http://www.ct.gov/dep/site/default.asp


EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health
YAHOO
By DINA CAPPIELLO and H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
December 7, 2009

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

"This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. "The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from automobiles, power plants, and factories under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused before leaving office to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade bill being considered before Congress. On Monday, some of those groups questioned the timing of the EPA's announcement, calling it political.

"The implications of today's action by EPA are far-reaching...individual Americans and consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected by this decision," said Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Drevna, in a statement, said "it is hardly the time to risk the remainder of the U.S. industrial sector in an attempt to achieve a short-term international public relations victory."

Any regulations are also likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will set the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles and raise fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week, where the United States offer a provisional target to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

Smooth-flowing streams is goal of regulations
DAY
Article published Nov 30, 2009

State DEP rules would create standards for water designated for human use Connecticut, it might seem, has plenty of water.

But its more than 6,000 miles of rivers and streams, along with the groundwater supplies, lakes and ponds that make up the state's abundant freshwater resources aren't being managed and protected the way they should be - or at least that's the premise behind proposed new regulations.

Called stream flow regulations, they were written by the state Department of Environmental Protection in consultation with scientists, fisheries experts and representatives of environmental groups, farmers and private and municipal water companies to comply with a new state law.

That law grew out of a 2002 state Supreme Court case involving water rights in the western part of the state, said Betsy Wingfield, chief of the DEP's water protection and land reuse bureau.

"Our current regulations have no basis in science for what is healthy for streams," she said.

The new regulations, if adopted, would for the first time establish comprehensive standards for how much water can be taken from and emptied into water sources tapped for drinking and businesses, Wingfield said, using a four-tier classification system of each source's ecological condition and human use.

Dams, municipal and private water company supplies would be affected. Previously, the state's rivers and streams were only regulated for fish-stocking purposes, she added.
The overall purpose of the regulations, Wingfield said, is to strike a balance between the needs of humans and those of wildlife, so that streams, rivers, lakes and ponds maintain water levels that can support healthy ecosystems, while people can still have adequate water supplies.

The regulations, she said, would encourage more regional, cooperative approaches to meeting water needs, and would be phased in over several years.  Mark P. Smith, director of the Nature Conservancy's freshwater program for the eastern United States, was among those on the advisory panel that developed the regulations.

The new regulations, he said, reflect "a very thoughtful understanding of water systems and trying to apply that in a way that's workable."

"All rivers will benefit," he said. "This provides a framework for where (water companies) can look for water, and which ones need more protection."

"Water is not only key to the environment but also to the economy," he added, and the new rules establish the mechanism for sustainable water use for both.

But others are concerned the regulations as written go too far, and are pushing for changes before they're adopted.

"We understand the need for extending flow regulations to all rivers and streams," said Elizabeth Gara, executive director of the Connecticut Water Works Association, which represents most of the state's municipal and private water companies. "But it's something the state needs to be careful about."

She, too, is looking for rules that strike a balance, but believes that in their present form, the balance is tipped too heavily toward ecosystem protection at the expense of human needs. Restrictions on water withdrawals that would be imposed by the regulations, she said, would impact economic development, quality of life and public health and safety.

"They would leave us without adequate safe yield to meet the needs of our customers," she said, "and force infrastructure upgrades that will cost ratepayers millions. We may have to change pipes and intake valves and develop some new sources of supplies" to keep existing sources at minimum levels.

Among local officials opposed to the current version of the regulations is Barry Weiner, chairman of the New London Water and Water Pollution Control Authority. The New London water system, which supplies customers in New London, Waterford and parts of Montville, taps Lake Konomoc in Waterford for its main source, in addition to several smaller lakes and ponds.

"We would potentially have to stop taking water from certain supplies and do downstream releases," Weiner said. "This could be a serious obstacle for municipal water systems and ultimately it will fall on ratepayers."

NEWS OF OPEN MEETINGS...CTDEP VISITS FAIRFIELD COUNTY:
Forever Yours or Forever Gone...
Coalition Meeting to Work on Strategies for Upcoming Session
Easton Library, Weston Town Hall...progress made uniting communities of interest...check out Hartford COURANT editorial HERE.

The Coalition for the Permanent Protection of Kelda Lands notified "About Town" and we went to Easton--a terrific showing of preservation advocates.  First there were the trout people, advocating for more river property to be selected;  then there were the Coalition speakers who came from all directions--from the northwest part of Connecticut, from Weston and from the League of Women Voters of Connecticut.  Many called for a feasibility study for formation of a regional water authority for the Kelda lands.  There were Selectmen from many towns (including the First Selectman of Weston) who spoke up for the above named idea, and Nature Conservancy and Aspectuck Land Trust speakers who spoke to specifics.  DEP had revised their maps to show all the acres suggested in addition to the land DEP itself had named--of the total of 13,612 acres of former BHC land in Fairfield County, 6,998 is of interest to DEP and 4,529 to the other interested agencies on a local or regional level.  Where all the money is to come from to purchase the land is in question...DEP is working with BHC to do mass appraising by December 2000.

Some ideas back on the table?
THE COALITION'S POSITION:
It "...appreciates DEP's efforts, but has the following major
concerns about its proposal:

   * We have a once in a century opportunity to protect some of the
     largest contiguous open space areas in the state.
   * The DEP is only proposing to acquire about half of the total land
     in question.
   * Conservative estimates of the cost of state acquisition of these
     lands suggest that the purchase will exhaust state open space
     funding in an effort to protect land located primarily in one area
     of the state.
   * The proposal does not address the fate of the roughly 9,800 acres
     of dry land and reserviors remaining unprotected.
   * Towns and land trusts cannot afford to purchase these remaining
     9,800 acres.
   * The proposal does not help us address the issue of protecting
     threatened water company lands statewide.

For these reasons, the Coalition strongly recommends a study of the feasibility of forming a regional water authority.  Such a study will determine whether a regional authority can provide safe, affordable drinking water while protecting every acre of land. A regional authority would be funded by tax-exempt bonding and would not require taxpayer funding or state/municipal backing."

If you are interested in helping, please contact Sandy Breslin at CFE at sbreslin@cfenv.org or at 203-787-0646 ext. 24.