Citizens' Daily Lobby

It’s Christmas Eve, and I know everyone is thinking about family and gifts and the good stuff in life.  And rightly so.    This Holiday season, I hope you will also take a few moments to speak out for public and environmental health here in the Natural State.

Southwestern Electric Power Company has asked for a permit to put a coal ash landfill at the already hotly contested Turk plant site.   The state already has two such dumps, at Flint Creek and Independence Stream.  Currently, the EPA does not regulate water pollution caused by toxic coal ash, although the agency is reviewing its position.  This means that if a permit is approved, SWEPCO will dump an unregulated pollutant next to sensitive wetlands.  Coal ash leaches toxins such as arsenic and lead into nearby water sources.  Recently, a joint report by several organizations, including the Sierra Club, documented contamination of water near both existing Arkansas ash dumps (In Harm’s Way).  The proposed dump would have a lifespan of 34.3 years, and would involve over 6 million tons of coal ash deposited within 300 feet of valuable wetlands.  There’s a high probability of storm overflow in this sensitive location.

The Sierra Club has made it easy to comment.  Please edit and personalize the letter provided (It’s very important to personalize!) and send it on its way to Teresa Marks and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.  The deadline for comments is Dec. 27th, so please act today!

The EPA is currently taking public comments on the classification of wastes.   Currently, coal ash is not regulated as a special waste, and, as a result, coal plants have been able to put it in unlined ponds and directly into landfills.  This has resulted in leakage into waterways.   Most recently, 5.4  million cubic yards of coal ash flooded part of Tennessee, releasing lead and thallium into nearby rivers (NYT).

The National Wildlife Federation has provided the following sample comment.  As always, it is very important that you edit this comment and put it in your own words.

Coal combustion waste, or coal ash, is a highly dangerous toxic material that should be regulated as a “special waste” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In your June 21 proposed federal regulation on coal ash, you offered two options for regulating this waste: 1) designating it as a “special waste” and setting strong, federally enforceable safeguards that protect public health and the environment, or 2) maintaining the status quo and regulating coal ash under the much weaker standard of “non-hazardous waste.”

I strongly support regulating coal ash as a “special waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

For decades, coal-fired power plants have dumped their coal ash into unlined ponds and landfills, resulting in dozens of polluted drinking water supplies and spills into our rivers and streams. Coal ash pollution by the toxin selenium has wiped out entire fish populations and caused long-term ecosystem damage.  Communities across the country are routinely put at an elevated risk of cancer, organ damage and neurological developments due to coal ash contamination. It is time this policy ends and the EPA institutes strong, federally enforceable safeguards that protect our waters and our wildlife from coal ash contamination.

Do the right thing for the people and wildlife living near coal ash surface impoundments and landfills. Set strong, federally enforceable safeguards for coal ash disposal.

The comment period ends this Thursday, November 18.  Comment via NWF or directly through Regulations.gov.  Docket number is EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.

This post is in support of Blog Action Day, a cooperative effort by bloggers around the world to bring public attention to a single, important topic.  This year, the topic is water.  It’s a timely choice.      Worldwide, water supplies are not just threatened by pollution, drought, and overuse.   Increasingly, water that has for millennia been in the public domain  is threatened by privatization.  This month, privatization of water was featured on a cover of Newsweek (The New Oil). It’s hard not to think about water in Arkansas this year, as the state continues to experience drought conditions after a hot, dry summer.     According to the US Weather Service, drought conditions are expected to continue throughout the fall in much of the Southern US, including Arkansas.

How is Arkansas doing as steward of its waters?

In 2005, Arkansas was the 4th largest user of groundwater in the US, and irrigation was overwhelmingly the biggest consumer of our water.   Updated  statistics should be released by the US Geological Survey this year.    Some efforts have been made to save dwindling aquifers.  After formation of groundwater conservation boards in counties designated as critical groundwater areas, water level in the Sparta aquifer has been steadily rising since 2005.    The positive change is not a result of substantial improvements in water usage and conservation, however.   The reality is that more of the demand for irrigation water is being moved from groundwater sources to surface waters, such as the Ouachita and White Rivers.

Arkansas is not leading the way in watershed protection, either.  A lawsuit is still pending pitting the State of Oklahoma against several large chicken producers based in Arkansas over the practice of using chicken litter as fertilizer.   The litter contains high levels of a lot of nasty contaminates, and releases large amounts of phosphorus into surface waters.  Arkansas has not responded with tougher legislation on this issue.  “Fracking” in the natural gas industry (using water plus “proprietary” materials to fracture rock and release natural gas) continues to create contamination problems.  Yet Arkansas, unlike other gas-producing states such as Texas and Oklahoma, has not updated water pollution legislation to reflect these changing pollutant sources.   Development in crucial watersheds is not being adequately limited, as evidenced by the recent failure of conservation activists in Pulaski county to achieve a ban on development around Lake Maumelle.

There is still much to be accomplished if Arkansas is to achieve sustainable water usage.   Each of us can contribute by using less water at home.  In 2005, average per-capita daily water consumption in Arkansas was 157 gallons per day.  That’s an absurd figure, and we can do better.

Lee Creek, a designated Extraodinary Resource Waterway in Northwest Arkansas, should run free for at least the next three decades.  That’s good news for the Arkansas Canoe Club and other roupss in the state that stood in opposition to the project.  According to the Pine Mountain Dam project manager, Mark Yardley, Crawford County should not have to take up the issue again for at least three decades, because  Lake Fort Smith is projected to provide enough water for the county for another 50 years.  (Story here) .

The Fort Smith City Wire has a slightly different take on the story, probably more in keeping with political reality.

“Given that current conditions indicate an adequate firm yield for our region for the foreseeable future, coupled with the recent trend of slower growth and less than stellar economic conditions, the board felt that the best course of action was to suspend the study in the absence of data that clearly demonstrates a pressing need,” noted a statement from the [River Valley Regional Water] District.

If the economy were better, the study would likely have gone forward, need or no need, in spite of opposition from the Canoe Club, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Nature Conservancy, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arkansas Heritage Commission, (the City Wire reports this as the Arkansas Heritage Commission, but I think they must mean the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission),  and the Sierra Club.

In co-sponsoring a bill to exempt agricultural pesticides sprayed over water from the Clean Water Act, Senator Blanche Lincoln had this to say:  “Congress never intended for agricultural chemicals to be regulated under the Clean Water Act.” (NYT).  Oh, of course not.  Everybody knows agricultural chemicals are completely safe, and spraying them over water is really no big deal.   On this issue, as on so many, many others, the Senator has sided with her Republican counterparts.  The bill is co-sponsored by Saxby-Chambliss, Rep, Ga.  One begins to wonder  which of the two is really leading the Senate ag committee.

The bipartisan duo argues that regulating pesticides sprayed over water places an undue burden on farmers.    Pesticide residues in drinking water place an undue health burden on the men, women, and children who drink water (everyone, last I looked), but who’s counting?  Maybe if we don’t look for pesticide residues in drinking water, we won’t find them, and the problem will just go away.  Out of sight, out of mind.

Growing food is expensive.  Continuing to ignore the very real human health and environmental problems associated with pesticide use may keep food prices artificially low, but it only delays the inevitable.

From ADEQ:

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality will hold an informational stakeholder meeting regarding the proposed changes to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation 2 – Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas on Tuesday, April 6 at 6:00 PM.  The meeting will be held at ADEQ Headquarters (5301 Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, AR).  A presentation on the proposed changes will be made by the Department and time will be allotted for questions and comments. Please call Steve Drown at 682-0655 or Jamie Ewing at 682-0918 with any questions you may have.  A copy of the draft rulemaking package can be found at:

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/drafts/reg02_draft_docket_10-002-R/reg02_draft_docket_10-002-R.htm

It’s important for those of us with a stake in clean water (and that’s everybody) to make our voices heard.  Proposed changes to the standards, including lower tolerance for several toxins, are under attack by industry, for the predictable reason: cost.  We need to make it clear to our regulatory bodies and to industry that human and environmental health comes before industry profit.

Officials from Bentonville, Fayetteville, Rogers, Springdale, and Siloam Springs went to Washington last week to “seek help with water quality issues,” according to Northwest Arkansas News.    It seems that the new EPA standards are too tough for them.  They didn’t go to Washington to fight for clean water.  They went to Washington to fight for looser regulations.

The specific water quality issue they talked about involved a stricter phosphorus requirement the EPA wants to impose on a new sewer plant on Osage Creek.  The plant, which will be operated by Northwest Arkansas Conservation Authority, might be required to release no more than .1 milligrams of phosphorus per liter of water.This is 10 times less phosphorus than Siloam Springs’ new plant will be required to release.

City officials want to wait for a water quality study before they agree to more stringent regulations on phosphorus.   Citizens concerned about clean drinking water should contact their elected officials (city, state, and federal) to push for tighter controls.

Public hearings are scheduled for the proposed Pine Mountain Dam in Northwest Arkansas.  The Army Corps of Engineers is beginning a study of alternatives to the project, and public comment is solicited.   You may attend a meeting in person or submit written comments.  Details are available at the Ozark Fly Finger Blog.  Because funding has already been appropriated for this project, as I understand it, it is imperative to get comments in to avoid a railroading of environmental issues by those who stand to gain from the project (John Boozman is in favor, of course).

One option is to dam Lee Creek between Devil’s Den State Park and Highway 59. Not only is this area currently designated as Extraordinary Resource Water by ADEQ, but there are also several historical sites in the area.  This designation would ordinarily prevent certain types of development (including a dam), but the rules have conveniently been changed to allow exceptions for the purpose of water supply.  Such an exception would be determined by the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology  Commission (where you see the word “commission” related to the word “arkansas” you may be certain there is a fair amount of corruption involved).  You may view the Project Management Plan for further information.

Please join the Arkansas Canoe Club and the Ozark Society in opposing this project.  The deadline for written comments is Nov. 30, 2009.

This post is part of the Climate Change Awareness Blog Action Day.   Water issues will continue to plague the world, including the US, as climate change leads to areas of drought.  Please tell Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor to support the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S1733).