Keystone XL Pipeline Bill Passes House Committee

June 23, 2011 – After passing through subcommittee last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved legislation, H.R. 1938, today that forces the Obama administration to make a decision on the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline by November. The committee has passed numerous pro-polluter bills that are unlikely to get traction on the other side of Capitol Hill. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), whose state is among those on the proposed pipeline’s path, has predicted it will not move in the Senate.

National Wildlife Federation Denounces Underhanded Attempt to Gut Clean Water Act

June 22, 2011 – Lawmakers in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee launched a legislative assault on the Clean Water Act as they passed H.R. 2018, a bill to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from curbing water pollution, reducing the destruction of wetlands and the harmful impacts of mountaintop removal mining. The bill, sponsored by Chairman John Mica (R-FL) and ranking member Nick Rahall (D-WV), will restrict Clean Water Act protections and dramatically weaken the federal-state partnership that has been protecting America’s waters since 1972.

Senate Committee Votes to Remove Clean Water Protections

June 21, 2011 – Without a hearing or public discussion, the Senate Agriculture Committee today voted to strip states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of their fundamental responsibility to protect our nation’s waters from toxic pesticides. H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, weakens the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act to prohibit state and federal authorities from requiring a permit for the discharge of pesticides in waterways.

American Electric Power Ruling Signals Supreme Court Climate Shift

The Supreme Court issued its ruling today in American Electric Power vs. Connecticut (pdf), deciding Congress and the EPA already have authority under the Clean Air Act to make rules regulating global warming pollution and that courts need not get involved. “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court may have foreclosed (for now) the possibility of states using federal common law to seek carbon pollution limits on some of our country’s dirtiest coal power plants, but it also has revealed a significant shift in the view of the Court’s conservative justices on climate science and how the U.S. can tackle the problem,” said Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director for the National Wildlife Federation.

And here are highlights from NWF in the News:

Pocono Record: Beware Ongoing Mercury Pollution in Air, Water

Politico: High court backs EPA on emissions

The Tennessean: Nature Center Has Camping Lessons

For more, visit www.nwf.org/News

The North American river otter can be seen at Trout Lake in Yellowstone National Park.

Many people might take these endearing, iconic North American inhabitants for granted, but they were once nearly wiped out in many portions of the United States. And now, given recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may reinterpret what U.S. waters are protected under the Clean Water Act, they are potentially once again at risk.

Clean Water Paws-itively Necessary for Otters

Otters are good indicators of water quality. As predators, they are high up on the food chain. Scientists have found pollutants such as PCBs and mercury accumulate in otters’ tissues over time, as the animals consume fish, frogs, crayfish, mollusks and other invertebrates, which have in turn also ingested pollutants from their own foods.

To survive, otters need clean water in relatively specific, undisturbed environments. This and their small numbers spread across wide ranges have made them extremely vulnerable to pollution, habitat destruction and historical, unregulated trapping. By the mid-1970s, the North American otter had severely declined and disappeared throughout portions of central United States. This prompted 22 states to initiate programs that reintroduced more than 4,000 otters back into their natural range.

River otters being released along the Juniata River in south-central Pennsylvania became a community affair.

Tom Serfass, a leading river otter researcher and professor of wildlife ecology at Frostburg State University in Maryland has been studying the animals since he was a graduate student in 1979. “I’ve always enjoyed the antics of the otter.” Serfass has been involved in river otter reintroduction programs in Pennsylvania, New York and New Mexico. He says he has seen a rebound of U.S. otter populations as a result of such programs, more informed management and improvements in their aquatic habitats from regulations such as the Clean Water Act. Today, the North American river otter, one of 13 otter species worldwide, is once again found in every continental U.S. state.

Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have caused confusion over which waterways are protected under the Clean Water Act. The Court’s interpretation of the law says only “navigable waters” or those closely connected to them are protected, leaving some lakes, more than half of the nations’ stream miles and millions of acres of wetlands at risk. In addition to affecting much of our own sources of water for drinking, fishing and farming, this may undermine more than three decades of recovery efforts for river otters.

Serfass led the 1982 reintroduction project of 153 otters into seven river drainages in Pennsylvania. The resident otter populations had declined as a result of unregulated trapping and degraded aquatic habitats. This included the Casselman River and its tributaries in western Maryland and southwestern Pennsylvania.

Beginning in the late 1800s, seepage from local coal mine operations into these waterways eventually made the river water so acidic that it could no longer support aquatic life. Government and private conservation organizations, including angling groups, banded together in the 1990s to stop the drainage from the mines and the river habitat rebounded. Serfass and his team were able to reintroduce otters to the river habitat about 10 years ago and otters continue to thrive in the area.

Not Out of Danger

While the reintroduction of the North American otter is a great conservation success story, these animals have not yet been able to recolonize all of their former historic range. In some cases, this has been related to severe water quality issues, but other U.S. populations may just need more time. For example, only recently have otters begun to move into North Dakota from nearby Minnesota, a healthy native population.

Meanwhile, those populations that are considered stable are not necessarily out of danger. For instance, Serfass says, “The majority of otters used in the reintroduction projects were obtained from coastal Louisiana, the very same area that has been impacted by the recent oil spill. We don’t know the impact of the oil spill on otters, but this event indicates how quickly a thriving population could potentially be impacted by an unexpected event.” In addition, development is continuously shrinking coastal and other habitats the otters need to survive.

What we have done for the otter was to put proper protections of its aquatic habitats in place that allowed these reintroductions to succeed. Weakening the Clean Water Act would be detrimental not just for the otter but the great variety of species that depend on healthy waterways, including ourselves. NWF attorney Jim Murphy told National Wildlife magazine in its April/May issue that “the Clean Water Act has been one of the most successful environmental laws we’ve ever had. … Until we restore [it], many areas are going to find themselves with polluted water.”

In 2009, the Clean Water Restoration Act was introduced to remove the word “navigable” and restore the law to its original 1972 mandates.  The Obama Administration recently took a first step to restore Clean Water Act protections to many of the waters that were protected prior to the Supreme Court’s rulings. On Wednesday, April 27, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers released draft Clean Water Act guidance. While the Administration must act within the bounds of these Court decisions, successful administration action will restore and clarify protections for millions of wetland acres and stream miles, placing these restored protections on a much more secure legal and scientific foundation.

This would be a simple fix to what could be a very messy problem for all of us, including the North American river otter. And who would want to be visiting their favorite woodland river, wetland or coastal area and have to ask, “Where are the clowns?”

Speak Up for River Otters

Protect river otters’ streams from polluters before July 31! >>

Click here to view the embedded video.

Credit: Sadie Stevens, Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst

This week’s stories:

1. Highlight of the Week:  Supreme Court Rules on Climate Science
2. Quote: Jeremy Symons, NWF Senior VP, Conservation & Education
3. Economic Story of the Week: Regional cap-and-trade systems to thrive
4. Editorial of the Week: A.E.P. Protests Too Much
5. Business Solutions for Climate Resilience
6. ALA Poll shows support for EPA and Stronger Smog Standards
7. Senate says No to Ethanol Subsidies
8. Happening this Week

Subscribe to the Climate Capsule RSS Feed to have your weekly update delivered automatically!

Highlight of the Week

Supreme Court Rules on Climate Science

via wallyg/Flickr

The Supreme Court has ruled in American Electric Power v. Connecticut that six states cannot, for now, try to limit carbon pollution from some of our nation’s dirtiest coal power plants under federal common law. But the decision “also revealed a significant shift in the views of the Court’s conservative justices on climate science and potential solutions for how the U.S. can tackle the problem,” said Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director for the National Wildlife Federation.

The new ruling strongly reiterates the 2007 ruling of Massachusetts v. EPA that emissions of carbon dioxide qualify as air pollution subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act and adds that “Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.” The Court focuses on this as the rationale for foreclosing Connecticut’s attempted use of federal common law to abate the carbon nuisance created by AEP’s coal-fired power plants. In joining the Court’s reasoning, “Roberts and Scalia have flipped over to a confirmation that the Clean Air Act is a tool to tackle climate,” said Mendelson.

The new opinion also reaffirms the EPA’s scientific findings that climate change is real and has significant impacts on the country. Justice Ginsburg recalled that after the ruling in Massachusetts the EPA went back and made its determination that man-made carbon pollution contributes to climate change impacts including increases in heat-related deaths, coastal inundation and erosion from melting ice caps, more frequent and intense hurricanes, and shifts in drought and rain patterns.

Back to top

Quote:

Jeremy Symons

“The first thing to know about this dangerous and unnecessary tar sludge pipeline is that it’s more than just a disaster for wildlife or a disaster for clean water…It’s about climate change… It’s also a disaster for consumers who are already paying high gas prices at the pump. At a time where our gas prices are already high, you have oil companies cooking up a new scheme that will raise gas prices in the Midwest.”

-Jeremy Symons, NWF Senior VP, Conservation & Education on E&E TV regarding the proposal for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Back to top

Economic Story of the Week

Regional cap-and-trade systems to thrive

via NWF

Carbon market experts and emissions trading proponents are confidently predicting that regional cap-and-trade systems will continue to grow in the U.S. and Canada. In spite of the recent announcement of New Jersey’s departure from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the nine other member states still remain strongly committed to the program’s success.

Additional trends in the western United States and Canada suggest that RGGI is encouraging a move toward mandatory cap-and-trade programs in several states and provinces, experts say. The emissions trading program in California, for example, is set to become the next government-regulated carbon market in North America. Once in place, it will ease the transition for other states and provinces.

Observers recognize RGGI for demonstrating a model other systems can follow, through the efficient allocation of emissions allowances by auction, with transparent system oversight and minimal disruption to the power markets. Regionally based approaches may continue to emerge throughout North America and maybe eventually unify as a comprehensive framework.

“I am increasingly a believer that what will happen in the U.S. is that we will have a bottom-up development of a series of regional programs which will eventually form a significant and nationwide” cap-and-trade program, says David Hunter, U.S. director of the International Emissions Trading Association.

Back to top

Editorial of the Week

A.E.P. Protests Too Much

(NY Times)

American Electric Power, one of the nation’s largest utilities, warned last week that new air quality rules could force it to “prematurely” shut down about two dozen big coal-fired units and fire hundreds of workers. This is a deceptive and particularly cynical claim. The utility is making a business decision that has little to do with the rules…Blaming the rules is a transparent scare tactic designed to weaken the administration’s resolve while playing to industry supporters on Capitol Hill.

Fortunately, Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which proposed the rules, refuses to be bullied. Ms. Jackson called the A.E.P. charges “misleading at best” and made clear she would not retreat from her statutory duty to protect public health. (More…)

Back to top

Business Solutions for Climate Resilience

According to a new report, Adapting for a Green Economy: Companies, Communities and Climate Change, jointly released by the UN Global Compact, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Oxfam and the World Resources Institute businesses worldwide can achieve competitive advantages through climate adaptation strategies.

According to the report, more than 4 out of 5 companies believe climate change poses a risk to their business. The global survey reported that 86 percent of businesses described responding the climate risks as a business opportunity.

“Businesses are facing increasing challenges from the rise in extreme weather events — such as droughts, heat waves and floods,” said Manish Bapna, managing director, WRI. “In this changing environment, companies that move first to address the risks and develop innovative strategies to adapt to climate change are likely to be the winners and gain a competitive advantage moving forward.”

Back to top

ALA Poll shows support for EPA and Stronger Smog Standards

LA Smog circa 1965 via Metro Transportation/Flickr

New data released from a bipartisan survey conducted by the American Lung Association indicates that Americans are greatly supportive of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their efforts to update and strengthen rules on life-threatening air pollutants such as smog.

The poll reports that 75 percent of voters support the EPA setting stricter limits on smog, rather than Congress. A significant majority of voters reject the idea that stronger standards will hinder economic recovery, while most agree that updated standards will spur innovation and investment in new technologies that will also lead to job creation.

Back to top

Senate says No to Ethanol Subsidies

via Brave Heart/Flickr

In a landmark 73-23 vote, the Senate passed an amendment to end the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and remove the protectionist tariff for corn ethanol. Because oil companies are already mandated under the Renewable Fuels Standard to blend ethanol, this funding is duplicative and no longer needed to support ethanol production.

The decision indicates that farm-state support for corn ethanol has conflicted with efforts to balance the budget. At an estimated annual cost to taxpayers of $4-6 billion a year, disposing of this tax credit will help control deficit spending without hindering the development of advanced biofuels as a renewable energy source. The House also voted to prohibit federal funding of expensive blender pumps and storage tanks for ethanol.

Back to top

Happening this Week

Tuesday, June 21

Briefing: Transatlantic Perspectives on Shale Gas Development, 2PM – 3:30 PM, 334 Cannon House Office Building

Wednesday, June 22

Hearing: Examining NOAA’s Climate Service Proposal, House Science, Space, and Technology, 10 AM, 2318 Rayburn

Thursday, June 23

Hearing on hydropower and electricity bills H.R.461, H.R.795, H.R.2060, House Natural Resources Committee, 10 AM, 1324 Longworth

Hearing on renewable energy bills H.R.2170, H.R.2171, H.R.2172, and H.R.2173, House Natural Resources Committee , 10 AM, 1334 Longworth

Hearings on regional energy and water bills, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 2:30 PM, 366 Dirksen

Saturday, June 25

Hands Across the Sand, a demonstration against offshore drilling and for clean energy. 11:30AM, The White House, Washington, DC (Pennsylvania Ave side)

Great American Backyard Campout, Anytime on June 25th or another convenient day, your backyard or favorite campsite.

Back to topFor more global warming news on Wildlife Promise click here.

On November 29, 2006, I sat at one of the Court’s counselor’s tables and watched intently as Justice Scalia uttered “Troposphere, whatever, I told you before I’m not a scientist. That’s why I don’t want to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.” The Justice’s disdain for climate science was confirmed the following April when the Supreme Court released its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

courtesy laapush.org

In Massachusetts, the Supreme Court found, in a 5-4 decision, that Congress had given the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to limit carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  All EPA had to do to use that authority was to find that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could reasonable endanger the country’s public health and welfare (something EPA did on December 9, 2009).  Conservatives Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia were two of the four justices that dissented in the case.

Chief Justice Robert’s dissent noted that climate change was “maybe a crisis” but that he did not want to make a judgment on whether it existed, what is causes, or the extent of the problem.  He stated that the requisite injuries to stay in court alleged by Massachusetts, such as lost coastline from sea level rise, were “pure conjecture.”

Similarly, Justice Scalia agreed with Roberts and added his own dissent on the merits of the case.  Scalia went so far as to cherry pick from parts of a 2001 National Academy of Science report to suggest that the Bush-era EPA has correctly determined uncertainty in climate science existed and thus no action should occur under the Clean Air Act.

Today’s decision comes over four years after Massachusetts and it scrambles the commonly-held conservative jurisprudence on climate change. Both Roberts and Scalia signed onto a majority opinion which realigns their views, at least in part, on the issues of climate science and the Clean Air Act.

Reaffirming The Clean Air Act’s Role

First, today’s opinion strongly reiterates the 2007 ruling stating, “Massachusetts made plain that emissions of carbon dioxide qualify as air pollution subject to regulation under the Act” (today’s opinion at 10) and later adds that “the critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants (at 12).” Indeed, the Court focuses on this as the rationale for foreclosing Connecticut’s attempted use of federal common law to abate the carbon nuisance created by AEP’s coal-fired power plants. In joining the Court’s reasoning, Roberts and Scalia have thus flipped over to a confirmation that the Clean Air Act is a tool to tackle climate change . . . something of which conservative members of Congress should duly take note. (See here and here.)

Acknowledging Climate Change Impacts

Second, the new opinion reaffirms the EPA’s scientific findings that climate change is real and has significant impacts on the country. In today’s decision, Justice Ginsburg reminded us that after the ruling in Massachusetts the EPA went back and made its determination that carbon pollution contributes to climate change impacts including increases in heat related deaths, coastal inundation and erosion from melting ice caps, more frequent and intense hurricanes, and shifts in drought and rain patterns. And while Roberts and Scalia still hold that these climate injuries may not yet pass the standing threshold to stay in court, the fact remains that two more of the Court’s justices broke away from the emerging conservative orthodoxy that climate change does not exist. Both joined an opinion that discusses at some length the current climate science and reiterates support for using the Clean Air Act to tackle the climate crisis.

So  if you are keeping score at home the silver lining in today’s ruling is that the Supreme Court scoreboard on climate science and the Clean Air Act just shifted favorably from 5-4 to 7-2.

For more details on the case, including an amicus brief filed by NWF, visit SCOTUS Blog.

The Players

Utilities annually dump millions of tons of carbon pollution into our atmosphere and oceans (via Eutrophication & Hypoxia on Flickr)

On one side of the case we had five biggest electric power utilities in the country, who annually dump millions of tons of carbon pollution into our atmosphere and oceans, 10 percent of the nation’s total carbon emissions.    Their attorneys rejected the idea of courts grappling with the harm this causes – they said that carbon pollution is a matter best handled by EPA.   This is an interesting and ironic argument coming from the very special interests who are working in Congress every day to prevent EPA from taking action.

On the other side of the case – the side in favor of the courts taking action – was the Solicitor General of the State of New York, who argued on behalf of several states, one city and several land trusts, all of whom are experiencing sea level rise and a host of other negative effects of climate change on their people and natural resources.   The New York attorney essentially asked the same questions we here at NWF have been asking.

The Critical Questions

Isn’t it past time that we held the polluters accountable?   Isn’t it wrong that they can cause all of this harm to our planet and our kids’ future and no one tells them to stop or even cut back?  This is the exact situation that the common law doctrine of “nuisance” was designed for – it was designed to empower the courts to fashion a remedy for environmental harms in cases where the legislature and executive fail to act.

What will the Court do in response to this compelling moral and legal argument?  It is always difficult to predict the outcome of court cases, but my guess, based on the comments and questions from the Justices, is that they will rule against taking action on global warming under the common law and, in particular, they will find that the courts’ power to limit carbon pollution under the common law has been “displaced” by Congress and the Executive.

NWF would be absolutely thrilled if these two branches took on the fight against climate change and displaced the role of the courts.  But right now Congress appears to be immobile at best on climate change, and although EPA is thankfully beginning to take action, it has not yet gotten around to dealing with existing power plants and some in Congress appear determined to stop it from doing so.   Until Congress and the EPA take action, the states and land trusts have every right to ask the courts to impose limits on the amount of carbon pollution that the large utilities emit.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Credit: Flickr's Mountain Hermit

This post was written by Jim Murphy, Wetlands and Water Resources Counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.  He can be reached at jmurphy@nwf.org.

On November 1, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reasserted basic federal Clean Water Act protections for a 31-acre coastal wetland in Horry County, South Carolina, near Murrells Inlet.  That’s the good news.  

The Bad News

Because of legal confusion created by two Supreme Court decisions – SWANCC in 2001 and Rapanos in 2006 – that have placed doubt over whether 60 percent of stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 states remain federally protected from pollution and destruction – it took the Corps more than five years and a federal lawsuit to protect these wetlands.

In July of 2005, Spectre LLC, a developer in South Carolina, asked the Corps if a wetland on a plat it had development plans for was protected by the Clean Water Act.  The Corps said no, that the wetland, one of several important wetlands in this low-lying coastal area, was “isolated” and therefore not protected by the act.  The effect of this decision was the wetland could now be filled and destroyed without federal safeguards. 

This decision also led to a state court decision that removed state protections for the wetland.  Fortunately, these state protections were restored on appeal.During the pendency of the state case, NWF, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Waccamaw Riverkeeper, with legal representation from Southern Environmental Law Center, questioned whether the Corps’ decision not to protect the wetland was valid. 

These groups hired an expert to examine the Corps’ decision.  The expert found that the wetland actually did have direct surface connections to larger downstream waters and the nearby ocean, and that the wetland likely provided a variety of functions, like flood storage and nutrient removal, that impacted the health of downstream waters.  NWF and the other groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Corps’ decision in March of 2009. 

Quickly after the lawsuit was filed, the Corps agreed to reconsider its decision.    After about a year and a half, the Corps finally issued the November 1, 2010 decision to protect the wetland.  The decision was based on the wetland’s direct link to downstream waters and the vital functions it, along with about 175 acres of nearby wetlands, performs for the health of downstream waters and area wildlife.   

Lessons Learned

The primary lessons of this case are two: many valuable waters can still be protected under current law, and the current process is untenable.  Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2001 confusion of the issue, protecting this wetland wouldn’t have been a question.  Now it is.  Five years and two lawsuits is no way to decide whether an important water is protected.  Without Congressional action to restore the historic scope of the law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps should take appropriate action to provide more legal clarity and categorical safeguards of waters based on science and law that would restore a much greater level of protections than currently exist on the ground. The sooner EPA and Corps begin to move in this direction, the better.

There is an old expression: “Money speaks and politicians listen.” With public confidence in Congress at a low point, the last thing America now needs is to have big energy companies trying to buy elections and wielding even greater influence in the halls of Capitol Hill and in state legislatures.

Yet in one reckless sweep in January, the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the potentially corrupting influence of money and redefined “people” in the Constitution to include corporations. Equating money to free speech, the court extended First Amendment protections to corporations.

Some energy companies have been working for decades to oppose common sense protections for wildlife and undermine some of our nation’s most important conservation laws. Now they want to block emerging clean energy technologies and keep America addicted to dirty and dangerous energy. Oil companies have been enjoying record profits at our expense, and they have plenty of money to spend on electing their friends to Congress and state legislatures throughout the country.

This incredible judicial activism threatens the integrity of our democracy. Justifying “legislation from the bench,” the Supreme Court’s majority opinion breaks completely free of logic and places enormous and undeserved confidence on the Internet to prevent abuse by saying: “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

Right. How many voters on the eve of an election will be digging through the next attack advertiser’s records on the Internet to discover that the ads are actually produced by a group that fronts for a Big Oil baron. Not going to happen.

Make no mistake about it. This decision will make protecting the environment much more difficult than it already is as elected officials will increasingly fear the excessive power that large polluting corporations wield though misleading advertising.

In their dissenting opinion, the four justices who opposed the decision pointed out the important “distinction between corporate and human speakers.” They added, “Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.”

Did our founding fathers really intend big banks and other corporations to have the same constitutional status as the people?

We get insight into the answer from Thomas Jefferson. During the famous 1809 bank bill debate, he warned, “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. . . .” Later, in a 1816 letter to Dr. George Logan of Philadelphia, Jefferson expanded his concern by writing, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Will our government become a limited access toll road? In a court brief filed on this matter, the U.S. Solicitor General warned that the corrupting influence of unrestrained corporate spending may lead to a “pay-to-play” government, giving advantage to large corporations that are able “to afford the ante.”

The court’s minority opinion also noted that corporations “cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”

At this stage, there appears to be little that can be done to change this Supreme Court ruling short of amending the Constitution. It is up to American voters now to be more vigilant than ever to reject corporate influence peddling in its many forms.

National Wildlife Federation is a not-for-profit charity, and as such, our free speech is constrained by law. We cannot participate in elections. We have, however, a sister organization, the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, that is allowed to support lawmakers who stand up for wildlife. They will desperately need our help to fight against the flood of influence peddling. You can learn more by visiting www.nwfactionfund.org.

As summer wanes, you might consider how much clean streams, lakes and beaches mean to you and your loved ones.

Sadly, this moment of reflection is also being forced on many of us: according to a recent Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report, beach closings due to pollution are on the rise, climbing above 20,000 for the last four years in a row.

Across the country, 746 communities in 32 states face water contamination, fish consumption warnings, and beach closings from the release of raw sewage into nearby water bodies.

Without restoring Clean Water Act protections, the releases that occur in smaller streams, creeks, tributaries, and canals—which are vulnerable to Clean Water Act protection loss—may no longer be regulated, polluting life’s vital resource.

America’s waters are degraded, endangered and sorely need protection—in part due to two recent Supreme Court cases that have limited the effectiveness of the historic Clean Water Act. These decisions have left many of America’s streams and waterways at risk once more.

Luckily, the U.S. House of Representatives is getting ready to consider restoring Clean Water Act protections when they return to Washington DC next month. And with everything else on Congress’ plate right now, it wouldn’t be good to let them forget how important our waters are.

While your representative is home for August recess, consider urging him or her to vote to restore critical protection to America’s waters.

Caroline Wick also contributed to this post.

Many of you wrote letters and placed phone calls to your members of Congress in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act to protect wildlife from global warming, create clean-energy jobs and improve the nation’s energy security. As a result, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on the eve of the 4th of July weekend. It was a close fight, and every letter and call counted.

While letters were pouring in from real voters like you who want a new energy future, a surprising number of calls and faxes were being sent to undecided lawmakers from phone numbers outside of their districts urging a vote against the bill. Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello received a letter that supposedly was sent from a local chapter of the NAACP, asking him to oppose the measure. On further investigation, Perriello discovered that this letter along with five others purportedly sent from different organizations were all forgeries. It was a fraud that corrupted the very heart of America’s democracy—the connection between members of Congress and their constituents.

In reality, the NAACP recently joined in partnership with the National Wildlife Federation to support passage of the legislation. During their Centennial Convention in July, NAACP delegates recognized the economic opportunities that will flow from global warming solutions, stating in a resolution that “solving the climate crisis can create 5 million ‘green’ jobs that will be in places where they are needed most.”

The fake NAACP letter and other phony messages sent to lawmakers were products of outright deception created by companies such as Bonner & Associates, a lobbying group known to create “strategic grassroots”—an artificial version of grassroots lobbying known in Washington, D.C., as “Astroturf.”

In recent years, large corporate interests have successfully deceived Congress and the public by paying for such Astroturf campaigns. Here is how it’s done: Corporations hire firms like Bonner & Associates, which in turn make up fake organizational names or borrow real organizations’ letterheads, hire professional callers who improperly identify themselves with made-up groups and urge unsuspecting residents to call their members of Congress to oppose important reform legislation that they misrepresent as bad. Bonner & Associates refused to reveal its corporate clients that funded their deception, but the firm has represented a number of big energy companies in the past. Congress is now investigating their activities.

This is merely the latest fraud by the major energy companies to mislead the public. On a recent visit to Prince William Sound in Alaska, I saw scientifically-collected samples that demonstrate much of the oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill remains where it went when it was washed off the surface of the rocks. It continues to damage fish and wildlife habitat and contaminate our food chain. The oiled sound is no longer the pristine place it once was and most of the canneries in the town of Cordova are gone.

When the pipeline and port in Prince William Sound were built, the oil industry promised President Nixon they would have a response team, oil booms and other equipment ready to address any spill that might occur. They didn’t.

In the days after the accident, as the oil spread more than 800 miles through the sound and along the Alaska Coast, Exxon promised to clean it up and make the 30,000 people living in the region’s fishing villages “whole.” They did neither. Instead, Exxon cheated innocent people of their livelihoods. For the next 20 years, the company fought bankrupt fishermen, cannery owners and other innocent victims all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, Exxon paid only pennies on the dollars lost. Many of the original victims died waiting; others lost everything dear to them.

There is an often-repeated quote, first attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, that says, “You may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Well, the executives of big oil along with the dirty coal industry believe they can fool all Americans all the time.

Oil companies will do everything they can to stop the clean energy and climate legislation passed in the House from advancing in the Senate. Once again, we expect a close vote. Call your two U.S. Senators, tell them that you are a real constituent and urge them to pass the bill to protect our world, create millions of new jobs and restore a strong economy built on a domestic energy future. Let’s work together to prove President Lincoln right.

Perhaps you thought that we already protected the waters of the United States? Think again.

Congress got it right in 1972 when they passed the Clean Water Act to clean up the nation’s waters. They understood that to clean up and protect our waters we have to stop pollution at its source: the small streams and wetlands that absorb, cleanse, and release precious water–and pollution–downstream. For the next 30 years or so, it was pretty well understood that the Clean Water Act protects virtually all of the nation’s important wetlands, lakes and streams.

This common sense understanding that the Clean Water Act broadly protects America’s waters held for over a generation. That is until two recent Supreme Court decisions (SWANCC in 2001 and Rapanos in 2006) questioned whether Clean Water Act protections extend to many of our most important streams, lakes and wetlands.

These court decisions have placed millions of acres of so-called “isolated” wetlands and lakes, intermittently flowing streams and wetlands adjacent to these streams at risk of losing federal safeguards–leaving them vulnerable to pollution and destruction. In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that the legal uncertainty that was created by these decisions has compromised its ability to enforce the Clean Water Act in at least 500 cases–including oil spill and chemical pollution sites.

Here’s What’s At Stake if Congress Fails to Act Soon:

• 60% of U.S. stream miles – Stream miles that flow periodically throughout the year may lose Clean Water Act protection. Over one-third of America’s drinking water from public supplies fed in whole or in part by these intermittent and ephemeral streams that are vulnerable to pollution. In other words, the waters that we depend on for our drinking supplies may be polluted and destroyed and the government may have little choice but to stand idly by.
• Millions of acres of wetlands -Potentially millions of priceless acres of them! (Well, not quite priceless…)

Economists figure that one acre of wetlands provides about $10,000 worth of ecosystem services, which include:

• Filtering drinking water - treating drinking water is expensive for communities strapped for cash. Wetlands and headwater systems do it for free!
• Preventing flooding - Wetlands and intermittently flowing streams naturally absorb flood waters, moderating peak flood stages and reducing flood damage.
• Protecting our coasts from hurricanes and storms - Wetlands buffer our coastlines from heavy wind, rain and storm surges that strike coastal communities during hurricanes and severe storms.
• Providing nesting grounds for and supporting diverse fish and wildlife populations – the Prairie Pothole Region of the Midwest is dominated by “isolated wetlands” that are losing Clean Water Act protection. These “isolated” wetlands provide essential breeding habitat for 50-75% of North America’s duck population. Many small streams and associated wetlands provide essential spawning and nursery habitat for fish.
• Supporting fish and wildlife related outdoor recreation - Hunters, anglers, birdwatchers, canoeists, water skiers–they all depend on clean water and healthy wetlands for recreation. Businesses and communities depend on the billions of dollars in revenue that outdoor enthusiasts spend each year.

There’s something you can do about all this. While your senators and representatives are home for April recess (April 6-17), urge them to move quickly to pass legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the nation’s streams, lakes and wetlands.

1. Schedule in-district meetings with them while they’re in your home district
2. Write them a letter (here’s an example)
3. You can submit a letter to the editor of your local paper.

Since it’s always a good idea to arm yourself with information, here’s a fact sheet and information on what we have to lose if Congress fails to restore protections for our waters.

Now’s your chance to ask your Members of Congress for yourself: Will you vote this year to protect our waters?

Caroline Wick contributed to this post.