logo
Louisiana stifles community air monitoring with threat of million-dollar fines, federal lawsuit says

Louisiana stifles community air monitoring with threat of million-dollar fines, federal lawsuit says

Washington Post23-05-2025

NEW ORLEANS — On days of heavy pollution in Sulphur, a southwest Louisiana town surrounded by more than 16 industrial plants, Cynthia 'Cindy' Robertson once flew a red flag outside her home so her community knew they faced health hazards from high levels of soot and other pollutants.
But she stopped flying the flag after Louisiana passed a law last May that threatened fines of up to $1 million for sharing information about air quality that did not meet strict standards.
On Thursday, Robertson's group Micah 6:8 Mission and other Louisiana environmental organizations sued the state in federal court over the law they say restricts their free speech and undermines their ability to promote public health in heavily industrialized communities .
When neighbors asked where the flags went, 'I'd tell them, 'The state of Louisiana says we can't tell y'all that stuff,' ' Robertson said.
While the state has argued the law ensures that accurate data is shared with the public, environmental groups like Micah 6:8 Mission believed it was intended to censor them with 'onerous restrictions' and violates their free speech rights, according to the lawsuit.
Despite having received Environmental Protection Agency funding to monitor Sulphur's pollution using high quality air monitors for several years, Michah 6:8 Mission stopped posting data on the group's social media after the law was signed last May, Robertson said.
While federal law requires publicly disclosed monitoring of major pollutants, fence-line communities in Louisiana have long sought data on their exposure to hazardous and likely carcinogenic chemicals like chloroprene and ethylene oxide , which were not subject to these same regulations.
Under the Biden administration, the EPA tightened regulations for these pollutants, though the Trump administration has committed to rolling them back.
The Biden administration's EPA also injected funding to support community-based air monitoring, especially in neighborhoods on the 'fence-line' with industrial plants that emitted pollutants that they were not required to publicly monitor under federal law. Some groups say they lack confidence in the data the state does provide and embraced the chance to monitor the air themselves with federal funding.
'These programs help detect pollution levels in areas of the country not well served by traditional and costly air monitoring systems,' the lawsuit stated.
In response to the influx of grassroots air monitoring, Louisiana's Legislature passed the Community Air Monitoring Reliability Act, or CAMRA, which requires that community groups that monitor pollutants 'for the purpose of alleging violations or noncompliance' of federal law must follow EPA standards, including approved equipment that can costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
'You can't talk about air quality unless you're using the equipment that they want you to use,' said David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, which represents the plaintiffs. He added there was no need for community groups to purchase such expensive equipment when cheaper technology could provide 'perfectly adequate results ... to be able to tell your community, your family, whether or not the air they're breathing is safe.'
Community groups sharing information based on cheaper air monitoring equipment that did not meet these requirements could face penalties of $32,500 a day and up to $1 million for intentional violations, according to analysis from the Environmental Integrity Project.
'We're a small nonprofit, we couldn't afford to pay one day's worth of that,' Robertson said. 'And the way the law is written, it's so ambiguous, you don't really know what you can and can't do.'
There is no known instance in which the state has pursued these penalties, but community groups say the law has a chilling effect on their work.
'The purpose of this was very clear: to silence the science, preventing people from doing anything with it, sharing it in any form,' said Caitlion Hunter, director of research and policy for Rise St. James, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
'I'm not sure how regulating community air monitoring programs 'violates their constitutional rights',' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill countered in a written statement.
Industry groups are excluded from the law's requirements, the lawsuit notes.
The law presumes 'that air monitoring information lacks accuracy if disseminated by community air monitoring groups, but not by industry participants or the state,' the complaint states.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency declined to comment, citing pending litigation.
___
Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trumponomics: Why China Can Afford to Wait on a Trade Deal
Trumponomics: Why China Can Afford to Wait on a Trade Deal

Bloomberg

time21 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Trumponomics: Why China Can Afford to Wait on a Trade Deal

On this episode of Trumponomics, host Stephanie Flanders, Bloomberg's Head of Government and Economics, leads a panel from the Hong Kong Invest conference to unpack the latest round of high-stakes trade talks between the US and China, exploring why Beijing may still have the upper hand and how far any decoupling of the two economies will go. She's joined by Robin Xing, Chief China Economist at Morgan Stanley, Lotus Asset Management Chief Investment Officer Hao Hong, and Bloomberg reporter Rebecca Choong Wilkins.

Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK
Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK

CNN

time22 minutes ago

  • CNN

Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK

US President Donald Trump's administration has launched a formal review of former President Joe Biden's AUKUS defense pact with Australia and Britain to allow Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, a US defense official said. Australia, which sees the submarines as critical to its own defense as tensions grow over China's expansive military buildup, said it remained committed to the project and looked forward to working closely with the US on the review. As well as causing alarm in Australia, the review could also throw a wrench in Britain's defense planning. AUKUS, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, is at the center of a planned expansion of Britain's submarine fleet. 'We are reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' the US official said of the review, first reported by Financial Times. 'Any changes to the administration's approach for AUKUS will be communicated through official channels, when appropriate.' AUKUS was formed in 2021 to address worries about China's growing power. It envisages Australia acquiring up to five US Virginia-class submarines from 2032. Then, Britain and Australia would design and build a new class of submarine, with US assistance. The UK would take first delivery in the late 2030s, with delivery to Australia in the early 2040s. Before that, the US and Britain would start forward rotations of their submarines in 2027 out of an Australian naval base in Western Australia. Vocal skeptics among Trump's senior policy officials include Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's top policy adviser, who cautioned last year that submarines were a scarce, critical commodity, and US industry could not produce enough to meet American demand. Submarines would be central to US military strategy in any confrontation with China centered in the First Island Chain, running from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and on to Borneo, enclosing China's coastal seas. 'My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it,' Colby said last year. Only six countries operate nuclear-powered submarines: the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and India. A spokesperson for Australia Defense Minister Richard Marles said the US had informed Australia and the UK of the review. 'AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defense industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs,' the spokesperson said. A British government spokesperson called AUKUS 'one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades' that also produces 'jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations.' 'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,' the official said, adding that Britain will 'continue to work closely with the US and Australia … to maximize the benefits and opportunities' of AUKUS. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but one official told Reuters the Trump administration 'is regularly reviewing foreign agreements to ensure they align with the American people's interests – especially those initiated under the failed Biden foreign policy agenda.' US Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said AUKUS was 'critical to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific' and the administration should work to strengthen it and the US submarine industrial base. 'Anything less would play directly into China's hand,' said Kaine, who represents Virginia, where US submarines are built. AUKUS is Australia's biggest-ever defense project, with Canberra committing to spend A$368 billion ($240 billion) over three decades to the program, which includes billions of dollars of investment in the U.S. production base. On Tuesday, Britain announced plans to invest billions of pounds to upgrade its submarine industry, including at BAE Systems in Barrow and Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby, to boost submarine production as announced in Britain's Strategic Defence Review. Under this, it will build up to 12 next-generation attack submarines of the model intended to be jointly developed by the UK, US and Australia under AUKUS. In the US Congress on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said 'we're having honest conversations with our allies' and added in reference to Australia: 'We want to make sure those capabilities are part of how they use them with their submarines, but also how they integrate with us as allies.' Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who signed a previous agreement to acquire French submarines shelved in favor of AUKUS, told CNBC last week it was 'more likely than not that Australia will not end up with any submarines at all, but instead, simply provide a large base in Western Australia for the American Navy and maintenance facilities there.' AUKUS expert John Lee at Washington's conservative Hudson Institute think tank said the Pentagon review was aimed at determining whether it could afford to sell up to five submarines when it was not meeting its own production targets. Kathryn Paik, a Biden White House official now at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, said providing submarines to Australia would not sacrifice US readiness but instead boost collective deterrence. 'This review most definitely makes our allies in Canberra and London concerned, and could cause them to doubt US reliability as an ally and partner,' she said.

David Hogg to Exit D.N.C. After Backlash to His Primary Plan
David Hogg to Exit D.N.C. After Backlash to His Primary Plan

New York Times

time22 minutes ago

  • New York Times

David Hogg to Exit D.N.C. After Backlash to His Primary Plan

David Hogg, the young vice chair of the Democratic National Committee who divided the party over his plans to intervene in primary races against sitting Democratic lawmakers, said that he would step aside and not run again for his post after the party removed him on Wednesday. Mr. Hogg, 25, became a lightning rod for criticism within the party after he told The New York Times two months ago that he planned to spend millions of dollars on primaries through a separate group, Leaders We Deserve, that he leads. He said he was raising as much as $20 million to help bring generational change to the Democratic Party. On Wednesday, the Democratic National Committee announced that its members had voted to force new elections for vice chair, removing Mr. Hogg and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta. In a letter provided to The Times, Mr. Hogg outlined his reasoning for quitting party leadership rather than running again for vice chair. 'I came into this role to play a positive role in creating the change our party needs,' he wrote. 'It is clear that there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it's OK to have disagreements. What isn't OK is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on.' Mr. Hogg's tenure as a party official was brief but filled with drama. It included a move by the party chairman, Ken Martin, to stop Mr. Hogg from engaging in primaries; Mr. Hogg's being caught in a Project Veritas operation talking about party leaders; public backbiting; and the leak of audio from an internal meeting of party officers. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store