CWA's Main Campaign Strategies

1. Making Texas Mercury Free

• Mercury from coal-burning power plants threatens our water, fish, and health

• Coal-burning power plants are the largest industrial source of mercury emissions in the United States, and ten percent of these emissions come from plants in Texas - more than any other state. Five of the nation's top ten emitters of mercury are in the Lone Star State.

  When mercury is released into the air, it settles in rivers, lakes, and streams. Bacteria in the water convert it to methyl mercury, a very toxic form of mercury. The toxic mercury bioaccumulates in the bodies of animals. Eating contaminated fish is the main way people are exposed to unsafe levels of mercury. Unlike with some other toxins, there is no way to clean or cook mercury out of fish.

  The Texas Department of Health has issued fish consumption advisories for over 329,000 acres of lakes and rivers, including the entire Gulf of Mexico.

• Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that causes learning and developmental disabilities in children. A mother can pass mercury on to her baby during pregnancy and later during breastfeeding. One out of every six U.S. women of childbearing age have mercury in their bodies at levels that may adversely affect their unborn child.

Several studies have shown that children exposed to mercury emissions have a higher risk
of brain damage.

A recent study from the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio links
industrial mercury emissions with increased rates of autism. The study found
that for every 1000 pounds of mercury released by Texas power plants in 1998, there was
a corresponding 3.7 percent increase in autism rates in Texas school districts in 2002. The
researchers also noted that the prevalence of autism went down by as much as 2 percent
for every ten miles from the source of the mercury pollution.

• Mercury is associated with heart attacks in older men.

2. Texas' Energy Future

• Fossil Fuels Are Polluting the Air, Warming the Planet and Soaring in Price

• Texas' dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power is an economic burden on its citizens and a threat to public health. As our population increases, we must prioritize clean energy and energy efficiency to protect public health and the environment, keep electricity affordable and bring jobs to Texas.

The Problem

• Over ninety percent of Texas' electricity comes from dirty sources of power that put public health at risk. Texas leads the nation in emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic mercury from coal plants, and much of Texas' smog problem is due to coal. Two-thirds of Texans live in cities that are in violation of federal, health-based clean air standards.

• Business-as-usual policies are forcing Texans to pay higher utility bills. The cost of natural gas has tripled since 2003. The cost of coal is rising with increases in the cost of diesel fuel needed to transport it by rail from Wyoming. The price of coal will rise even faster if Congress passes legislation regulating carbon-based fuels. These costs are passed on to consumers in their utility bills.

• Nuclear power is no solution. The South Texas Nuclear Project in Bay City alone has already produced over 1,000 tons of long-lasting radioactive waste since 1989. Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars, take several years to bring on line and are only possible with lavish subsidies guaranteed by the federal government.

The Solution

• Increase investments in energy efficiency. Energy efficiency refers to physical improvements such as insulating an attic or installing more efficient lighting or air conditioning. Rebates to business and residential customers for energy efficiency investments can prevent the need to build new power plants at a fraction of the cost. They also lower individual utility bills and create local jobs. Texas requires that only 10% of new energy demand be met by energy efficiency programs, well below the 50% level recommended by the EPA's National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.

• Expand wind energy production and transmission capacity. Texas leads the nation in wind energy production with over 5000 megawatts installed, and the Public Utility Commission is increasing transmission capacity to bring an additional 12,000 megawatts of wind energy to urban areas. However, the PUC rejected a more ambitious plan to add 18,000 MW of new wind generation. Texas needs more wind power to replace the demand for fossil fuels.

• Set specific goals for solar energy production. New transmission lines from West Texas can carry energy produced by concentrated solar farms as well as wind farms. Several solar farms are under development in the western states, and California has set ambitious goals for solar. Solar is already cost-competitive with new nuclear capacity, and dropping in price as technology improves.

3. Nuclear Power

• With the threat of global warming and fossil fuel supplies running low, nuclear power is one again being considered as an option to meet future energy needs. In September 2007, NRG Energy filed for a construction and operation license for two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project near Bay City - the first application for a new nuclear in the U.S. in thirty years. Austin's city council has voted unanimously not to invest in the proposed reactors, but the City of San Antonio has indicated a willingness to participate.

• Gov. Rick Perry is calling for doubling the number of nuclear reactors in Texas. Luminant, formerly TXU Corp., in proposing two new reactors at its Comanche Peak nuclear plant southwest of Dallas. Exelon Corp. wants to add two reactors in Victoria County in Southeast Texas.

• Both the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) say a surge toward nuclear to meet the country's energy needs and curb global warming is unwise. Clean Water Action agrees.

• In 2007, the UCS and the IAEA released reports explaining why nuclear power is not the answer to global warming. UCS cautions that "a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide, under existing conditions, would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events – a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been quick to permit nuclear power facilities and is not doing a good job providing regulation of safety issues for such a risky industry, according to the UCS.

• Even if there were no safety concerns with nuclear energy, UCS says that new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U. S. global warming emissions for at least two decades. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an organization dedicated to spreading the peaceful use of the atom, agrees that nuclear power, even under the most favorable circumstances, could not grow fast enough to slow climate change.

• Nuclear power plants also use large quantities of water for cooling. New reactors on the drawing board would need to withdraw more than 1,140,000 gallons of water per minute from nearby lakes, rivers or oceans. Nuclear power plants in Alabama and Tennessee have been shut down because of drought, and others may be shut down if drought continues.

• Nuclear plants also imperil fish larvae and other forms of aquatic life, which are strained from the water as it travels through thousands of metal tubes to become steam that turns the turbines to make electricity. A 2005 study found that one coastal power plant in Southern California destroyed nearly 3-and-a-half million fish in just one year.

• Perhaps the biggest single problem with nuclear power is the disposal of its radioactive waste. Once created, this highly toxic waste persists for hundreds of thousands of years - longer than any human civilization has existed. Yucca Mountain, the only site seriously being considered for long-term storage of nuclear waste in this country, is opposed by all five Nevada members of Congress.

• Nor is nuclear energy inexpensive, as its defenders claim. Without guarantees of lavish federal subsidies underwritten by our tax dollars, no new nuclear plant could be built. With both wind and solar continuing to drop in price, nuclear plants are likely to be obsolete and uncompetitive as soon as they are operational.

UCS Cites Frightening Risks Associated With Nuclear Energy:

• Massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack
• The death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a nuclear power plant
• Serious hazard posed by the increase in nuclear waste with the expansion of nuclear power without facilities for long-term disposal.
• Poor oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Clean Water Action agrees with the Union of Concerned Scientists recommendation that the government adopt policies that maximize energy efficiency and conservation, increase the use of renewable energy resources and eliminate barriers to existing technologies that can reduce global warming emissions without the risks associated with nuclear power.

4. Water Conservation

Population Growth, Drought and Climate Change are Straining Texas' Water Resources

• Texas is fortunate to have a rich aquatic heritage, with nine major aquifers, fifteen major rivers, over 200 reservoirs, and some 3700 streams. In addition, more than 300 miles of coastal waters provide habitat for countless species, offer recreational opportunities for Texans and visitors alike, and provide a multi-billion dollar commercial and recreational fishing industry.

• However, these resources cannot be taken for granted. Texas' population is projected in double by 2060, with most newcomers settling in urban areas in eastern portions of the state. Thirsty cities are drawing more water from rivers and returning less, threatening the viability of downstream users, wildlife habitat and coastal estuaries. Sprawl development in urban areas is polluting groundwater, above all in Central Texas. Unchecked growth in coastal areas is leading to the loss of crucial wetlands, a trend worsened by the Bush administration's refusal to protect these sensitive water bodies as the federal Clean Water Act requires. Texas counties currently lack the authority to manage growth outside the jurisdiction of cities.

State planning refuses to consider the impacts of climate change on future water supply

• The Water for Texas 2007 Plan, approved by the state Water Development Board, states point-blank: "When considering the uncertainties of population and water demand projections, the effect of climate change on the state's water resources over the next 50 years is probably small enough that it is unnecessary to plan for it specifically." The denial of the effects of global warming by Texas' top water planners mirrors the views of the state's current political leadership. Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and Speaker of the House Tom Craddick have all publicly expressed doubt about climate change.

• This perspective flies in the face of what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes. In early 2007, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change released a report that leaves no doubt that global warming is real and largely attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. A number of Texas climate scientists, such as Eric Barron, dean of Jackson School of Geosciences at UT Austin, insist that global warming presents the greatest threat to the state's water resources.

• Increasing temperatures are likely to lead to decreases in rainfall for most of the state and certain to lead to more loss of surface water to evaporation. Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University geoscientist, estimates that Texas can expect the state's winters to warm between 2 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and summers between 4 and 11 degrees, by 2050. As temperatures continue rising throughout the century, rainfall will have to increase 25 percent to 40 percent by 2060 to maintain current water volumes in the state's rivers and lakes, according to Gerald North, professor of geosciences at Texas A&M University. Such increases in rainfall are not likely.

Water conservation is necessary and achievable

• State water planning does recognize the need to conserve water and has set a goal of lowering overall per capita water consumption to 140 gallons per person per day by 2060. However, this is only a goal and not a requirement, and few cities are putting plans in place to reach it. Most cities in Texas are projecting modest decreases at best, and some even project increases in per-capita water use. Few cities in Texas offer incentives such as price structures that reward conservation, and rebates for drought-resistant landscaping or the installation of water-saving devises such as low-flush toilets, rainwater collection barrels, and low-flow shower heads.

• El Paso and San Antonio have demonstrated that comprehensive planning to reduce water use can succeed. San Antonio lowered per-capita consumption from 160 gallons per day in 1993 to 135 gpd in 2006. Austin has recently embraced a more modest plan. On the other extreme, Dallas residents consume an average of 240 gpd, and so far that city has not embraced water conservation.

Conserving Water Also Conserves Energy: the Water-Energy Nexus.

• While renewable energy sources such as wind and solar consume little or no water, conventional sources of energy use vast amounts. Coal-fired, natural-gas and nuclear power plants all heat water to turn turbines that produce electricity. According the federal Sandia National Laboratories, each kilowatt-hour generated from coal requires 25 gallons of water. According to the Lower Colorado River Authority, about a fifth of water drawn from the Colorado from Austin to Matagorda is used by power plants. Not only does renewable energy use far less water; coal-burning power plants are the leading contributor to climate change which in turn leads to diminished rainfall and greater loss of surface water to evaporation.

• A tremendous amount of energy is also required to treat and pump water for drinking and irrigation. According to the U.S. Department of Energy about 4 percent of the nation's electricity is used for this purpose.

Towards sustainable water policies

• Texas CWA is working in local communities and at the state level on behalf of sustainable water policies that protect drinking water at its source, preserve wetlands and aquifer recharge zones, and conserve water for the future. We are working to persuade policy makers to prioritize conservation above expensive new reservoirs and treatment plants—a policy that would also save the energy needed to treat and distribute this water. We are advocating a revision to the state's ‘right of capture' doctrine that allows most landowners to pump and sell as much groundwater that lies beneath their property as they wish. We are working with our coalition partners to persuade the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to enforce existing laws and punish polluters with fines high enough to discourage future toxic discharges into our water and air. Not least, we are working to persuade state policy makers to take global warming into account when projecting future water needs and availability.