Proposed EPA rule would not require public input before construction of new pollution-causing facilities, most of which are in rural places

A newly proposed federal Environmental Protection Agency plan would eliminate the requirement that states seek public comment before issuing new air pollution permits for AI data centers and other industrial facilities, Matthew Daly reports for The Associated Press. 

If approved, this change would mean the public would have less say in construction of new data centers, which would impact rural areas more than most since the "nation’s largest data centers are being planned in marginalized and vulnerable rural communities," according to Sarah Alexander Melotte of The Daily Yonder. Pew Research found in April 2026 that 67% of planned data centers were in rural areas, with most of those being built in the South and Midwest.

"Critics say the move could thwart local residents from learning about proposed data centers or making their voices heard before projects are approved and construction begins," Daly reports. A former deputy director of EPA’s air quality office told him that "the plan could create 'an unlevel playing field where citizens in one state are kept completely in the dark about new data centers and heavy industrial emissions in their backyards, while neighboring states maintain oversight.'"

The plan could mean that the EPA could fast-track permits without requiring facilities to inform the public about where new facilities are being located. "'Data centers and other industrial sources should not be able to get their air pollution permits in secret,'" Keri Powell, a senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, told Daly. SELC represents almost 200 "environmental, health and community groups that filed comments with the EPA opposing the plan."

A new EPA app helps journalists who are looking for local water quality data that's easy to understand and share

Eighth graders collect samples from the Pigeon River in N.C.
(Photo by G. Peeples, FWS, Flickr Creative Commons via SEJ)

If you're a journalist who wants water quality data that's for "non-geeks. . . The Environmental Protection Agency is offering a 'How's My Waterway?' web app that makes the sophisticated stuff simple," reports Joseph A. Davis of the Society of Environmental Journalists. "If you are, indeed, a geek and want to jump ahead, you can start exploring it here. . . . This app is a portal for people who just want to know whether they can drink from or swim in their local river. It's hyperlocal and practical. It's presented graphically and intuitively."

Where did the data come from? "The good news is that the EPA answers the question. The other good news is that it comes from multiple authoritative datasets," Davis explains. "Much of that data is required by law to be collected by government agencies and is therefore fairly good. Those datasets include ATTAINS, a collection of water quality data posted by the states, and BEACON 2.0, a collection of state data about beach closings. . . . It also includes discharge permit information, as well as permit violations. And drinking water information. And, yes, more. Here's the full list."

Using the app is as easy as downloading it on your smartphone and entering your ZIP code. The app then shows a map. "Like a good pair of binoculars, it allows you to zoom in or out or to ask about water quality at the local, state, or national level. In the process of describing state and national-level water quality, it actually provides some meaningful overview analysis," Davis reports. "The data is not up-to-the-second, but it is pretty current. The time frame differs for each kind of data, which is only the beginning of the story — a launch pad for shoe-leather and phone reporting."

In landmark 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court says Environmental Protection Agency can't protect wetlands not tied to streams

Signs posted by the Idaho couple whose building project EPA
blocked, prompting them to file suit. (Associated Press photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court ended one of the longest battles over the Clean Water Act Thursday, ruling 5-4 that the Environmental Protection Agency's power to protect wetlands does not extend as far as the high court said it did in another narrow decision 17 years ago. The decision has "broad ramifications for the environment, agriculture, energy and mining," The Associated Press reports.

At issue was the act's phrase "waters of the United States," or WOTUS, which the court said in 2006 could be regulated if they had a "significant nexus" to nearby waterways. Thursday, in an opinion written by highly conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court said WOTUS "extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right so that they are 'indistinguishable' from those waters." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined the opinion.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, saying the Army Corps of Engineers “has always included in the definition of ‘adjacent wetlands’ not only wetlands adjoining covered waters but also those wetlands that are separated from covered waters by a manmade dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the like. . . . We should not create ambiguity where none exists. And we may not rewrite ‘adjacent’ to mean the same thing as ‘adjoining,’ as the Court does today.”

Richard J. Lazarus, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, went back even farther in an op-ed for The Washington Post, citing a unanimous 1985 decision of the court that allowed EPA to protect wetlands. The latest decision "could lead to the removal of millions of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands from the law's direct protection," Lazarus writes. Connor Griffin of the Louisville Courier Journal explains, "Generally, wetlands are areas of land covered with water or saturated for some or all of the year. Marshes are an example of this habitat. Boasting biodiversity on par with rainforests and coral reefs, wetlands provide critical habitat for animals like waterfowl, and are a hotbed for plant life."

The case was filed by an Idaho couple who got a local permit 15 years ago build about 300 feet from Priest Lake and filled in part of a wetland with sand and gravel, Reuters reports. The EPA blocked them, they sued, and the high court ruled 9-0 Thursday that EPA overstepped. As the case moved through the courts, Republican and Democratic administrations redefined WOTUS in various ways, some going beyond the wetlands question and generating more court action. "In 2015 the Obama administration widened the scope of the law to cover even ephemeral streams and ponds," Robert Barnes reports for the Post. "The Trump-era EPA repealed the rule and in 2019 created a new, weaker one. The Biden administration has tried to strike a balance by undoing the Trump-era rule and redefining EPA oversight as covering 'traditional navigable waters,' including interstate waterways and upstream water sources that influence the health and quality of those waterways."

EPA spending $177 million to help communities advance environmental justice through help with grants, organizing

Environmental Protection Agency map shows regions
for EPA's new environmenal justice program.

The Environmental Protection Agency is spending $177 million to advance local environmental justice through a new program, the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Center. The money is being distributed through 17 regional centers that will get at least $10 million each.

"These centers will provide training and other assistance to build capacity for navigating federal grant application systems, writing strong grant proposals, and effectively managing grant funding," EPA says. "In addition, these centers will provide guidance on community engagement, meeting facilitation, and translation and interpretation services for limited English-speaking participants, thus removing barriers and improving accessibility for communities with environmental justice concerns."

The initative aims to "enhance leadership and organizational capabilities among individuals and communities, foster community decision-making and cooperative ventures, facilitate connections, and furnish research and information that strengthens community and economic development," says the University of Kentucky, one of eight universities that are part of the Southeast center, run by the nonprofit research institute Research Triangle International.

“Many communities in need tend to be places where there's a higher ratio of minority populations as well as higher levels of poverty,” said UK agricultural economics professor Alison Davis, executive director of the Community and Economic Development Initiative of Kentucky, which will lead Kentucky’s involvement in the program.

Rules on 'forever chemicals' could cost communities billions

As early as today, the Environmental Protection Agency "is expected to propose restrictions on harmful 'forever chemicals' in drinking water after finding they are dangerous in amounts so small as to be undetectable, The Associated Press reports. "But experts say removing them will cost billions, a burden that will fall hardest on small communities with few resources." Translation: rural.

"Concerned about the chemicals’ ability to weaken children’s immune systems, the EPA said last year that PFAS could cause harm at levels “much lower than previously understood, AP's Michael Phillis and Brittany Peterson write. "There is also evidence the compounds are linked to low birthweight, kidney cancer and a slew of other health issues. It’s unclear what the EPA will now propose and how well it will protect people from these recently-understood harms."

PFAS stands for "per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances." They "are widespread, don’t degrade in the environment and have been around for decades," AP notes. "They’ve been used in nonstick pans, food packaging and firefighting foam. Their use is now mostly phased out in the U.S., but some still remain. . . . Over the last decade, an increasing number of cities and towns, often abutting manufacturing plants or Air Force bases, suddenly realized they had a problem."

While Friday was the deadline for the proposal, it has to be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget. "As of Thursday, that review wasn’t finished," AP reports.

Farm, energy and construction groups sue to block new federal definition of 'waters of the United States'

As expected, the Biden administration's new definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act is being challenged in a federal court.

Farm, energy and construction groups filed suit in the Galveston division of the Southern District of Texas, likely a favorable forum for their argument that the new definition will apply to "staggering range of dry-land and water features—whether large or small; permanent, intermittent, or ephemeral; flowing or stagnant; natural or manmade; interstate or intrastate; and no matter how remote from or lacking in a physical connection to actual navigable waters." The suit claims "Plaintiffs’ members will constantly be at risk that any sometimes-wet feature on their property will be deemed WOTUS."

The suit was filed by the American Farm Bureau Federation its Texas and Matagorda County affiliates, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, Associated General Contractors of America, Leading Builders of America, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Mining Association, the National Multifamily Housing Council, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, the Public Lands Council, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association.

The suit notes that the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that could determine what wetlands are “waters of the United States,” and complains that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers issued the new definition "rather than await the decision in that case, which will almost certainly provide additional guidance as to the meaning of WOTUS."

EPA finally says changes in the environment show climate change is intensifying, partly because of human activity

"The destruction of year-round permafrost in Alaska, loss of winter ice on the Great Lakes and spike in summer heat waves in U.S. cities all signal that climate change is intensifying," the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday in a report that languished under the Trump administration for three years," The Washington Post reports, noting that this is "the first time the agency has said such changes are being driven at least in part by human-caused global warming."

The report joins "a growing body of evidence that climate effects are happening faster and becoming more extreme than when EPA last published its 'Climate Indicators' data in 2016," Dino Grandoni and Brady Dennis report. "EPA Administrator Michael Regan said he wants to make clear to the entire country the dangers of rising temperatures in the United States."

“We want to reach people in every corner of this country because there is no small town, big city or rural community that’s unaffected by the climate crisis,” Regan said. “Americans are seeing and feeling the impacts up close with increasing regularity.” Along with the report, EPA updated its climate webpage to inform the public on how climate change is affecting communities.

EPA sides with corn and ethanol producers on small-refinery exemptions to the Renewable Fuel Standard

The Environmental Protection Agency "is changing course on small-refinery exemptions to the Renewable Fuel Standard, announcing Monday it agrees with a Court of Appeals decision last year that the agency had mismanaged the program under the Trump administration," Todd Neeley reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. The marked increase in such exemptions over the past four years hurt rural America and the biofuels industry, EPA said. 

"The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, had ruled in January 2020 that EPA mishandled the exemptions program when it came to three small-refinery exemptions in particular. The Trump administration delayed action on the Renewable Fuel Standard to reflect the court's decision," Neeley reports. The Biden administration said it agrees with the ruling, which said the exemptions were meant to be temporary and that the agency can only extend pre-existing exemptions.

With the appeals court ruling "before the U.S. Supreme Court this spring, the EPA statement Monday means the Biden administration will not be defending the Trump administration's stance on the small-refinery exemptions to the RFS," Neeley reports.

The announcement was welcomed by corn growers and the ethanol industry, as well as the states where they have a large footprint, Neeley reports: "Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said although the Biden administration's decision is welcomed, she wants to see the Supreme Court uphold the RFS."

Federal air monitors routinely miss pollution, even refinery explosions; some firms get to pick 'cleaner' monitor sites

Communities rely on a federal air-monitoring network to raise the alarm when there are dangerous levels of pollution, but budget cuts and monitoring practices that favor polluters mean that Environmental Protection Agency air monitors sometimes miss even large disasters such as oil refinery explosions, and practices such as allowing companies to decide the placement of their own monitors make it less likely that pollution is detected.

"Over the past five years, the number of government monitors nationally has declined by 4 percent as state and local environmental agencies cut spending, according to EPA figures. Federal grants to state and local air-quality agencies have not increased in 15 years," Tim McLaughlin, Laila Kearney, and Laura Sanicola report for Reuters. "The EPA said it has improved the system despite what it acknowledged was flat funding for the past decade. The agency said it has replaced some labor-intensive, manual monitors with automatic monitors that provide round-the-clock, real-time data. The continuous monitors cost less to operate, but can also be less reliable than manual monitors in measuring particulate matter, according to EPA quality control audits."

The network has a lot of problems, according to academics and current and former regulators. "Monitors are sparsely and poorly placed; the program is underfunded; and the network is not equipped to meet current pollution threats," Reuters reports. "The monitoring program emerged piecemeal after the 1970 Clean Air Act, mainly to track acid rain, smog and ozone pollution. Those hazards have largely subsided, replaced by more localized threats including toxic compounds and particulate matter from a wide range of industry and natural hazards, such as wildfires.

Also, individual monitors are often inaccurate with wildly varying results, partly because state regulators have wide discretion over monitor placement, and often put them in "cleaner" areas, Reuters reports. Monitors are often programmed to work only once every 12 days (for example) to save on operating costs, and some monitors max out at too low a pollution level, so actual levels are much higher than those recorded. And when monitors do record excessive amounts of pollution, the EPA sometimes simply tosses the results for the purposes if its air-quality assessments, Reuters reports.

Quick hits: movement seeks to increase number of young Black farmers; hope outlasts prosperity in oil-bust town

Here's a roundup of stories with rural resonance; if you do or see similar work that should be shared on The Rural Blog, email us at heather.chapman@uky.edu.

Movement seeks to increase number of young Black farmers. Read more here.

Smaller specialty flour companies are helping revitalize local economies; could other industries copy their model? Read more here.

Hope outlasts prosperity in N.D. town flattened by oil bust. Read more here.

Could pandemic make it even harder for rural students to go to college? Read more here.

The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled its paid subscription to Energy & Environment News, one of the largest publications dedicated to covering the EPA. That ends EPA employees' free access to coverage about the agency, including reporting on EPA's "union-busting" actions. Read more here.

Oil refiners try a new strategy to get around biofuel blending requirements: claiming hardship from pandemic

In the latest salvo of the oil-versus-ethanol battle, "Refiners are aiming to escape biofuel blending rules by winding back the clock, asking the EPA for economic hardship status dating back to 2013 that would free them from their obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard," Ryan McCrimmon reports for Politico's Morning Agriculture.

In March, the Trump administration declined to appeal a court decision that limited refinery waivers, seeming to signal an end to large oil refiners' use of waivers to get around fuel blending requirements. The court decision specified that EPA could only grant waivers to small refiners that had been continuously exempt from the biofuel blending requirements since the program began in 2013, McCrimmon reports. So now, "Refiners are now petitioning the EPA for economic hardship status dating back to then, allowing them to meet the court’s standard going forward."

The move puts President Trump in an awkward position as he looks toward the November election. "The oil and agriculture industries are key pieces of Trump’s political base, and he’s long been caught in the middle of their fight over federal biofuel policy — especially the use of blending waivers, which ethanol producers claim are crushing their business," McCrimmon writes.

The EPA hasn't taken action on refiners' request for economic hardship status, Stephanie Kelly reports for Reuters. But the Department of Energy, which reviews waiver applications before making recommendations to the EPA, said last month that the department would review retroactive blending waivers.

Appeals court bans dicamba-based herbicide sales in U.S. for 6 months; EPA is likely to reauthorize it for next year

A federal appeals court has essentially halted the sale of dicamba-based herbicides in the U.S. for the next six months after ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency did not do its due diligence when reauthorizing the chemical in 2018. That reauthorization expires Dec. 20.

Environmental groups sued EPA in 2018 in an attempt to force the agency to cancel its approval of XtendiMax, a dicamba-based herbicide then produced by Monsanto, which has since been acquired by Bayer AG, Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg. The ruling applies to dicamba-based herbicides by other companies such as BASF and Corteva Agriscience.

The three-judge panel ruled that the EPA had "failed entirely" to acknowledge the risks of dicamba and therefore violated federal regulations by reauthorizing XtendiMax for two years in October 2018," Rosenblatt reports. The judges wrote in the opinion that the EPA's decision also failed to consider the "enormous social cost to farming communities" where disagreements over dicamba damage have "turned farmer against farmer, and neighbor against neighbor," and cited the 2016 murder of an Arkansas farmer during an argument over dicamba damage.

Dicamba is well-known for vaporizing after application and drifting to nearby fields, where it can damage crops not genetically engineered to resist it. That can unfairly influence farmers to buy dicamba-resistant seeds and pesticides, the judges ruled. "The decision is the latest blow to Bayer in the wake of its $63 billion takeover of Monsanto — a deal that made the German company a leader in agriculture products but also saddled it with a mountain of legal liabilities related to weed killers," Rosenblatt reports. In February, a Missouri peach farmer was awarded $265 million in a lawsuit against Bayer and BASF over dicamba-damaged crops.

State inspection agencies have been inundated with similar complaints for the past three years. Bayer's XtendiMax herbicide is "widely blamed for damaging 3.6 million acres of untreated soybeans in 2017, and more than 1 million acres in 2018," Rosenblatt reports.

"Still, the EPA will probably re-authorize dicamba in a revised form in time for next year -- and the agency could even move up that reauthorization before Dec. 20, when the current clearance was set to expire."

EPA quick hits: Agency weakens states' power over pipeline projects; refused to use current data to revise air toxics rule

"The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced that it had limited states’ ability to block the construction of energy infrastructure projects, part of the Trump administration’s goal of promoting gas pipelines, coal terminals and other fossil fuel development," Lisa Friedman reports for The New York Times. "The completed rule curtails sections of the U.S. Clean Water Act that New York has used to block an interstate gas pipeline, and Washington employed to oppose a coal export terminal. The move is expected to set up a legal clash with Democratic governors who have sought to block fossil fuel projects."

Also in EPA news: Emails show that the agency recently refused a White House Office of Management and Budget request to use current data when revising its rule on mercury air pollution.

The regulation involved a second look at the Obama administration’s legal rationale to see whether it was “appropriate or necessary” for the Environmental Protection Agency to limit mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants," Amena Saiyid reports for Bloomberg Law. "The Trump administration’s EPA concluded May 22 the mercury and air toxics standards, known as MATS, which were set in 2012 and met subsequently by the power sector, weren’t justified. It reached this decision by using the same health benefits and compliance estimates used in 2012 to set the standards."

EPA doesn't appeal court decision limiting small-refinery biofuel waivers, handing a win to corn and ethanol interests

"The Trump administration has decided not to appeal a court ruling that would sharply reduce its use of waivers exempting refineries from the nation’s biofuels regulation, cheering the corn lobby but drawing anger from oil refiners," Stephanie Kelly reports for Reuters. The Environmental Protection Agency had to appeal by yesterday, and no such filing was entered.

"EPA had been expected to apply the decision nationwide and drastically cut the number of exemptions it issues," Ryan McCrimmon reports for Politico's Morning Agriculture. "But the president faced heavy pressure from Republicans and Attorney General William Barr not to do so. That prompted Trump to instead request an extension until March 24 on whether to appeal the ruling." In the end, the administration apparently decided not to appeal, even after more than a dozen Republican senators from oil-producing states published an open letter to the president warning that allowing the ruling to stand would financially endanger small refineries.

"The decision appears to end a years-long battle between the rival oil and corn industries," two important Trump constituencies, Kelly reports. "Refiners argue the waivers are crucial to keeping small refining facilities in business, but agriculture representatives say they have been overused and hurt farmers by eroding demand for corn-based ethanol."

The battle centers over the Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires refiners to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into their gasoline each year. Small refiners that would be financially hurt by adhering to the blending standards can seek waivers, but corn interests have accused the Trump administration of improperly using the waivers as a way to get around the RFS, Kelly reports.

EPA appears to be complying with the court ruling. In late February, it had scaled back its granting of waivers, McCrimmon notes.

Quick hits: Biden dominated the rural vote this week; Blackjewel settles in Wyoming class-action lawsuit

Here's a roundup of stories with rural resonance; if you do or see similar work that should be shared on The Rural Blog, email us at heather.chapman@uky.edu.

The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general will review whether the EPA followed federal rules and sound science when approving the herbicide dicamba for farm use in 2016 and renewing its registration in 2018. Read more here.

The AgriPulse 2020 Ag & Food Policy Summit has been postponed from March 23 until June 22. Read more here.

In the Florida and Illinois primaries earlier this week, Joe Biden enjoyed his most widespread support in rural areas, according to The Daily Yonder. Read more here.

Bankrupt coal operator Blackjewel has reached a tentative settlement in a class-action lawsuit representing hundreds of miners in Wyoming. Read more here.

Rural health care providers brace for coronavirus impact. Read more here.

EPA proposes further rollbacks to coal ash regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday announced a new proposed rollback to an Obama-era regulation dealing with waste from coal-fired power plants known as coal ash," Rachel Frazin reports for The Hill. "The proposed changes are the Trump administration's second set of changes to protections on waste laden with arsenic."

The proposal would also expand the use of coal ash in closing landfills under some circumstances, and ease regulations for the liners that coat the bottom of coal-ash pits, which are meant to keep toxins from leeching into groundwater or nearby waterways, Frazin reports. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement that the changes will give coal-fired power plant operators much-needed flexibility to address site-specific conditions, but critics believe the changes will weaken environmental protections.

The proposal is the administration's second recent effort to roll back coal-ash disposal regulations. In January the EPA proposed a rule amendment that would effectively shield all but the most high-hazard coal-fired plants from the old regulations.

The EPA is seeking public comments on the proposal for 45 days, and will hold a public hearing within that time.

EPA allows massive use of antibiotics on citrus trees despite federal warnings antibiotic-resistant diseases will spread

The Asian citrus psyllid, which spreads
the disease (USDA photo)

Florida citrus production has dropped 70 percent in the past 15 years because of citrus greening, a disease spread by a tiny insect that carries a harmful bacteria. "The rapid onset of the disease has left growers with few effective management strategies. Since 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed citrus farmers to spray medically important antibiotics on their groves in hopes of reversing the devastating trajectory," H. Claire Brown reports for The Counter, formerly The New Food Economy. "But this last-ditch solution has its consequences: It’s expensive, and scientists aren’t sure it works very well, while public health advocates worry it’s hastening the spread of antibiotic resistance."

Today, about 90 percent of Florida's citrus trees are infected; the state produces more than two-thirds of the nation's citrus and more than 90% of its orange juice. By 2016, Florida citrus farmers were reporting an average loss of 40% of their crops from the disease. That year, EPA began allowing farmers to spray the streptomycin and oxytetracycline on citrus crops, as "emergency applications," Brown reports. Since both antibiotics are used to treat medical problems in humans, including urinary tract infections, syphilis, and tuberculosis, many public-health advocates were concerned.

"The agency was proposing to allow as much as 650,000 pounds of streptomycin to be sprayed on crops each year. That’s more than 10 times the amount used to treat human diseases. The concern was that the widespread use of antibiotics on crops would select for antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which would then spread throughout the ecosystem," Brown reports. "Antibiotic-resistant infections are expected to claim 10 million human lives by the year 2050, and critics worry the spread of so-called 'superbugs' will be aided by the extensive use of antibiotics in agriculture."

In late 2018 the EPA approved routine use of oxytetracycline on citrus groves, ignoring objections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, Brown reports. Emergency use of streptomycin has also been approved in California.

Despite the possible public health risk, it's unclear that the antibiotics are helping. Paul Meador, a fourth-generation citrus farmer, said the antibiotics make farming much more expensive. "He remembers spending $1,000 per acre on production costs less than two decades ago. Now he spends $3,000. And the rising bills have been accompanied by a slump in yield. Production on his land has diminished by half, if not more," Brown reports.

Meador said the antibiotics have substantially diminished his crop loss though, especially compared to citrus farmers who weren't using the antibiotics. A 2019 University of Florida study seemed to contradict Meador, finding that oxytetracycline didn't help much over six months, but that study didn't test streptomycin, which Meador uses. The study also found that injecting the antibiotics directly into tree trunks instead of spraying them on leaves might help fight the bacteria better, but injection isn't an EPA-approved application method.

EPA poised to roll back mercury pollution regulation, but power sector isn't interested

The Environmental Protection Agency is about to finalize a rollback on a rule that has cut emissions of mercury and other toxins, but the power industry mostly doesn't want it. Coal executives lobbied for the change, but coal makes up a diminishing share of the energy sector. "The changes could give a boost to struggling coal companies, while hamstringing future efforts to limit mercury emissions from the nation’s power plants," Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis report for The Washington Post.

"Exelon, one of the nation’s largest utilities, told the EPA that its effort to change a rule that has cut emissions of mercury and other toxins is 'an action that is entirely unnecessary, unreasonable, and universally opposed by the power generation sector,'" Eilperin and Dennis report. An environmental policy manager at the company told the Post that the industry had complied with the rule long ago, and that the sector was much cleaner as a result.

"The agency plans to declare that it is not 'appropriate and necessary' for the government to limit harmful pollutants from power plants, even though every utility in America has complied with standards put in place in 2011 under President Barack Obama. While it will technically keep existing restrictions on mercury in place, it means the government would not be able to count collateral benefits — such as reducing soot and smog — when it sets limits on toxic air pollutants."

The rule, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, aims to reduce exposure to a powerful neurotoxin that can damage the brains of children and fetuses. Emissions of the neurotoxin declined 85 percent between 2006, when states began to curb mercury from coal plants, and 2016, when the MATS rule took full effect, Eilperin and Dennis report.

The Obama administration said the benefits would ultimately outweigh the costs: the industry might spend up to $9.6 billion each year to comply with the regulation, but the U.S. as a whole would save $37 billion to $90 billion by preventing deaths and illnesses. The industry ended up paying about $3 billion annually to implement the rule, but the Trump administration has said the cost-benefit analysis still doesn't justify the rule, and accused the Obama administration of using creative math to pass a burdensome regulation, Eilperin and Dennis report.

Andrew Wheeler, the current EPA Administrator under President Trump, insinuated that the rule's real reason was to hurt the coal industry in a recent interview. "The 2011 requirements did more to hasten the closure of coal-fired power plants than any other regulation adopted under Obama," Eilperin and Dennis report. "Facing the first-ever limits on these pollutants, companies across the country chose to switch to natural gas or renewable energy rather than invest in costly new pollution controls.

Barrage of complaints about drift of dicamba herbicide overwhelm state agencies that probe pesticide damage

State agencies responsible for investigating pesticide-misuse reports have been overwhelmed by complaints about the herbicide dicamba for the past three years, and many are asking the Environmental Protection Agency for help, Dan Charles reports for NPR.

Dicamba is notorious for drifting into nearby fields, damaging crops that aren't genetically engineered to be resistant to it. It was once sprayed only before crops sprouted, but in 2016 EPA allowed farmers to spray it on genetically modified soybean plants. Then came a large increase in complaints from farmers who say their non-GMO crops were damaged, Charles reports.

State agencies have to investigate each complaint of pesticide drift and decide whether it happened because someone broke the law, "but many have struggled to keep up," Charles reports. "In Illinois, the number of complaints soared from about 120 in the pre-dicamba era to more than 700 in 2019. In Indiana, it went from about 60 to 200. Meanwhile, because they're fully occupied with dicamba complaints, inspectors don't have time for all their other work, such as routine inspections of pesticide use at schools, golf courses or businesses."

The complaints aren't likely going away any time soon. Several states have banned or restricted dicamba use over the past few years, but in November of 2018 EPA extended its approval through 2020. "The agency decided the problems could be addressed with a few new restrictions on how and where dicamba can be sprayed, along with more training for people who use it," Charles reports. 

However, dicamba complaints have continued to increase, and where they have decreased, there is evidence that most people aren't filing complaints because they don't think it will do any good, Charles reports.

The states' heavy workload has resulted in high staff turnover. In the past year and a half, all but one of Missouri's eight pesticide inspectors left their jobs, Charles reports. And, frustratingly, EPA may not be paying much attention to the state reports anyway. The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs stopped asking for routine updates on state regulators' injury reports last year.

The herbicide is under increased scrutiny right now as dicamba makers Bayer (which bought the originator Monsanto) and BASF face allegations in a lawsuit that they deliberately sold a product known to hurt non-resistant crops in order to increase their sales. The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting has an in-depth package on the trial.

Federal court rules that EPA wrongly granted biofuel waivers to three refineries; could spell trouble for other waivers

On Friday, a federal appeals court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency was wrong to give three biofuel waivers to oil refineries in 2017. The decision "has cast doubt on the legitimacy of dozens of other EPA exemptions granted under similar circumstances, according to industry experts and agency data," Richard Valdmanis reports for Reuters.

The exemptions are meant to help small refiners that would suffer financially if forced to comply with the Renewable Fuel Standard's requirement to blend ethanol into the fuel supply. Corn and ethanol interests say the Trump administration has granted an unusually large number of waivers to help the oil industry, and say the increased waivers have hurt the ethanol industry, Valdmanis reports.

"The oil industry argues the waivers are needed to protect refining jobs, and says the waivers do not affect actual ethanol usage," Valdmanis reports. However, at least 18 ethanol plants have shuttered because of the declining demand for ethanol. The court's decision "spells uncertainty for a handful of independent refiners that secured lucrative waivers from the Trump administration, and could fire up prices for the biofuel blending credits those facilities need to comply" with law, Valdmanis reports.

According to the court's decision, "the EPA overstepped its authority to grant the waivers because the refineries had not received exemptions in the previous year. The court said the RFS is worded in such a way that any exemption granted to a small refinery after 2010 must take the form of an 'extension'," Valdmanis reports. "It also noted research showing oil refineries are able to pass the costs of complying with the RFS to consumers by raising fuel prices, suggesting the waivers were not needed to help the oil refineries financially."