows tar sands oil from mining to piping to refining to burning. Every step impacts communities with little local benefit, and the dust pollution was Detroit’s burden to bear for the global oil industry. (For more background and analysis of the environmental justice issues surrounding petcoke, see this prior post and article by Erica Shell.) However, petcoke was not the only material creating dust that was impacting the health of Detroit residents. Facilities throughout Detroit were storing a wide variety of materials in huge, uncovered piles, including metallurgical coke, coal, limestone, steel slag, and asphalt millings. All of these materials were contributing the dust problem that had been identified by residents, and any solution had to address not just petcoke, but these other materials as well.

While residents knew that the dust that blanketed their neighborhoods was a nuisance, what they wanted to know was whether dust from these enormous, open piles was impacting their health. What we found was that numerous studies had concluded that these facilities can create localized hot spots of particulate matter concentrations above the national, health-based ambient air quality standard set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate matter is very small, inhalable particles with a wide variety of chemical compositions that are 10 micrometers or less in diameter. It is commonly referred to as PM10. These particles present a serious public health risk because they are small enough to be inhaled, enter people’s lungs, and get into their bloodstream where it can cause serious health impacts. Studies have shown a significant association between short-term exposure to elevated concentrations of PM10 and respiratory-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and exacerbation of asthma symptoms, particularly amongst children. Another study conducted in Detroit found that increased concentrations of PM10 pollution is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure amongst seniors. Some materials presented greater dust hazards than others. Petcoke storage and handling in particular has been found to cause concentrations of PM10 up to 32 times the ambient air quality standard due to its high silt content. Other materials, such as metallurgical coke and coal, contain trace elements of lead and arsenic that concentrate in dust that is blown into surrounding environments. The potential for facilities that store large quantities of material such as petcoke, metallurgical coke, limestone, and asphalt millings in open piles to create a localized public health problem was clear.

It was also equally clear where these facilities were located and whose neighborhoods they were polluting. In Detroit alone there were over a dozen facilities, and many were located in a concentrated area in Southwest Detroit in a neighborhood that was already overburdened by air pollution. Collectively, about 20,000 residents lived within a half mile of these facilities, and all of them were low-income communities of color. For example, one facility that we identified has approximately 3,000 residents living within a half mile and 99% of those residents are people of color and 70% live below the federal poverty line. Based on our review, it was clear that bulk material facilities were disproportionately impacting the health of people in low-income communities of color, a classic case of environmental injustice.

And what was the law doing about this injustice and the threat to people’s health? Not much. Failing began at the local level, with a facility that stored metallurgical coke along the Detroit River that had not obtained the necessary zoning permits. At the state level, we identified numerous points of concern. The main requirement for bulk material facilities under state law is the development of a fugitive dust plan pursuant to MCL 324.5524. However, upon review it was determined that many these plans do not contain adequate details to provide assurance that facilities are sufficiently controlling dust emissions given that many of these facilities exist in close proximity to residents, schools, and parks. The fugitive dust plans for many Detroit facilities are one-page documents with vague language such as “[m]easures will be taken to minimize trackout of material from unpaved surfaces at the facility onto the paved roadways.” Many different facilities have fugitive dust plans that are nearly identical, suggesting that industry is not taking the practice of drafting their plans very seriously. To make matters worse, record reporting and dust monitoring requirements under MCL 324.5524 are very lax. Facilities are not required to regularly submit records regarding the implementation of the fugitive dust controls described in their plans to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and there is no requirement regular monitoring of emissions. In fact, state law provides that during high speeds, which are known to cause spikes in dust emissions, facilities are exempt from all opacity limits.

Fortunately, Detroit was not the first community to confront this issue. As this issue was bubbling up in Detroit, Chicago’s Department of Public Health was considering the creation of local regulations to control dust emissions from bulk material facilities. Chicago’s regulations became the model of Detroit’s ordinance. Over the course of 4 years, we worked with numerous community leaders and partners to develop a Detroit dust ordinance that was passed by the city council on Halloween 2017 by a 7-2 vote.

At their heart, both Chicago’s regulations and Detroit’s ordinance operate in similar fashions. Both require bulk material facilities to install the necessary dust control measures to prevent the release of fugitive dust. Under both, any facility that stores bulk solid material must submit a more detailed dust plan to a local regulatory agency that describes all control measures, devices, and technologies to be used to control dust emissions. For example, both Chicago and Detroit require facilities that have outdoor bulk solid material piles to describe how they will monitor wind speeds and what dust control strategies to be utilized during high wind conditions in their dust plan.

Additionally, both Chicago and Detroit specify what types of control measures must be used for specific types of materials. One of the most important components of both Chicago’s regulations and Detroit’s ordinance was that petcoke, metallurgical coke, and coal must be handled and stored in a completely enclosed structure. This requirement is significant and was meant to prevent the reoccurrence of the 2013 Detroit petcoke dust cloud and to make sure that metallurgical coke and coal dust are not carrying trace elements of lead and arsenic into neighborhoods. All other bulk solid materials must employ specified dust control measures for specific parts of their facility, including their outdoor storage piles, conveyors and transfer points, facility roadways, vehicle loading and unloading operation, and outgoing trucks.

Another key component of both Chicago’s and Detroit’s regulatory scheme was requiring facilities to continuously monitor their PM10 emissions. Both Chicago and Detroit generally require facilities that store bulk solid materials to purchase, install, and operate continuous PM10 monitors that are capable of delivering PM10 concentration data in real-time to the facility. This requirement enables facilities to take more aggressive action to control short term spikes in dust emissions when their PM10 monitors detect concentrations above a reportable action level. Chicago’s regulations do not set a uniform reportable action level for each facility, but instead requires that a reportable action level be established by each facility’s fugitive dust plan. Detroit’s ordinance establishes 150 micrograms per cubic meter as the reportable action level. Another key difference is that while Chicago required PM10 monitors to be Federal Equivalent Method monitors, Detroit does allow for facilities to utilize non-Federal Equivalent Method monitors that are deemed acceptable by local regulators.

Chicago and Detroit both regulate outdoor bulk material pile height storage and siting. Chicago limits outdoor pile height to 30 feet while Detroit limits outdoor pile height to 50 feet. Additionally, Detroit requires outdoor storage piles to be screened from the view from adjacent roadways and from adjacent properties. Chicago requires outdoor piles to be set back at least 50 feet from any waterway while Detroit requires outdoor piles to be set back at least 25 feet from any waterway.

Beyond the differences described above, Chicago’s regulations and Detroit’s ordinance does have one additional significant difference. In both Chicago and Detroit, the definition of “bulk solid material” is a threshold definition. It determines what types of materials will be subject to the requirements in Chicago’s regulations and Detroit’s ordinance. Chicago’s regulations expressly excludes construction and demolition materials such as crushed stone, sand, gravel, and hot mix asphalt plants and ready mixed concrete plants. Detroit’s ordinance contains a more expansive definition of bulk solid material, as it expressly includes construction materials as well materials such as asphalt millings, ores, iron and steel slag, gravel, sand, and limestone. As such, Detroit’s ordinance applies to more materials than Chicago’s regulations.

However, with Detroit’s more expansive definition of “bulk solid materials” came a compromise. As mentioned above, many bulk solid material facilities are regulated by the state, albeit by more relaxed standards than those posed in Detroit’s ordinance. To satisfy industry complaints that Detroit’s definition of “bulk solid materials” was overly broad, Detroit created a safe harbor for specific types of facilities. Facilities that store or handle construction materials, which is defined to include asphalt millings, ores, iron and steel slag, gravel, sand, and limestone, and that have already submitted a fugitive dust plan to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to state law qualify for the safe harbor in Detroit’s ordinance and only needs to comply with the requirements in section 22-5-6. This section requires a facility to comply with the pile height limits and the waterway setback requirements described above, requires a facility to monitor wind speeds and to describe how it will limit dust emissions during high wind conditions, and requires the submission of additional information to supplement the existing fugitive dust plan requirements under state law. However, facilities that qualify for the safe harbor are not required to install the fugitive dust control measures described in Detroit’s ordinance, do not need to install PM10 monitors, and are not required to regularly submit their records to local regulators. Nonetheless, Detroit’s ordinance does grant local regulators the authority to ensure that qualified bulk solid material facilities are being good neighbors. BSEED has the authority to review all fugitive dust plans for qualified bulk solid material facilities to determine if it satisfies the requirements of section 22-5-6, is sufficient to protect the public health and environment, and is sufficient to prevent the emission of fugitive dust in a manner that would cause an unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. Local regulators are also required to conduct semi-annual inspections of qualified bulk solid material facilities. Lastly, if local regulators determine that a facility is not operating in compliance with its fugitive dust plan, is not in compliance with section 22-5-6, or if a facility is found to cause an unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property, then it is disqualified from the safe harbor and must comply with all of the requirements contained in Detroit’s ordinance.

The takeaway is that while Detroit’s ordinance is broader in its scope, Chicago’s regulations are a bit stricter as to what it requires regulated facilities to do to control dust emissions. One key difference that’s important to note is that while Detroit addressed this issue by the city council enacting an ordinance, Chicago did so through administrative rulemaking. This is significant for a couple of reasons. First, the administrative process in Chicago appears to have been more amenable to technical comments than Detroit’s legislative process. Factors such as pile height and wind speeds have serious impacts on the amount of dust emissions that can be predicted to come from the facility and determining how those factors correspond to dust emissions requires reference to highly technical studies. However, while the Center repeatedly submitted verbal and written comments to city council members and city departments regarding technical studies relied upon in Chicago’s rulemaking process to determine limits for things such as pile height, these comments tended to get lost in the legislative wash. As a legislative action, the development of Detroit’s ordinance was largely driven by council members rather than technical experts. As a result, discussions tended to be focused on broader questions, such as who would be regulated by the ordinance, whether facilities should be required to install PM10 monitors, and what types of materials should be enclosed. Second, the city council sponsor of Detroit’s ordinance was subjected to political attack as a result of the ordinance. Regulated industries made large political contributions to her opponent who ran against her in an election that took place shortly after the ordinance was passed. Although the council woman prevailed, the general election results were much closer than the primary results had been just a few months earlier partially due to the influx in contributions from industry to her opponent.

The passage of Detroit’s dust ordinance after 4 years of consistent effort from numerous people in city government, community leaders, and residents over strong opposition from industry was a treasured and rare win for a community that often struggles to push back against the numerous environmental injustices that it is subjected to. Particularly in Southwest Detroit, existing air quality laws and regulatory systems simply are not adequate to protect the health of our country’s most vulnerable residents. Given this reality, it is easy for residents and advocates fighting for clean air to often feel overwhelmed and disillusioned in their attempts to work within existing systems. Increasingly, residents and advocates are trying to change existing systems by passing new laws that aim directly at the heart of environmental injustice. This ordinance is an example that shows impassioned residents, knowledgeable advocates, and dedicated decision-makers can create effective solutions to address environmental injustices, which will be important to keep in mind for the efforts ahead.

Original Article

Great Lakes Law

Great Lakes Law

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GreatLakesLaw/~3/E0pllIohHpY/detroit-enacts-new-ordinance-to-protect-residents-from-dust-pollution.html

Noah Hall

On:
In: Uncategorized

This paper is a book review of James Laxer’s Staking Claims to a Continent: John A. Macdonald, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and the Making of North America. It will summarize Laxer’s narrative on the course of North American nation-state projects. Laxer defines nation-state projects as ventures where leading elements in a nation, which exist within the framework of a larger state, launch a political campaign for secession and subsequent sovereignty. This paper will first examine the nation-state project in the Confederate States of America under Jefferson Davis. Second, it will examine the nation-state project in the United States of America under Abraham Lincoln. And lastly, it will examine the nation-state project in British North America under John A. Macdonald.

Original Article

The Great Lakes Journal of Undergraduate History

The Great Lakes Journal of Undergraduate History

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/gljuh/vol5/iss1/5

Alexander J. Cramer

On:
In: Uncategorized

This paper contends that Pierre Trudeau’s 1969 “White Paper” on the status of Aboriginals in Canada was not a major turning point in improving the status of Aboriginals in Canada, but succeeded in inspiring activism and interest in the plight of Canada’s First Nations. The policy attempted to redefine the Canadian government’s relationship with its Aboriginal peoples, expressing the centrality of the government in Aboriginal affairs and reinforcing its obliviousness to the needs of Canada’s First Nations. The White Paper proposed to remove “Indian Status” for Aboriginals, and as a result was vehemently rejected. The effects of the proposed revocation of Status Indians persisted through the social activism and awareness that it inspired. This paper traces the development British-Aboriginal relations following the fall of New France. Diplomacy and treaty-making in the prelude to the White Paper will be considered, along with the changing conception of “Indian Status” throughout Canadian history. Thus, this paper argues that although the White Paper was a necessary step in the realization of the dire condition of Aboriginals in Canada, it did not provoke any lasting government policies that recognized absolute Aboriginal rights and liberties.

Original Article

The Great Lakes Journal of Undergraduate History

The Great Lakes Journal of Undergraduate History

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/gljuh/vol5/iss1/4

Elisabetta A. Kerr

On:
In: Uncategorized

Gang violence in El Salvador has resulted in conditions that have perpetuated an environment of terror and culture of violence. This paper aims to understand the emergence of transnational gangs in El Salvador and the US involvement in this process. The article is divided into the following subtitles; 1980s civil war and the repercussions of US involvement, Salvadorans migration to the US and reverse migration (with a focus on Los Angeles and San Salvador), and US exportation of heavy-handed policies to El Salvador’s institutionalized use of political violence. The paper concludes that US involvement in El Salvador created a foundation for a culture of violence and through interlinked factors US influence and actions instigated circumstances for gang proliferated in El Salvador.

Original Article

The Great Lakes Journal of Undergraduate History

The Great Lakes Journal of Undergraduate History

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/gljuh/vol5/iss1/3

Norma Roumie