Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 141

Farmers Agree To Water Cuts To Help California Deal With Drought

[image error]

Farmers in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta have struck a historic deal with the state.

CREDIT: AP

California state water officials announced Friday that they have accepted a historic proposal by farmers in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to voluntarily curtail their water or land use in an attempt to stave off mandatory cuts later in the growing season.

Farmers with the some of the oldest water rights will have the option of voluntarily reducing their water usage by 25 percent, or leaving a quarter of their land unplanted. In exchange, the state has promised not to seek further reductions throughout this year’s growing season. Water rights holders who choose not to participate in voluntary curtailments may still face mandatory cuts later in the growing season if the drought — which is now stretching into its fourth year — doesn’t improve.

“This proposal helps Delta growers manage the risk of potentially deeper curtailment, while ensuring significant water conservation efforts in this fourth year of drought,” State Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus said in a press statement. “It allows participating growers to share in the sacrifice that people throughout the state are facing because of the severe drought, while protecting their economic well-being by giving them some certainty regarding exercise of the State Water Board’s enforcement discretion at the beginning of the planting season.”

The voluntary agreement only applies to riparian rights holders, or those whose property includes access to a river or stream that is then diverted for water use on that property. Riparian rights have never before been subject to restrictions.

Officials had previously warned that mandatory water cuts for the state’s most senior water rights holders were on the way, prompting farmers in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to propose voluntary cuts. The voluntary agreement is just the latest in a series of state-mandated curtailments and restrictions. Last month, some 9,000 junior water rights holders — those whose claims to the water started after 1914 — were told to stop pumping water from rivers and streams in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins.

Because the curtailments are voluntary, it is unclear how many farmers will participate, or if it will be enough to avoid mandatory restrictions for senior water rights holders, who have claims to water dating back before 1914. Farmers in the Delta own less than 10 percent of California’s agricultural land, though several other proposals for voluntary curtailments are currently being considered by the State Water Resources Control Board.

The post Farmers Agree To Water Cuts To Help California Deal With Drought appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Catastrophic Flooding Sweeps Away Homes, Breaks Records

[image error]

Jake Navarro looks out over a flooded Onion Creek on Thursday Oct. 31, 2013 in Austin, Texas. The National Weather Service said more than a foot of rain fell in Central Texas, including up to 14 inches in Wimberley, since rainstorms began Wednesday.

CREDIT: AP Photo/ Tamir Kalifa

Three people have been confirmed dead after record rainfall across the south-central United States led to flash flooding over the weekend across Texas and Oklahoma.

In Claremore, Oklahoma, a firefighter was killed early Sunday after he was swept away during a water rescue.

Another eight people, including three children, are missing after the Wimberley, Texas vacation house they were staying in was swept away during the flash floods. Three people are also missing in San Marcos, Texas.

The Blanco River in Wimberley rose to 41 feet — 28 feet above flood level and seven feet higher than the previously recorded record in 1928 — before the flood gauge washed out. The river reportedly rose 33 feet in just three hours.

“We do have whole streets that have maybe one or two houses left on them, and the rest are just slabs,” said Kharley Smith, emergency management coordinator in Hays County, Texas, CNN reported.

The area is not yet secure. Water-logged ground and high rivers and lakes mean even a couple of inches could spell more flooding for the area. The National Weather Service has issued a Flash Flood Watch from Monday to early Tuesday morning for most of South Central Texas. More thunderstorms, as well as tornados and “baseball-sized” hail, are predicted Monday across portions of central and eastern Texas and southern Oklahoma.

The rain comes at the end of a long period of drought in Texas. Just four years ago, nearly all of the state was in extreme drought. Then-Gov. Rick Perry told Texans to “pray for rain.” He renewed the state of emergency in 2013.

But after record-breaking rainfall this spring, no portion of Texas or Oklahoma was in extreme drought as of Thursday, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

Going from one extreme to another is a hallmark of climate change. Scientists predict more droughts in the coming decades, as well as more intense rainstorms. In the midwest, the number of storms that drop more than three inches of rain have increased by 50 percent, according to an analysis from the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Texas and Oklahoma both face intensifying drought and flooding, although politicians in both states have denied climate change. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Texas “has yet to formally address climate change preparedness” — one of only 12 states to not have taken any steps toward addressing the impacts of climate change on water resources.

“Between more intense rainstorms and sea level rise, flooding will only increase if we don’t address climate change,” according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The post Catastrophic Flooding Sweeps Away Homes, Breaks Records appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Report: Fossil Fuels Receive $5.3 Trillion A Year In Subsidies Worldwide

[image error]

CREDIT: Dylan Petrohilos/ThinkProgress

The world pays $5.3 trillion a year in hidden costs to keep burning fossil fuels, according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is in addition to the $492 billion in direct subsidies offered by governments around the world — write-offs and write-downs and land-use loopholes.

In case these numbers are too big to imagine, $492 billion is enough to buy every taxable property in the city of Boston nearly five times over. Basically, governments buy oil, gas, and coal producers five Bostons every year.

It’s hard to imagine $5.3 trillion a year. It’s about a third of America’s gross domestic product. It’s enough to buy 55 Bostons. And it’s the amount of money it costs us, every year, to make up for the damage caused by fossil fuels.

Usually, subsidies refer to direct financial assistance from a government, but this report calls all public costs subsidies — not just direct assistance, but also the amount spent to deal with the damage of pollution by fossil fuels.

The crazy thing is that the bulk of this money spent to deal fossil fuel damage isn’t even for climate change mitigation, which makes up about 23 percent of the costs, the IMF found. (Arguably, devastating climate change will cost humanity much, much more than $5.3 trillion a year, but how do you put a price on Miami?)

Most of the expenditures calculated by the IMF represent “environmental change.” Specifically, local air pollution makes up 46 percent of the costs. This makes sense, when you consider that air pollution kills 7 million people per year, putting a considerable financial burden on worldwide healthcare systems.

The researchers point out that the local impacts means that correctly pricing energy would make financial sense to individual countries, and “therefore is beneficial even in the absence of globally coordinated action.” Correctly pricing energy means that users would have to pay at the pump or in their electricity bill or what their energy use actually costs.

It’s been shown that higher energy costs do change behaviors. For example, Hawaii, which has the highest electricity prices in the nation, is finding ways to go 100 percent renewable.

The IMF concluded that the best way to correctly price energy is through taxes.

“While there may be more efficient instruments than environmental taxes for addressing some of the externalities [hidden costs], energy taxes remain the most effective and practical tool until such other instruments become widely available and implemented,” the IMF said.

In the lead up to the United Nations’ climate negotiations in Paris this fall, how we curb carbon emissions is a burning question for many policymakers, and a carbon tax — widely seen as the most effective way to change behavior — is getting mixed backing.

A group of business leaders, including many oil and gas interests, have perhaps surprisingly come out in favor of a carbon tax.

“The call for carbon pricing is unanimous,” Gerard Mestrallet, CEO of the French energy company Engie, said at a conference in Paris this week, according to Bloomberg News. “It’s loud and clear. Carbon pricing is the right signal, the right tool.”

The New York Times editorial board also took the opportunity to call on Congress to raise the gas tax following the release of the IMF’s report, saying an increase would help save lives and protect the environment.

The IMF points out that with currently low fuel costs, there is an opportunity to raise taxes without putting economic pressure on consumers. But it’s unlikely that Congress will act on the issue anytime soon. Despite the recent introduction of a bill to create a national renewable portfolio standard, and the upcoming Clean Power Plan which seeks to limit carbon emissions from the electricity sector, there does not seem to be much political appetite to raise taxes on dirty fuels. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry argued this week that private industry has to move first.

One way or another, the need to cut down pollution from energy sources is clear, according to the IMF’s report.

“In summary, environmental damages from energy subsidies are large, and energy subsidy reform through efficient energy pricing is urgently needed,” the report concludes.

The post Report: Fossil Fuels Receive $5.3 Trillion A Year In Subsidies Worldwide appeared first on ThinkProgress.

2015 Is Crushing It For Hottest Year On Record

[image error]

This was by far the hottest four-month start (January to April) of any year on record.

CREDIT: NOAA

Last week NASA reported that this has been the Earth’s hottest January-April on record. This week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that finding with its latest monthly report on global temperatures.

Separately, NOAA released its monthly report on “Global Ocean Heat.” It makes clear that the ocean’s heat content down to 2000 meters (1.24 miles) has been soaring this century — and nearly gone off the charts this year:

[image error]

It’s looking more and more like 2015 will crush previous global temperature records. May has already started out hot and is likely to be a record breaker itself. NOAA recently predicted that there’s “a greater than 80 percent chance” the current El Niño lasts all year. El Niños generally lead to global temperature records, as the short-term El Niño warming adds to the underlying long-term global warming trend.

In NOAA’s dataset, May 2014 – April 2015 tied with April 2014 – March 2015 for hottest 12 months on record.

A 2010 NASA study noted that the 12-month running-mean global temperature tends to lag the temperature in the key Niño 3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific “by 4 months.” El Niño (and La Niña) are typically defined as positive (and negative) sustained sea surface temperature anomalies greater than 0.5°C across the central tropical Pacific Ocean’s Nino3.4 region. More details here.

[image error]

The key Nino 3.4 region.

CREDIT: NOAA

The Niño 3.4 region is already much warmer than it was 4 months ago, when a weak El Niño was forming. It’s widely predicted the current El Niño will intensify. Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts said recently, “It’s likely to be a moderate El Nino or bigger.”

NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) releases a weekly El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) report every Monday here. The ensemble mean prediction of NCEP’s Climate Forecast System (CFS) — and virtually all of the member forecasts — of Nino 3.4 sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is for a steadily intensifying El Niño that gets quite strong by the fall.

[image error]

NOAA’s ensemble mean forecast (black dashed line) predicts a big El Niño, one that lasts into 2016.

If anything like these forecasts come true, then 2015 will be the blow-out hottest year on record. Indeed, if the high-end of recent forecasts comes true, then, as Slate meteorologist Eric Holthaus has explained, “this El Niño could be the strongest in recorded history.” The Australia Bureau of Meteorology said last week, “the average of the model forecasts for NINO3.4 for October 2015 is +2.4 °C,” which would be a super El Niño.

Some climatologists have said we may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures of as much as as 0.5°F. Global warming appears to be getting ready for its mic drop.

The post 2015 Is Crushing It For Hottest Year On Record appeared first on ThinkProgress.

New EPA Rule Reduces Pollution In Communities Located Near Power Plants

[image error]

CREDIT: shutterstock

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a new rule on power plants and other industrial facilities Friday that advocates say will drastically improve the quality of life of people living near industrial zones.

The EPA’s new “Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction” rule targets just what it sounds like: the emissions produced when power plants start up, shut down, or malfunction. Until now, a loophole in EPA regulations meant that power plants could unleash unlimited pollution during these times, meaning that the communities that live near power plants — which, according to the Sierra Club, are often lower-income and communities of color — were subject to emissions that could be 10 times the level typically allowed to be released by power plants.

Now, under the new rule, states will have to abide by the Clean Air Act in crafting limits for emissions from facilities starting up, shutting down and malfunctioning. States will have a maximum of 18 months to revise their regulations to abide by the new rule.

“Exemptions from emission limits during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction exist in a number of state rules,” the EPA’s new rule reads. “Recent court decisions have held that under the [Clean Air Act], such exemptions are not allowed in[state plans].”

The rule is good news for communities located near industrial facilities, said Andrea Issod, staff attorney for the Sierra Club, which filed a petition against the EPA to close the loophole in 2011.

“Pollution during these startup events can far exceed the amount of pollution that comes from these facilities during their operation,” Issod told ThinkProgress.

That’s because facilities often won’t use pollution controls during these events, since the loophole in federal regulations made it legal for them to emit as much as they wanted. The emissions can contain sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates — all pollutants that can be dangerous when breathed in.

This is a significant piece of the puzzle in bringing justice, equitable clean air and water to these communities

Suzie Canales, executive director of Corpus Christi, Texas-based Citizens for Environmental Justice, has been working with communities near power plants in Corpus Christi for 15 years. She said the communities near refinery row, a 10-mile stretch of refineries and power plants in the region, are regularly affected by power plants starting up, shutting down, and malfunctioning.

Not only do these operations expel pollution, Canales told ThinkProgress, they also cause huge booms that shake residents’ houses. She said the sound from the events can be so loud that it’s like being near multiple airplanes that are about to take off.

“You cannot hear the person next to you it gets so loud,” she said.

The events also cause “horrible, noxious odors that permeate [residents’] homes.” Canales said. “They cant escape it because even if they go inside, the smell is inside.”

Both Issod and Canales agree that the events are “illegal under the Clean Air Act.”

“We know it’s possible for industry to do better,” Issod said. “There are good actors out there that show that better management practices and improved technology can reduce this pollution.”

Some plants, for instance, will switch to natural gas when powering on, and then once they’re warmed up enough to employ their typical pollution controls, they’ll go back to burning oil or coal or whatever it is that they typically burn, Issod said.

Terry McGuire, a senior Washington representative with the Sierra Club, told ThinkProgress that the new rule was important for communities living near power plants, who often have limited ability to push back or challenge rules surrounding the power plants’ pollution. According to a NAACP report from 2012, coal plants, in particular, disproportionately affect poor and minority communities. The report looked at 378 coal-fired power plants in the U.S., and found that the six million people living within three miles of the plant have an average per capita income of $18,400 per year. In addition, the report found, 39 percent of those people living near the plants were people of color.

And, McGuire said, though the rule was important, power plants aren’t the only pollution source affecting many of these communities.

“We’re talking about overburdened communities, who more likely than not live in areas more close to roadways,” he said. “This is a significant piece of the puzzle in bringing justice, equitable clean air, and water to these communities.”

The post New EPA Rule Reduces Pollution In Communities Located Near Power Plants appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Jeb Bush And George W. Bush Have Drastically Different Views On Climate Change

[image error]

The Bush brothers: Jeb, left, and George W.

CREDIT: AP Photos/Andrew Breiner

When considering potential 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush, a casual observer might make a simple comparison: He’s probably just like his brother.

But so far, this hasn’t proved to be true on multiple fronts — and recently it’s become clear that it’s also not true when it comes to climate change. While Jeb, the former Republican governor of Florida, has been on a streak of statements questioning scientists’ knowledge of human-caused climate change, President George W. Bush was relatively progressive on the issue, basing his position on advice from respected institutes like the National Academy of Sciences and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

First, though, the similarities: Both George and Jeb have said the climate is changing and that something should be done about it. In Jeb’s case, this has made him look semi-moderate on the issue, if only because many of his potential Republican opponents don’t think climate change exists at all.

But saying climate change exists is a relatively benign statement that ignores humanity’s role and, thus, the responsibility to reduce carbon emissions. While Jeb Bush has called the science surrounding humanity’s role in warming “convoluted,” his brother George actually acknowledged warming was due to greenhouse gas increases caused “in large part [by] human activity.”

“Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space,” President Bush said in a 2001 address. “Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.”

President Bush did go on to say that the National Academy of Sciences was not sure exactly “how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming.” But he also called the Academy “highly-respected,” and urged it to “provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.”

Nearly 15 years later, the National Academy of Sciences has provided up-to-date information about what is known about climate change. And its conclusions are definitive: “Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.” The Academy goes on to say that human-caused climate change is “disruptive,” and if left unabated would lead to the “extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation.”

The Academy’s projections about climate change weren’t as dire or definitive in 2001 as they are now. Yet, when President Bush gave his speech, he called on the United States and other high-emitting countries to put forth “a 100 percent effort” in reducing greenhouse gases, and pledged to work with scientific institutions to “monitor and mitigate emissions,” among other things.

On the other hand, Jeb’s doubts about the reality of human-caused climate change seem to have grown as the science has become more and more settled — a trend that has shown itself in the majority of Congressional Republicans. And despite the Academy’s current warnings of extinctions, migration, et cetera, he recently said he does not think climate change is “the highest priority” — though he did add, “I don’t think we should ignore it, either.”

So what would Jeb do to combat climate change? In comments to CNN, he said he would provide more incentives for hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, processes that increase the flow of natural gas, a lower carbon-emitting fossil fuel than crude oil or coal. This proposal likely won’t sit well with climate hawks or climate scientists, who often note that half of the world’s natural gas reserves need to stay in the ground to limit warming to stable levels.

President Bush wasn’t a climate champion either. Despite promises, he eventually ditched his effort to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants. He pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol — an international treaty to reduce emissions — and called environmentalists “green, green, lima beans.”

But if there’s one thing that made him a bit different than Jeb on the issue, it’s this, recalled in a 2003 book by his former speechwriter David Frum: “[He] could never quite bring himself to deny that climate change was very likely real and man-made.”

The post Jeb Bush And George W. Bush Have Drastically Different Views On Climate Change appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Huge Insurance Company Cites Climate Change As Reason For Divesting From Coal

[image error]

AXA, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, is dropping its coal investments.

CREDIT: AP

Citing climate change as a major threat, one of the world’s largest insurance companies has pledged to drop its remaining investment in coal assets while tripling its investment in green technologies.

At a business and climate change conference held this week in Paris, AXA — France’s largest insurer — announced that it would sell €500 million ($559 million) in coal assets by the end of 2015, while increasing its “green investments” in things like renewable energy, green infrastructure, and green bonds to €3 billion ($3.3 billion) by 2020.

During the announcement on Friday, AXA’s chief executive Henri de Castries spoke about the threat that climate change poses to the environment, and the responsibility of insurance companies to deal with those threats. Last year, AXA paid over €1 billion ($1.1 billion) globally in weather-related insurance claims, citing climate change as a “core business issue” already driving an increase in weather-related risks.

“The facts are undeniable. If we think we can live in a world where temperatures would have increased by more than 2 degrees [Celsius] we’re just fooling ourselves,” de Castries said.

Later, in an interview with Bloomberg Television, de Castries called climate change “an extremely large risk.”

“Insurers are the mirror of what happens in the economy and in the society,” he said. “We try to increase what we do on the prevention side.”

A study published in Nature in January found that in order to limit global warming to 2°C, 80 percent of the world’s current coal reserves would need to remain unused from 2010 and 2050.

AXA’s move away from fossil fuel assets broadens support for the divestment movement, which until now has largely been lead by churches, universities, and socially conscious investment funds. According to the Financial Times, AXA is the first global financial institution to divest from investments in coal companies.

“It is our responsibility, as a long term institutional investor, to consider carbon as a risk and to accompany the global energy transition,” the company said in a press release. “Divesting from coal contributes both to de-risking our investment portfolios and to building better alignment with AXA’s corporate responsibility strategy to build a stronger, safer and more sustainable society.”

In advance of the Paris climate talks in December, de Castries urged other financial institutions to consider different metrics for measuring the value of long-term investments.

“As long as the ‘systemic risk’ of carbon is not correctly embedded into regulatory frameworks … it will always be a story of a few responsible actors doing their best within a broader financial system that is not designed for sustainability,” he said. “[We] need to launch a serious discussion on financial regulation and greater incentives to focus on long term investments.”

The post Huge Insurance Company Cites Climate Change As Reason For Divesting From Coal appeared first on ThinkProgress.

The California Oil Spill Is Even Worse Than We Thought

[image error]

Crews from Patriot Environmental Services collect oil-covered seaweed and sand from the shoreline at Refugio State Beach, north of Goleta, Calif., Wednesday, May 20, 2015. A broken onshore pipeline spewed oil down a storm drain and into the ocean for several hours Tuesday before it was shut off, creating a slick some 4 miles long about 20 miles west of Santa Barbara.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Michael A. Mariant

Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in California on Wednesday, after oil spill estimates soared from 21,000 gallons to more than 105,000 gallons.

The crude oil spill, from a pipeline along the coast just north of Santa Barbara, has resulted in the closure of two beaches and local fisheries, and damaged the sensitive habitat of endangered birds, the governor’s office said. The spill has also drawn attention to the safety record of company that operates the pipeline, Plains All American Pipeline.

Responders, including the Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, have been removing buckets of oily sludge from the beach, coastal areas, and water. Coast Guard Capt. Jennifer Williams told reporters that 7,700 gallons of “oily water mixture” has been removed.

Removed 90 feet of contaminated soil at the site of the release thus far. #refugiooilresponse

— Santa Barbara County (@countyofsb) May 21, 2015

El Capitan Beach, a state park, is closed until at least Thursday. Refugio State Beach is also closed, and a fishing ban is in place for a half-mile out to sea, for a mile up and down the coast.

Wildlife is not taking this well. The Audubon Society reported that brown pelicans in the area have been killed, and dead, oil-sodden lobsters, octopus, and other marine animals have washed up on shore.

BREAKING: 5 Brown Pelicans confirmed victims of #SantaBarbaraOilSpill

— Audubon California (@AudubonCA) May 21, 2015

Federal records show that the Plains All American Pipeline has had 175 safety and maintenance infractions since 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Times’ analysis found that “Plains’ rate of incidents per mile of pipe is more than three times the national average.”

Santa Barbara is, unfortunately, no stranger to oil disaster. A 1969 spill was the largest oil spill in U.S. waters at the time, and to this day it is the third largest after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon and 1989 Exxon Valdez spills. That tragedy, however, led to some of the most important environmental legislation in U.S. history.

After visiting the site, then-President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, which led the way to the July 1970 establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency. He also oversaw the passage of the Clean Water Act passed in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act in 1973.

California has also not allowed any offshore oil production in state waters since 1969, but the state’s control only extends three nautical miles off shore. A map submitted by Exxon to the Santa Barbara County Department of Planning and Development shows a number of oil rigs along the California coast.

[image error]

A map from Exxon shows the large amount of oil drilling off California’s coastline. Green boxes indicated developed areas.

CREDIT: via Santa Barbara County

The spill has drawn attention to the oil and gas pipelines that run up and down the California coast. Environmental advocates are taking this opportunity to voice concerns over oil and gas drilling and transportation.

About 150 Santa Barbara County residents gathered Thursday to urge a ban on “extreme oil extraction like fracking” and to put an end to oil extraction in California.

“This spill of more than 100,000 gallons of oil is a symptom of the bigger state of emergency — the expansion of oil and gas drilling — including extreme methods like fracking and cyclic steam injection,” Becca Claassen, Santa Barbara County organizer with Food & Water Watch, told ThinkProgress in an email. “Santa Barbara County has some of the strongest oil and gas regulations in the country; this spill is evidence that regulations aren’t the answer. In order to protect our coastline, our health and our future from toxic emergencies like this spill, Governor Brown must phasing out oil production in California, starting with a ban on fracking and other extreme extraction both on- and off-shore.”

The Santa Barbara County district attorney’s office is reportedly investigating the spill to determine whether criminal charges or civil liability can be brought.

The spill occurred just a week after the Obama Administration approved drilling in the Arctic. Environmental groups say there is a 75 percent chance of an oil spill greater than 1,000 gallons if leases like the ones in the Chukchi Sea are developed. The approval has been met with public outcry, including by hundreds of kayakers in Seattle seeking to disrupt the Shell rig’s passage to Alaska.

The post The California Oil Spill Is Even Worse Than We Thought appeared first on ThinkProgress.

California Agriculture To Face Strict Mandatory Water Cuts, Officials Say

[image error]

Water slowly flows down a irrigation ditch on a field farmed near Stockton, CA.

CREDIT: AP

On April 1, standing in a barren mountain field that should have been covered in five feet of snow, California Governor Jerry Brown announced the state’s first-ever statewide mandatory water cuts, requiring local water supply agencies to curtail water use by 25 percent relative to their 2013 levels. Agriculture, despite using 80 percent of the state’s developed water supply, wasn’t mentioned in the statewide restrictions.

But Brown didn’t let farmers off completely, warning that he was considering large-scale water cuts that would have a deep impact on the industry should the state’s historic, four-year drought continue. Now, it seems, those cuts are imminent, as state water officials announced Wednesday that farmers with senior water rights would soon be subject water restrictions — the first cuts to senior water-rights holders in decades.

“The very fact that we’re beginning to have a conversation about water rights is an indication of how serious the drought is,” Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, told ThinkProgress. “It’s really an unusual move. I would not have guessed a year ago that we would start to have this conversation.”

I would not have guessed a year ago that we would start to have this conversation.

Rights to water in California have historically been decided on a first-come, first-served basis, meaning those with senior water rights have been present on their land since the Gold Rush. The first round of mandatory restrictions — expected to come on Friday — will impact holders of century-old water rights in the watershed of the San Joaquin River, which stretches through the Central Valley from the Sierra Nevada to the San Francisco Bay and serves as the primary source of water for farmers in the region. Under the impending cuts, it’s expected that some of those farmers would be forced to cease all pumping from the river.

To avoid mandatory cuts, a second group of farmers — senior water rights holders from the Sacramento and San Joaquin River delta — have offered to voluntary curb their water use by 25 percent, in exchange for a promise from the state that they would not be subject to further cuts even if the drought were to worsen. According to the Associated Press, state officials promised a decision on the farmers’ offer by Friday, though it’s unclear if those voluntary levels would be enough to benefit California’s increasingly-depleted waterways.

“If those numbers work from the perspective of what’s available, that makes good business sense, because for farmers…you have to make certain planting decisions and you want to know how much water you’re going to have available over the rest of the growing season,” Ellen Hanak, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, told ThinkProgress. “What they’re proposing reflects a desire to figure that out in advance.”

Should mandatory cuts come from the state, farmers are expected to immediately challenge them in court.

You want to know how much water you’re going to have …

The last time senior water rights holders were forced to cut back on their water use was in 1977, during the state’s last major drought. Those restrictions applied to only a dozen or so districts along the Sacramento River — Friday’s restrictions, according to the state Water Resources Control Board Director Tom Howard, would be more extensive, affecting farmers throughout the entire basin of the Sacramento River.

Despite their exclusion from statewide cuts issued in April, California’s farmers haven’t been immune to water restrictions throughout the current drought, which is now stretching into its fourth year. Already, those who receive water from the State Water Project have taken an 80 percent cut in their water allocations, while farmers without senior rights who depend on the federal Central Valley Project haven’t received any water. On May 1, farmers in the Sacramento River watershed with water rights granted after 1914 were told to stop diverting water to their lands.

It’s difficult to quantify the success of those cuts, however, because state officials lack widespread remote sensors or meters to ensure that farmers are complying, instead relying on complaints and the honor system to enforce the restrictions. Since most water diversions are from large sources, however, Hanak doesn’t believe enforcement will be an issue borne out of Friday’s restrictions. “I think people will comply, by and large,” she said.

The curtailment of surface water might send some farmers in search of groundwater, an alternative to surface water that has come under increasing scrutiny as the drought has intensified. Groundwater comes from underground aquifers that have filled with rainwater and snow melt over thousands of years, acting as a sort of insurance policy for years when surface water levels are lower than usual. In California, groundwater can be tapped on a first-come, first-served basis, and as surface water becomes more scarce, farmers have been drilling deeper and deeper into the ground to access underground stores of water.

It’s going to force some farmers to rethink what they’re growing, and how they’re growing it …

“In places where farmers have access to groundwater, they’ll be able to make that up somewhat,” Hanak said, noting that last year, when wide restrictions were placed on surface water, farmers made up about 75 percent of those losses via groundwater. In areas like the Sacramento Valley, where groundwater tends to replenish relatively quickly, turning to groundwater can offer a short-term solution.

But some worry that simply shifting water use from surface water to groundwater won’t address the root of California’s water problems. Groundwater takes years to replenish, and depleting it now could lead to shortages in the long-term. “If all we’re doing is shifting water use from surface water to unsustainable groundwater use, it’s going to make our problems worse in the long run,” Gleick said.

To compensate for a reduction in available water, Hanak expects farmers to prioritize high-value crops over low-value ones, diverting their limited resources to things like almonds or pistachios while letting low-value crops like alfalfa or rice dry up. For years, farmers with senior water rights haven’t had to make those kinds of decisions — but Gleick thinks that, starting with Friday’s restrictions, that’s about to change.

“It’s going to force some farmers to rethink what they’re growing, and how they’re growing it, in terms of crop type and irrigation technology,” Gleick said. “We’ve known for a long time that the most senior water rights holders are typically less efficient in their water use, and are more likely to be growing low-value, water intensive crops, because they haven’t had the pressure of water cutbacks. I think that’s going to change. I think it has to change.”

The post California Agriculture To Face Strict Mandatory Water Cuts, Officials Say appeared first on ThinkProgress.

The Six Craziest Arguments Politicians Are Making Against Protecting National Parks And Wildlife

[image error]

U.S. Senator John McCain is just one of many who’ve made crazy statements against protecting national parks and wildlife.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

When it comes to climate change, some politicians have a penchant for outrageous, headline-grabbing statements. “There isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas,” former Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) famously told the House of Representatives in 2009.

In recent months, however, the flair for the sensational has extended beyond climate, overtaking the rhetoric of some politicians who are eager to weaken protections for America’s parks, wildlife, and conservation laws. In a recent op-ed, for example, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), used the tragic death of a hiker in Utah as the basis for arguing that one of America’s most popular conservation programs be dismantled.

Congressman Bishop is not alone in his affinity for the melodramatic. Here are six other mind-boggling statements members of Congress have recently made in attempts to undermine the popularity and effectiveness of the laws protecting our lands, water, and wildlife.

Reintroducing wolves would solve the “homeless problem”

Rep. Don Young (R-AK), who is no stranger to controversial statements, often directs his ire to taxpayer-owned public lands.

In a recent rant against the Endangered Species Act and the protection of wolves, Young “mocked” 78 members of Congress who asked the Secretary of the Interior to protect gray wolves. Young — who has long fought protections for land and wildlife — claimed that their districts would benefit from releasing wolves in urban areas because “you wouldn’t have a homeless problem anymore.”

State control of national forests would mean fewer terrorists

Utah state representative Ken Ivory — who has had ethical questions raised against him for his efforts to seize and sell off America’s public lands — has used a potential threat of forest fires started by terrorists to claim the state and private ownership of our national forest, monuments, and other conservation lands would reduce the risk of terrorism. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:

Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said he was told by a terrorism expert that forests are now a terrorist target and argued that the fire risk would be reduced if they were managed by the states instead of the federal government.

In reality, a century of fire suppression, coupled with a warming climate, worsening drought, and longer fire seasons have increased the prevalence of mega fires in Western states. The federal government spends over $3 billion annually to help protect communities from wildfire, a sum that would bankrupt most Western states if national forests were transferred to state ownership.

Environmental protections enable “drug cartels and human smugglers”

The U.S.-Mexican border is a perennial target of anti-environmental members of Congress, and multiple bills have been introduced that would waive environmental protections on national parks, wilderness, and other public lands on both the northern and southern borders.

When introducing his most recent bill on the issue, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stated that “For decades, drug cartels and human smugglers have exploited U.S. land management laws by crossing our borders illegally and harming Arizona’s national parks and protected areas.”

But officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection have testified that existing protections on America’s public lands do not restrict access or inhibit border security, and instead assert that a close working relationship with natural resource agencies “allows [them] to fulfill our border enforcement responsibilities while respecting and enhancing the environment.”

Drinking water protections will regulate “your grandmother’s bird bath”

A proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency to protect clean drinking water has also been a top target of anti-environment lawmakers and special interests. Detractors claim that the proposed drinking water protections would threaten private property rights and could “apply to every instance where a drop of water touches the earth.”

Last year, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) called the proposal a “terrifying power grab,” where “common sense has gone out the window.” He went on to say that “the EPA’s new position seems to be that a puddle from your garden hose will ultimately end up in a navigable waterway, so the agency should have dominion over that water too.”

The Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity even went as far as asking, “will the EPA soon seek to regulate puddles on your property, baby pools, standing water in the local Wal-Mart parking lot, or your grandmother’s bird bath?”

However, the proposed clean water rule “does not protect any waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act,” and instead is intended to only “protect critical streams and wetlands that are currently vulnerable to pollution and destruction.”

Obama will “negotiate with Iran,” but not on Alaska oil drilling

Angered by the Obama administration’s work to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said that administration “is willing to negotiate with Iran, but they won’t negotiate with Alaska.”

In fact, the Obama Administration held extensive public meetings and gathered public input from Alaskans on how best to manage the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and is beginning the process for gathering input on whether and where to allow offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean.

What’s more, the administration’s initial plans for offshore drilling in Alaska would actually allow drilling on 92 percent of the Arctic waters off the state’s coast, notwithstanding Senator Murkowski’s claims that the proposal puts oil and gas resources off limits to development.

Obama is an “imperialist” or a monarch for conserving public lands

In response to the announcement that President Obama was planning to protect one of Colorado’s most popular rivers, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) said of the President: “He is not king. No more acting like King Barack. That is not how we do things in the U.S.”

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), a former member of the House, called Obama an “imperial president” for expanding a national monument that protects critical areas of the Pacific Ocean. Yet 16 presidents, from both political parties, have protected incredible landscapes using their executive authority, including President George W. Bush.

Some of these same politicians are also fond of accusing the president of a government “land grab” when designating new national monuments, even though national monuments protect lands already owned by the federal government.

Jessica Goad is the advocacy director at the Center for Western Priorities. You can follow her on twitter at @Jessica_Goad. Claire Moser is the research and advocacy associate with the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. You can follow her on twitter at @Claire_Moser.

The post The Six Craziest Arguments Politicians Are Making Against Protecting National Parks And Wildlife appeared first on ThinkProgress.