Media Contacts:
Dylan Plummer, Grassroots Organizer, Cascadia Wildlands; dylan@cascwild.org, 541.531.1858
Doug Brown, Communications Strategist, ACLU of Oregon; dbrown@aclu-or.org, 7 34.239.2706

Broad Coalition of Organizations Sue Feds for Use of Chemical Weapons in Portland

Portland, OR — With no regard for health or safety, the federal government blatantly violated federal environmental law when it flooded Portland and the surrounding communities with an unprecedented amount of dangerous chemical weapons, a lawsuit filed today by a broad coalition of environmental justice and civil rights advocates alleges.

Represented by the attorneys from ACLU of Oregon, Cascadia Wildlands, Willamette Riverkeeper and Markowitz Herbold, a broad coalition of environmental justice and public health organizations, including Neighbors for Clean Air, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, Cascadia Wildlands, 350PDX and Willamette Riverkeeper have filed a legal challenge against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today. The lawsuit cites the federal agency’s failure to analyze the potentially severe human health and environmental impacts before deploying chemical munitions against anti-racist protesters in Portland as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The organizations seek a court order forcing the DHS to halt their use of chemical munitions, including tear gas, until the DHS performs a thorough analysis of the health and environmental impacts of these chemicals, and makes this information available to the public.

Kelly Simon, Interim Legal Director with ACLU Oregon, said:
“Environmental justice is racial justice. We all have a right to a safe and healthy community. Environmental hazards and police violence disproportionately deny that right to Black, Indigenous, Latinx and other people of color. The large volumes of tear gas and other chemical weapons that federal officers recklessly and thoughtlessly unleashed in Portland is yet more evidence of the Trump administration’s racist disregard for public health and a safe living environment. So we will see them in court, again.”

Indi Namkoong, Coalition Manager with 350PDX, said: “I’ve been on the ground facing tear gas and police brutality for months because racial justice and climate justice are faces of the same struggle for a just and livable future, one that as a young person of color I expect to be in all my life. The price of justice shouldn’t be further harm to public health and to the Black, Indigenous, and other people of color who are already out here fighting for their lives. Everyone has a right to know the impacts of the toxic chemicals we’re being subjected to by our government.”

Ashley Chesser, Executive Director with Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, said: “Pesticides originated as tools of war before being used to kill insects and continue to play a role in violence against Black, Indigenous and People of Color and those protesting racist acts. Protesters are not pests and the prolonged use of pesticides and similar chemicals to disperse a crowd, without knowing the consequences, is unacceptable. We don’t have any idea what repeated exposure to tear gas does to human health or the environment. DHS had a legal duty to research this before they started gassing Portland, and they may have caused significant harm by failing to do so. We want to ensure no other city shares Portland’s pain.”

This lawsuit comes after anti-racist Black Lives Matters protesters in Portland have been demonstrating in the streets for over 125 days in response to the murder of George Floyd this May, and regularly being subject to massive, indiscriminate deployments of teargas, pepper spray, and other chemical munitions including toxic smoke grenades linked to cancer and kidney and liver damage. The federal government’s consistent, high-volume use of these chemicals has raised concerns about the possible health impacts of repeated, concentrated exposure, and has reportedly caused loss of appetite, hair loss, and irregular menstrual cycles among those exposed. Chemical munitions and residue has remained in downtown Portland long after deployment, accumulating on vegetation, on buildings, and in the streets. This has raised concerns that the stormwater system is conveying chemicals, which may contain aquatic toxicants, to the Willamette River, potentially impacting water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational users.

Elisabeth Holmes, Willamette Riverkeeper’s Staff Attorney said:
“For months we have tried other avenues to obtain the information the public is entitled to under the law, but have been denied at every turn. Disclosure and scientific analysis is the minimum requirement. It is a pretty low bar, but DHS has completely flouted its responsibility.”

Brenna Bell, a volunteer member of Cascadia Wildlands, said:
“As a street protester for racial justice, I know firsthand the harmful impacts of toxic tear gas and other chemical warfare to my body, and the body of so many other Portlanders. What none of us knows is the extent that harm has caused and will continue to cause to our health, and to the
environment.”

A copy of the filed complaint can be found here.

#

The post Environmental, public health, and social justice groups file legal challenge against DHS citing lack of analysis on impacts of teargas to human health and the environment first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

COMMENT HERE BY MARCH 10 AND URGE THE REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES! * The comment period for this is now closed *

The administration is expected to gut the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by making more projects exempt from the environmental review it requires, and by stripping requirements for federal agencies to consider “cumulative” impacts such as contributions to climate change. By mandating risk evaluation to the environment and human health and allowing public review and participation, NEPA is one of our strongest tools for intervening against projects that destroy forests, ruin drinking water for our communities, and imperil endangered species. Despite the fact that 95% of federal projects are exempted from this law and review, the White House is proposing to increase the projects exempted (specifically including pipelines like the Jordan Cove LNG Project) in order to further gut environmental protections in this country.

The proposed rule is riddled with vague, banal language, and the devil is truly in the details. The full proposed changes can be found here, but in summary, CEQ’s proposed rule, if finalized, would:

• Weaken the obligation for federal agencies to constructively use the NEPA process to protect, restore, and enhance the environment. This would embolden radical political agendas supported by extractive interests, such as fossil fuel companies.
• Attempt to avoid the federal government’s duty to take responsibility for the indirect or “downstream” effects of its actions, such as the effects to the environment and public health of burning coal, oil, and dirty natural gas extracted from federal public lands.
• Eliminate the duty of federal agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of their actions. Under the proposed rule, a federal agency could, for example, approve a new coal, oil, or natural gas extraction project without accounting for the climate or public health impacts of the project when combined with other existing or reasonably foreseeable fossil fuel projects approved by that agency.
• Weaken the responsibility of federal agencies to provide a clear basis for choice by the agency and the public by rigorously and objectively considering reasonable alternatives, in particular those alternatives proposed by the public.

• 

  Chill the ability of the public to hold agencies accountable to the law by requiring the public to post a monetary bond prior to seeking administrative review.

• Allow federal agencies to decline to undertake environmental analysis if the agency believes that analysis conflicts with other laws. For example, the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest has long (and wrongly) argued that NEPA and other laws like the Endangered Species Act do not apply to the Oregon & California lands in southwest Oregon because of those lands’ unique multiple use statutory direction.
• Allow project backers to undertake environmental analysis of the proposed project even if there is a conflict of interest between the project proponent and protection of the environment.
• Provide virtually unbridled authority to federal agencies to determine whether impacts are sufficiently significant enough to warrant an environmental impact statement. Existing regulations include specific criteria that must be used in making this determination, including where a proposed action involves highly controversial, highly uncertain, or unknown risks or would risk significant impacts to unique resources such as Wild and Scenic Rivers or Wilderness Areas.

Cascadia Wildlands and our conservation allies will be pushing back against these proposed changes legally and otherwise, but it is important that the Trump administration is shown the level and degree of public support for federal environmental protections that have long safeguarded our treasured wild places. Your voice is needed!

Comments can be submitted via the federal government’s online portal here or mailed to:

Ms. Mary Neumayr
Chair
Council on Environmental Quality
730 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20503

Suggested talking points (please personalize yours): Please urge the Council on Environmental Quality to abandon this rulemaking process. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a critical law that has helped local communities protect themselves and their environment from dangerous, rushed, and poorly planned federal projects for over 45 years. The NEPA process simply and sensibly requires our government to take a cautionary approach by identifying any significant impacts a project may have on our health, environment, and livelihood before construction begins. NEPA and its implementing procedures provide a strong foundation for informed, science-based decision-making and already provide ample flexibility. We will not stand by while our country’s foundational environmental protections (that were signed into law by President Nixon) are gutted in the name of corporate greed.

The post Action Needed: Trump Attacks Bedrock Environmental Law first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.