By Jon Goldstein

Be Prepared. It’s not just the Boy Scout motto, it’s also the way most smart businesses try to operate. Better to anticipate future compliance issues today and bake them into your forward planning, than to be caught flatfooted tomorrow.

That is a big part of the reason major multinational oil and gas producers like ExxonMobil and Shell have said they are already following methane pollution rules finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year. Despite EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s best efforts to delay implementation of these rules, the courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of their speedy and complete implementation.

Most recently the DC Circuit last week rejected the latest attempt to undermine methane pollution limits for sources in the oil and gas sector and put those standards into full force and effect. It’s a decision that shows the wisdom of ExxonMobil’s and Shell’s strategy to lean in on regulatory compliance (and highlights the danger for other oil and gas producers that seem to be content dragging their feet and exposing their investors to compliance risk).

A second policy shift last week again underlines the benefits of proper prior preparation from the oil and gas industry. Last Wednesday, the Pruitt EPA withdrew its attempt to extend the deadline for compliance with the new, more protective, health based standard for ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. This decision came one day after a coalition of 16 state Attorneys General joined a lawsuit challenging the delay (EDF and partners also challenged the delay). This means that EPA will now again have to meet an Oct. 1 deadline for determining which areas of the country fail to meet healthy air standards.

This ozone decision is terrific news for residents of areas that struggle with smog pollution tied to under-regulated oil and gas development. With this decision, EPA and states should now have the impetus to continue working on a more expedited timeline to reduce oil and gas pollution and restore healthy air.

It’s also a workable development for the forward thinking oil and gas companies since compliance with EPA’s methane rules will also help reduce the emissions that lead to the formation of unhealthy smog. By thinking ahead on methane, these producers have also put themselves in a better position to address smog problems.

There is a real danger for the oil and gas industry in this era of federal regulatory uncertainty. By pushing the pendulum so far toward deregulation, the worst actors in oil and gas may find themselves creating the very regulatory confusion they and their investors loathe. But you don’t have to take our word for it, as Kevin Book Managing Partner with ClearView Energy Partners recently told Pamela King of E&E News, “If the Trump administration veers more toward a 'rip it up' approach to rulemaking, the implication could be that uncertainty limits future investments."

A stable regulatory environment, investment certainty and cleaner air. Addressing methane is the smart move for the oil and gas industry no matter how you look at it.

Drought is the new normal in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River is over-allocated, and potential reductions in Arizona water deliveries have become more and more likely. Just last summer, we watched Lake Mead drop to one of its lowest levels ever. And even with a wet winter this year, Lake Mead’s […]

Drought is the new normal in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River is over-allocated, and potential reductions in Arizona water deliveries have become more and more likely. Just last summer, we watched Lake Mead drop to one of its lowest levels ever. And even with a wet winter this year, Lake Mead’s […]

The post 4 reasons why Arizona water is on the right track first appeared on Growing Returns.

By Kevin Moran

The Lake Mead "bathtub rings,'" as seen from Hoover Dam.

Drought is the new normal in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River is over-allocated, and potential reductions in Arizona water deliveries have become more and more likely.

Just last summer, we watched Lake Mead drop to one of its lowest levels ever. And even with a wet winter this year, Lake Mead’s elevation remains low. The river that provides 40 percent of Arizona’s water supplies needs our help.

A new deal

This summer, several parties came together to sign a “system conservation” agreement to address the situation. The State of Arizona, City of Phoenix, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Walton Family Foundation agreed to compensate the Gila River Indian Community to leave 40,000 acre feet of its 2017 Colorado River water entitlement in Lake Mead.

This is about 1.3 billion gallons of water, which is roughly the amount needed to serve 100,000 people in a year. The conserved water is designated as “system water” to help keep Lake Mead from falling below 1,075 feet – the elevation at which a federal shortage declaration is triggered and water delivery reductions are mandated (as stated in the proposed Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan between Arizona, California, Nevada and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation).

4 reasons why Arizona water is on the right track, via @GrowingReturns:https://edf.org/8Bv
Click To Tweet

A big deal

Gila River Indian Community member irrigates a field from a concrete-lined irrigation ditch (Credit: NRCS)

The agreement benefits all water users in the region. It is a model of collaboration and the bold action needed to protect the health of the Colorado River system for several reasons:

• Water is being left in Lake Mead for the benefit of the river system. If all Lower Basin water users take their full entitlement of Colorado River water, Lake Mead elevation will drop 12 feet per year on average. We need more agreements like this to rebalance supply and demand.
• It marks a new era of collaboration. Local, state, federal, tribal and philanthropic organizations came together to conserve water for the benefit of the Colorado River system. The Walton Family Foundation’s contribution to funding this agreement signals growing interest outside of typical government sources for ensuring a healthy Colorado River for people and nature.
• Tribes are taking the lead on system conservation in Arizona. For generations, the Gila River Indian Community has been a ready and willing participant in addressing Arizona’s water challenges. Just last January, the tribe reached another agreement with Reclamation to conserve an additional 40,000 acre feet of its water, and additional water savings are expected in the remaining months of 2017.
• It bolsters the state’s ability to complete a drought contingency plan, aligning Lower Basin priorities and demonstrating the capacity of Arizona water stakeholders to collaborate for the benefit of the entire system. The plan is needed to prevent Lake Mead from falling to critically low levels and to establish water savings on a basin-wide scale.

A vision for the future

Gila River Indian Community Governor Stephen Roe Lewis speaking at the Arizona State Capitol building in Phoenix, Arizona (Credit: Gage Skidmore)

I was at the inspirational ceremony to mark the signing of the Gila River agreement. The event revealed a shared vision of a secure water future for Arizona and the entire region through collaboration, innovation, and smart public and private investments.

It was also a heartening reminder of the essential leadership role that Arizona’s tribes can play in crafting a secure water future. As Gila River Governor Roe Lewis put it, “Being good stewards of this most sacred resource is a part of who we are as a people and what the Gila River Indian Community has stood for across time.”

When it comes to giving back to the river that sustains us, so that we have the water we need for Arizona’s future, we are truly all in this together.

Related:

What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure >>

Leasing water – a novel idea to combat “buy and dry” in Colorado >>

Inclusion and collaboration: Governor Ducey has a new strategy for water in Arizona >>

Drought is the new normal in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River is over-allocated, and potential reductions in Arizona water deliveries have become more and more likely. Just last summer, we watched Lake Mead drop to one of its lowest levels ever. And even with a wet winter this year, Lake Mead’s […]

Drought is the new normal in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River is over-allocated, and potential reductions in Arizona water deliveries have become more and more likely. Just last summer, we watched Lake Mead drop to one of its lowest levels ever. And even with a wet winter this year, Lake Mead’s […]

Welcome to Delta Dispatches with hosts, Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Brian Ostahowski, President of the Louisiana Archaelological Society joins the program to talk about how the coastal crisis affects archaeology in Louisiana and archaeology in Coastal Louisiana. In the second half the show, Simone and Jacques are joined by Dr. Nathalie Dajko, Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Tulane University to talk about preserving Louisiana’s unique language. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Preserving Louisiana's Heritage appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Welcome to Delta Dispatches with hosts, Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Brian Ostahowski, President of the Louisiana Archaelological Society joins the program to talk about how the coastal crisis affects archaeology in Louisiana and archaeology in Coastal Louisiana. In the second half the show, Simone and Jacques are joined by Dr. Nathalie Dajko, Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Tulane University to talk about preserving Louisiana’s unique language. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Preserving Louisiana's Heritage appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Welcome to Delta Dispatches with hosts, Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Brian Ostahowski, President of the Louisiana Archaelological Society joins the program to talk about how the coastal crisis affects archaeology in Louisiana and archaeology in Coastal Louisiana. In the second half the show, Simone and Jacques are joined by Dr. Nathalie Dajko, Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Tulane University to talk about preserving Louisiana’s unique language. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Preserving Louisiana's Heritage appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

If we allow these standards to be weakened or removed, we're not just further forfeiting our leadership on climate. We are firmly placing America's automotive industry behind the rest of the world.

If we allow these standards to be weakened or removed, we're not just further forfeiting our leadership on climate. We are firmly placing America's automotive industry behind the rest of the world.

Governor Hickenlooper is stepping up to fill the leadership vacuum left behind by President Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Regional.

Governor Hickenlooper is stepping up to fill the leadership vacuum left behind by President Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Regional.

Governor Hickenlooper is stepping up to fill the leadership vacuum left behind by President Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Regional.

By Josette Lewis

This year’s Gulf of Mexico dead zone is the largest ever recorded, affecting 8,776 square miles – similar in size to the state of New Jersey.

Agriculture – from fertilizers and livestock production – is a major source of the nutrients that cause these harmful algal blooms in our lakes and coastal areas. Fertilizers are required to grow food, but we know that making farming practices more efficient and creating natural buffers and filters around farms can reduce runoff.

Farming is already risky business, with unpredictable weather, tough global competition and fluctuating commodity prices.

Implementing conservation practices at scale without hurting growers’ productivity requires understanding the challenges of different sectors and bringing together their expertise and investment. It’s a collaborative effort, and we must recognize that we are all working around a common goal: a more sustainable food system.

This month, Environmental Defense Fund is launching a series of public events – in Bozeman, St. Louis, Des Moines, and Minneapolis – to highlight, advance, and celebrate collaborations among private landowners, food and agriculture companies, policy makers, and the public.

Conservation cannot wait

Our mission at EDF is to conserve the natural resources upon which all life depends. This includes people – from farmers and rural communities to consumers. We are guided by science and are committed to designing market-based solutions. In the sustainable agriculture arena, we work to grow the incentives for generating environmental benefits alongside economic ones.

Farms occupy 40 percent of land in the United States. With a growing global population and changing climate, the demands on those natural resources are only becoming more stressed. We need to engage stakeholders from across the ag supply chain and support innovation across U.S. farmland. We need public and private collaboration.

That’s why we work with organizations such as the National Corn Growers Association and the Soil Health Partnership, Land O’Lakes SUSTAIN, Walmart, the Agricultural Retailers Association, Smithfield Foods, and Field to Market.

Sustainable ag is good for business

Consumer desires to know more about how their ingredients are produced drive changes across the food industry. The demand for transparency drives conservation, but can also make good business sense. Ensuring the sustainability of the natural resources that support production can help a food company avoid supply chain disruptions from events such as floods or droughts.

Investing in conservation can also bring financial returns. Companies like Smithfield see the benefit to their bottom line. Smithfield also created in-house sustainability programs that can be replicated across the animal agriculture sector.

For ag retailers and crop consultants, meeting the rapidly growing demand for conservation services and programming can help them gain a business advantage. Sustainability offers them a way to expand service offerings and strengthen relationships with customers.

Because they are trusted by farmers, retailers hold vast potential for bringing sustainable agriculture practices to scale. Just one retailer can reach thousands of acres and help reduce algal blooms, such as the one in the Gulf of Mexico.

Farm policy can support innovation

Credit: Dwight Nadig

While national politics have become polarized, we see an opportunity to grow the middle ground between rural communities and natural resources preservation.

For more than 15 years, EDF’s collaboration with farmers has demonstrated that innovative practices can increase the resilience of farms, protect farmers’ way of life, and reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint.

Federal policies, including the Farm Bill, need to keep pace with and invest in innovations by farmers and the private sector. Crop insurance is a good example. Farmers can only receive the full benefit of this program if they follow prescribed good farming practices. Yet farmers who use some USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service practices can be penalized under current crop insurance standards.

Policymakers – along with food companies, farmers, agribusinesses, and aquatic life – all benefit from advancing the sustainability of our working lands.

Related:

There’s good reason to end the agriculture versus the environment fight >>>

A coalition of uncommon bedfellows is bringing sustainable agriculture to scale >>>

By Josette Lewis

This year’s Gulf of Mexico dead zone is the largest ever recorded, affecting 8,776 square miles – similar in size to the state of New Jersey.

Agriculture – from fertilizers and livestock production – is a major source of the nutrients that cause these harmful algal blooms in our lakes and coastal areas. Fertilizers are required to grow food, but we know that making farming practices more efficient and creating natural buffers and filters around farms can reduce runoff.

Farming is already risky business, with unpredictable weather, tough global competition and fluctuating commodity prices.

Implementing conservation practices at scale without hurting growers’ productivity requires understanding the challenges of different sectors and bringing together their expertise and investment. It’s a collaborative effort, and we must recognize that we are all working around a common goal: a more sustainable food system.

This month, Environmental Defense Fund is launching a series of public events – in Bozeman, St. Louis, Des Moines, and Minneapolis – to highlight, advance, and celebrate collaborations among private landowners, food and agriculture companies, policy makers, and the public.

Conservation cannot wait

Our mission at EDF is to conserve the natural resources upon which all life depends. This includes people – from farmers and rural communities to consumers. We are guided by science and are committed to designing market-based solutions. In the sustainable agriculture arena, we work to grow the incentives for generating environmental benefits alongside economic ones.

Farms occupy 40 percent of land in the United States. With a growing global population and changing climate, the demands on those natural resources are only becoming more stressed. We need to engage stakeholders from across the ag supply chain and support innovation across U.S. farmland. We need public and private collaboration.

That’s why we work with organizations such as the National Corn Growers Association and the Soil Health Partnership, Land O’Lakes SUSTAIN, Walmart, the Agricultural Retailers Association, Smithfield Foods, and Field to Market.

Sustainable ag is good for business

Consumer desires to know more about how their ingredients are produced drive changes across the food industry. The demand for transparency drives conservation, but can also make good business. Ensuring the sustainability of the natural resources that support production can help a food company avoid supply chain disruptions from events such as floods or droughts.

Investing in conservation can also bring financial returns. Companies like Smithfield see the benefit to their bottom line. Smithfield also created in-house sustainability programs that can be replicated across the animal agriculture sector.

For ag retailers and crop consultants, meeting the rapidly growing demand for conservation services and programming can help them gain a business advantage. Sustainability offers them a way to expand service offerings and strengthen relationships with customers.

Because they are trusted by farmers, retailers hold vast potential for bringing sustainable agriculture practices to scale. Just one retailer can reach thousands of acres and help reduce algal blooms, such as the one in the Gulf of Mexico.

Farm policy can support innovation

Credit: Dwight Nadig

While national politics have become polarized, we see an opportunity to grow the middle ground between rural communities and natural resources preservation.

For more than 15 years, EDF’s collaboration with farmers has demonstrated that innovative practices can increase the resilience of farms, protect farmers’ way of live, and reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint.

Federal policies, including the Farm Bill, need to keep pace with and invest in innovations by farmers and the private sector. Crop insurance is a good example. Farmers can only receive the full benefit of this program if they follow prescribed good farming practices. Yet farmers who use some USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service practices can be penalized under current crop insurance standards.

Policymakers – along with food companies, farmers, agribusinesses, and aquatic life – all benefit from advancing the sustainability of our working lands.

Related:

There’s good reason to end the agriculture versus the environment fight >>>

A coalition of uncommon bedfellows is bringing sustainable agriculture to scale >>>

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[My colleagues Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Lindsay McCormick, Ryan O’Connell, and Dr. Maricel Maffini assisted in the research described in this post.]

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

When the Trump Administration announced its intention to nominate Michael Dourson to head the office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA issued a news release titled “Widespread Praise for Dr. Michael Dourson.”  The release cited four toxicologists:  Samuel M. Cohen, Jay I. Goodman, Gio Batta Gori and Kendall B. Wallace.

Far from representing a “widespread” set of endorsers, it turns out these four and Dourson constitute an exceedingly close-knit group.  

My last post focused on Dourson’s incredibly high rate of publishing his papers in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that is known for its close ties to the tobacco and chemical industries.  It so happens that this journal is also a key thread connecting Dourson to at least three of his endorsers:

• Dourson and Cohen both serve on the journal’s editorial board;
• Goodman is an associate editor of the journal; and
• Gori is its editor-in-chief.

What else can be said about these toxicologists who are endorsing Dourson?

Dr. Gori has a decades-long history of paid work for the tobacco industry.  For details, see these sources:

• SourceWatch
• Landman and Glantz (2009), “Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research,” American Journal of Public Health, January, Volume 99(1): 45–58.
• David Michaels (2008), Doubt is Their Product: How the Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, Oxford University Press, pp. 53-54.

Drs. Cohen, Goodman and Wallace, like Dourson, have for many years been paid consultants to a large range of companies and trade associations.  For example:

• Based on a PubMed search, Cohen has co-authored papers published over just the past six years that were funded by the Arsenic Science Task Force and the Organic Arsenic Products Task Force, the American Chemistry Council, Sumitomo Chemical Company, a Permethrin Data Group operating under the auspices of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the International Organization of Flavor Industries, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
• Goodman has received grant money over many years from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, and has also done paid work for the American Chemistry Council and Pharmacia. A PubMed search found recent papers he co-authored funded by Syngenta Crop Protection, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, The Dow Chemical Company, and the American Chemistry Council.
• Wallace has done extensive work on diacetyl (the artificial popcorn butter flavoring linked to severe lung damage in workers) paid for by ConAgra. This included a paper, “Safe exposure level for diacetyl” (later retracted).  Based on a PubMed search, he has done work on perfluorinated substances over a number of years for 3M Company.

All four of the toxicologists endorsing Dourson have also worked together.  They are co-authors on two highly controversial 2016 papers that attack the role of science linking chemical exposures and human health effects in risk assessment and regulation, and the identification and regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.  See here and here.  The latter paper is published in … you guessed it, the industry’s go-to journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Like I said, it’s a very close-knit group of heavily conflicted scientists that are providing that “widespread praise” for Dourson’s nomination.

As I noted earlier about Dourson, these industry consultants have every right to make their living however they choose.  And the tobacco and chemical industries have every right to hire whomever they want.  But Dourson’s nomination is for a position that is supposed to serve the public’s interest, not those of the chemical industry.  It simply must be asked:  Who really stands to benefit if he’s confirmed?  The endorsements of Dourson by this group of wholly like-minded individuals who have the same deep conflicts as Dourson himself shouldn’t count for much.