Is a California water agency racist? USEPA plans to investigate

California is known for leading the way in several respects regarding environmental protections for air, water, and other natural resources. But, has one of its major regulatory agencies been using racist policies to do its job? 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Photo Credit: California Water Resources Control Board

In response to allegations by indigenous groups and environmental activists that the California State Water Resources Board has discriminated against Native American tribes and people of color, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has informed the State Water Board that it is under investigation for violating the civil rights of those groups.

According to the State Water Board itself, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta supplies freshwater to two-thirds of the state's population and millions of acres of farmland. Fresh water from the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and other rivers mix with salt water from the San Francisco Bay to form the largest estuary on the West Coast, home to a diverse range of fish and other wildlife.

However, the groups claim that the State Water Board has failed to properly review and update water quality control plans for the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta every 3 years as required by law. According to those groups, the Bay-Delta plan has not been updated in almost 17 years.

Because of this failure, the groups claim that water quality has significantly worsened, leading to decreased fish populations, increased toxic algae blooms, and stagnant waterways, all of which negatively impact tribes who depend upon these resources for their living. 

For more information:

L.A. Times:  EPA to Investigate California State Water Board for alleged civil rights violations

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta info

EPA sparks furor over approval of new Chevron boat fuel that could cause cancer to everyone exposed to it over a lifetime

Folks who aren't particularly fond of the oil and gas industry and oil companies in particular are causing quite a stir over EPA's recent approval of a new boat fuel by Chevron. The new fuel, derived from discarded plastic, is so toxic that everyone exposed to it over the course of a lifetime would be expected to get cancer - that's according to calculations made by investigative reporters from ProPublica from data in an EPA risk assessment. Their calculated risk was 1.3:1  - basically anyone exposed to it - a number ProPublica claims was confirmed by EPA.

Photo: © Frank J. Maccioli

EPA had earlier refused to provide the risk assessment to reporters from ProPublica and another news site, The Guardian. The document was not obtained until ProPublica made a formal request through the federal Freedom of Information Act.

EPA's risk assessment, which was also done to review some other new fuel additives, including jet fuel (which apparently would cause cancer in 1 of 4 people exposed), typically uses extreme exposure scenarios to arrive at a risk number. However, as noted in this article, EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines for Carcinogens generally does not approve things that result in a risk of more than 1 cancer death in 1 million exposures, let alone a 1 in 4 risk, or, as it worked out for the boat fuel additive, a 1.3 in 1 risk!

So what do you think, is this much ado about nothing or a serious threat to the well being of folks who operate boats and/or live near marinas?

CARB Approves Unprecedented Climate Action Plan

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just approved the unprecedented climate action plan that was described here in a previous article.

The next steps will require the adoption of specific rules and regulations to implement the plan, which aims to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the state to negligible levels by 2045.

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board

So, what do you think? As I asked before, will it be successful or just a pipe dream? Ref: CARB approves unprecedented climate action plan to shift world’s 4th largest economy from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy

More info at: Frank's Environment Space

Tired of arguing with climate change deniers? Try this instead.

Do you ever find yourself getting frustrated, tired, and angry trying to explain climate change science to deniers? Or maybe just fed up with arguing with them? Do what I do - just tell them they are wrong and refer them to this web-site (I am unaffiliated with it). it has rebuttals to every single “climate change is a hoax” argument that anyone makes.

Just refer the folks arguing with you to this site and tell them to argue with the experts:

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate "skepticism", the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming "skepticism". Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial. Posted on 10 November 2022 by Doug Bostrom, Marc Kodack Catastrophic reverb Kemp et al. caused prolonged ripples with their paper Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenario s . One can't help but think most of the heat is emotional, not intellectual; excited critics of the paper offer little more than "this sounds scary, don't harsh our vibe." Vague and even outlandish concerns over terminology aside, true perception of catastrophe is the province of those living the actual experience. Ask a pastoralist in South Africa or Pakistan who has just had their livelihood wiped out, with no means to rebuild: "Are you living an existential climate catastrophe?" Quite arguably the climate catastrophe train has already left the station, and abstract objections to the concept are coming from what a we might call "a place of privilege." Discussion continues via Bhowmick et al. in From Climate Endgame to Climate Long Game , with a reply from Kemp et al., Democratic climate action and studying extreme climate risks are not in tension . Other notables: ICCI has published its latest comprehensive magnum opus on Earth's ice, State of the Cryosphere 2022: Growing Losses, Global Impacts , included here in our government/NGO section. As the title page suggests and the entire work details, "We cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice." Indeed geophysics is aloof to us but we'd be foolish to reciprocate, unfair though this may be. Meanwhile, ICCI faces a Sisyphean task. Having just dusted their hands of this publication, the authors must carry straight on; our cascade of better information never ceases, as exemplified in a new and concerning paper by Khan et al. just published in PNAS: Extensive inland thinning and speed-up of Northeast Greenland Ice Stream . Tropical cyclones combine with climate change to begin sending enivronmental regimes beyond healthy tolerance, a form of compound event. Rajeev & Mishra investigate how this is unfolding as actual events as opposed to projections, in Observational evidence of increasing compound tropical cyclone-moist heat extremes in India . Busy rodent hydrologic engineers can be important allies in counteracting negative effects of warming and associated problems with surface water, and as a bonus have notable positive effects on nitrate loading. Dewey et al. explain, in Beaver dams overshadow climate extremes in controlling riparian hydrology and water quality . "Now we know better." We rushed into

https://skepticalscience.com/