Complete list of press releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – October 16) Environmental Defense praised a new report released today by the National Research Council that concludes it is “imperative” that “USDA conservation programs be widely and aggressively applied to help achieve water quality improvement in the Mississippi River and its tributaries.”

The study states that numerous cities and millions of inhabitants along the river, which runs through or borders 10 states (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Wisconsin), use the Mississippi as a source of drinking water.

The report, “Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities,” sponsored by the McKnight Foundation based in Minneapolis, notes that “agriculture contributes the major portion of nutrients and sediments delivered to the Mississippi River.” As a result, it says “reductions in pollutant loadings, especially nutrients, from the agricultural sector, are crucial to improving Mississippi River water quality.” (See report news release, report brief and full report at http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20071016.html).

“This report shows why Congress must significantly increase funding for USDA conservation programs to improve water quality and to achieve other conservation goals, such as providing clean air, wildlife habitat and combating urban sprawl,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense and a former staff member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

The funding increase is necessary because currently two out of three farmers who apply for assistance through USDA conservation programs are rejected due to insufficient funding. Increasing conservation funding in the 2007 farm bill also would ensure that more states and regions get a fairer share of Farm Bill spending because all farmers can be eligible for conservation funding, regardless of what they grow, how much they grow or where their farm is located. By contrast, crop subsidies primarily benefit growers of five row crops: corn, cotton, rice, soybean and wheat. As a result, over 50 percent of all Farm Bill spending flows to just seven states.

Recent public opinion polls conducted September 18-21 by Zogby International for Environmental Defense in Colorado, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington state found that more than three out of four (76% to 85%) of poll respondents in each state agreed that their U.S. senators should support shifting money from farm subsidies to conservation programs. If that reform effort succeeded, more than six out of 10 (62% to 77%) of the poll respondents in each state said they would have a more favorable opinion of Congress.

The complete poll results are available at www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense, 202-572-3378 or 202-210-5791 (cell)

(Washington – October 16) The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities today issued an analysis confirming that climate change policy can effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time generate ample revenue to avoid hardship for low-income households.

According to CBPP, a well-designed cap and trade system can slow global warming while protecting consumers and workers in industries that might be impacted by climate policy. CBPP estimated that the revenue generated by auctioning just 14% of the emissions allowances under a cap and trade system would be sufficient to shield vulnerable households.

“That means that we can have a strong climate policy and afford to protect the most vulnerable among us,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense. “We appreciate the center’s focus on solutions, and the use of auction revenues to manage disproportionate burdens where they might occur, particularly among those least able to afford it.”

“At the same time, we shouldn’t lose sight of something this analysis does not consider — namely, the enormous impact climate change could have on the poor if we fail to act,” Cochran added.

Ann Hayden – 510-508-2557-c or ahayden@environmentaldefense.org

Laura Harnish – 510-290-5794 or lharnish@environmentaldefense.org

(Sacramento – October 8) A proposed water bond package by state Senate President pro Tem Don Perata (D-East Bay), and Senators Michael Machado (D-Linden), Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) and Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) best addresses the urgent water management and natural resource needs of the state in the most cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. That’s the conclusion of testimony provided by a leading national nonprofit conservation group that has been involved in California water policy reform for the past 35 years during a hearing this afternoon of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water chaired by Sen. Steinberg.

One bill in the bond package, SB XX1, would allocate $610 million of existing bond funding to address urgent needs such as Delta water quality, flood and earthquake protection and ecosystem restoration to improve conditions for threatened species in the Delta. The other bill in the bond package, SB XX2, would authorize a public vote on an additional $6.8 billion to support water supply and environmental restoration programs for the State of California through the Water Supply Reliability Bond Act of 2008.

“Threats such as Delta levee failure, climate change, population growth and species extinction put the future of the state’s water supply system, Delta ecosystem and economy at a critical juncture,” said Ann H. Hayden, a senior water resource analyst for Environmental Defense.

“The Legislature has an historic opportunity to apply sound economic principles to the expenditure of valuable public funds to address some of the state’s most pressing water and natural resource needs,” added Hayden. “The approach outlined in the Perata-Machado-Simitian-Steinberg bond package decreases reliance on the already over-tapped and threatened Delta ecosystem, implements critical early ecosystem restoration actions to improve conditions for endangered species such as the Delta smelt, and allows for investments in near-term priorities such as much-needed flood management and levee maintenance.”

Hayden criticized an alternative bond package by state Senators David Cogdill (R-Modesto) and Dick Ackerman (R-Tustin), SB XX3 and SB XX4.

“SB XX3 and SB XX4 allocate unprecedented amounts of public funding for specific infrastructure projects for which feasibility studies have still not been completed,” concluded Hayden. “This bond package creates a situation where it would be impossible to determine whether funds would be efficiently spent for the public good, or, to an inefficient use of public dollars. Providing additional subsidies for costly, damaging and inefficient surface storage projects, such as those proposed in SB XX3, is misguided and is inappropriate for both the environment and the taxpayers.”

Environmental Defense has more than 84,000 members in California and was a key player in the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, development of the Bay-Delta Accord and passage of Proposition 204. Prop. 204 authorized the state to borrow $995 million through the sale of general obligation bonds to restore and improve the Bay-Delta and for wastewater treatment, water supply and conservation, and local flood control and prevention.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

• More than three out of four (76%) poll respondents disapprove of the overall job that Congress has been doing in 2007.
• More than two out of three (67%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that substantially increases funding for cleaner water; protects wildlife; preserves farmland; and conserves soil.
• Two out of three (66%) poll respondents said that current farm subsidy spending is ‘somewhat’ or ‘way too much.’ Respondents were told that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that farm subsidies will cost a minimum of $40 billion in the next five years under an extension of the current Farm Bill. Similar subsidy spending would occur under the bill passed by the House of Representatives.
• More than seven out of 10 (77%) poll respondents said they prefer reducing farm subsidies over tax increases or spending that increases the budget deficit to obtain more money to help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner;  protect wildlife; and conserve soil.
• Eight out of 10 (80%) of poll respondents agree that their U.S. senators should support a Farm Bill that shifts money from farm subsidies and invests it in programs that help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner; promote a healthier food supply; and produce renewable energy that could reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
• More than eight out of 10 (81%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that prevents people and corporations with million dollar incomes from receiving farm subsidy payments. The House-passed Farm Bill allows farmers and farming corporations with adjusted gross incomes of up to $1 million and farmer couples with adjusted gross incomes of up to $2 million to receive subsidy payments.

• More than three out of four (77%) poll respondents disapprove of the overall job that Congress has been doing in 2007.
• More than two out of three (69%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that substantially increases funding for cleaner water; protects wildlife; preserves farmland; and conserves soil.
• More than two out of three (70%) poll respondents said that current farm subsidy spending is ‘somewhat’ or ‘way too much.’ Respondents were told that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that farm subsidies will cost a minimum of $40 billion in the next five years under an extension of the current Farm Bill. Similar subsidy spending would occur under the bill passed by the House of Representatives.
• More than three out of four (78%) poll respondents said they prefer reducing farm subsidies over tax increases or spending that increases the budget deficit to obtain more money to help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner;  protect wildlife; and conserve soil.
• More than three out of four (77%) of poll respondents agree that their U.S. senators should support a Farm Bill that shifts money from farm subsidies and invests it in programs that help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner; promote a healthier food supply; and produce renewable energy that could reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
• More than eight out of 10 (82%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that prevents people and corporations with million dollar incomes from receiving farm subsidy payments. The House-passed Farm Bill allows farmers and farming corporations with adjusted gross incomes of up to $1 million and farmer couples with adjusted gross incomes of up to $2 million to receive subsidy payments.

• More than seven out of 10 (72%) poll respondents disapprove of the overall job that Congress has been doing in 2007.
• More than seven out of 10 (73%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that substantially increases funding for cleaner water; protects wildlife; preserves farmland; and conserves soil.
• More than two out of three (67%) poll respondents said that current farm subsidy spending is ‘somewhat’ or ‘way too much.’ Respondents were told that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that farm subsidies will cost a minimum of $40 billion in the next five years under an extension of the current Farm Bill. Similar subsidy spending would occur under the bill passed by the House of Representatives.
• Seven out of 10 (70%) poll respondents said they prefer reducing farm subsidies over tax increases or spending that increases the budget deficit to obtain more money to help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner;  protect wildlife; and conserve soil.
• More than three out of four (76%) of poll respondents agree that their U.S. senators should support a Farm Bill that shifts money from farm subsidies and invests it in programs that help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner; promote a healthier food supply; and produce renewable energy that could reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
• More than eight out of 10 (81%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that prevents people and corporations with million dollar incomes from receiving farm subsidy payments. The House-passed Farm Bill allows farmers and farming corporations with adjusted gross incomes of up to $1 million and farmer couples with adjusted gross incomes of up to $2 million to receive subsidy payments.

• Two out of three (66%) poll respondents disapprove of the overall job that Congress has been doing in 2007.
• Almost two out of three (62%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that substantially increases funding for cleaner water; protects wildlife; preserves farmland; and conserves soil.
• About two out of three (64%) poll respondents said that current farm subsidy spending is ‘somewhat’ or ‘way too much.’ Respondents were told that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that farm subsidies will cost a minimum of $40 billion in the next five years under an extension of the current Farm Bill. Similar subsidy spending would occur under the bill passed by the House of Representatives.
• More than seven out of 10 (73%) poll respondents said they prefer reducing farm subsidies over tax increases or spending that increases the budget deficit to obtain more money to help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner;  protect wildlife; and conserve soil.
• Almost eight out of 10 (79%) of poll respondents agree that their U.S. senators should support a Farm Bill that shifts money from farm subsidies and invests it in programs that help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner; promote a healthier food supply; and produce renewable energy that could reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
• Almost eight out of 10 (78%) poll respondents would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that prevents people and corporations with million dollar incomes from receiving farm subsidy payments. The House-passed Farm Bill allows farmers and farming corporations with adjusted gross incomes of up to $1 million and farmer couples with adjusted gross incomes of up to $2 million to receive subsidy payments.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Sean Crowley – 202-572-3331 or scrowley@environmentaldefense.org

Sharyn Stein – 202-572-3396 or sstein@environmentaldefense.org

(Washington, DC – October 2) New public opinion polls in Colorado, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington state found that more than three out of four (76% to 85%) of poll respondents in each state agreed that their U.S. senators should support shifting money from farm subsidies to conservation programs. If that reform effort succeeded, more than six out of 10 (62% to 77%) of the poll respondents in each state said they would have a more favorable opinion of Congress.

Those are two key findings of online interactive polls in those five states conducted September 18-21 by Zogby International for the nonprofit environmental group, Environmental Defense. The timing of the polls is significant because the Senate Agriculture Committee is expected to begin debating the Farm Bill as early as this week and is dominated by farm belt senators whose states benefit disproportionately from existing farm subsidies compared to the rest of Congress.

“These poll results suggest that senators outside the traditional farm belt will be taking a political risk if they support a status quo Farm Bill,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney for Environmental Defense. “As the polls show, senators can improve their standing with the public by supporting reductions in farm subsidies and increased funding programs that reward farmers for helping the environment.”

“Senators who vote to shift tax dollars from subsidies to protect farmland, restore wetlands and help farmers and the environment will be doing what their constituents want,” concluded Timothy Male, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense. “In the five polls, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents overwhelmingly supported Farm Bill reform, lowering crop subsidies and increasing conservation funding.”

Other important findings of the polls include:

• At least two out of three (66% to 76%) poll respondents in each state disapprove of the overall job that Congress has been doing in 2007.
• At least six out of 10 (62% to 77%) poll respondents in each state would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that substantially increases funding for cleaner water; protects wildlife; preserves farmland; and conserves soil.
• About two out of three (64% to 70%) poll respondents in each state said that current farm subsidy spending is ‘somewhat’ or ‘way too much.’ Respondents were told that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that farm subsidies will cost a minimum of $40 billion in the next five years under an extension of the current Farm Bill. Similar subsidy spending would occur under the bill passed by the House of Representatives.
• At least seven out of 10 (70% to 78%) poll respondents in each state said they prefer reducing farm subsidies over tax increases or spending that increases the budget deficit to obtain more money to help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner; protect wildlife; and conserve soil.
• At least three out of four (76% to 85%) of poll respondents in each state agree that their U.S. senators should support a Farm Bill that shifts money from farm subsidies and invests it in programs that help farmers make our rivers, streams, lakes and bays cleaner; promote a healthier food supply; and produce renewable energy that could reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
• About eight out of 10 (78% to 84%) poll respondents in each state would have a more favorable opinion of Congress if it passed a Farm Bill that prevents people and corporations with million dollar incomes from receiving farm subsidy payments. The House-passed Farm Bill allows farmers and farming corporations with adjusted gross incomes of up to $1 million and farmer couples with adjusted gross incomes of up to $2 million to receive subsidy payments.

The complete poll results are available at www.environmentaldefense.org/farms.

The Farm Bill currently provides $4 billion in annual funding for conservation programs through which USDA partners with farmers and ranchers to provide clean water, fresh air, healthy soils and wildlife, and other public environmental benefits. Unfortunately, two out of three farmers are rejected when they apply for these conservation programs because this funding level is insufficient to meet the demand. Increasing conservation funding in the 2007 farm bill also would ensure that more states and regions get a fairer share of Farm Bill spending. Currently, seven states receive more than 50 percent of Farm Bill spending, which is unfair to the rest of America’s farmers.

The sample sizes of the five online interactive polls ranged from 529 to 811 adults. Margins of error ranged from +/-3.5 to +/- 4.3 percentage points. For information about the methodology and reliability of Zogby’s online polls, visit: http://interactive.zogby.com/

Who:            Representation, Co-counsel, Environmental Defense/Sierra Club Erik Bluemel, Staff Attorney, Georgetown University Law Center Institute for Public Representation, Co-counsel, Environmental Defense/Sierra Club

Bob Yuhnke, Co-counsel, Environmental Defense/Sierra Club

Contact:         Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense, (202) 550-6524-c, scrowley@ed.org

Mike Harold, Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, (301) 652-9188 x 22, MHarold@audubonnaturalist.org