Latest

NOAA’s tsunami program needs strengthening not budget slashing

Uncertainty is bad for business, bad for research, bad for productivity, and terrible on morale. I am on NOAA’s Tsunami Science and Technology Advisory Panel (it is a volunteer position and I don’t get paid) and I know a number of people fairly high up in the organization. For the last few weeks, I’ve been asking what they know or expect, and the answer is a unanimous “we don’t know.”

The U.S. tsunami program is a very small part of NOAA. It includes the two tsunami warning centers, tsunami research at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, and underpins state tsunami hazards reduction programs through the National Tsunami Hazards Mitigation Program (NTHMP). Full disclosure — grants from the NTHMP have funded much of our North Coast tsunami outreach effort, including the newest edition of Living on Shaky Ground.

In the first round of cuts, the tsunami program lost its administrator, the person who coordinates the different pieces of the program, several support personnel, and a newly hired forecaster at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. Two recently approved positions at the International Tsunami Information Center were frozen.

I am far more concerned about what might be happening next. Two years ago, NOAA finally recognized the need to put our two tsunami warning centers on a common operating system truly capable of backing each other up. At present, the centers in Hawaii and Alaska use different hardware and software and operate under separate administrative parts of NOAA. I am worried that budget cutting could set this project back, continuing the current inefficient system.

I am even more concerned about the maintenance and support of our offshore tsunami detection system. The Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) has been a huge step forward in our ability to assess the potential of a tsunami to cause damage.

Supreme Court Sides With San Francisco Against EPA in Sewage Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday morning sided with San Francisco and its unusual alliance of oil companies and business groups in a case it brought against the federal Environmental Protection Agency over the city’s raw sewage.

Environmentalists have raised concerns that the court’s conservative majority could use the case to roll back clean water protections on a national scale. The city, meanwhile, argued it was only seeking clarity on permit limitations and believed it was being held responsible for more than its share of water pollution.

San Francisco faced the prospect of spending billions to upgrade its infrastructure to get into compliance with the Clean Water Act, a project it said was too expensive.

In its 5–4 opinion, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said that the EPA does not have the authority to require these kinds of sewage system upgrades and that the city is only responsible for what it discharges — not the water quality’s “end result.”

Sean Bothwell, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance, said in a statement that regulators must follow up with specific, enforceable permit terms to ensure water quality standards are met. For decades, he said, water dischargers like San Francisco have had the “freedom to decide how to meet water quality standards, and now the Supreme Court has put an end to that practice.”

“The regulated community should reap what they sowed,” he said. “You cannot beg regulators for flexibility to avoid enforcement and then ask the Supreme Court to strike down vague permit standards. It is time California hold polluters to specific water quality standards.”

Keep Reading

Supreme Court water ruling might have unexpectedly clean result

A new Supreme Court ruling widely criticized by environmentalists actually could lead to cleaner water flowing from the Inland Empire and Orange County into the ocean as soon as this year.

So says the lawyer for a nonprofit environmental group, Orange County Coastkeeper, that favors tougher pollution rules as a way to protect fresh and salt water.

“We’re leveraging (the ruling) as a positive thing,” said Sarah Spinuzzi, an environmental lawyer for Coastkeeper who last year wrote an amicus brief supporting what turned out to be the losing argument in the case in question, San Francisco v. the Environmental Protection Agency.

In the case, the results of which were made public Monday, March 3, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that some of the regulations imposed by the EPA against the city of San Francisco were too broad. Instead, the ruling said, the Clean Water Act of 1972 – a foundational law that sets water pollution rules around the country – requires that fines or punishments imposed on a polluter must be based on a specific link to the pollution being discharged.

Garry Brown, founder of Orange County Coastkeeper and a player in the current permit negotiations, believes some agencies and businesses use vague pollution rules as a way to “run out the clock” when they’re cited for violations. Instead of fixing a specific problem, Brown argued, many will hire a consultant who, in turn, will take years to craft a potential solution, a process that’s often cheaper than paying for the cleanup.

Rules that might prevent that – by setting numerical limits on pollution and schedules for cleaning any discharge – are exactly what is spelled out in the new Supreme Court ruling.

“I don’t agree with everything they said,” said Sarah Spinuzzi, an attorney for Orange County Coastkeeper. “But the Clean Water Act very clearly requires that you trace specific pollution to specific polluters. And, by reiterating that, the Supreme Court ruling is going to make our water cleaner.”

Keep Reading

Introducing SB 601: The Right to Clean Water Act

In 1972, a bipartisan supermajority of Congress enacted the federal Clean Water Act to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The Act set a national goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States by 1985.

For over 50 years, California waters have benefitted from Clean Water Act protections like water quality standards, discharge permits, and community enforcement. While we still have work to do, the Clean Water Act has helped inch our state’s waters closer to meeting fishable, swimmable, and drinkable goals.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court crippled the Clean Water Act in 2023. In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court decreed a much narrower interpretation of the “waters of the United States” or “WOTUS”—the waters protected by the Clean Water Act. In the words of the concurring Supreme Court Justices, the Sackett decision comes with “real-world consequences for the waters of the United States,” “regulatory uncertainty,” and “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control.” The Sackett decision is especially dangerous for western states as it removes protections for non-“relatively permanent” waters. The decision also particularly affects wetlands, which continue to provide vital ecosystem services despite significant historic losses (over 90% in California).

California Coastkeeper Alliance will not stand by and let our waters be stripped of crucial protections.

That is why California Coastkeeper Alliance has teamed up with Defenders of Wildlife and Senator Ben Allen to introduce Senate Bill 601: The Right to Clean Water Act. The bill would restore long-enjoyed federal Clean Water Act protections into state law so the protections will no longer ebb and flow with variable national politics.

We are not going backwards. California has enjoyed clean water protections for 50 years and we have a right to continue to do so. The Right to Clean Water Act preserves California’s values in the face of turbulent federal disruptions, while efficiently moving the state’s clean water programs forward.

In California, we care about our waters, and CCKA will always stand up to protect them.

Stay informed of CCKA’s legislative work and support our efforts to protect California’s waters by subscribing to California Coastkeeper Alliance’s monthly newsletter, becoming a lifetime CCKA member, and following us on social media: @CA_Waterkeepers.

Read Original Article

From roads to rivers: How state agencies are tackling salmon-killing tire pollution

Researchers are uncovering the hidden dangers lurking in car and truck tires, a complex source of pollution that affects both air and water quality. Tires contain a hazardous mix of chemicals, microplastics, and heavy metals, with experts warning that emissions from tire wear pose significant risks to human health and wildlife. Given the enormous number of vehicles on the road and miles traveled daily, tires have become a widespread and pervasive source of pollution.

One particularly concerning pollutant is 6PPD, a chemical added to tires as an antidegradant. Over time, as tires wear down, tiny particles containing 6PPD are released into the environment. When it rains, stormwater carries these particles from roads and paved surfaces into nearby rivers and streams, where they contaminate aquatic ecosystems. Even more troubling, a 2021 study published in Science revealed that 6PPD reacts with ozone in the air to form 6PPD-Quinone (6PPD-Q), a highly toxic byproduct, which was directly linked to the mortality of coho salmon.

Since these findings, California state agencies have begun taking action to address the issue. On December 4, the State Water Resources Control Board, in coordination with the Department of Toxic Substances Control and CalTrans, presented their efforts to tackle 6PPD and 6PPD-Q contamination in the state’s waterways.

Keep Reading