The new year brings a new legal challenge to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, asking it to reconsider its decision to dredge year-round on the Georgia coast.

The group One Hundred Miles said year-round hopper dredging impedes the recovery of loggerhead sea turtles as well as other species. The group's vice president for education and communications, Catherine Ridley, said her organization, which is represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, opposes the Corps' decision to eliminate seasonal limitations on dredging projects that have protected sea turtles and other marine life for decades.

"We have invested 30 years of work into getting these turtles back to our coasts to continue nesting and help that species recover," said Ridley, who also is coordinator for the St. Simons Island Sea Turtle Project, "and to have dredges that would be in those very same waters, really injuring and killing those turtles, would set those recovery efforts back decades."

Dredging is done to clear sediment from waterways to keep them safe and navigable. Ridley added that, historically, this has been done in Georgia from mid-December through the end of March, when adult loggerheads and other vulnerable species are not as abundant and less likely to be harmed.

In the warmer seasons, Ridley said, the sea turtles face a higher risk of contact with dredging. She said a robust network of volunteers and researchers goes out every day during nesting season - from late April to early October - to monitor and protect the nests, where the adult sea turtles lay their eggs in the sand.

"And so, when they come and they dredge in the wintertime, there's very few turtles. Impact to the species recovery is very low," she said. "And that's why it's worked so well -- while also again, keeping our harbor safe, but also managing protections for other species. Winter dredging windows have been a really effective tool for pretty much everyone. It's just been a win-win."

She said they recognize the need for proper dredging to keep the harbor safe, but seasonal restrictions have allowed the Georgia Brunswick and Savannah Ports to grow and thrive, while also serving as an effective tool for protecting the loggerhead sea turtles.

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.