NEWPORT, Ore. – Can a river defend itself in court?

On Monday, a judge in Newport will answer that question in the case of the Siletz River Ecosystem.

Last May, Lincoln County residents approved a measure banning aerial pesticide spraying – a measure that stated the river had the "right to be free from toxic trespass."

Its backers are worried that the large pesticide sprays on forests before they are logged are putting hazardous chemicals into rivers and streams, which also provide some of the county's drinking water.

Carol Van Strum was in court as the river's advocate in July when the motion to intervene was originally filed.

"That's why I call it the 'Lorax issue,'” she states. “Somebody has to speak for the trees, the rivers, the fish, the birds, everything that's out here – because no one else is going to."

Two plaintiffs representing farms in Lincoln County are looking to overturn the ban so they can continue spraying pesticides. Other opponents of the measure say its language is too broad.

Van Strum has been involved in other cases fighting for the environment, typically against the government and chemical manufacturers.

She recently published a trove of documents, known as the "Poison Papers," from legal cases over the past 40 years that detail industry's influence on the Environmental Protection Agency.

In August, “The Poison Papers” became available online. Van Strum says this case is part of that legacy, and that the movement to defend nature's rights in court has been building.

"It sounds like a novel idea, but it's not,” she stresses. “It's a matter of the courts catching up to the last 50 years of reality, and they're going to have to do it eventually. Other countries have."

Over the past year, high courts in New Zealand, India and Colombia have recognized the rights of rivers, and Ecuador's Constitution has recognized the rights of nature since 2008.







get more stories like this via email

As Congress debates cuts to offset tax-cut extensions, the future of the Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit remains uncertain, with potential impacts on Michigan's growing clean-fuel industry. The Clean Fuels Production Tax credit was established under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. It offers 20 cents per gallon for nonaviation fuels and 35 cents for aviation fuels which cut emissions by 50% compared with petroleum. Michigan has six key clean-fuel and alternative-energy initiatives, including Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

Alex Muresianu, senior policy analyst for Tax Foundation, estimates that repealing the credit could net about $12.8 billion over a decade based on Treasury projections, although he questions the math.

"That was based on some estimates from Treasury. It doesn't make sense to take a revenue cost estimate from Treasury and assume it will one-for-one translate into revenue raised from reversing a policy," she said.

Critics call credit initiative costly, favoring big companies while possibly raising fuel prices and distorting the market. It started on January 1st and is slated to run through 2027 unless extended.

Congress is divided on the future of these tax credits. While some want to eliminate them altogether to offset tax cuts, others warn that doing so could harm energy investments and job growth.

Nan Swift, a resident fellow of the Governance Program at R Street Institute, believes that right now, Congress is likely far from debating the finer details, and the tax credit is just one of those specifics.

"Certainly, it's on a a wish list for a lot of members, but we don't even know yet if the House and Senate can find agreement between their two-bill or one-bill plans," she explained.

Shortly after the Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit was enacted, debates arose about its cost, effectiveness and fairness over the broader economy.


get more stories like this via email

In the wake of plans to reopen the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert Township after three years of inactivity, major tech companies have pledged to triple global nuclear energy output by 2050.

The tech giants include Amazon, Google and Meta, signing the "Large Energy Users Pledge" at a major energy conference in Houston this month. The pledge backs development of small modular reactors for data centers and artificial intelligence but raises concerns over regulations and public opposition.

M. V. Ramana, professor of disarmament, global and human security at the University of British Columbia, a physicist and nuclear expert, said nuclear energy is environmentally risky and expensive, and despite the wealth of Big Tech, he pointed out, they will not be footing the bill.

"Much of the funding for any of these activities -- whether it's building new reactors or reopening old, shuttered reactors -- is coming from the public," Ramana emphasized. "Tax money that's going in, it'll be the ratepayers' money."

For Michigan's Indigenous communities opposed to nuclear expansion, it is much deeper than just a financial issue. They urged listening to the natural world and ancestral teachings rather than allowing outsiders to dictate their future. Supporters argued expansion is crucial for meeting energy demands and cutting carbon emissions.

Critics contended most small reactors exist only on paper. They have not been built or tested, so claiming they are safe for the public, or for powering artificial intelligence and data centers is merely theoretical. Ramana warned those critics, the tech giants backing a boost in nuclear energy will be tough to stand up against.

"It is going to increase the pressure on the Department of Energy to approve funds," Ramana observed. "Not that the DOE requires any kind of prodding, they are only too happy to shovel out our money to all of these nuclear companies."

Supporters maintained small modular reactors will be safer, more efficient, and tested for reliability in powering the energy-intensive industries using them.


get more stories like this via email

A local nonprofit with a mission to advance regenerative agriculture is hoping its new video can open up an untapped world of science to a younger audience.

It is not every day kids see animated characters rapping about the importance of soil microbes but the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute created "The Soil Microbe Song" as a way to educate children.

Nicole Tautgus, agroecologist and research director at the institute, said she saw a gap in K-12 science education even she experienced, as she didn't hear the term "soil science" until she was in college. A former professor and her toddler son inspired Tautgus to write the song about soil.

"There's this concept that kids love to put their hands in the dirt, and there's this concept of healthy eating that we talk about," Tautgus outlined. "But I don't think that it gets connected very well to the soil, to the plant, to the kitchen, to the plate."

Studies shows farm soil tends to lack beneficial microbes, which help retain nutrients and suppress disease, and affect crop outcomes. Organic farming enhances microbial activity in soil. She added more people are beginning to see the importance of sharing these topics with children.

"Soil microbes are the hot topic among farming right now, and they're absolutely integral to everything that soil does," Tautgus pointed out. "So, why not introduce children to this concept? We talk to them about germs and washing their hands, but there's also a whole world of beneficial microbes."

Tautgus explained animated soil microbes parade around in the song, describing what each of their roles are, to hopefully engage children and anyone else who watches it.

"I think when you get into the world of soil microbes, it becomes technical really quickly," Tautgus acknowledged. "There's a lot of words in the video and a lot of it whizzes by, but the words weren't my goal."

The institute plans to develop accompanying lesson plans and materials in hopes the video can be used in classrooms across the state.