Business, Environmental & Homeowners Groups Urge Governor to Sign Bill to Allow Drought Tolerant & Water Conserving Landscaping

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 20, 2013
Contact: David Foster, Clean Water Action – (512) 550-2402
Jennifer Walker, Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter – (512) 627-9931
Susan Wright, Texas Community Association Advocates – (210) 827-1133
Stephanie Gibson, Texas Retailers Association – (512) 497-7071

 Business, Environmental & Homeowners Groups
Urge Governor to Sign Bill to Allow Drought Tolerant & Water Conserving Landscaping

The Texas House of Representatives approved legislation Monday that will ensure homeowners can install drought resistant and water conserving landscaping should they choose to do so. Authored by Senator Kirk Watson and Representative Dawnna Dukes, Senate Bill 198 has been sent to the Governor for his signature.

The bill garnered broad support from business groups like the Texas Association of Realtors, Texas Farm Bureau, and Texas Retailers Association, as well as from environmental organizations and the Texas Community Association Advocates, an advocacy group for property owners associations.

Many Texas property owners associations (POAs) – estimated to number around 25,000 — currently have rules in place that limit or ban drought-efficient landscapes. Senate Bill 198 is a compromise agreed to by many affected stakeholders that will still allow POAs to give prior approval to, and lay down guidelines for, revisions to a homeowner’s yard, as long as they do not unreasonably restrict or ban drought resistant landscaping or water conserving natural turf.

“We all understand that Texas needs to use our limited water resources more efficiently to meet the needs of our growing population and keep our economy going,” said Susan Wright, Chair-Elect of Texas Community Association Advocates. “And we know that saving water does not need to mean reducing your landscape to rocks and cacti. This bill allows homeowners to reduce their water use – and their bills – without compromising property values or aesthetics and without eliminating the review and approval process of the Association granted in many deed restrictions..”

“Texas faces an unprecedented water crisis, and we need to act now to promote water conservation and eliminate barriers to conservation where they exist,” said Jennifer Walker, Water Resources Coordinator for the Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter. “Lawn watering can account for 60% or more of a typical homeowner’s overall water usage. Every Texan who chooses to do their part to reduce water use should be allowed to do so. Water efficient landscapes offer an easy way to conserve.”

“Texas retailers commend the legislature for recognizing the importance of homeowner’s rights while protecting our environment and precious water resource through the allowance of natural drought tolerant landscape,” said Stephanie Gibson, Governmental Affairs Consultant for Texas Retailers Association.

“The beauty of SB 198 is that it promotes water conservation without costing the taxpayer a single dime,” said David Foster, State Director for Clean Water Action. “And it won’t force homeowners to alter a single blade of grass if they don’t want to. It simply gives them the freedom to install a water-efficient landscape on their own property if they do want to. We urge Governor Perry to sign the bill at the earliest opportunity.”

-# # #-

Bad Radioactive Waste Bill Increases Threats to Texas While Rewarding a Major Perry Donor

UPDATE 5/20/13: Thanks for the support y’all! West Texas loves you. 

This bill was killed on a “point of order” by Lon Burnam(see below). We’ll be watching closely to see if the bill backers are able to attach it to another piece of legislation, so stay tuned!

“Point of order sustained under Rule 4, Section 32(c)(3), regarding the content of the bill analysis (See House Rules). Recommitted to committee on House Environmental Regulation”

Reactions on Twitter:

David Edmonson @dedmo3h
Harold Simmons is not pleased. RT @eramshaw: Burnam’s point of order on radioactive waste bill is sustained. #txlege

Gene Wu @GeneforTexas3h
#SB791 Burnam POO is sustained. Boom! #txlege

+++ Original Post +++

ACTION NEEDED: Call your  State Rep. and urge him/her to Vote NO on the SB 791. As we continue to work to improve this bill, make sure your concerns are being heard.Call your State Representative today and say, “Please vote NO! on SB 791. More radioactive waste in Texas is not part of the future I want for my children and family.”

Find your State Rep’s contact info here:
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx

For Immediate Release

Contacts:
Karen Hadden, 512-797-8481, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
Cyrus Reed, 512-740-4086, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club
Tom “Smitty” Smith, 512-797-8468 Public Citizen’s Texas Office

Austin, TX –  A bill that would increase the concentration of radioactive waste to be dumped in Texas is set to be heard on the House floor on Monday, May 20th. Waste Control Specialists (WCS) would benefit even more from having hotter radioactive materials going to their radioactive waste dump in West Texas, and would get to bring in the waste sooner, raising the annual cap on waste imported from other states from 120,000 to 275,000 curies.

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, and the Lone Star Sierra Club oppose the bill, which is set to be heard on Monday, May 20th on the House floor. SB 791 is authored by Senator Seliger and Representative Drew Darby.

“This bill fails to protect the public. It fails to ensure that radioactive waste will not be buried when water is present. It lets trucks continue carrying radioactive waste down any highway in our state, without designated routes. It fails to cap the volume and curies of waste at the overall licensed limit. We expect WCS to come back to the legislature numerous times demanding to dump ever more radioactive waste on Texas,” said Karen Hadden, of SEED Coalition. “The bill fails to require safety audits by the State Auditor. Instead, TCEQ would do occasional audits, which equates to the fox guarding the henhouse. And it lets TCEQ authorize bringing in additional kinds of radioactive waste, such as depleted uranium, without any public hearing, which should be required for such a major license change.”

“Every session for the last 10 years, WCS has exerted its high-dollar political influence to press for their own corporate gain, at the risk of public safety. This time they want to require the wastes to be compacted to a third of the original size, increasing the concentration of its radioactivity and increasing risks in order to increase profits. Next session they’ll be back, saying they have all this extra room at the dumpsite, and clamoring to put in more radioactive waste, ” said Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen. “The only person who benefits is billionaire Harold Simmons, WCS’ owner, whose private gain comes at the expense of public risk. Simmons is known for political attack ads. He’s Perry’s second largest donor and the second largest donor nationally to the “attack ads” plaguing our elections.”

Donations by Simmons and WCS to state legislators in 2012 are documented online at:
http://info.tpj.org/Lobby_Watch/pdf/SimmonsContribsSince2000.pdf and http://info.tpj.org/Lobby_Watch/pdf/DarbySimmons.pdf

“In order to protect our water and public safety, the bill should require that the site be dry before waste is buried, but it doesn’t,’ said Karen Hadden, of SEED Coalition. “Radioactive waste shouldn’t be buried when standing water is present at the site, but that’s exactly what a recently approved license amendment now lets WCS do. Over 40% of the monitoring wells have shown the presence of water, but radioactive waste is being buried anyway. Scientists at TCEQ rang the alarm about groundwater contamination risks in 2007 when they recommended denial of WCS’ license. Profit and political influence won out over safety concerns. TCEQ issued the license anyway, ignoring the findings of its own scientists.”

“All of the TCEQ scientists working on the license determined the geology of the site to be inadequate because of the possibility of radioactive contamination of our aquifers and groundwater. The groundwater lies only 14 feet below the bottom of the radioactive waste dump trenches. However there was clear political pressure throughout the entire process indicating that WCS would receive the license regardless of how inadequate the site was,” said Glenn Lewis in a previous statement. He was one of three TCEQ employees that resigned in protest of licensing the site.

“I’m going to try to work with the House sponsor to strip out the most egregious aspects of the bill that literally put radioactive waste a few feet away from contaminating our water supplies. I’m sure no one wants to put our aquifers at risk or spend billions on clean-up,” said Representative Lon Burnam, District 90.

The bill would require some radioactive waste to be reduced by three times, a provision that benefits Studsvik, a radioactive waste processor in Tennessee. The public has seen no studies that show that burying this more concentrated radioactive waste would be safe at the Texas site, and there are questions about whether the material would become too hot to transport safely. Radioactive waste going to the WCS is mainly from nuclear reactors from around the country, and while fuel rods are excluded, very hot materials such as control rod blades are already being shipped to the site. Exposure to radioactivity can lead to cancers, birth defects and even death.

The bill requires the collection of $25 million in funds for perpetual care, but this is not nearly enough. “All six of the so-called ‘low-level’ nuclear dumps in this country have leaked or are leaking, often costing the states in which they are located millions of dollars,” said Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “One of the now closed nuclear waste dumps with supposedly ‘impermeable clay’ threatens the water supply downstream and is projected to cost in the range of $5 billion to ‘clean up.’ In fact, if it does get ‘cleaned up’ the waste could end up getting buried again in West Texas at the WCS site.”

“TCEQ rushed into a risky deal when they approved a faulty application to dispose of some of the most dangerous radioactive waste known,” said Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “And they did it without giving members of the public who are at risk a chance to prove that the application is faulty. The Lone Star Sierra Club immediately appealed TCEQ’s decision to deny us a contested case hearing to the State District Court and we won, but the state and WCS immediately appealed the decision to the State Court of Appeals, and we’re still waiting for that hearing to happen.”

95% of the radioactive waste being shipped to this site is from nuclear power plants. So-called ‘Low- level’ radioactive waste is defined as everything radioactive in a nuclear power plant except the high-level reactor fuel core. Pipes that carry radioactive water, filters and sludge from the water in the reactor and even the entire reactor itself when it is dismantled – thousands of tons of contaminated concrete and steel can all be dumped in a “low-level” facility. No radioactive element is prohibited from being disposed of at the WCS site.

###

COURT AGAIN REJECTS EXXON BID TO DISMISS CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT SUIT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, May 3, 2013 FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Neil Carman, Sierra Club 512-663-9594; Luke Metzger, Environment Texas 512-743-8257; Josh Kratka, NELC, 617-747-4333

COURT AGAIN REJECTS EXXON BID TO DISMISS CITIZEN ENFORCMENT SUIT

HOUSTON – A federal court has rejected, for the second time, an attempt by ExxonMobil Corporation and two subsidiaries to get rid of a lawsuit filed against them by Sierra Club and Environment Texas. The lawsuit alleges thousands of violations of the Clean Air Act at the nation’s largest oil refinery and chemical plant complex, located in Baytown, Texas.

In a one-page order dated May 2, 2013, U.S. District Judge David Hittner of the Southern District of Texas formally adopted the recommended ruling on Exxon’s motion for summary judgment issued by Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith on April 3, 2013.

“The Court’s ruling vindicates the rights of citizens affected by air pollution to bring polluters to justice when state and federal agencies simply are not getting the job done,” said Luke Metzger, Executive Director of Environment Texas.

Exxon argued that citizens cannot sue when state and federal agencies have already addressed – or even when they have decided not to address – the problem, calling the lawsuit a case of “second-guessing.” But according to Dr. Neil Carman, a former air inspector for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and now the Clean Air Program Director for the Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club, the TCEQ’s weak enforcement efforts are a big part of the problem.

“Exxon has illegally released millions of pounds of pollutants, including carcinogens, hazardous air pollutants and respiratory irritants, from the Baytown Complex since 2005,” explained Dr. Carman. “TCEQ’s lax oversight and slap-on-the-wrist penalties have left the residents of Baytown to suffer from ongoing illegal pollution.”

The Court’s ruling flatly rejects Exxon’s primary argument, stating that “citizen suits were intended to be a mechanism for the public to second-guess the adequacy of an agency’s response to Clean Air Act violations.”

The Court also ruled that, contrary to another of Exxon’s arguments, the Sierra Club and Environment Texas have come forth with evidence of repeated, ongoing violations, as is required of citizen plaintiffs. Most of this evidence consists of Exxon’s own self-reports of violations to government regulators.

A third significant aspect of the Court’s ruling is the finding that Environment Texas and Sierra Club have legal standing to sue over permit violations that do not directly involve illegal emissions. The Court reasoned that “poor operation and maintenance practices may lead to future emissions or other dangerous events such as explosion.”

In a chilling confirmation of the Court’s opinion, a fire that broke out just two weeks ago at Exxon’s nearby refinery in Beaumont, Texas, was responsible for severe burns to several plant workers, one of whom has since died.

In June 2011, Judge Hittner rejected Exxon’s previous motion to dismiss the case, in which many of the same defenses were raised. No trial date has yet been set.

This is the groups’ third federal lawsuit since 2008 targeting illegal air emissions in the Houston area caused by so-called “upset” events and other violations of Clean Air Act operating permits at Gulf Coast refineries and chemical plants. It follows earlier successful cases against Shell Oil Company for violations at its Deer Park refinery and Chevron Phillips Chemical Company for violations at its Cedar Bayou chemical plant.

Exxon’s 3,400-acre complex in Baytown, Texas, is located about 25 miles east of downtown Houston. Tens of thousands of people live within three miles of the complex.

The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Exxon to end its Clean Air Act violations. In addition, Exxon faces civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for each violation of the Clean Air Act.

Sierra Club has approximately 21,000 members in Texas protecting parks and wildlands and building a clean energy future to protect human health and natural resources. Environment Texas advocates for clean air, clean water, and preservation of Texas’ natural areas on behalf of approximately 5,000 members statewide. The lawsuit was filed by the National Environmental Law Center, attorney David Nicholas of Newton, Massachusetts, and Houston attorney Philip Hilder.

Texas Water Fluoridation Controversy

When you turn on the water faucet in your kitchen to fill up a water bottle, you don’t usually think about the origin of the water you’re about to drink, how it was treated, and what may have been added to it. The only thing you’re really thinking about is how thirsty you are. We all need water, so we’re all used to just drinking whatever water we can get, as long as it looks clean and comes from a home, business, or water bottle. So it’s not surprising that most people have no idea that fluoride is put into their drinking water every day for dental hygienic reasons, not water treatment.

                Water fluoridation started in the 1940’s, when tooth decay was a problem and scientists had been researching the differences in natural fluoride concentrations in water sources. What they found was that areas with moderate amounts of fluoride in the water had fewer cases of tooth decay than those with water sources with lower amounts of fluoride. While they also found that excessive amounts of fluoride could cause things like dental fluorosis, communities started adding moderate amounts of fluoride into their drinking water to keep teeth healthy, at the recommendation of several dental associations as well as the FDA.

Today, water fluoridation has stirred some controversy. The side that promotes water fluoridation states that the benefits of fluoridated water completely outweigh the negatives. Fluoridation costs about fifty cents a year per person, which is cheaper than dental visits, and it has been proven to prevent tooth decay, reducing a person’s risk by about 25%. People who oppose community water fluoridation state that the government should not be in control of medicating communities through public resources because it does not allow people to make the choice of whether or not they want to be medicated, especially since the amount of fluoride one should have for dental use differs per person depending on age, etc. They also state that with increased public knowledge of dental hygiene, there is no longer any reason for the public to be given extra amounts of fluoride. Lastly, they state that many countries in Europe and the US have similar amounts of tooth decay, but most countries in Europe do not use fluoridated water, so the true effectiveness may vary.

Here in Texas, around 80% of the population that uses public water drinks water that is fluoridated. Some communities, including places like College Station, Lago Vista, and Alamo Heights, have voted against water fluoridation, and many more have groups that are trying to end fluoridation. Whichever side you stand on for community water fluoridation, water is our most important resource, so continue to be educated about what is in your water and how it affects you.

Could Public Transportation Be Taking Flight in Bat City?

Soaring Over Traffic

While it may sound like another Austinite’s half-baked idea, last Wednesday during an event titled ‘Nerd Nite’ designer Michael McDaniel laid out a compelling case for gondolas, the cable propelled ski variety, as a viable public transportation mode here in Austin.

Among his claims, McDaniel, a member of Frog, an Austin-based international design firm, posits cable propelled transit would be considerably cheaper than the current proposed plans, require a smaller infrastructure footprint, be comparable in scale and speed, and make for a really fun commuting experience.  Yes, fun commuting experience. As for their environmental impact, gondolas demand far less energy to operate than contemporary transportation alternatives and with the proposed system being powered by a single drive house, retrofitting the operation to future energy technologies should be an easy switch.

As wacky of an idea as ski-lifting around town sounds to some, Austin would not be the first metropolitan area to adopt the high-flying approach. In fact, the technology has existed in this very country for decades.

Since its first trip in 1976, New York’s Roosevelt Island Tramway has shuttled over 26 million passengers from the east side of Manhattan to Roosevelt Island. Dozens of other cities around the world have deemed cable propelled transit the logical solution to their public transportation challenges. Last year, London built an aerial cable crossing the Thames. What used to be an hour and a half commute through often life-threatening favelas has become a sixteen minute glide above the famed vistas of Rio de Janeiro. Two French cities will start service by 2015. Even our competitor as the American counter-cultural mecca, Portland, OR already uses a cable system to transport passengers up its Marquam Hill.

While we shouldn’t jump into action just to out-weird Portland, if Austin is serious about providing a world-class public transportation system to its ever growing population it needs to consider all options, no matter how lofty they may seem.

Whether or not Austin decides to adopt the gondola system proposed by McDaniel or stick with a more traditional method, its going to be difficult to go back to thinking about buses and trains after we’ve envisioned soaring above our beautiful city, with its rolling hills and shimmering waters laid out below us as we are whisked quickly and cheaply to work–or, lets face it, for many Austin residents, their dealer’s house.

Read more about Frog’s proposed Gondola system, ‘The Wire’…

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/11/forget-subways-austin-needs-mass-transit-gondolas/4035/

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671214/a-mass-transit-proposal-to-connect-a-city-using-aerial-gondolas

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/at-the-watercooler/2013/02/austins-gondola-network-a-hit-at-ted.html?page=all

-Avery Thompson
Sierra Club Communications Intern and former ski gondola operator in Vail, CO

[excerpt] Migrant Farm Workers & Climate Change

Cross posted from the Rio Grande Guardian. Read the full story there.

by Osvaldo Lopez

EDINBURG, April 29 – The rhythm of the crunching dry soil slowed and eventually came to a halt with a big crash.

The girl’s uncle heard and crossed through three rows to find her motionless body face-up. It was a calm day, and the air could not have been any more still, but panic surged through the workers as the girl’s uncle cried for help.
At the sound of his desperate voice, several workers began rushing and swatting through the corn plants where the uncle was holding the girl up on his knees. Every worker took a limb, and they carried her body out of the corn field. Once away from the tall corn plants co-workers swayed their sombreros across her face hoping she would regain consciousness. Her closed eyes and her head hanging with no support instilled fear in her uncle and every worker.

Osvaldo, guest writer.

That morning she went to the field calm, sleepy, and ready to work but left with sirens wailing.

Data collected from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that heat-related deaths among migrant farm workers may be increasing. Instances of migrant workers fainting and dying from heat stroke have been more frequent in recent years.

I have been a migrant farm worker for eight years. I first started when I was 11 years old. I remember working the fields and being able to finish what the company planned for the day. We began at six in the morning while the crops wore fog as a blanket, and we usually finished tired, sore, and hungry at around 4 or 5 p.m.

Now, the story is different. Hotter temperatures force my co-workers to quit by noon, many of them by 10 a.m.

The reason why fellow workers are no longer able to continue working throughout the day can be linked to the increase in temperatures which we acquired through polluting our earth.

Continued… at the Rio Grande Guardian. Read the rest of the story.

San Antonio Sets Example for Water Conservation in Texas

Nearly all of the water in San Antonio’s famed River Walk is recycled water. (Image credit: http://www.visitsanantonio.com)

As the world collectively peers into its magic crystal ball (which totally exists), most observers see a future ridden with serious environmental issues that will be difficult to manage – especially if meaningful action isn’t taken immediately. While many of these threats (like those of climate change) are global in nature, the degree to which different parts of the world are affected will vary. Texas’ future, for example, promises to be very difficult due to an increase in drought conditions coupled with a rapidly growing population – factors that will inevitably lead to a decrease in freshwater resources. Indeed, we are already experiencing difficulty in providing ample water resources to satisfy the state’s residential, commercial, and ecological needs – a fact that emphasizes the importance of water conservation, moving forward. Fortunately, San Antonio (the state’s second largest city) has taken on a leadership role in the state by successfully implementing aggressive water conservation measures through its public water utility, San Antonio Water System (SAWS).

Through a variety of incentives, educational initiatives, restrictions, and water recycling measures, the city manages to use roughly the same amount of water that it used in 1984, despite a 67% increase in population.

Much of this success can be attributed to its incentives for large-scale commercial water users, who represent 50% of the city’s water consumption despite being only 10% of the customer base. These incentives, which foot significant portions of the bill for water-saving retrofits, have been popular for businesses in San Antonio since they provide for high post-installation savings that typically allow businesses to get a quick return on their investment. For example, Frito-Lay’s plant in San Antonio undertook a $1.4 million dollar retrofit in 2003, for which it received a nearly $265,000 rebate; the retrofits also save the company roughly $138,000 per year, which means it likely recouped its investment in 2011. Most importantly, the plant’s retrofits have saved 43 million gallons of water per year and have even helped the company increase potato chip production. Other successful commercial water conservation programs include a rebate program for restaurants that has gotten 40% of San Antonio restaurants to lower their water usage, and a hotel rebate program which seeks to minimize the impact of the city’s bustling tourism industry on water resources.

SAWS has also implemented several impressive residential conservation programs like the Plumbers to People program, which provides free repairs to leaky plumbing for low-income San Antonians. Another effective initiative has been their High-Efficiency Toilet Program, which distributes new low-water toilets to customers with wasteful toilets. Both programs are very cost-effective and are praised for their ability to integrate low-income customers into SAWS’ conservation efforts. Most importantly, however, they save over 3 billion gallons of water per year.

Furthermore, much of the water that the city does use is eventually recycled. After being processed at a water treatment plant, it is commonly used for the irrigation of parks and golf courses, in cooling towers, and in industrial processes. Perhaps the most surprising use of recycled water, however, is for the replenishment of San Antonio’s famed River Walk.

Through these programs, San Antonio has made significant progress in reducing per capita water use from a high of 225 gallons per day in the mid-1980s to a low of 136 gallons per day, with a final goal of 116 gallons per day by 2016. Achieving further reductions in water use will become increasingly difficult, however, since opportunities to pick the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of conservation measures will become less abundant. Regardless, with more time to develop (and aided by progress in technology and policy, as well as phase-outs of water-guzzling coal plants), these programs will go a long way in securing water for San Antonio’s future.

Oh, and, it will surely help to have a mayor that describes water conservation as being “part and parcel of being a San Antonian.”

By Diego Atencio