Bold Education Fund joined a July 18 letter addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, objecting to the Corps’ proposal to re-issue several nationwide permits, which allow for streamlined environmental review, but the groups argue violate both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. “In many instances, these permits are unlawful and unwise and must be either substantially modified or not re-issued,” the letter states. “Fundamentally, the Corps’ proposal fails to ensure that authorized activities will not cause more than minimal adverse impact individually and cumulatively. In several instances, the Corps allows unlimited or barely limited use of dozens of permits in a way that will affect or destroy stream and wetland resources, and even the Corps predicts that tens of thousands of acres of water resources will be impacted by authorized activities without being mitigated. Additionally, the Corps has provided little, if any, scientific data or analysis to support its claims that most of these NWPs have no more than a minimal adverse effect, individually or cumulatively, on the environment. Although the Corps’ failure to abide by the Clean Water Act’s minimal adverse effect requirement is alone a fatal flaw with many of the proposed NWPs, the proposal is unlawful in several additional respects. For one, NWPs may not be used to cover activities that are not similar in nature, but several proposed permits fail to meet this criterion. Also, in many cases, the Corps does not comply with the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, such as ensuring that impacts to waters of the United States be avoided and minimized before being allowed. Many of these flaws are especially pronounced in the Corps’ proposal to reissue NWP 12 without substantial changes. This permit has enabled significant environmental harm from the construction of oil and gas pipelines and attendant features without adequate project-level review and without meaningful opportunities for public engagement.” The joint letter was submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, Bayou City Waterkeeper, Bold Education Fund, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Food & Water Watch, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, League of Conservation Voters, Mississippi River Collaborative, National Wildlife Federation, Ohio River Foundation, Riverkeeper, Inc., and Sierra Club. (fb)

“A bill that Republican U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson introduced in late June has some carbon dioxide pipeline opponents worried,” KELO reports. “But the worry is misplaced, Johnson’s office said Monday in a statement to KELO… “It does not apply to CO2 pipelines, his office told KELO. But, some CO2 opponents worry that the ties to the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act (PERMIT Act) would help “fast track” CO2 pipelines. Opponents have cited covered projects in the PERMIT Act and/or FAST Act that could include CO2 pipelines. South Dakota Republican Sen. Mark Lapka told KELO his main concern “is this a baby step toward federal pre-emption” that may be applied potential CO2 pipelines… “Social media influencer and CO2 pipeline opponent Amanda Radke posed on her X (formerly Twitter) account that “Congressman Dusty Johnson recently introduced a bill that contradicts all that we hold dear. Contact Dusty today, and urge him to pull HR 4135.” She claimed HR 4135 would be a one-size fits all bill for projects including CO2 pipelines. Johnson posted on his lawmaker Facebook page on mid-afternoon Monday about claims that HR 4135 cuts corners on the permitting of CO2 pipelines… “She’s lying to you of course,” Johnson said on his Facebook post. HR 4135 does not do anything to undermine the authority of state public utilities commissions. His bill encourages states to use a FAST Act public online dashboard for Clean Water Act projects, Johnson told KELO… “The provision in no way fast tracks CO2 projects—or any projects for that matter – and to suggest as such would be completely inaccurate. Instead, the provision helps increase transparency and improve coordination between agencies (state and federal),” Johnson’s office said in the statement. “(Johnson’s) provision in the PERMIT Act encourages states to work with the permitting council if they are required to provide a Clean Water Act permit (under Sections 402 or 404 if a state has those authorities) or a certification under Section 401.” “...But what has CO2 opponents like Lapka concerned is the citation of section 41001 of the FAST Act that states “covered projects.” Covered projects could include CO2 pipelines, he told KELO. Why include the reference to 41001 if HR 4135 applies to Clean Water Act? Lapka told KELO… “Lapka told KELO South Dakota opposition strongly showed it wanted local and state control over CO2 pipelines during the last legislative session. It would be inappropriate if HR 4135 changed that, he told KELO.” (fb)