Do People Where You Are Care That Much About Clean Water? Enough To Make Them Vote One Way Or The Other?

EPA Failure by Nancy Ohanian

Where are there voters who would get enthusiastic about rolling back a regulation that limits the amount of pollution and chemicals in our nation’s rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands? Where? Well, not in states, but at Republican Party meetings... they always go for abolishing regulations. All through American history, every step forward has meant a fight with conservatives and vested interests. Clean water might be good for the whole country, but rich, selfish special interests... they buy bottled water anyway. Progressives had to fight for years to pass and implement anti-Trust laws and conservatives just keep-- and still keep-- fighting against the public interest, pouring immense sums of money into persuading people that their own interests are somehow tied to the interest of the very rich. It works sometimes too. Labor rights took many decades and much blood spilled. And then came worker protection laws, child labor laws, consumer protections, environmental protections... they all seem like no brainers. But none were, partial because so many voters actually have no-- or non-functional-- brains. They don't see that conservatives, by their very nature, are their enemies.

On Thursday, the Trumpist regime "announced the repeal of one of the Obama era's most sweeping environmental rules-- a set of pollution protections for small streams and wetlands that had riled up opposition from coal miners, home developers, farmers and oil and gas drillers." Politico reporter Annie Snider wrote that "The action creates instant doubts about the legal status of myriad seasonal or isolated wetlands and thousands of miles of waterways, including vast swaths of the arid West. And it clears the way for the Environmental Protection Agency to finish a follow-up regulation in the coming months that could leave most of the nation's wetlands without any federal safeguards."

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the repeal at the D.C. headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the industry groups that had opposed the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule. That 2015 regulation, also known as the Clean Water Rule, had cemented federal protections for headwater streams, Western rivers and nearby wetlands, in an effort to resolve questions raised by two muddled Supreme Court decisions.

Trump EPA Administrator Scott Wheeler by Nancy Ohanian

The repeal "removes an egregious power grab" by the Obama Administration, Wheeler said.

"When President Trump took office he immediately set into motion a process to remove and replace regulations that were stifling economic development," he said. "This climate of regulatory certainty is breathing new life into local economies around the country and today’s action is a perfect example.”

Environmental groups and state attorneys general vowed to challenge the rollback, arguing that it jeopardizes drinking water supplies for 117 million Americans.

"California won't stand for this latest environmental attack by the Trump Administration, which could threaten federal protections for the majority of our waters," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

Jon Devine, director of federal water policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, defended the Obama administration rule in a statement, saying it "represented solid science and smart public policy."

"The Trump administration's wild-eyed attempts to reward polluters, however, knows no bounds, so it is repealing these important protections without regard for the law or sound science," he said. "This unsubstantiated action is illegal and will certainly be challenged in court."

...In repealing Obama's rule, Wheeler's action restores earlier regulations that had governed Clean Water Act permitting before 2015. Both environmentalists and industry groups have complained that the pre-2015 rules are laborious and lead to inconsistent decisions.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is crafting a subsequent regulation that it hopes to finish before the end of the year to replace those rules with a much narrower definition of the types of streams and wetlands that are subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements. By one early estimate from federal regulators, more than half the wetlands now protected would fall out of jurisdiction under the Trump administration's approach, which would eliminate nearly all federal protections for waterways in arid states like Arizona.

Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi, asked a series of rhetorical questions when he saw what Trump was doing: "What can be more basic than protecting water? The water we drink? The waters that support marine life? The water that supports all living things? How can base politicians support monied interests over the essence of life?" And then made a strong and important suggestion: "We must fight back."

Jon Hoadley is a respected and effective state legislator in Michigan, running for the congressional seat occupied by Trump enabler Fred Upton. "We're suffering from a drinking water crisis in Michigan, a state surrounded by over 20% of the world's fresh water," he told me today. "There are people in Flint still without clean drinking water. There are people across Southwest Michigan worried about PFAS in their water. We need to be holding polluters accountable, not let people off the hook who poison our water to save a buck."

Jason Butler, a Wake County, North Carolina pastor and community organizer, isn't in Congress-- but he's running for a suburban/rural congressional seat occupied by Trump rubber stamp, George Holding. Unlike Tom, Jason had just two questions: "Are we living in the Twilight Zone? I mean, in what universe is this a good idea? Water is literally the building block of life and every single person in this country depend upon clean drinking water. In fact, our whole economy depends upon clean water. To roll these back these protections in the exact moment that we face a global climate crisis that threatens life itself, is not only bad policy, it’s a threat to our lives. If we allow corporations to dump whatever toxic mess they like into our water systems then our ecosystems will be sick, our wildlife will die, and those that depend directly upon clean water will suffer. I feel like this President think that he’s playing a board game where there are no real consequences-- but unfortunately that’s not the case. This is real life and there are real consequences for real people. We need to be putting more protections into place for our water systems instead of destabilizing them. We need to be cleaning up our water systems and designating more areas as protected watersheds. But here’s the crazy thing-- nobody actually thinks this is a good idea. Many big corporations have also come out against this. The only explanation for this move, to me, is that, once again, this President is willing to sacrifice the future of the American people for another Trump ego trip."


 

Lobbyists Have Convinced Trump To Allow Industry To Poison Our Water-- Just Like In The Bad Old Days

Yesterday and today, 13 more members of Congress signed onto the #GreenNewDeal proposal, bringing the total in the House to 35. The latest backers:

• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Judy Chu (D-CA)
• Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
• Mike Quigley (D-IL)
• Jim McGovern (D-MA)
• Joe Kennedy III (D-MA)
• Chris Pappas (D-NH)
• Ann Kuster (D-NH)
• David Cicilline (D-RI)
• Steve Cohen (D-TN)
• Peter Welch (D-VT)
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)

Pocan and Jayapal are the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and there are hopes that the proposal-- which includes just about every progressive priority anyone is talking about-- will lead to even greater support in that caucus. But, while progressives were celebrating their progress on the GreenNewDeal, Republicans and K Street lobbyists were popping champaign corks all over DC. Trump kept another promise: to poison our water. Annie Snider had the story at Politico, "Trump Proposes To Roll Back Decades Of Water Protections." The massive rollback of Clean Water Act protections would "remove federal pollution safeguards for tens of thousands of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands."

The EPA’s proposed rule would overwrite a stricter Obama-era regulation, in yet another attack on the legacy of President Donald Trump’s predecessor. But the rollback would go much further than just erasing Barack Obama's work.

The Trump proposal represents the latest front in a decades-long battle over the scope of the landmark environmental law, whose requirements can impose major costs on energy companies, farmers, ranchers and real estate developers. Reversing Obama’s water regulation was one of Trump’s top environmental priorities-- he signed an executive order directing the new rule barely a month after taking office, even as he repeatedly said he wanted "crystal clear water."

Geoff Gisler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, called the proposal a “sledgehammer to the Clean Water Act.”

“Out of all the anti-environmental attacks we have seen from this administration, this may be the most far-reaching and destructive,” he said in a statement.

The new proposal embraces a view that industry groups have pushed for years: that the law should cover only major rivers, their primary tributaries and wetlands along their banks. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said this will save regulatory costs for industries such as mining and homebuilding, while arguing it will have little impact on the health of the country’s waters.

At a ceremony unveiling the proposal, Wheeler criticized the Obama administration for contending that its version of the rule was about water quality. “It was really about power-- power in the hands of the federal government over farmers, developers and landowners," he said.

...A cavalcade of Republican lawmakers also attended the ceremony at EPA headquarters to praise the rule. Among them were Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)-- who noted that her state's wetlands are larger than all of Texas-- as well as Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT).

The scale of the proposal‘s changes could be felt acutely across the country.

In the arid West, where the majority of streams flow only after rainfall or for part of the year, entire watersheds would be left unprotected from pollution. In Arizona, for instance, as much as 94 percent of its waters could lose federal protection under the new definition, depending on the how the agencies interpret key terms. Meanwhile, Arizona state law also prevents it from regulating waterways more stringently than the federal government requires.

...But environmentalists say a narrower federal regulation will create a race to the bottom and leave downstream states to bear the brunt of the harm.

Thirty-six states have laws on the books like Arizona’s, which prevent them from implementing stricter regulations than the federal government’s, according to a 2013 report by the Environmental Law Institute, meaning any waterways denied federal protection under the Trump administration proposal would be exempt from state regulation as well, unless state legislatures amend their laws.

State lawmakers have been trending in the opposite direction, though. In Wisconsin, one of a handful of states with more stringent wetland protections than the federal government’s, Gov. Scott Walker signed a law this spring dramatically reining in the additional protections.

Today, most of the country’s waterways are overburdened by pollution from farm fields, city streets and industrial facilities. More than two-thirds of the country’s lakes and ponds and more than half of the country’s rivers and streams are impaired, according to EPA’s latest figures. That includes roughly 1 in 4 of the rivers that serve as drinking water sources.

The new proposal to retract protections faces months of public comment and interagency review before it can be finalized, at which point it would likely face numerous lawsuits.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) is about to take over as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. I can't imagine he's going to allow the Trumpist Regime and its corporate allies to get away with this outrage without doing everything in his power to stop it. This morning he told me that "Clean water is a basic necessity for us all. It’s not just a treat you get to enjoy if you know the right people. Unfortunately the Trump administration thinks everything is for sale, including public health and environmental quality. And the only way to prevent the selloff is to get active and stop them. The alternative might be drinking oil-tainted water."

Cape Town Not Alone: The Eleven World Cities Most Likely to Run Out of Drinking Water

As a result of a 20th-century project to drain nearby swamps, water from the Atlantic Ocean began seeping in to the Biscayne Aquifer, Miami's main source of freshwater. Infographic credit: YouTube (source)

by Gaius Publius

One last follow-up to the Cape Town water crisis story. As you may know, the city of Cape Town, South Africa, is experiencing a severe drought that has reduced the region's dams to 30% or less of capacity (with the last 10% unusable). This has forced the local government to declare a Day Zero, described on the city's website as "the day we may have to queue for water."

At the moment, residents are urged to use no more than 50 liters of water per day — about 13 gallons — for all purposes, including drinking, bathing, flushing the toilet, washing dishes, watering plants and gardens, and so on.

If  Day Zero is reached, the water taps will be shut off by the city and water will be strictly rationed. Residents will have to queue for water with their buckets as water is doled out to them. On Day Zero, the ration will be reduced to 25 liters per day. As of this writing, Day Zero is June 4.

The Canary in a Very Large Coal Mine

I've called this a "canary in the coal mine" for other cities around the world, and indeed, for our species' climate prospects in general.

The BBC News website has a helpful list of eleven cities that are closes to the condition of Cape Town, but not quite there yet. Here's that list; Cape Town is just the tip of the iceberg.

• Heading the list — São Paulo, Brazil:

Brazil's financial capital and one of the 10 most populated cities in the world went through a similar ordeal to Cape Town in 2015, when the main reservoir fell below 4% capacity.

At the height of the crisis, the city of over 21.7 million inhabitants had less than 20 days of water supply and police had to escort water trucks to stop looting.

It is thought a drought that affected south-eastern Brazil between 2014 and 2017 was to blame, but a UN mission to São Paulo was critical of the state authorities "lack of proper planning and investments".

The water crisis was deemed "finished" in 2016, but in January 2017 the main reserves were 15% below expected for the period - putting the city's future water supply once again in doubt.

• Next, the tech-fueled city of Bangalore, India:

Local officials in the southern Indian city have been bamboozled by the growth of new property developments following Bangalore's rise as a technological hub and are struggling to manage the city's water and sewage systems.

To make matters worse, the city's antiquated plumbing needs an urgent upheaval; a report by the national government found that the city loses over half of its drinking water to waste.

Like China, India struggles with water pollution and Bangalore is no different: an in-depth inventory of the city's lakes found that 85% had water that could only be used for irrigation and industrial cooling.

Not a single lake had suitable water for drinking or bathing.

The problem in Bangalore is exacerbated by pollution from human waste; India in general is vastly deficient in toilets and a culture of using them.

• A city that may surprise you, a world capital yet, is next on the list — Beijing, China:

The World Bank classifies water scarcity as when people in a determined location receive less than 1,000 cubic metres of fresh water per person a year.

In 2014, each of the more than 20 million inhabitants of Beijing had only 145 cubic metres.

China is home to almost 20% of the world's population but has only 7% of the world's fresh water.

A Columbia University study estimates that the country's reserves declined 13% between 2000 and 2009.

And there's also a pollution problem. Official figures from 2015 showed that 40% of Beijing's surface water was polluted to the point of not being useful even for agriculture or industrial use.

To put those numbers in perspective, 1000 cubic meters per year is about 725 gallons per day per person. That's the break point for the World Bank's definition of "water scarcity."

In Beijing, 20 million inhabitants have about 100 gallons per day, one seventh of the allotment that defines "scarcity."

• Other cities on the list include Cairo (another world capital); Jakarta in Indonesia; Moscow, Istanbul, London and Tokyo (four more world capitals!) ... and Miami.

Miami's Water Troubles

Despite its large annual rainfall, the American city of Miami is especially vulnerable to drinking water shortages. BBC News again:

The US state of Florida is among the five US states most hit by rain every year. However, there is a crisis brewing in its most famous city, Miami.

An early 20th Century project to drain nearby swamps had an unforeseen result; water from the Atlantic Ocean contaminated the Biscayne Aquifer, the city's main source of fresh water.

Although the problem was detected in the 1930s, seawater still leaks in, especially because the American city has experienced faster rates of sea level rise, with water breaching underground defence barriers installed in recent decades.

Neighbouring cities are already struggling. Hallandale Beach, which is just a few miles north of Miami, had to close six of its eight wells due to saltwater intrusion.

Even without the problem of sea level rise, Miami's water supply is vulnerable to its water table, made of porous limestone.

Jeff Goodell, writing in Rolling Stone (emphasis added):

South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12 feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone; if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling overpasses. And the waters won't just come in from the east – because the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the west too, through the Everglades. [emphasis added]

Limestone, a porous rock, that forms the Miami ridge also forms the floor, the region's water table:

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. "Imagine Swiss cheese, and you'll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like," says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily – it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. "Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here," says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas. "Protecting the city, if it is possible, will require innovative solutions."

Miami has been working since its founding to stave off salt water intrusion into its freshwater aquifer.

[In] the 1950s, people started noticing their drinking water was getting salty. In South Florida, the drinking-water supply comes from a big lake just below the surface known as the Biscayne aquifer. Engineers examined the situation and determined that the combination of draining the swamps and pumping out the aquifer had changed hydrostatic pressure underground and allowed salt water to move into the aquifer. To stop this, the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District built dozens of these salinity-­control structures at key points on the canals. When they were closed, salty water wasn't able to flow into the canals. But if there was a big storm and intense flooding, the gates could be opened to allow drainage.

That worked pretty well for a time. The gates were engineered so that, when they were closed, the fresh water was about a foot and a half higher than the salt water. This freshwater "head" (as engineers called it) helped keep pressure in the aquifer and kept the salt water at bay.

But in the 50 years since the structures were built, much has changed. For one thing, nearly 80 percent of the fresh water flowing into the Everglades has been diverted, some of it into industrial-­agriculture operations. At the same time, consumption has skyrocketed: The 5.5 million or so people who now live in South Florida consume more than 3 billion gallons of water every day (including industry and agriculture). Almost all of that is pumped out of the aquifer, drawing it down and allowing more and more salt water to move in. At the same time, the sea level is rising (about nine inches since the canals were first dredged), which also helps push more salt water into the aquifer.

Says Jayantha Obeysekera, the chief modeler for the South Florida Water Management District, "Here, you can see the problem. The water is only 10 inches lower on [the saltwater] side than on the [freshwater] canal [side]. When this structure was built in 1960, it was a foot and a half. We are reaching equilibrium."

The engineering to address these problems is expensive. Installing new pumps on the freshwater side of the control structures cost $70 million each. The full cost of protecting Miami from a three-foot sea level rise will be "upward of $20 billion to $30 billion."

One day that cost will be deemed just too much, and Miami will be abandoned to the world without us — along with most of the other cities on the list above.

You can find more on coming water shortages in world cities at the EcoWatch website. Most of these regional problems, if not all of them, will become severe within the next decade. By most estimates, London, for example, will have to find new water sources by 2025. Trump, or Pence, may still be president by then.

Yes, it's happening now. The last generation kicked the can to this generation. It can't be kicked further.

GP
  

More on the Cape Town, South Africa, Water Crisis

What water rationing looks like, minus the anger (source).

by Gaius Publius

Earlier we wrote about the extreme water shortage in Cape Town, South Africa. Things are so dry there, and the dams so low, that it looked like the city would have to shut off their water taps by April 29, which they're calling "Day Zero." Seriously.

This piece updates that information and adds a couple of points.

First, the update, via the (Rupert Murdoch-owned) National Geographic:

How Cape Town Is Coping With Its Worst Drought on Record

Editor's Note: On Monday, February 5, Cape Town officials announced that the city had gotten “a slight reprieve” and that "Day Zero" had been pushed back to May 11. The reason: Fruit growers and other agricultural operations in the region have used up their annual water allocation, making more water available for the city. "There has not been any significant decline in urban usage," deputy mayor Ian Neilson stressed in a statement. With a heat wave forecast to increase evaporation from reservoirs, he said, Capetonians must reduce consumption “to prevent the remaining water supplies running out before the arrival of winter rains.”

A few things to note about this:

• The "growers ... have used up their annual allotment." This means that the agricultural industry there is SOL until the rains start. Translate that to a California context. 

• Urban usage has not declined. The obvious reason is that it's harder to enforce urban water rationing than agricultural rationing. There seems to be an "I'll get mine if I can" attitude among city dwellers. The social tensions have started. 

• Reservoirs are dangerously low due to the drought, and since it's their summer (while we have winter) the heat is causing water evaporation. As of the most recent reports, reservoirs are at just 30% capacity or less, with the last 10% unusable.

• The end of the crisis will come with the "arrival of winter rains," hopefully soon after Day Zero. That means around June or so, since their winter is our summer.

More from the report, first on how water rationing will work after the taps are — yes, literally — turned off by the city: "By late spring, four million people in the city of Cape Town—one of Africa's most affluent metropolises—may have to stand in line surrounded by armed guards to collect rations of the region's most precious commodity: drinking water."

Stand in line surrounded by armed guards to get your daily ration of water? Yes, that's what water rationing in a city-wide emergency looks like. 

The city is prepping 200 emergency water stations outside groceries and other gathering spots. Each would have to serve almost 20,000 residents. Cape Town officials are making plans to store emergency water at military installations, and say using taps to fill pools, water gardens, or wash cars is now illegal. Just this week, authorities stepped up water-theft patrols at natural springs where fights broke out, according to local press reports. They're being asked to crack down on "unscrupulous traders" who have driven up the price of bottled water.

The amount of rationing will be extreme. In early January, the city asked residents (note, asked) to use just 50 liters of water per day (which, the article notes, is less than one-sixth of what the average American uses). Day Zero will make those restrictions mandatory and reduce the quota to 25 liters per day ("less than typically used in four minutes of showering").

About those social tensions, city officials are also worried about it. Writes Helen Zille, former Cape Town mayor and premier of South Africa's Western Cape province, "The question that dominates my waking hours now is: When Day Zero arrives, how do we make water accessible and prevent anarchy?"

The National Geographic article makes that point again: "For months, citizens have been urged to consume less, but more than half of residents ignored those volunteer restrictions."

Says David Olivier, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at South Africa's University of the Witwatersrand, "The fundamental problem is the kind of lifestyle we're living. There's almost a sense of entitlement that we have a right to consume as much as we want. The attitude and reaction of most posts on social media is indignation. It's 'we pay our taxes' and therefore we should be as comfortable as possible.”

"A sense of entitlement." Sound familiar?

Finally, many major cities are in roughly the same shape as Cape Town, are staring down the barrel of the same gun (emphasis added):

[M]any of the 21 million residents of Mexico City only have running water part of the day, while one in five get just a few hours from their taps a week. Several major cities in India don't have enough. Water managers in Melbourne, Australia, reported last summer that they could run out of water in little more than a decade. Jakarta is running so dry that the city is sinking faster than seas are rising, as residents suck up groundwater from below the surface.

Much like Cape Town's fiasco, reservoirs in Sao Paulo, Brazil, dropped so low in 2015 that pipes drew in mud, emergency water trucks were looted, and the flow of water to taps in many homes was cut to just a few hours twice a week. Only last-minute rains prevented Brazilian authorities from having to close taps completely.

"Sao Paulo was down to less than 20 days of water supply," says Betsy Otto, director of the global water program at the World Resources Institute. "What we're starting to see are the confluence of a lot of factors that might be underappreciated, ignored, or changing. Brought together, though, they create the perfect storm."

Is it an emergency yet? Is this impetus enough? Is it time yet for people to take matters into their own hands and act?

Tick tick tick says the world-historical clock on the wall. Tick tick tick.

GP
 

Corporate Corruption-- Hydroelectric Power Generation

Wednesday Ryan pushed through Cathy McMorris Rodger's Hydropower Policy Modernization Act (H.R. 3043) with a 257-166 vote. Although 3 Republicans voted against the devastating bill-- Andy Harris (MD), Walter Jones (NC) and Tom Cole (OK)-- 26 Blue Dogs, New Dems and others from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party backed Ryan. They were mostly the usual shithead suspects, like Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA), Gene Green (TX), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Don Norcross (NJ), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL) and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), although this was a good one for anyone looking for some quick bribe money, which attracted slimy Dems who just don't give a damn.

The Kootenai Environmental Alliance explained why this bill should have been defeated, calling it "a devastating assault on our nation’s rivers and the people and wildlife that depend upon them. Its passage would end 95 years of balance in hydropower licensing, tipping the scales against taxpayers and in favor of huge utilities." There you go-- the sweet spot where Republicans and Blue Dogs and New Dems meet for a smooch.

Hydropower licenses are issued for up to 50 years. Many hydropower facilities that are coming up for relicensing now were first constructed before virtually all modern environmental laws were in place. It is during relicensing proceedings that the public gets the opportunity to ensure that dam owners make the necessary changes to comply with modern laws. The opportunity to mitigate for the damage to the environment, while still providing reliable electricity, only arises once in a generation or two.

H.R. 3043 attempts to streamline the hydropower licensing process by centralizing power and allowing FERC to set an aggressive licensing schedule that all federal and state agencies must adhere to throughout the licensing process. There are no requirements that FERC or the licensee provide the agencies with the information they deem necessary to quickly and competently exercise their Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act authority.  This creates a dynamic where, unless every step of the process proceeds seamlessly, agencies are faced with the impossible decision to either exercise their authority without necessary information (which exposes them to legal liability) or to fail to meet the schedule. This change will constrain federal, state, and tribal agencies use of their independent authorities and rush decision making, potentially making it more difficult to protect water quality, recover threatened and endangered species, and manage tribal-trust resources and public lands.

Other provisions of H.R. 3043, such as the changes to the Trial Type Hearing process for alternative conditions, the requirement that federal natural resource agencies conduct costly, wasteful and time consuming review of matters outside of their scope of expertise and jurisdiction, and the requirement that scientific decisions be made only by political appointees in Washington, DC are all examples of how H.R. 3043 tilts the balance toward the interests of power companies.

The balance the Federal Power Act currently strikes between power and non-power values has existed for almost a century. Current law protects the public’s right to enjoy its rivers, a right which can and should be compatible with responsible electricity production. However, H.R. 3043 upends that balance. Simply put, the bill is a massive giveaway to special interests at the expense of healthy rivers and the fish, wildlife, and people that depend upon them. If H.R. 3043 passes, power company profits will go to the head of the line, ahead of every other user.

A 2018 Battle For A Changing Chicagoland District-- Guest Post By Geoff Petzel

This week, Blue America endorsed Geoff Petzel to represent Illinois' 6th congressional district in Congress, a seat currently held by conservative Republican Peter Roskam. The Chicagoland suburban district, which was Romney territory in 2012, voted for Clinton over Trump, 50.2% to 43.2%. The DCCC has given Roskam a free ride year after year but has finally vowed to prioritize IL-06 for the 2018 cycle. Blue America would like to make sure the Democratic candidate is a progressive, not another right-of-center corporate shill. Geoff fits the bill and we asked him to write a guest post on the issue he has been most associated with: environmental protection. After reading it, please consider contributing to his campaign by tapping on the ActBlue thermometer at the bottom of the page (or by clicking here.)

Clean Water And Air As Essential American Campaign Issues
-by Geoffrey Petzel

The appointment of Scott Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator is a troubling sign of things ahead. Clean air, clean water, endangered species, public lands and climate change solutions are all at risk under the Trump Administration and Republican Congress.

As someone who has been deeply entrenched in environmental policy for the last 20 years as an advocate, activist and professional, the implications of the Trump Administration appointments and statements on the environment are beyond disconcerning. I am the founder of an organization called Public Guardian. We have no website, no advertising and don’t care about media coverage. What we care about is fighting private interests and the government when they fail to protect the public trust. We believe that clean air, clean water and public lands belong equally to all Americans and that government decision makers are responsible to us-- the people-- in protecting those resources. So when the government or private industry tries to take away those public trust resources, we must fight back. In the courts and in our communities.

I started Pubic Guardian after I ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2012. I ran because I wanted to have a positive impact on society. I wanted to have a voice. I also said I would never run for office again.

It’s amazing how quickly things change. As I begin the campaign to replace my incumbent Congressman in 2018 it makes me wonder how we have gotten to this point-- putting an anti-science climate change denier in charge of the EPA. It makes me wonder how the American people can ignore the needs of clean air, clean water and protecting our public lands.

Take my Congressman, Peter Roskam, as an example. He has voted dozens of times to gut the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, to de-fund Endangered Species protections and exploit oil, gas and mineral resources on public lands. He has one of the worst environmental voting records in Congress. How is this possible? Don’t voters in our District care about the environment? What about Republicans nationally? How can they support Scott Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator?

When I try to make sense of that question, I think back to my race in 2012 where I had a confrontation with a Tea Party member who lived in my neighborhood. He told me he thought my priorities were wrong and that government regulations were killing American jobs and that the EPA should be eliminated. He was my neighbor and I didn’t want to get into a yelling match, but I couldn’t let that one go without a response. I reminded him that he got his drinking water from a well and without the EPA I would be free to dump toxic chemicals in my backyard. His well would be poisoned. I asked him if he would be better off in that situation. I then pointed to his mini-van and asked how he would feel if the gas tank exploded while he was driving his children to school. He was silent. I reminded him that the federal government put in safety standards to make sure his car was safe. And I reminded him that the EPA and clean water laws have ensured that our rivers aren’t so full of chemical waste that they start on fire like the Cuyahoga River did in 1969 (spurring the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972). He ultimately agreed me and tried to duck and cover from any further discussion. He later put my campaign sign in his yard.

I think we have lost sight of what’s important. The mainstream media and politicians don’t talk about Clean Water and Clean Air or the regulation of toxic chemicals. We take for granted the immense progress we have made in environmental protection since the 1960’s. That’s how my Congressman has been allowed to stay in office with an abysmal record that violates the essence of what almost every American values-- environmental protection. We need to remind each other that if we are not careful, history will repeat itself. I’m sure if we eliminate enforceable laws and eliminate consumer protections large companies will be happy to dump their waste in the air, land and waters of this nation. Our health and the health of future generations will be at stake if we allow private corporations to set the priorities. General Electric poisoned the Hudson River, DuPont has destroyed the rivers and streams of West Virginia with the production of Teflon and today Monsanto poisons our land and waters with dangerous pesticides.

In my Congressional District we are facing significant water challenges. The Fox River runs through the western edge of the District. The Fox River originates in Wisconsin and flows south before it enters Illinois. In the summer, in its southern reaches, 1/3 of the flow of the river is treated wastewater from the dozens of sewage treatment plants that discharge the treated water into the river. Over 350,000 people also get their drinking water from the same river. The enforcement of clean water standards is critical to ensure the preservation of the river environment, but also critical to the 350,000 people, manufacturers and businesses that depend on clean water. Imagine the implications if the Clean Water Act were repealed or if EPA stopped enforcing laws. Imagine if Wisconsin decided to increase pollution to spur economic development? These types of issues are why a strong and active EPA is critical to the people in my district.

Already the Trump Administration has overturned a provision of the Clean Water Act that will allow mining companies to dump mining waste into streams and valleys. Rumors are that the Administration has also ordered the EPA to stop enforcement actions. While the US EPA is responsible for over-seeing the Clean Water Act, the enforcement and implementation of the Clean Water Act is traditionally designated to the states. This delegation to the states will provide some protection from the full scale destruction of our nation’s waters in the short term as states have their own set of water quality standards on the books to mirror the Clean Water Act, but the long term implications can be devastating.

I believe in increased funding and stronger enforcement of our existing Clean Air and Clean Water laws. In Illinois for example, last month over 300 companies or government owned wastewater treatment plants violated clean water laws. The State of Illinois lacks funding to increase enforcement. If EPA won’t step in and enforce the laws we will see an increase in fish kills, contaminated drinking water and health problems.

I also believe in science and am very fearful of the climate change impacts that will happen because of a Trump Administration. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change will allow the United States to be a leader in global greenhouse gas reductions. Our policy is aligned with science and it must stay that way for the sake of our future. This is the most important policy fight we should have as a country because it’s more than just domestic policy at stake. A failure to follow the Paris Accord will unravel the global commitment 197 countries have made to fighting climate change.

I decided to run for Congress again because unlike during the 2012 Campaign when no one seemed to be paying attention, the country has awaken to what is at stake in our elections. And now is the time for bold candidates to make bold decisions based on values and not polls.

Through my not-for-profit I am fighting a copper mining project in Arizona that will destroy thousands of acres of National Forest land and sacred Apache cultural sites. The land for the proposed copper mine was transferred to the mining company in a land transfer agreement approval by Congress- kind of. John McCain attached a rider to the defense authorization bill at the last minute that included the land transfer. Congress approved the defense authorization bill with the rider. I’m sure some members knew the rider was attached but didn’t want to explain to their constituents why they voted against a defense spending bill. This is the wrong approach. If I had the opportunity I would have voted against the bill. I would be happy to go back to my congressional district and explain why I voted to protect public lands in Arizona.

My district is well educated and moderate on most issues. They value environmental protection. No one has been paying attention, but now that people are engaged, politicians like my opponent will have a lot of explaining to do. People in my district need a Representative in Congress who shares their values and will stand up for them. And sometimes they need to be reminded of what you, and they really do value.

Considering the Coming Megadrought in the American Southwest

Drought status in the U.S. as of 2015. Note the color-coded legend in the lower-right portion of the graphic (source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

I've written in the past about two of the most climate-vulnerable regions of the U.S., Florida and the American Southwest. (A third region, the Pacific Northwest, is vulnerable, but to a non-climate event, a magnitude 9.0 mega-earthquake.) Here I want to look again to the problems of California and the Southwest.

Much of the water that sustains California, southern Nevada, Arizona, and surrounding areas comes from the ever-drying Colorado River. Just as it's now clear that we've passed the tipping point for extreme weather, we're also very likely passed the tipping point for the long-term habitability of the American Southwest.

The report is from NASA; the write-up is from EcoWatch (my emphasis):

NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest

A study released in Science Advances Wednesday finds strong evidence for severe, long-term droughts afflicting the American Southwest, driven by climate change. A megadrought lasting decades is 99 percent certain to hit the region this century, said scientists from Cornell University, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"Historically, megadroughts were extremely rare phenomena occurring only once or twice per millennium," the report states. "According to our analysis of modeled responses to increased GHGs, these events could become commonplace if climate change goes unabated."

Rising temperatures will combine with decreased rainfall in the Southwest to create droughts that will be worse than the historic "Dust Bowl" of the 20th century and last far longer. The Dust Bowl lasted no longer than eight years, and affected 100 million acres around the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles and adjacent lands in Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico. Dust storms swept through large swaths of former farmland, depositing dust as far east as Chicago, New York and Washington. It is estimated that more than half a million people were made homeless, and some 3.5 million Dust Bowl refugees migrated west, in hopes of finding work.

Just a few thoughts.

First, a megadrought lasting decades is a once- or twice-in-a-millennium event. That's once every 500 to 1000 years. The American Southeast had two "once in 500 year" storms in the last two years, and that following "Superstorm Sandy" in 2012. Obviously the frequency is changing, perhaps exponentially.

In the Southwest that megadrought could last for the next few decades. I did a major piece here — "California Drought, the "Bigger Water Crisis" & the Consumer Economy" — with a breakdown of elements that went into the current multi-year drought, and a look at the Colorado River basin and its condition. Some of the bottom lines include these:

▪ The social contract will break in California and the rest of the Southwest (and don't forget Mexico, which also has water rights from the Colorado and a reason to contest them). This will occur even if the fastest, man-on-the-moon–style conversion to renewables is attempted starting tomorrow.

This means, the very very rich will take the best for themselves and leave the rest of us to marinate in the consequences — to hang, in other words. (For a French-Saudi example of that, read this. Typical "the rich are always entitled" behavior.) This means war between the industries, regions, classes. The rich didn't get where they are, don't stay where they are, by surrender.

▪ Government will have to decide between the wealthy and the citizenry. How do you expect that to go?

▪ Government dithering and the increase in social conflict will delay real solutions until a wake-up moment. Then the real market will kick in — the market for agricultural land and the market for urban property. Both will start to decline in absolute value.

If there's a mass awareness moment when all of a sudden people in and out of the Southwest "get it," those markets will collapse. Hedge funds will sell their interests in California agriculture as bad investments; urban populations will level, then shrink; the fountains in Las Vegas and the golf courses in Scottsdale will go brown and dry, collapsing those populations and economies as well.

Second, about the time frame, obviously there's a possibility of a once-in-500-year multi-seasonal rainfall, but that's not expected, to say the least. Will the region recover from this drought? If it lasts two decades, I think its livability, its habitability is finished. And when people figure that out, they'll move, perhaps in droves, depending on whether something triggers panic-selling.

That is, the area will be livable, but by a lifestyle without modern infrastructure, since it takes a certain critical mass of population and wealth (economic activity) to keep modern infrastructure going. Think of the infrastructure in small towns, where people are leaving and populations are declining, versus the more viable lifestyle available to vigorous larger towns and cities, where there are jobs. Now add multi-decade drought to those small-town lives.

Where will the jobs be if Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix and Las Vegas have no water? Where will California agriculture be if farms go dry? And finally, consider the Dust Bowl again. As many as 3.5 million refugees migrated west, to California. Where will those refugees go if they're forced to leave California, the heart of the dry zone and pressed against the ocean? Utah? Unlikely. North perhaps, swamping the Pacific Northwest with people, or given a slower migration, back across the Rockies.

Civilizations have risen and died in the American Southwest. During the last megadrought, the Anasazi, or Pueblo, culture, which was extensive in territory, completely disappeared. [Note: This means the culture or way of life, not the people themselves.] When the Mormons arrived in Utah, the Anasazi were identifiable only by their relics. EcoWatch again:

Megadroughts of 35 years are currently rare and have led to severe upheaval in the past. There’s evidence that the Pueblo people of what is now the south-west US were forced to abandon settlements in the 13th century due to a lengthy drought.

For the U.S. to compress and recede to a more habitable center while aggressively converting to zero-carbon is not the worst outcome in the world. Far from it, in fact.

There Is a Solution — A Zero Carbon Economy

I've been writing for a few years that there is likely a five-to-ten year window, and only that, in which we could start a crash program toward a zero-carbon economy, what I like to call the Stop Now plan, and what others call a WWII-style mobilization or "man on the moon"-style program. That's actually good news — that there's still time — and I still believe it.

If we start in the first term of the next president, we can mitigate most of the disaster nationally, though maybe not all of it regionally. From the Guardian's report of the same NASA study:

The new report does proffer a crumb of hope – if greenhouse gas emissions are radically cut then the risk of megadrought will reduce by half, giving a roughly 50:50 chance that a multi-decade stretch of below-average rainfall would occur this century.

But the research found that the emissions cuts would have to be far steeper than those agreed to by nations in Paris last year, where a 2C limit on warming was pledged.

“We would need a much more aggressive approach than proposed at Paris, it’s not too late to do this but the train is leaving the station as we speak,” [Toby Ault, a scientist at Cornell University and lead author of the study,] said.

And one last point. The next president will be the last one with a clear chance to turn the ship. It looks like Hillary Clinton, barring the unforeseen, will be that president. She recently gave a very aggressive climate speech, with Al Gore at her side. Can she be brought to see, not just the extremity of the situation, but the extremity of the actions needed to address it? The jury is out on that, and that's also the good news.

As long as there's time on the clock, there's hope. I don't expect you or I will influence this election; the country is too far down that road, and perhaps not all the influential wild cards have been played. But we can influence the winner afterward, so long as that winner has a modicum of sense and so long as the evidence — megastorms, megadroughts — is incontrovertibly in front of her.

GP
 

America's Infrastructure Is A Shambles-- And It Will Get Much Worse As Long As Conservatives Worship The Concept Of Low Taxes For The Ultra-Wealthy

This morning, I was speaking with one of the congressional candidates Blue America is most enthusiastic about this cycle, Paul Clements from southwest Michigan. He's running for the seat held by Energy Committee chairman Fred Upton (MI-06) and he told me that "the biggest holes in investment in America, if we were going to promote broad-based economic growth, are in infrastructure and education. Pot-holed roads, a failing electric grid, and collapsing bridges are just some of the more visible results from our long-term failure to keep up with infrastructure needs.  But Congressman Upton has been part of the Republican bulwark against eliminating tax loopholes so the super-rich would have to do their part and we would have the money for these critical investments. We are still living with the fallout from Upton’s failure on the 2011 Supercommittee to deliver a federal budget, and Upton has been a staunch supporter of Paul Ryan’s proposals to cut taxes on the wealthy even further, so bare bones budgets would have to continue well into the future. Failing infrastructure raises costs for everyone-- business and consumers alike-- and fixing it would bring millions of good paying jobs. In Congress I will work to pass Hillary Clinton’s plan to double federal infrastructure spending." Upton has made it perfectly clear that stopping Mrs. Clinton's infrastructure plan is where he stands.

Earlier today, we saw what an unnamed top GOP congressional aide had to say about a Washington Post report over the weekend that President Hillary, Senate Majority Leader Schumer and Speaker Ryan would work on a massive American infrastructure plan. Short version: "Hillary is delusional." He goes into a typical Republican song and dance about how investing in the infrastructure would cost too much (for the wealthy campaign contributors to stomach) so it can't happen. Well, that inspired me to pull out the most recent American Society of Civil Engineers scorecard on infrastructure I could find. The overall grade wasn't an F; it was a D+. I grew up believing nothing less than an A was good enough and that a D or a D+ was the same as an F.

They need something like $3 trillion dollars to fix this mess. Something's got to give-- and I hope it isn't a crowded bridge. I want to give you a little more depth than the graphic above that shows how miserable every piece of the country's infrastructure has become, rotting away while taxes on the rich got lower and lower and lower-- nonexistent in cases of people like the Trumpanzee family.

Every family, every community and every business needs infrastructure to thrive. Infrastructure encompasses your local water main and the Hoover Dam; the power lines connected to your house and the electrical grid spanning the U.S.; and the street in front of your home and the national highway system.

Once every four years, America’s civil engineers provide a comprehensive assessment of the nation’s major infrastructure categories in ASCE’s Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (Report Card). Using a simple A to F school report card format, the Report Card provides a comprehensive assessment of current infrastructure conditions and needs, both assigning grades and making recommendations for how to raise the grades. An Advisory Council of ASCE members assigns the grades according to the following eight criteria: capacity, condition, funding, future need, operation and maintenance, public safety, resilience, and innovation. Since 1998, the grades have been near failing, averaging only Ds, due to delayed maintenance and underinvestment across most categories.

Now the 2013 Report Card grades are in, and America’s cumulative GPA for infrastructure rose slightly to a D+. The grades in 2013 ranged from a high of B- for solid waste to a low of D- for inland waterways and levees. Solid waste, drinking water, wastewater, roads, and bridges all saw incremental improvements, and rail jumped from a C- to a C+. No categories saw a decline in grade this year.

The 2013 Report Card demonstrates that we can improve the current condition of our nation’s infrastructure-- when investments are made and projects move forward, the grades rise. For example, greater private investment for efficiency and connectivity brought improvements in the rail category; renewed efforts in cities and states helped address some of the nation’s most vulnerable bridges; and, several categories benefited from short-term boosts in federal funding.

We know that investing in infrastructure is essential to support healthy, vibrant communities. Infrastructure is also critical for long-term economic growth, increasing GDP, employment, household income, and exports. The reverse is also true-- without prioritizing our nation’s infrastructure needs, deteriorating conditions can become a drag on the economy.

While the modest progress is encouraging, it is clear that we have a significant backlog of overdue maintenance across our infrastructure systems, a pressing need for modernization, and an immense opportunity to create reliable, long-term funding sources to avoid wiping out our recent gains. Overall, most grades fell below a C, and our cumulative GPA inched up just slightly to a D+ from a D four years ago.

We invite you to take a deeper look at the nation’s infrastructure conditions in the 2013 Report Card-- from the state infrastructure facts, to the interactive charts, to our three key solutions.

A brief summary of the findings for each category is below. Click on any heading to get more detailed information on the category and explore the interactive content.

Water and Environment

Dams: Dams again earned a grade of D. The average age of the 84,000 dams in the country is 52 years old. The nation’s dams are aging and the number of high-hazard dams is on the rise. Many of these dams were built as low-hazard dams protecting undeveloped agricultural land. However, with an increasing population and greater development below dams, the overall number of high-hazard dams continues to increase, to nearly 14,000 in 2012. The number of deficient dams is currently more than 4,000. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates that it will require an investment of $21 billion to repair these aging, yet critical, high-hazard dams.

Drinking Water: The grade for drinking water improved slightly to a D. At the dawn of the 21st century, much of our drinking water infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life. There are an estimated 240,000 water main breaks per year in the United States. Assuming every pipe would need to be replaced, the cost over the coming decades could reach more than $1 trillion, according to the American Water Works Association (AWWA). The quality of drinking water in the United States remains universally high, however. Even though pipes and mains are frequently more than 100 years old and in need of replacement, outbreaks of disease attributable to drinking water are rare.



Hazardous Waste: There has been undeniable success in the cleanup of the nation’s hazardous waste and brownfields sites. However, annual funding for Superfund site cleanup is estimated to be as much as $500 million short of what is needed, and 1,280 sites remain on the National Priorities List with an unknown number of potential sites yet to be identified. More than 400,000 brownfields sites await cleanup and redevelopment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that one in four Americans lives within three miles of a hazardous waste site. The grade for hazardous waste remained unchanged at a D.

Levees: Levees again earned a near failing grade of D- in 2013. The nation’s estimated 100,000 miles of levees can be found in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Many of these levees were originally used to protect farmland, and now are increasingly protecting developed communities. The reliability of these levees is unknown in many cases, and the country has yet to establish a National Levee Safety Program. Public safety remains at risk from these aging structures, and the cost to repair or rehabilitate these levees is roughly estimated to be $100 billion by the National Committee on Levee Safety. However, the return on investment is clear-- as levees helped in the prevention of more than $141 billion in flood damages in 2011.

Solid Waste: In 2010, Americans generated 250 million tons of trash. Of that, 85 million tons were recycled or composted. This represents a 34% recycling rate, more than double the 14.5% in 1980. Per capita generation rates of waste have been steady over the past 20 years and have even begun to show signs of decline in the past several years. The grade for solid waste improved in 2013, and it earned the highest grade of B-.

Wastewater: The grade for wastewater improved slightly to a D. Capital investment needs for the nation’s wastewater and stormwater systems are estimated to total $298 billion over the next 20 years. Pipes represent the largest capital need, comprising three quarters of total needs. Fixing and expanding the pipes will address sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows, and other pipe-related issues. In recent years, capital needs for the treatment plants comprise about 15%-20% of total needs, but will likely increase due to new regulatory requirements. Stormwater needs, while growing, are still small compared with sanitary pipes and treatment plants. Since 2007, the federal government has required cities to invest more than $15 billion in new pipes, plants, and equipment to eliminate combined sewer overflows.

Public Facilities

Public Parks and Recreation: The popularity of parks and outdoor recreation areas in the United States continues to grow, with over 140 million Americans making use of these facilities a part of their daily lives. These activities contribute $646 billion to the nation’s economy, supporting 6.1 million jobs. Yet states and localities struggle to provide these benefits for parks amid flat and declining budgets, reporting an estimated $18.5 billion in unmet needs in 2011. The federal government is also facing a serious challenge as well since the National Park Service estimates its maintenance backlog at approximately $11 billion. The grade for parks remained unchanged at a C-.

Schools: Almost half of America’s public school buildings were built to educate the baby boomers – a generation that is now retiring from the workforce. Public school enrollment is projected to gradually increase through 2019, yet state and local school construction funding continues to decline. National spending on school construction has diminished to approximately $10 billion in 2012, about half the level spent prior to the recession, while the condition of school facilities continues to be a significant concern for communities. Experts now estimate the investment needed to modernize and maintain our nation’s school facilities is at least $270 billion or more. However, due to the absence of national data on school facilities for more than a decade, a complete picture of the condition of our nation’s schools remains mostly unknown. Schools received a D again this year.

Transportation

Aviation: Despite the effects of the recent recession, commercial flights were about 33 million higher in number in 2011 than in 2000, stretching the system’s ability to meet the needs of the nation’s economy. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that the national cost of airport congestion and delays was almost $22 billion in 2012. If current federal funding levels are maintained, the FAA anticipates that the cost of congestion and delays to the economy will rise from $34 billion in 2020 to $63 billion by 2040. Aviation again earned a D.

Bridges: Over two hundred million trips are taken daily across deficient bridges in the nation’s 102 largest metropolitan regions. In total, one in nine of the nation’s bridges are rated as structurally deficient, while the average age of the nation’s 607,380 bridges is currently 42 years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that to eliminate the nation’s bridge backlog by 2028, we would need to invest $20.5 billion annually, while only $12.8 billion is being spent currently. The challenge for federal, state, and local governments is to increase bridge investments by $8 billion annually to address the identified $76 billion in needs for deficient bridges across the United States. However, with the overall number of structurally deficient bridges continuing to trend downward, the grade improved to C+.

Inland Waterways: Our nation’s inland waterways and rivers are the hidden backbone of our freight network-- they carry the equivalent of about 51 million truck trips each year. In many cases, the inland waterways system has not been updated since the 1950s, and more than half of the locks are over 50 years old. Barges are stopped for hours each day with unscheduled delays, preventing goods from getting to market and driving up costs. There is an average of 52 service interruptions a day throughout the system. Projects to repair and replace aging locks and dredge channels take decades to approve and complete, exacerbating the problem further. Inland waterways received a D- grade once again as conditions remain poor and investment levels remain stagnant.

Ports: This new category for 2013 debuted with a grade of C. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that more than 95% (by volume) of overseas trade produced or consumed by the United States moves through our ports. To sustain and serve a growing economy and compete internationally, our nation’s ports need to be maintained, modernized, and expanded. While port authorities and their private sector partners have planned over $46 billion in capital improvements from now until 2016, federal funding has declined for navigable waterways and landside freight connections needed to move goods to and from the ports.

Rail: Railroads are experiencing a competitive resurgence as both an energy-efficient freight transportation option and a viable city-to-city passenger service. In 2012, Amtrak recorded its highest year of ridership with 31.2 million passengers, almost doubling ridership since 2000, with growth anticipated to continue. Both freight and passenger rail have been investing heavily in their tracks, bridges, and tunnels as well as adding new capacity for freight and passengers. In 2010 alone, freight railroads renewed the rails on more than 3,100 miles of railroad track, equivalent to going coast to coast. Since 2009, capital investment from both freight and passenger railroads has exceeded $75 billion, actually increasing investment during the recession when materials prices were lower and trains ran less frequently. With high ridership and greater investment in the system, the grade for rail saw the largest improvement, moving up to a C+ in 2013.

Roads: Targeted efforts to improve conditions and significant reductions in highway fatalities resulted in a slight improvement in the roads grade to a D this year. However, forty-two percent of America’s major urban highways remain congested, costing the economy an estimated $101 billion in wasted time and fuel annually. While the conditions have improved in the near term, and federal, state, and local capital investments increased to $91 billion annually, that level of investment is insufficient and still projected to result in a decline in conditions and performance in the long term. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that $170 billion in capital investment would be needed on an annual basis to significantly improve conditions and performance.

Transit: The grade for transit remained at a D as transit agencies struggled to balance increasing ridership with declining funding. America’s public transit infrastructure plays a vital role in our economy, connecting millions of people with jobs, medical facilities, schools, shopping, and recreation, and it is critical to the one-third of Americans who do not drive cars. Unlike many U.S. infrastructure systems, the transit system is not comprehensive, as 45% of American households lack any access to transit, and millions more have inadequate service levels. Americans who do have access have increased their ridership 9.1% in the past decade, and that trend is expected to continue. Although investment in transit has also increased, deficient and deteriorating transit systems cost the U.S. economy $90 billion in 2010, as many transit agencies are struggling to maintain aging and obsolete fleets and facilities amid an economic downturn that has reduced their funding, forcing service cuts and fare increases.

Energy

Energy: America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s. Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions. While demand for electricity has remained level, the availability of energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and oil will become a greater challenge after 2020 as the population increases. Although about 17,000 miles of additional high-voltage transmission lines and significant oil and gas pipelines are planned over the next five years, permitting and siting issues threaten their completion. Thus, the grade for energy remained a D+.

Conclusion

Infrastructure is the foundation that connects the nation’s businesses, communities, and people, driving our economy and improving our quality of life. For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive in the world, we need a first class infrastructure system-- transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at reasonable cost by land, water, and air; transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of energy sources; and water systems that drive industrial processes as well as the daily functions in our homes. Yet today, our infrastructure systems are failing to keep pace with the current and expanding needs, and investment in infrastructure is faltering.

The Society recommends in the strongest possible terms that we, as a society, immediately commit to make their vision of the future a reality-- an American infrastructure system that is the source of our prosperity. We asked our most recently endorsed candidate for Congress, Mary Hoeft what's holding this up, since her Wisconsin district, is very much in need of attention for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. 21% of Wisconsin's 13,539 miles of major roads are in poor condition and driving on roads in need of repair costs Wisconsin motorists $2 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs-- $502.10 per motorist. "Congressman Sean Duffy," she reminded us, "has been on the Donald Trump Campaign Trail, flying from event to event. That's because my opponent isn't willing to ruin his car driving on Wisconsin roads that have the distinct honor of ranking third among our nation's worst roads. Our potholes cost drivers two times the national average in repairs. Does Duffy care? Apparently not. Does he care that potholes are killing our residents?  Apparently not. Duffy has introduced ZERO legislation to address our crumbling infrastructure. And why should he when it is so much more glamorous to introduce legislation intended to cripple the Consumer Federal Protection Bureau. We know what Sean Duffy values and it isn't the welfare of the people he represents in Wisconsin. His focus is on Wall Street."

Tom Wakely, the progressive Democrat running in the Austin-San Antonio corridor of Texas, is also concerned with the need for infrastructure improvement in Texas. "It's unconscionable," he told us, "that our nation's drinking water infrastructure is graded as a D. This should be one of the most protected aspects of a country that considers itself to be part of the first world. We encourage fracking practices which allow for the vacuuming of our most precious resource in drought-stricken areas and have the potential to pollute whatever is left. We allow foreign nations to buy massive tracts of land on our soil to help grow their crops with little federal oversight as to how they use local water. We ignore companies like Nestlé who wish to privatize the resource and view it strictly as a commodity. We practically forget the composition of our local infrastructure and wind up poisoning an entire community in Flint.

"We can do so much better. There must be better federal oversight of this necessary, life-giving resource. We have to consolidate the jurisdictions and declare that clean drinking water is a human right. We cannot in good faith employ fracking practices when renewable energy is just around the corner. Clean drinking water cannot be viewed as a traded commodity. There must be a new federal database that maintains an inventory of our municipal water infrastructures so that we can avoid disaster should we need to switch sources. It is essential to human survival, and we must view it as such."