Since a dam burst at its Kingston coal-fired power plant last December and dumped more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge into a nearby community and river, the federal Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has decided to change the way it stores its coal waste, transitioning from wet landfills like the one that failed to dry storage of ash.

Now a company is pushing a plan to use dry coal ash from the Kingston plant to fill an abandoned coal mine in Tennessee -- but environmentalists are raising concerns about the proposal's health risks.

Smith Mountain Solutions, a company owned by the principals behind Wright Brothers Construction of Charleston, Tenn., has proposed taking dry ash from TVA's Kingston plant and using it to fill a former surface mine 20 miles away atop Smith Mountain in Cumberland County.

The company says it would install a protective synthetic liner first and abide by regulations of the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation. Coal ash is not currently regulated as hazardous waste by the federal government, though the Environmental Protection Agency has said it intends to release proposed regulations by year's end.

Smith Mountain Solutions makes the case [PDF] that the plan would benefit the environment by cleaning up the toxic acid mine drainage that now runs from the mine site. Brock Hill, the mayor of Cumberland County, also supports the plan as a way to fix an environmental eyesore, The Tennessean reports:

But many residents stand in opposition, concerned about truck traffic and the potential for air and water pollution from mercury, arsenic, and other potentially toxic substances found in ash. They draw support from a list of heavy hitters that includes the Sierra Club and the National Park Service, both of which are partly motivated by wanting to protect the nearby Obed Wild and Scenic River.

Other groups opposing the plan include Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment (an environmental advocacy group formerly called Save Our Cumberland Mountains), the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Their concerns include environmental damage and public health threats from contamination resulting from liner failure as well as from airborne coal ash -- a particular concern atop a windy mountain.

Coal ash contains a number of health-damaging contaminants including arsenic, lead, mercury, and radioactive elements. Children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in coal ash

A number of residents of the mountain road leading up to the mine site are also suing over the dumping plans. They include the owner of Black Cat Lodge, a drug treatment center that helps patients recover by getting close to nature. The residents say the mine filling plan has been drawn up without adequate public scrutiny.

Problems associated with dumping coal ash waste into abandoned mines have been documented nationwide. Earlier this year, the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice released a report titled "Waste Deep: Filling Mines With Coal Ash Is Profit for Industry, but Poison for People" that reported on the poisoning of streams and drinking water supplies by the practice.

Earthjustice estimates that about 25 million tons of coal ash waste -- about 20 percent of all such waste generated -- is dumped into old mines each year. The practice, which is occurring throughout the U.S. coalfields, is embraced by utilities because it dramatically cuts down on coal ash disposal costs.

But a four-year study of coal ash mine fills in Pennsylvania by the Clean Air Task Force found that the practice worsened water quality at 10 of the 15 sites examined, while the other five sites lacked adequate monitoring data to know whether the coal waste was responsible for adverse effects.

The plan being considered for Smith Mountain is different from many mine filling projects in that it includes a synthetic liner as well as a leachate collection system for runoff. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged that most landfills eventually leak.

The leachate collection systems used in landfills are not foolproof either, according to the Environmental Research Foundation. The systems have a tendency to clog up or corrode after a few decades, and the resulting fluid build-up increases the likelihood of liner failure, allowing the coal ash contaminants to come in direct contact with groundwater.

Cumberland County is expected to receive about $1 million a year in dumping fees from the project. But the plan has already cost one of the local leaders politically, as Mayor Hill was replaced as chairman of the county commission last month for the first time in 15 years by a 10 to 7 vote of his fellow commissioners due to his pro-ash dumping stance.

Smith Mountain Solutions initially proposed taking the ash that was spilled in the Kingston plant disaster last December, but TVA chose to dispose of that at the already-permitted Arrowhead Landfill in Perry County, Ala. That decision raised concerns about environmental justice, since Perry County is 69 percent black with 32 percent of its residents living in poverty.

Cumberland County, Tenn. is 98 percent white, with 17 percent of its residents living in poverty -- a slightly higher poverty rate than the state's 15.8 percent, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

(A slightly longer version of this story with images and a table originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released information showing there are 584 coal ash dump sites across the country -- almost twice as many as previously identified. The facilities are located in 35 states and concentrated in Appalachia, the Southeast, Midwest and Intermountain West.

The release [PDF] came late last Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The information released reveals ownership, location, hazard potential, year commissioned, type and quantity of coal combustion waste disposed, dates of the last regulatory or company assessment and in some instances whether an unregulated discharge of ash has occurred.

However, some critical data is missing because companies are claiming it's confidential business information. Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the Southern Co.'s Alabama Power and Georgia Power are among the corporations withholding information on 74 coal ash dump sites, including some of the country's largest ash dumps.

"Some utilities -- notably Duke and Southern Companies -- are hiding the ball, withholding data on their ash ponds that their competitors have already provided to EPA," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which submitted the FOIA request along with the environmental law firm Earthjustice and the Sierra Club. "Let's hope that EPA's enforcement program puts a stop to these bogus claims of 'confidentiality,' and compels the disclosure of data that companies are required to report."

States with coal ash sites included in the list are as follows: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming.

In March, the EPA sent letters [PDF] to hundreds of power generating facilities requesting information about coal ash surface impoundments. The agency was responding to the disaster that occurred last December at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston power plant in eastern Tennessee, where a dam failure released over 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge into a nearby community and river.

Coal ash sites contain harmful levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxins, which can leach out and contaminate drinking water sources.

The EPA data shows that most of of the dump sites are over three decades old, raising questions about the structural integrity of the dams and the adequacy of the liners to prevent harmful chemicals from migrating into water sources. It also shows regulatory inspections of the dams by state and federal agencies are infrequent or nonexistent.
 
In addition, EPA's data reveal that many of the wet dumps are very large, with over 100 exceeding 50 acres and numerous sites covering several hundred acres. Furthermore the largest dumps tend to be the older sites with the least amount of protection.

In response to another information request by the same three environmental groups, EPA recently identified 49 "high hazard" coal ash dump sites, where a failure would be likely to cause loss of life. The Department of Homeland Security had initially determined that the sites presented such a threat to nearby communities that revealing their location would present a national security risk.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says her agency expects to release a proposed federal rule governing disposal and storage of coal ash by year's end. Regulation is currently left up to an uneven patchwork of state laws.

(A version of this story originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

The Obama administration will defend the Clinton roadless rule that has been ping-ponging in the courts for nearly a decade, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said in Seattle on Friday. If courts can’t resolve the forest-protection conflict, the administration will create its own roadless rule, he said.

Vilsack laid out a broad vision for the U.S. Forest Service, outlining for the first time his plan for the agency that manages national forests from within the Department of Agriculture. He promised strong conservation measures and an emphasis on restoring damaged forests, especially those left “overstocked and susceptible to catastrophic fire and disease” by a legacy of fire suppression.

He also spoke to the economic potential of forests in emerging carbon and bioenergy markets and their value as a water source as climate change brings increasingly severe droughts. He hinted at the value of new water markets for private land owners.

“The Forest Service must play a significant role in the development of new markets and ensuring their integrity,” he said, speaking near the old-growth forest at Seattle’s Seward Park. “Carbon and bioenergy aren’t the only new opportunity for landowners. Markets for water can also provide landowners with incentives to restore watersheds and manage forests for clean and abundant water supplies.”

Vilsack made an appeal, in a very Obama sort of way, to environmental leaders, asking them for help in moving past the “history of distrust” between conservationists, the Forest Service, and loggers. In short, he asked them to lay off the lawsuits against government plans.

“Certainly appeals and litigation have served as a useful backstop” against poor forest plans in the past, he said. “But given the scale of restoration that must occur, and the time in which we have to do it, a shared vision built on collaboration will help us move on from the timber wars of the past. Litigation and conflict should become less prevalent, because they will be less necessary.”

Patti Goldman, vice president for litigation at Earthjustice, said she was glad to see a clear departure from Bush administration land management.

“They’re moving into the future,” she said. “That’s a wise move.”

To be sure, the speech was more broad principles than specific plans; Vilsack said those would come in a new forest plan, a regulatory rule that won’t have to pass through Congress.

He also said the Forest Service must address the 80 percent of American forests that lie outside of national forests, under the control of states, tribal groups, businesses, and private landowners. 

“The threats facing our forests don’t recognize property boundaries,” he said. “So, in developing a shared vision around forests, we must also be willing to look across property boundaries. In other words, we must operate at a landscape scale by taking an ‘all-lands approach.’”

Vilsack didn’t mention specific measures, but Charlie Raines of the Sierra Club’s Cascade Chapter said ramping up funding for the Forest Legacy program would be an effective way to let forest owners make money off their land without developing it.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Justice Sonia SotomayorPhoto: White HouseEnviros are cheering for brand-new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday on a 68-31 vote.  Well, make that many enviros, not all. 

"We congratulate Justice Sotomayor on her historic confirmation to the high court, where her extensive experience will serve her well," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "With many of our nation's bedrock environmental laws under constant attack, Supreme Court decisions in coming years will continue to have far-reaching environmental implications."

Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen also praised her confirmation, while acknowledging that she doesn't have much of a record on environmental cases: "Judge Sotomayor’s record evinces no clear bias in favor or against environmental issues, but instead reflects meticulous preparation, a balanced and thoughtful review, and a deep understanding of the law.”

The Sierra Club and Earthjustice were among dozens of green groups that formally backed Sotomayor in July, encouraging the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve her nomination.  In a letter [PDF] to the committee, the groups were generally complimentary about her thin record:

But green activist and Grist contributor Ken Ward contended last month that Sotomayor didn't deserve an endorsement from enviros.  "If there was ever a time when the U.S. Supreme Court requires a passionate, articulate and unabashed voice for the environment—another William O. Douglas—that time is now," he argued -- and Sotomayor ain't it. 

Jennifer Koons of Greenwire has a good rundown of the environmental topics that cropped up during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. Get more on Sotomayor's green record from Grist's Kate Sheppard,
Joe Walsh of CleanTechies blog, and Earthjustice.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

If there was ever a time when the U.S. Supreme Court requires a passionate, articulate and unabashed voice for the environment -- another William O. Douglas -- that time is now. Should Waxman-Markey die in the Senate and the EPA be forced to regulate carbon emissions, the matter will likely land before the Justices and there are any number of other eco-catastrophes being handled as matters of law on which we desperately require the very best advocate the President can appoint.

If in the history of the environmental movement there was ever a call for bold, unequivocal and urgent leadership, that time is now. We stand on the precipise of cataclysm, from which we can withdraw only with vigorous U.S. action, and only U.S. environmentalists, in concert with climate scientists, can make that case.

Instead of acting on these imperatives, the President has nominated a former corporate lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court, whose "record evinces no clear bias in favor of or against environmental claims," according to the bland and blanket letter of endorsement issued by 60 some-odd environmental groups.

The cascade of reasons why Sonia Sotomayor is a bad choice and our response is so very wrong are so numerous and obvious that I find it difficult to single out which are the most onerous. Three points, at least, must be mentioned:

    1. Why didn't we call for appointment of an environmentalist?
    2. Why are we embarrassed to assert our convictions?
    3. Why have we connived to launder Judge Sotomayor's environmental record?

She is no Douglas. Earthjustice writes of William O. Douglas that,

In his dissenting opinion [in Sierra Club v. Morton], studied in law schools to this day, Justice Douglas expressed his concern for the environment and argued for the court to recognize the standing of inanimate objects of the natural world. "The critical question of 'standing' would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled."

Fifty years later, facing the catastrophe we accurately forecast and possessed of the only functional global solution, allied with a President who is beholden to us and, we think, share our analysis and prescription, and operating on a timeline measured in years, what do we do? We sign off on a Supreme Court nominee whose record is so bad that we must fudge it. A judge Michael Doyle's neatly sums up:

She's willing to grant standing to environmental plaintiffs but she doesn't reach aggressively for jurisdiction. Corporations sometimes win and sometimes lose. She can write clearly and directly about the importance of environmental protection, but she refrains from surging into poetry.

At this late, desperate hour we require leadership in every forum with the courage and poetry in language. Sotomayor is no Douglas.

Embarrassed by our own convictions. “She’s ruled both ways on environmental cases, so it’s not like she’s ideologically committed one way or another, and that’s not what we look for in a judge,”  Earthjustice President Tripp Van Noppen told Grist.

That's utterly ridiculous. Of course we want ideological environmentalists on the bench, there are no other kind and we are locked in an ideological cage match to the death.

It is ideology to consider other species as having the right to exist independent of our whims and irrespective of their utility to us, and I want a Supreme Court Judge who subscribes to it.

It is ideology to view air, water and our public lands as held in trust for the common good, and I want a Supreme Court Judge who believes this.

It is ideology to ask that the interests of generations not yet born be considered in the decisions taken today, and I want a Supreme Court Judge with a long view.

It is ideology to prefer the simplest, most efficient and least material solution, and I want a Supreme Court Judge with frugal sensibilities.

And so on...

Van Noppen apparentlys has a much lower standard in mind. “She’s likely to honor citizens’ rights to use the courts to enforce the law, because that’s the way those laws are written, and to use the authority of those agencies to carry out their mission as it has been created by Congress,” Van Noppen told Grist. In other words, Earthjustice awards Justice Sotomayor top marks for acknowledging plainly stated federal law.

The Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth joined Earthjustice in the endorsement, for anyone keeping a running score (David Brower must be spinning wildly at this point). Greenpeace USA also signed, forfeiting some of the high ground it staked out with its courageous opposition to Waxman-Markey. Rainforest Action Network stayed off the list, maintaining it's best-in-class record. A number of heavyweights signed on – NWF, National Audubon and The Wilderness Society, in particular – which means that the statement is both presented and understood as the position of U.S. environmentalists.

We are so enmeshed in the tangled skeins of pragmatism that it is difficult to recognize how self-destructive are our statements on Sotomayor. To put it in perspective, try to image any other major institution issuing a similar statement.

"Sotomayer ruled against labor half the time and that's why she's such a great nominee!" gushed SEIU Intl. President Andy Stern.

"Judge Sotomayor has handled abortion in an even-handed manner, that's why we support her so strongly," said Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life.

"Where federal law is written in plain English, Judge Sotomayor has no trouble reading it, and basic literacy is our standard for the Supreme Court." testified Rodney G. Moore, President of the National Bar Association

Laundering the record. "Judge Sotomayor’s record evinces no clear bias in favor of or against environmental claims," wrote the 60 environmental groups. I'd oppose the nomination on this analysis alone, as noted, but in my view, Sotomayor's slim record cannot even be read as value-neutral.

The single major case listed in Sotomayor's favor, Riverkeeper v. EPA, was an easy call (when it says "best technology available," that means, you know, that some sort of technology must be used; you can't just toss in a few new fish to make up for the ones you mangled in your cooling tower and call it even), and there are some distinctly uncomfortable Sotomayor decisions about which our 60 endorsing groups remain silent (see Environmental Law Update for full list)

Aguinda v. Texaco.  Sotmayor sided with two other judges to throw out a class action appeal by indigenous peoples of the Amazon basin, for lack of standing, who sought damages for decades of ruinous environmental practices by Texaco. Although the case was brought in the jurisdiction where Texaco's headquarters was located, Sotomayor ruled that plaintiffs were free to file suit in Ecuador, denying a series of claims – such as a requirement that each individual to be included in a 30,000 member class action must sign papers – that the Ecuador courts and legal system were inadequate to handle an intricate class action suit and susceptible to improper pressure. The case was refiled in Ecuador, right at the time Amnesty International launched a campaign challenging the integrity of the Ecuador judicial system and predictably, according to a close observor, "the challenges of indigenous groups against this petroleum behemoth have been all but squashed under the weight of Chevron-Texaco’s bottomless legal and public relations resources, as well as the political instability of the Ecuadorian Republic and its judiciary."

Environmental Defense v. EPA.  Environmental Defense, represented by Earthjustice challanged EPA's certification that New York City would meet Clean Air Act ozone standards by a 2007 deadline. "State of the art computer models show that the New York area will not meet clean air standards for ozone by the 2007 federal deadline without stronger pollution controls," stated Earthjustice attorney David Barron at the time, "yet EPA still signed off of the region's current smog control plans. We contend that deprives people the health protection the law requires." Sotomayor decided in favor of EPA and New York City failed to meet the 2007 deadline.

C'mon folks. We're not going to save the world and stuff if we are afraid to state our convinctions and too timid to press politicians to move way pass present political bounds.

Related Links:

Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters

Hunters and anglers rally for climate bill

The risky plan to dump coal ash in an old Tennessee mine

Sonia SotomayorGreen groups are throwing their weight behind Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, even though she doesn't have much of a record on environmental decisions and hasn't always ruled in favor of enviros. 

More than 60 environmental and Native American groups -- including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Greenpeace USA, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for Biological Diversity -- have sent a letter [PDF] to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee offering unqualified support for her nomination.  The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding confirmation hearings on Sotomayor this week.

"Despite her long tenure on the federal bench, Judge Sotomayor has sat on relatively few environmental cases," the groups write in their letter. "Judge Sotomayor’s record evinces no clear bias in favor of or against environmental claims. Instead, it reflects intellectual rigor, meticulous preparation, and fairness. ... Her impeccable credentials, wealth of experience, and exceptional legal mind will benefit the Court and the nation."

Sotomayor's most significant environmental ruling was in the case Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2007.  As Kate Sheppard explains in an examination of Sotomayor's green record, the case centered on whether the U.S. EPA should be allowed to consider the cost-effectiveness of measures to protect fish and other aquatic life in rivers and lakes near power plants. Sotomayor sided with the enviros, writing what Earthjustice calls "a careful 80-page opinion upholding critical Clean Water Act safeguards." The Supreme Court later reversed that ruling.

Environmental issues are not expected to figure prominently, if at all, in Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. But if she's confirmed, she'll play a major part in shaping environmental law.

"As recent, closely divided decisions demonstrate, the Supreme Court is playing a crucial role in environmental protections," says Glenn Sugameli, senior policy counsel at Earthjustice. 

Climate change, the biggest environmental issue of all, may come before the court again soon.  In its landmark 2007 ruling on climate, Masschusetts vs. EPA, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the federal government to regulate greenhouse gases.  If Congress passes a climate bill this year, the legislation will “will face of barrage of legal challenges from industry, some of which will find their way to the high court,” says Richard J. Lazarus, a director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center. 

In its most recent session, the court has not been favorable to environmental protection. Reports The New York Times:

Of course, Sotomayor isn't likely to change that dynamic.  She would replace retiring Justice David Souter, who was a dependable vote on environmental cases.  Environmentalists' best hope is that she will follow his lead -- and that Obama will get to appoint one or two more justices. 

-----

Here's what the 60-plus enviro groups wrote about Sotomayor's green record in their letter to the Judiciary Committee [PDF]: 

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Feed the world sustainably by 2050? Yes, we can!

Related Links:

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford

Disappearing slave history

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Will class-action plaintiffs still get their day in court?

The Erin Brockoviches of America could have a much tougher time going after polluters if the Class Action Fairness Act -- which the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve last week -- is signed into law.

The bill, which will be put to a full Senate vote today, would move most major class-action lawsuits from state courts to federal courts, purportedly in an attempt to bring order and fairness to a system in which, currently, plaintiffs' attorneys seek out local courts with agreeable track records on rulings and negotiate settlement awards for victims that are inconsistent from state to state. A long-standing priority of the Bush administration and its corporate contributors, the legislation is overwhelmingly backed by Republicans on the Hill and several Democrats in the Senate, and is considered a sure bet for passage.

Durbin criticized the "Class Action Moratorium Act."

Howls of protest are being heard from environmental activists, labor and civil-rights groups, including the AFL-CIO and the NAACP, and a number of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, including Sen. Richard Durbin (Ill.), who said during a hearing on the bill last week, "This isn't the Class Action Fairness Act -- this is the Class Action Moratorium Act."

These critics claim the bill would make it too difficult for wronged citizens to have their day in court and see justice meted out. On Monday, attorneys general of 15 states sent a letter [PDF] to the Senate leadership arguing that the bill as it stands would "result in far greater harm than good." That same day, leaders of 16 large green organizations signed a separate letter [PDF] to the Senate warning of serious environmental harm that would come from the bill and requesting that environmental lawsuits be exempted.

Under current law, class-action suits that involve plaintiffs from multiple states (as most major class-action suits do) can be heard in any state in which the harm has taken place. Beth Levine, an aide to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who sponsored the bill, argues that this allows plaintiffs' attorneys to do what's called "venue shopping": "They look for certain state courts that have been known to rule in their favor. The president often cites the courts in Madison County, [Ill.,] that continually rule in favor of the trial attorneys and dole out huge settlements." (Well, technically, said courts tend to rule in favor of plaintiffs, sometimes known as "victims," but we get her drift.) Levine argues that the settlements frequently yield huge payoffs for the attorneys, but paltry coupons for the plaintiffs themselves. Large class-action cases should be heard before judges who have a more national outlook, she says, and can help ensure fairer and more consistent awards.

Critics of the bill argue that in moving lawsuits from the state to the federal level, local concerns would be taken out of the hands of communities. "There is a reason that defendants want to be tried outside of the state," said John Walke, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "They're fearful that their wrongdoing will be punished more within the community because the people have more at stake. [Proponents of the bill] term it 'local prejudice,' but it's really 'local care.'"

Worse still, say the bill's opponents, federal courts often refuse to hear class-action cases submitted by petitioners from multiple states. "No one wants to file a class-action suit at a federal level because they often get dismissed if they include plaintiffs from a patchwork of different states, all of which have different laws," explained Jude McCartin, an aide to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who has been a vocal critic of certain sections of the bill. "There isn't one state law that is applicable and there is no guidance for federal judges as to where they can apply just one state's laws."

Bingaman failed in efforts to soften the bill.

Bingaman tried to address this concern by proposing an amendment that would give federal judges the authority to select one state's law and apply it to a case with plaintiffs from multiple states, but he couldn't rally enough votes for it. "We tried to say [in this amendment] that if class-action suits are going to be forced into federal courts, let's give consumers reasonable expectation that their case will be heard," McCartin told Muckraker. "But the support just wasn't there for it."

And even if the cases do get heard, the Class Action Fairness Act could result in substantial cost increases and time delays for plaintiffs. Federal courts are already backlogged, critics say, and new cases bumped up to the federal level would have to go to the end of a long waiting list.

"Going through the federal system is far less expedient," said Joan Mulhern, a senior attorney at Earthjustice. "If you're a community that's suffering from groundwater contamination or an oil spill or a tank explosion or air contamination from nearby factory farms, you may have to wait for years to even get your case heard, much less be given a fair chance from an unbiased judge to have your injuries redressed."

Mulhern argues that the Bush administration is rigging the judicial system so it's harder for citizens to hold corporate culprits accountable on the full gamut of civil concerns -- not just environment and public health, but also consumer protection, civil rights, and labor issues. "It's that sweeping," she said.

Enviros are particularly concerned about how the bill would affect lawsuits over water pollution from MTBE, a gasoline additive that has contaminated the groundwater in at least 35 states. Hundreds of communities across the country are grappling with the effects of MTBE pollution, and many of them have been banding together to organize major class-action suits -- suits that would be passed off to federal courts if the bill is signed into law.

The bill also worries environmentalists and other public advocates because it would hand more power to an increasingly conservative federal judiciary. President Bush has made it a high priority to appoint conservative judges to federal courts, as did Ronald Reagan, and they have left a lasting legacy: Of the 836 total active federal judges, 204 have been appointed by Bush, and 253 were appointed by former Republican presidents going back to Richard Nixon. In total, 55 percent are Republican appointees, according to the Alliance for Justice. And Bush has signaled his intent to aggressively push through more right-wing appointees to the federal bench.

At a time when the White House is weakening environmental defenses across the board, the Class Action Fairness Act would remove yet another avenue for citizens to keep corporate polluters in check, according to Ed Hopkins, director of environmental quality for the Sierra Club. "You've got the executive branch and Congress clearly aligned against strong environmental protections. So what branch of government can citizens turn to? That's the courts. The courts are really the final frontier. And now even they are being taken away from the American people."

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

The Bush administration has been discreetly gutting environmental protections by encouraging industry groups to sue over rules and then settling those lawsuits on terms favorable to industry, enviros argue. Using such tactics, the administration has allowed more logging in Northwest forests, curtailed protections for roadless lands and potential wilderness areas in the West, and reopened national parklands to snowmobiles. "In the guise of settling lawsuits, federal officials have retired to the backroom to work out deals that sacrifice our old-growth forests, salmon, and clean water for the sake of clear-cutting our public lands," said Patti Goldman of Earthjustice, a public-interest law firm. Meanwhile, the feds have also let polluters off the hook for as much as $30 million over the last two years by neglecting to raise fines and penalties to keep pace with inflation, as required by law.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Congressional watchdog issues update on coal ash regulation efforts

Where the Sahara meets the Atlantic