ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Environmental groups and local residents are speaking out against a proposed fracked-gas pipeline to run through rivers, farms and forests from Delaware to Maryland's Eastern Shore.

The Hogan administration held a public hearing about Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company's plan to build more than 20 miles of pipeline to bring fracked gas to the historically black University of Maryland Eastern Shore campus and the rest of Somerset County.

Anthony Field, Maryland campaign coordinator for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, says with the recent setbacks for both the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Dakota Access pipeline, the project is out of step with the public's desire to move away from fossil fuels.

"The era of fossil fuels is over," says Field. "We simply cannot be building new infrastructure for toxic methane gas. Eastern Shore officials should promote the speedy development of clean energy sources like offshore wind instead."

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company officials say the pipeline is needed in the area to meet growing market demand. They point out it also would bring gas service to Somerset County, one of only three counties in Maryland without access to natural gas.

But Field says the public must weigh any support for a fossil-fuel energy source with the pipeline's potential threat to the area's ecosystems, particularly water supplies. And he notes that once the pipeline is up and running, its emissions would boost greenhouse gases - ultimately affecting air quality in a low-income area already challenged by climate change.

"This is extremely concerning," says Field. "Especially UMES, for example, is an HBCU, and largely disenfranchised folks - people of color, lower-income individuals - are mostly the ones affected by the changing climate, and the issues that these kind of infrastructure bring to the state and the country."

He says his group and others will continue protesting the pipeline. In the meantime, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan plans to spend more than $100 million to increase fracked-gas pipelines and infrastructure in the state.


get more stories like this via email

A bill introduced in Congress is facing backlash from nonprofit organizations, warning it could stifle free speech.

The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act would postpone tax deadlines for citizens who are unlawfully detained abroad or held hostage but it would also give the federal government the power to remove the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group it deems to be supporting "terrorist organizations."

Critics of the bill claimed it would give President-elect Donald Trump the power to make decisions about churches, universities, news outlets and more.

Lisa DePaoli, communications director at the Center for Coalfield Justice, said it could be used to stifle the environmental work they do in Pennsylvania.

"The main issue for us is that it could take away our nonprofit designation, and it could take away our First Amendment rights," DePaoli contended. "If stripped of our rights, it'll just make the fight to protect our communities that much harder."

Proponents said it would require the federal government to provide evidence a nonprofit has supported a listed terrorist organization. More than 130 religious, civil rights and other advocacy groups have joined the ACLU in asking lawmakers to vote against the bill.

According to the ACLU, there would be a 90-day period in which a nonprofit group could defend itself against the accusations. However, the federal government might not have to turn over the evidence it would be using to make its case.

DePaoli noted she has concerns environmental groups would be specifically targeted with such powers.

"We obviously don't consider ourselves a terrorist organization but I do know that, in the past, some environmental organizations have been labeled as such," DePaoli pointed out. "It feels like a really slippery slope to me. We don't want our First Amendment rights taken away. We want to be able to speak out and express if we're upset with something they're doing."

The bill passed the House last Thursday, in a vote of 219 in support and 184 against. Fifteen Democrats sided with all but one Republican to support the bill.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana environmental advocates are facing uncertainties following the election.

Changes in federal leadership could shift key environmental protections, creating questions for state policies on coal ash and water quality.

Sam Carpenter, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, noted federal regulations, like those from the Environmental Protection Agency, have helped Indiana manage environmental challenges, including addressing unlined coal ash pits contaminating groundwater. With shifting federal priorities, there is a question of what will happen to the protections.

"The EPA had recently come out with guidelines that require those to be cleaned up," Carpenter pointed out. "There are similar things with coal-fired power plants where we still rely quite a bit on our coal power generation which is dirty."

Carpenter argued the plants are costly and harmful to health and the climate. Supporters of reduced regulation argue scaling back federal oversight could ease economic pressures on Indiana's coal industry and reduce costs for energy providers.

Carpenter expressed concern over Indiana's legislative stance, emphasizing a need for strong regulations to protect the well-being of Hoosiers and natural resources in the state amid increased development.

"What we need to think about is protection of our health, protection of our water, of our natural assets," Carpenter emphasized. "In our statehouse there is a real concern about regulation. We rely on some protection for natural resources."

Despite the challenges, Carpenter urged residents to stay hopeful and engaged, stressing involvement is a powerful antidote to despair. He assured supporters the council would keep pushing for clean energy, water quality improvements and partnerships across political lines to secure a healthier environment.


get more stories like this via email

Hispanic families who fish to put food on the table are disproportionately affected by mercury, which accumulates in seafood in Southern California.

Surveys at 10 piers in Los Angeles and Orange counties found 60% of the anglers were Latino and native Spanish speakers, and 78% of them were fishing to feed their families.

Sofia Barboza, ocean manager for the Hispanic Access Foundation, said the families are exposed to toxins in fish from polluted waters.

"We found that Hispanic anglers in California are actually ingesting an average of 13.9 micrograms of mercury per day via fish consumption that they had caught in local waters," Barboza reported. "This is double the amount of mercury that has been determined as safe by the EPA."

Fish with high mercury levels have also been found in the Bay Area, the Central Coast near Humboldt and Deer Creek. A newly-released report from the foundation about Latinos in U.S. fisheries found 5% of Latinos in California, or about 785,000 people, work in the agricultural, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining sectors. But no research yet exists to determine how many Latinos are in commercial fishing.

Barboza suggested the warning signs about pollution at the piers, as well as government websites, should be translated into Spanish.

"Even though 28% of the California population speaks Spanish, the California Fish and Wildlife Department fishing regulations are not provided in Spanish on their website," Barboza pointed out. "Something we would like to see moving forward."

The report also recommends stronger oversight of commercial fishing companies hiring Hispanic migrant workers on H2B visas to ensure they receive fair wages, safe working conditions and access to safe housing.