Connecticut's General Assembly is considering legislation which would end the use of certain types of pesticides in the state.
Senate Bill 962 and Senate Bill 963 aim to restrict the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and neonicotinoids to protect wildlife populations.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, second-generation rodenticides pose greater risks to non-targeted species when they are used.
Ann Gadwah, advocacy and outreach coordinator for the Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club, pointed out there are alternatives to the chemicals.
"There's first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides that people can use," Gadwah explained. "There's a form of 'rat birth control' that people can use, so it keeps the population down; because that's the problem; they reproduce very quickly."
She added traditional methods from cats to nonpoisonous traps are alternatives less harmful to the environment. While the bill has wide-ranging support, it did receive some opposition at a public hearing, predominantly from pest-control professionals. Since they're trained to use these chemicals, they feel banning them entirely is going too far. Currently, the bill is tabled for the calendar in the state Senate.
Birds in the state, such as raptors and hawks, have been those most exposed to secondary poisonings from use of the pesticides.
Patrick Comins, executive director of the Connecticut Audubon Society, noted the pesticides also affect insects.
"Every part of the plant becomes toxic to insects, including our pollinators, which are important food sources for birds," Comins emphasized. "Also, they're water-soluble, so that they get into the water table and into aquatic ecosystems and harm our aquatic insects as well - both beneficial and non-beneficial insects."
Bans on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are slowly coming about. Along with the town of Arlington, Massachusetts, the state of California and the Canadian province of British Columbia have banned them.
Similar bans are being considered in New York state, and in the U.S. Senate.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A new report found four dams in the Columbia River Basin are big emitters of methane.
Research from the organization Tell The Dam Truth showed the four lower Snake River dams in eastern Washington emit the equivalent of 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Robin Everett, deputy western region field director for the Sierra Club, said it undercuts some of the claims the dams are helping provide the region with clean energy.
"It's really clear from this report that we have to take this a lot more seriously that there are some real impacts as far as emissions go from these dams," Everett asserted.
The reports showed the dams produce the equivalent emissions of burning 2 billion pounds of coal annually. Defenders of the dams counted they are important for barging and irrigation for the area's agricultural lands.
But Everett pointed out the dams have another effect on the region: they block the dwindling population of salmon and steelhead from traveling upstream on the Snake River. She noted it not only hurts fish populations but the tribes relying on them.
"We have an obligation for them to be able to fish and if there are no fish to fish, we have broken the treaties," Everett contended
Chinook salmon are also an important source of food for orca on the West Coast. Everett added protecting salmon is important for tribes and the region as a whole.
"Our moral obligation to the salmon and the orca that depend on them are met as well," Everett concluded.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A proposed pumped-storage hydroelectric facility for Cuffs Run near the Susquehanna River in York County has been challenged by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
The foundation filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is considering granting a preliminary permit to build a 1.8-mile-long dam for the project.
Harry Campbell, science policy and advocacy director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said they are working to stop the project in order to protect the unique Cuffs Run area and its ecological benefits for future generations.
"If approved, this project would destroy it about 580 acres of prime farmland, fields and forests, some of which have not been disturbed in about 100 years," Campbell pointed out. "Those farms, fields and forests exist harmoniously with and in support of a plethora of plant and animal life."
The foundation is circulating an online petition and encouraged Pennsylvanians to provide comments before Sunday.
The stream is home to naturally reproducing brook trout. Advocates worry the $2.5 billion project would also be harmful to the Susquehanna River. Campbell noted about 40 families would be displaced.
"For those who call Cuffs Run home, it's more than just a place to live. It's their heritage and they want it to be part of their legacy," Campbell asserted. "This project just simply is the wrong idea in the wrong place. In order to honor that heritage and that legacy, we need to preserve this area."
Campbell emphasized the Cuffs Run project is about 993 acres of land draining into a 2.5-mile unnamed tributary. He added in terms of stream habitat, the rocks, pebbles and woody material have been identified as among the best in the region for supporting critters living in the water.
Disclosure: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation contributes to our fund for reporting on Energy Policy, Rural/Farming, Sustainable Agriculture, and Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Tennesseans want more say in how the Tennessee Valley Authority plans for their future electricity needs and a bill now in Congress could give the public more influence.
The "TVA Increase Rate of Participation Act," would require a more open decision-making process for the utility.
Brianna Knisley, director of public power campaigns for Appalachian Voices, said the TVA is currently developing its new Integrated Resource Plan to meet future energy demands. The bill would require more public participation in the plan's proceedings.
"Right now the stakeholders who get to provide input early on in the IRP process are all hand-selected by TVA," Knisley pointed out. "You can't choose to be in that IRP working group. And those are the only folks who get substantial input in the architecture of the IRP, as it's being designed."
The utility serves more than 10 million people across six states. The TVA said it is reviewing the legislation. A draft of the plan will be published at a later date. The TVA said it already has a "robust stakeholder engagement plan."
After the plan is released, Knisley noted public input happens during what's known as the scoping phase of the National Environmental Policy Act. Open houses are set up, where the TVA answers questions from the public. Knisley encouraged Tennesseans to raise any of their concerns during the public and virtual hearings.
"I think additional public input into our region's long-term energy plan is only going to strengthen outcomes," Knisley contended. "And make that long-term energy plan better meet the needs of the Tennessee Valley, as a whole."
She added it is important for Tennesseans to work with Congress on the best way to improve public input in the TVA decision-making process.
Disclosure: Appalachian Voices contributes to our fund for reporting on Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email