Environmental Protection Agency

Water Pollution Regulations Ignore Native Community Fish Consumption

Adrea Korthase

Huffington Post article is here. An excerpt:

For many communities, the consequences also go beyond just health concerns.

“Traditional families are still very active in the smokehouse. They are still fishing for their primary source of living,” says Jamie Donatuto, an environmental specialist for the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, in La Conner, Wash. “Fish are not just a source of nutrients, they have cultural and spiritual meaning for these people.”

Donatuto has been working with the Swinomish tribe for more than a decade on the issue. She recently conducted a survey and found that if tribal members had access to as much safe seafood as they wanted, they would consume more than 100 times the state’s estimate.

“In the Pacific Northwest, fish consumption is a way of life. It’s an important cultural hallmark of tribal nations that live here,” adds Elaine Faustman, a professor of environmental and occupational health studies at the University of Washington.

In fact, as she points out, it’s not uncommon to find kids “teething on salmon jerky.”

New Scholarship on Tribal Sovereignty and Pesticide Programs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jane Kloeckner has posted her paper, “Hold on to Tribal Sovereignty: Establishing Tribal Pesticide Programs that Recognize Inherent Tribal Authority and Promote Federal/Tribal Partnerships,” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The partnership between the United States and Indian Nations (tribes) in regulating pesticide pollution in Indian country and governed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA or Pesticide Law) has become dysfunctional due to weak provisions in FIFRA and pesticide regulations and guidance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency authorized to implement FIFIA. The tribal/federal partnership under FIFRA is overwhelmingly federal, while the role for tribal governments is limited. In addition, long-standing EPA policy choices have resulted in inadequate environmental protection against potential misuse of pesticides in Indian country. For example, EPA has not interpreted FIFRA as authorizing Tribal governments to be the primary enforcement authority. Except for eight Indian reservations, pesticide applicators cannot be certified in Indian country to apply restricted use pesticides. Tribal governments should be eligible to implement pesticide control programs as co-regulators in partnership with EPA. Co-regulator pesticide programs would be a good example of United States leadership in collaborative partnering with indigenous peoples for the broader international community.

The FIFRA reforms suggested in this paper recognize the appropriate level of federal oversight of tribal environmental decisions affecting land use involving pesticides, a local decision with regional, national and international aspects. For example, Tribal Pesticide Programs would function best within the structure of a genuine tribal/federal partnership as described in this paper. As a foundation for a collaborative partnership, EPA should provide for tribal governments to be eligible for primary enforcement under FIFRA in Indian country. Also, EPA should provide continuing federal assistance, technical, administrative, and financial to tribal governments for building and maintaining tribal pesticide programs as tribal institutions. Furthermore, the co-regulator partnership must be flexible and ultimately, the federal government must oversee the tribal pesticide programs because of the complexities of tribal governance over tribal environmental institutions and because local, state, regional, tribal and international concerns over pesticide use sometimes conflict. Inside or outside Indian country, FIFRA and its regulations must support minimum federal standards that protect human health and the environment and a level playing field for pesticide users. Continue reading →

Michigan Messenger on EPA’s Draft Asian Carp Strategy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From MM:

A $78.5 million dollar federal plan to keep Asian carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes is drawing criticism from diverse groups that say the proposed temporary closure of the locks in Chicago area canals will disrupt the economy without stopping the spread of aquatic invaders.

The Chicago canal system that connects the Mississippi River system to the Great Lakes basin conveys much of the Chicago region’s petroleum, coal, road salt, cement, and iron, according to federal officials, along with 15,000 recreational boats and 900,000 passengers that travel through the locks on the system each year.

Photo via Flickr: kate.gardiner

Continue reading →

Possible Michigan Suit against Illinois re: Asian Carp

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Freep via How Appealing:

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox plans to file a federal lawsuit, possibly in the U.S. Supreme Court, as soon as the paperwork is done to try to shut down canal locks leading to Lake Michigan, through which Asian carp could escape into the Great Lakes.

“Our attorneys are working on it as we speak” and will continue through the weekend, Cox spokesman John Sellek said Saturday.

The legal action is to be filed in federal court, but Sellek couldn’t give a precise timetable. It also could be filed directly in the U.S. Supreme Court or under a decades-old federal case concerning the diversion of water from the Great Lakes through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. In 1925, the federal government challenged Chicago’s right to divert water from the Great Lakes, through the canal, without consulting its neighbors, including Canada. Several Great Lakes states, including Michigan, also filed lawsuits arguing that the water diversion through the canal could lead to economic losses.

Continue reading →

Teck Camino Cert Petition and Briefs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The materials in the Teck Camino v. Pakootas case are at the Supreme Court Project website, here. Today, the United States responded to the Court’s call for the views of the Solicitor General by arguing in favor of a denial of the petition. In some respects, this is a victory for the tribal member plaintiffs, because it upholds the Ninth Circuit’s decision that CERCLA applies to the Canadian company’s discharges. But in another respect, it is a loss, because the EPA attempted to render the case moot by refusing to enforce its own finding that Teck Camino was liable. The SG argued that the case was moot because of this action.