Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Markey, Grijalva urge pause on deepwater oil terminal approvals

News Feed
Friday, August 9, 2024

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Az.) on Friday called on the Biden administration to pause approvals for deepwater oil export terminals. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD), Markey and Grijalva called for the approval criteria for deepwater terminals to be expanded to factor in criteria like public health, environmental justice and impact on climate change. The criteria currently requires MARAD to determine whether such ports “will be in the national interest and consistent with national security and other national policy goals and objectives, including energy sufficiency and environmental quality.” In its most recent approval, MARAD cleared the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) off the coast of Texas in November 2022, although applications are still pending for three further terminals. Only one further terminal is currently online. If the SPOT facility were to come online, it would have the capacity to move 2 million barrels daily, the largest U.S. expert terminal, for an estimated 232 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in total, according to MARAD. Grijalva and Markey noted that MARAD has never denied an export facility approval and took issue with the determination that allowing such facilities to come online is in keeping with the national interest. They further pointed to an executive order President Biden issued in 2021 that requires federal agencies to suspend operations that do not comport with the administration’s public health and environmental goals. “Broadening MARAD’s interpretation of national interest — which already requires an assessment of the impact on energy sufficiency and environmental quality — to more fully include environmental justice, climate, and public health considerations would be consistent with President Biden’s directive. Such a step would also recognize that the anticipated emissions from these oil export facility projects would counteract the benefits of the historic climate investments in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).” The Hill has reached out to the Transportation Department for comment.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Az.) on Friday called on the Biden administration to pause approvals for deepwater oil export terminals. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD), Markey and Grijalva called for the approval criteria for deepwater terminals to be expanded to factor in criteria like...

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Az.) on Friday called on the Biden administration to pause approvals for deepwater oil export terminals.

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD), Markey and Grijalva called for the approval criteria for deepwater terminals to be expanded to factor in criteria like public health, environmental justice and impact on climate change.

The criteria currently requires MARAD to determine whether such ports “will be in the national interest and consistent with national security and other national policy goals and objectives, including energy sufficiency and environmental quality.”

In its most recent approval, MARAD cleared the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) off the coast of Texas in November 2022, although applications are still pending for three further terminals. Only one further terminal is currently online.

If the SPOT facility were to come online, it would have the capacity to move 2 million barrels daily, the largest U.S. expert terminal, for an estimated 232 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in total, according to MARAD.

Grijalva and Markey noted that MARAD has never denied an export facility approval and took issue with the determination that allowing such facilities to come online is in keeping with the national interest. They further pointed to an executive order President Biden issued in 2021 that requires federal agencies to suspend operations that do not comport with the administration’s public health and environmental goals.

“Broadening MARAD’s interpretation of national interest — which already requires an assessment of the impact on energy sufficiency and environmental quality — to more fully include environmental justice, climate, and public health considerations would be consistent with President Biden’s directive. Such a step would also recognize that the anticipated emissions from these oil export facility projects would counteract the benefits of the historic climate investments in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).”

The Hill has reached out to the Transportation Department for comment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘Lead and Copper’ Shows How Water Poisoning Runs Downhill

A new documentary about the Flint water crisis draws out the complexities of the problem.

“There’s a definite sense of people being expendable in this country,” says University of Florida professor Riché Barnes in director William Hart’s new film, Lead and Copper. “And it usually runs across racial lines. When it gets outside of racial lines, it runs on economic lines.” Barnes’s observation underscores the moral clarity that Hart brings to his investigation of the Flint water crisis, which exposed an entire community to high levels of lead through contaminated drinking water. That clarity helps cut through the morass of finger-pointing and misinformation that various politicians and bureaucrats use to abdicate responsibility. Lead and Copper reminds viewers that these decisions threaten people’s lives. Although just forty miles from Lake Huron, Flint, a post-industrial city whose population has dwindled to a nearly 100-year low, has been getting its water via a pipeline through Detroit since 1967. To lower its water costs, the city contracted the construction of its own pipeline in 2013. The pipeline would not finish construction until 2018, so in 2014, the city started taking from the nearby, heavily polluted Flint River instead of continuing to draw from Detroit. Very soon, mothers such as Janae Young started noticing the strange color of their water and the sores and rashes that appeared on the bodies of their children. The film follows Young through the process of caring for her children, even after their burns subside. She spreads lotion on their bodies, takes them to numerous check-ups, and boils water before using it—at least until yet another functionary informs her that boiling is ineffective against contamination. Young and other residents report the problems to their local government, which is overseen by various state and federal agencies.  The course of action should be simple, right? Instead of using clean, if expensive, water from Detroit, the city started getting cheaper, poisoned water from the Flint River. Surely, then, one of the multiple oversight agencies in place would just order Flint to keep getting its water from Detroit until its own pipeline project is completed. But as Lead and Copper reveals, no one in power pursued a simple solution. Instead, governors, city managers, and regulators alike evaded responsibility and let the citizens suffer. Hart identifies a number of key culprits, including an unelected city manager appointed by Michigan’s plutocrat governor, an intentionally unrepresentative water sampling process by the state’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a lack of diligence from the federal EPA. The city only begins providing bottled water and testing kits to citizens after mother LeeAnne Walters marshals help from Federal EPA manager Miguel Del Toral and Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards to draw attention to the problem. Together, Walters and Del Toral demanded that city officials stop using the polluted water and provide emergency provisions for Flint Residents. Hart employs several on-screen graphics to help clarify the crisis, including a sleek line-art map of the United States and animation illustrating the passage of time. As the camera pans across the map, the narrative turns its attention away from Flint to similarly affected neighborhoods in Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., in which the full scope of the problem is revealed. These visual elements don’t just provide clarification; they also underscore the complicated nature of the problem. One of the film’s most effective moments shows then governor of Michigan Rick Snyder at a Congressional hearing about the crisis in Flint, in which the late Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, questions Snyder about the extent of his knowledge about the crisis in Flint. As the film features Snyder’s testimony, a simultaneous graphic element reveals that someone close to the governor raised concerns much earlier. With every spin of the dial, and with every expansion on the map, viewers see in clear, unmistakable terms what various government officials and politicians have tried to obscure: that the water poisoning started after the city manager, the mayor, or someone in government made a cost-saving decision, and the adverse effects flowed down to the most vulnerable. While Lead and Copper’s complex representation of the crisis often works to underscore the movie’s point that the least powerful suffer the most, the narrative sometimes gets unnecessarily muddy. The film’s talking heads include Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and former Flint Mayor Dayne Walling, two figures with far more influence than the mothers of afflicted children. The film allows both of these leaders to speak for themselves, rarely provides overt fact checks to their explanations, and therefore seems to endorse their claims that they, too, were duped by bureaucrats above them and helpless to change things. Lead and Copper also gets muddled when Edwards begins diagnosing the problems. Like a good professor, he shows the viewers physical evidence of the water poisoning, such as the thick lead pipes used in the houses of most Flint residents. He explains in simple terms that lead from the pipes seeps into the water unless certain chemicals are used, and that Flint neglected to use these chemicals. Edwards’s explanation makes sense, but he’s introducing a problem independent of the decision to get water from the Flint River. The use of lead pipes helps connect the problems of Flint to those of Newark, Washington, D.C., and several other locations listed in the movie’s final title cards. But without distinguishing between water poisoned because of pollution in the Flint River and water poisoned because of lead pipes that have been in place for decades, these revelations introduce issues beyond the city’s water source, unnecessarily complicating Lead and Copper’s central line of argument. In fact, all of the connections between Flint, Newark, and Washington, D.C. feel more like appendices than they do expansions of the film’s central theme. With so many people actively trying to obfuscate the facts, these instances can sometimes create more confusion than clarity. Despite these occasional problems, Lead and Copper is ultimately about the affected community members. The film reminds viewers that we are not helpless against structures that allow the powerful to carelessly poison Black and low-income families. The film might end in a terrifying set of statistics about counties across the country with high levels of lead in their water systems, but we first see footage of Janae Young educating an elementary class about recycling and LeeAnne Walters vowing to continue the fight. There’s much work to be done, but Lead and Copper can bring others along. Given the many held unaccountable and the work yet to be done in Flint, it’s not accurate to say that Lead and Copper has a happy ending. But when we see people working to save lives and deliver justice, viewers cannot help but believe that they can turn the flow of even a poisoned river. Lead and Copper is available to rent on streaming services everywhere starting Tuesday, November 19. Joe George is a pop culture writer whose work has appeared in Polygon, Slate, Den of Geek, and elsewhere. You can follow him on Twitter at @jageorgeii and read more at joewriteswords.com. Read more by Joe George November 21, 2024 2:13 PM

Scientists identify previously unknown compound in drinking water

An international team of scientists have discovered a previously unknown compound that is prevalent in U.S. drinking water, sparking concern about potential public health risks. The mystery compound is called "chloronitramide anion," which forms from the decomposition of inorganic chloramines — disinfectants used to safeguard people from diseases like typhoid and cholera, the researchers found...

An international team of scientists have discovered a previously unknown compound that is prevalent in U.S. drinking water, sparking concern about potential public health risks. The mystery compound is called "chloronitramide anion," which forms from the decomposition of inorganic chloramines — disinfectants used to safeguard people from diseases like typhoid and cholera, the researchers found in a study, published on Thursday in Science. In the United States alone, more than 113 million people, or about a third of the country's population, drink chloraminated water, or water that contains these disinfectants, according to the study authors. While the toxicity of chloronitramide anion is still unknown, the researchers expressed alarm about both its prevalence and its similarities to other problematic substances. "Its presence is expected, quite honestly, in all chlorinated drinking waters to some extent, because of the chemistry," senior author David Wahman, an environmental engineer at the Environmental Protection Agency, said during a press call prior to the article's publication. "It has similarity to other toxic molecules," Wahman added. The authors therefore emphasized an urgent need for further research to evaluate whether the chemical poses a public health risk, stressing that merely identifying the compound was a challenge. "Because this compound's so small, we couldn't really break it apart," co-author Juliana Laszakovits, a postdoctoral researcher at ETH Zurich, said in the press call. "The fragments that formed weren't able to be detected by the mass spectrometer." But by combining classic synthesis methods with advanced analytical techniques, including both high-resolution mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry, the scientists were ultimately able to isolate and identify chloronitramide anion. They measured the compound's concentration content in a range of chloraminated U.S. water systems, detecting levels as high as about 100 micrograms per liter — surpassing most regulatory limits for other disinfection by-products, which hover between 60 and 80 micrograms per liter. The researchers also noticed that the compound was absent from water systems that use disinfectants other than chloramines. Lead author Julian Fairey, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Arkansas, stressed in a statement that even if the new compound is not toxic, there is much knowledge to gain from their study and future related research. “Finding it can help us understand the pathways for how other compounds are formed, including toxins," Fairey added. "If we know how something is formed, we can potentially control it.”

California water agency considers spending $141 million on Delta tunnel project

The Metropolitan Water District's board is set to vote in December on whether to spend $141.6 million for planning of the proposed Delta tunnel project.

The powerful board of Southern California’s largest urban water supplier will soon vote on whether to continue funding a large share of preliminary planning work for the state’s proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.The 38-member board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is set to consider approving $141.6 million for planning and preconstruction costs at its Dec. 10 meeting.Gov. Gavin Newsom and his administration have requested additional financial support from suppliers that would eventually receive water from the project, and the MWD is being asked to cover its share of nearly half the initial costs.The district, which provides drinking water for about 19 million people in Southern California, has spent $160.8 million supporting the project since 2020, and is expected to help foot the bill as requested by the state.Newsom has said building the proposed Delta Conveyance Project is critical for California’s future. The 45-mile tunnel would transport water beneath the Delta, creating a second route to draw water from the Sacramento River into the aqueducts of the State Water Project.The state has estimated the total cost at $20.1 billion, and Newsom has said he hopes to have the project fully permitted to move forward by the time he leaves office in early 2027.Supporters and opponents of the project made their arguments to MWD board members at a meeting Monday. The discussion ranged widely from the vital role of the Delta’s water in California’s economy to potential alternative investments aimed at boosting the state’s supplies.Supporters, including leaders of business and labor groups, said they believe building the tunnel would improve water-supply reliability in the face of climate change, sea-level rise and the risks of an earthquake that could put existing infrastructure out of commission.“On the climate front, warming temperatures have put water storage capacity of the Sierra Nevada mountains in long-term decline,” said Adrian Covert, the Bay Area Council’s senior vice president of public policy.Covert said the project would be a cost-effective way for the state to adapt, and that reliable water will also figure in future efforts to address the state’s chronic housing shortage. “Our great concern is that, without action, water scarcity will emerge as a major constraint on housing production across California,” he said.For now, the MWD board will only be deciding on whether to agree to the state’s funding request for the next three years. The board is not expected to vote on whether to participate in the project until 2027.“We encourage you not to pull out, stay the course and fund the study so that we can learn whether it’s good or not to buy into for the long run,” said Tracy Hernandez, chief executive of the Los Angeles County Business Federation.She said the funding will enable the water district’s leaders to “continue shaping this project.”Hernandez said her organization views the project as an affordable way of ensuring water reliability. Other supporters cited a recent cost-benefit analysis by the state Department of Water Resources, which concluded that building the tunnel would deliver water at lower cost than investments in seawater desalination, wastewater recycling or stormwater capture.Opponents of the project have argued the state’s analysis is flawed and underestimates the costs while overestimating the benefits. They’ve called the tunnel a boondoggle that would harm the Delta and its deteriorating ecosystem, and have argued the project would saddle ratepayers with high costs.“Please, stop throwing good money after bad,” said Pat Hume, a Sacramento County supervisor and chair of a coalition of Delta counties. “If these costs are this high before the project even begins, imagine what will happen to the projected costs to actually deliver the project.”Different versions of the plan have been debated for decades — at first calling for a canal around the Delta, and later twin tunnels beneath the Delta, followed by Newsom’s current proposal for a single tunnel. Environmental groups, Indigenous tribes, fishing organizations and local agencies have filed lawsuits seeking to block the project. They have argued the state should instead invest in other approaches in the Delta, such as strengthening aging levees and restoring natural floodplains to reduce flood risks, while changing water management and improving existing infrastructure to protect the estuary’s health.“I believe there are a lot of alternative projects that could be explored and potentially delivered, in a more timely and more cost effective manner,” Hume said. Focusing instead on strengthening levees in the Delta and restoring tidal marshlands, he said, would ensure that water is “delivered to the doorstep of your existing pumps reliably.”Other critics argued that California’s efforts to address its housing affordability aren’t constrained by water but rather by other issues. They noted that tribes and environmental groups are currently challenging related state water-management decisions in the Delta, and said more legal challenges are likely. Some called for continuing to increase investments in local water supplies in Southern California to reduce reliance on imported water from the Delta and the Colorado River.“When you’re building something that creates environmental harm, environmental damage, that impacts local communities, there’s a cost to that. It impacts tribes, there’s a cost to that,” said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the group Los Angeles Waterkeeper.Pumping to supply farms and cities has contributed to the ecological degradation of the Delta, where fish populations have suffered declines in recent years. State water managers say the tunnel would enable California to capture more water during wet periods. They also say the tunnel would lessen limitations on water deliveries linked to fish protections at the state’s existing pumping facilities. Reznik said Southern California has a great deal of untapped potential to boost supplies locally through investments such as recycling wastewater and capturing stormwater. “There is so much we could be working on together,” he said.The state Department of Water Resources has asked MWD to provide about 47% of the $300 million in planning and preconstruction costs, with 17 other water agencies funding the remainder. The state’s current plans call for starting construction of the tunnel in late 2029. Construction would take about 15 years. Deven Upadhyay, MWD’s interim general manager, called Monday’s discussion a “fantastic dialogue” that allowed board members to hear from those on different sides of the debate.In a separate project, the district is also moving ahead with plans to build the largest wastewater recycling plant in the country. The facility in Carson, called Pure Water Southern California, is projected to cost $8 billion at full build-out and produce 150 million gallons of water daily — enough to supply about half a million homes.The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced this week that the federal government will provide $26.2 million to support the project, adding to $99.2 million in federal funds committed earlier this year. The Metropolitan Water District’s managers say the plant could start operating and delivering water in 2032.The water recycling project will benefit the entire state and the Southwest, said Adán Ortega, Jr., chair of the MWD board.“It will help lower demands on our imported water sources from the Colorado River and on the Northern Sierra,” Ortega said. “And it will help keep the economic engine of Southern California running, regardless of the future drought conditions we may face.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.