The Velsicol plant in North Memphis (Photo: Ashli Blow)
Velsicol, a legacy polluter that manufactured pesticides, is proposing to hand over its 83-acre defunct facility in North Memphis to Tennessee as an environmental response trust. Should the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) accept a settlement agreement from the company, the state will be left to determine what to do with wide-ranging contamination including a baseball diamond-shaped pile of hazardous waste and a fluctuating groundwater plume of chemicals beneath it.
The proposal comes after the company faced questions this fall from environmental regulators and bankruptcy attorneys about inappropriate management and potentially fraudulent activity.
These new allegations shocked environmental justice advocates and residents in the historically Black community neighboring Velsicol. They have long expressed frustration over the company’s slow efforts to clean up, now more than 20 years in the making.
The North Memphis plant’s closure in 2012 was already a staggering delay compared to the nationwide action prompted by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, which exposed reckless pesticide production and application. As environmental policy changed and Velsicol plants shut down nationally in response, the Memphis facility continued creating these chemicals from a bygone era through the turn of the 21st century.
But even without a plant, the company has continued brokering chemicals in Memphis under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a federal law designed to protect human health and the environment from hazardous waste disposal. Over the last few months, Velsicol has been undergoing its once-in-a-decade renewal process for its RCRA permit.
In September, the TDEC sent a “Notice of Deficiency” to the company that their RCRA application was incomplete, followed by 36 pages outlining missing data and unsatisfactory plans for soil contamination across its property. Now, Velsicol is proposing that it pay a $3 million settlement to TDEC over five years in exchange for a release of their permit obligations. TDEC estimates the company is still responsible for between $137 and $143 million in cleanup costs, according to claims it has filed as part of Velsicol’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Velsicol did not respond to the Lookout’s request to comment, and TDEC declined citing pending litigation.
Velsicol disputes TDEC’s and other claims brought forth in its bankruptcy case, in which nearly 600 organizations allege that Velsicol owes them money. Among them is the District of Columbia, whose Office of the Attorney General sued Velsicol in 2022 for contaminating local waterways and wants them to be held financially responsible.
The District of Columbia’s legal counsel filed a motion to investigate Velsicol’s financial condition in October. They presented evidence that company leadership received $10.6 million in salaries, expense reimbursements, bonuses, and consulting fees from 2012 to 2023.
“Investigation is needed to review the excessive transfers made to the shareholders over the past five years,” the counsel wrote in the motion, signed by attorney Kevin Morse. “In addition to potential fraudulent transfers prior to the bankruptcy, the District is very concerned about the viability of [Velsicol] moving forward.”
Paying for contamination
Moving forward, Velsicol as a company will no longer be in Memphis, should things go according to its plan of reorganization as filed in bankruptcy court this November. But its toxic legacy will be long felt.
It’s still deep in the Wolf River, where fish absorb chlordane as they swim through waters contaminated with the chemical, which doesn’t break down easily. If people eat these tainted fish they could experience tremors, convulsions, or even death. Velsicol produced chlordane — a by-product of a WWII nerve gas used by the Army — for commercial use starting in 1945. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned its use in the 1980s, the Memphis plant continued to manufacture it as the sole producer in the U.S. through the 1990s for international export.
By the time the EPA banned it, more than 30 million homes and commercial buildings had been treated with chlordane, with the chemical washing into streams and rivers throughout the country like in Memphis and Washington, D.C., as detailed in the District of Columbia’s first complaint against the company. The District anticipates spending over $35 million to address contamination throughout the city.
Ford BlueOval City, photographed while under construction in April 2023. (Photo: John Partipilo)
Tennessee lawmakers are revisiting plans to roll back state regulations that protect nearly half a million acres of Tennessee wetlands from development.
For months, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation has elicited feedback from developers and conservation groups, at odds over state wetland policy, in order to achieve consensus.
Thursday’s meeting of the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee demonstrated how little agreement has been achieved thus far.
Allowing unchecked development on Tennessee’s wetlands — which serve to absorb floodwaters and replenish aquifers — could lead to flooding that will cost taxpayers “millions and millions of dollars down the road,” David Salyers, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), told lawmakers.
“There’s about seven million Tennesseans that hope we get this right,” Salyers said “There are future generations that depend on us to get this right.”
Salyer’s agency has proposed doubling the area of wetlands that can be developed without a state permit from a quarter-acre to half an acre. The agency has also proposed reducing costly payments from developers tied to the area of wetlands they propose to disturb. And it has proposed streamlining red tape.
TDEC’s recommendations followed the efforts earlier this year by Collierville Republican Kevin Vaughan, to significantly roll back wetland protections. Vaughan’s bill ultimately failed, but could be revived when the legislature reconvenes in January.
Developers who testified Thursday criticized TDEC recommendations for not going far enough to remove onerous hurdles that drive up project timelines and increase costs.
“We’re not looking at a broad redo of wetlands across the state…we’re not looking to damage the hunting lands that are out there. We’re not looking to create floods,” said Keith Grant, a West Tennessee developer, who noted that Tennessee currently has stricter protections over small and isolated wetlands than 24 states and the federal government.
“Why would Tennessee be more stringent in regulating wetlands than our federal government when regulation lowers property owners values and increases housing costs for tax paying citizens of Tennessee?” he said.
Conservationists, however, noted the increase in frequency of drought and flooding Tennessee has experienced in recent years, making the natural safeguards that wetlands provide even more vital.
“This is not the right time to turbocharge the hardening of our landscapes, but if we remove our wetlands protections that is exactly what will happen,” said George Nolan, director of the Tennessee office of the Southern Environmental Law Center.
There is no action expected on state wetlands policy until the Legislature reconvenes in January.
Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and X.
Tennessee’s home builders stand to gain the most from a bill to remove construction restrictions on the state’s wetlands, and they’re spending like it.
The Build Tennessee political action committee (PAC) recently donated $186,000 to state lawmakers, making the little-known group formed in July 2022 the fourth-largest spender in the six months before this year’s legislative session. The organization also hired lobbyists starting in January.
Funding for the PAC comes from 18 people, all of whom list themselves as owners or partners in real estate or construction companies, and a limited-liability corporation called Amber Lane Development.
But, most of the spending has come following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in May 2023, narrowing the definition of wetlands that the federal government can regulate, shifting much of the oversight to states.
The PAC has raised $312,000 since its founding 20 months ago, doling out around $245,000to more than 90 lawmakers from both political parties, with 76 percent of that spending coming since the ruling.
The court decision left more than half of Tennessee’s wetlands under Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) purview. A large portion of the wetlands are in rural West Tennessee, where real estate markets are heating up as Ford builds its new factory in Haywood County.
Rep. Kevin Vaughan, R-Collierville, a developer, is sponsoring a bill that would benefit developers. (Photo: John Partipilo)
TDEC’s new control and subsequent rules around wetlands construction drew the attention of Rep. Kevin Vaughan, R-Collierville, who is sponsoring the legislation that would significantly limit the department’s ability to regulate them.
A deputy commissioner at TDEC told state lawmakers that Vaughan’s bill could result in higher back-end costs because it could worsen flooding, while environmental groups have opposed it, raising concerns that it could impact drinking water, hunting and fishing.
“Tennesseans have a long history of being stewards of our environment to the benefit of both our souls and wallets,” said Grace Stranch, CEO of Harpeth Conservancy. “It is no wonder that we are one of the fastest-growing states in the country. Growth doesn’t have to be antithetical to conserving our natural resources. Removing the long-standing protections for our wetlands sets the wrong precedent and goes against the balance necessary for the long-term interests of Tennesseans.”
During his time in office, Vaughan has maintained a close relationship with home builders.
He is the the owner of Township Development Services, a real estate services company based in West Tennessee. The company’s listed address is located on the same block as the office of the West Tennessee Home Builders Association, roughly 367 feet apart, according to Google Maps.
Several of Build Tennessee’s PAC donors and its lead organizer are members of the West Tennessee Home Builders Association.
Keith Grant — whom Build Tennessee’s PAC listed as an officer and whose email address is on the group’s lobbying disclosure form — is a former president of the West Tennessee Home Builders Association. He also donated $24,000 to the PAC.
Grant, a prominent Collierville developer, did not respond to a request for comment.
Vaughan and his political action committee have received $9,000 from Build Tennessee.
Other influential groups backing the legislation include the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, Tennessee Farm Bureau, and the Associated Builders and Contractors. Each business association has spent at least $1 million since 2009 on lobbying, donations and independent expenditures to influence state lawmakers, according to a political spending database maintained by the Lookout.
• The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce: $4.4 million
• Tennessee Farm Bureau: $1.9 million
• Associated Builders & Contractors (All Tennessee chapters): $1.5 million
Anita Wadhwani contributed to this report.
Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.
A sign outside the Velsicol chemical plant. (Photo: Ashli Blow)
When 40 people gathered to hear about the future of a defunct chemical plant in North Memphis, many were surprised to learn the company has still been storing and shipping toxic materials for years.
Environmental advocates and residents met Velsicol Vice President George Harvell earlier this month at the Hollywood Community Center. Harvell organized this pre-application meeting as part of a mandatory step for his company to renew a state-sanctioned permit with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC.)
For generations of Black families in the communities of Hollywood and Douglass Park, Velsicol’s toxic legacy is a familiar burden. Harvell recounted the company’s history during his presentation, citing familiar information about how Velsicol manufactured several pesticides that were later found to have harmful effects on both human health and the environment.
However, his presentation took an unexpected turn when he began discussing the storage of existing Velsicol products. People interjected with questions about how that was possible when the company stopped its chemical production in 2012. Warnings are posted at the Wolf River about the potential toxicity of fish caught there, a legacy of Velsicol.
Through Velsicol’s hazardous waste management permit, however, it is authorized to store and distribute chemicals including Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, also commonly referred to as hex. Used in flame retardants and pesticides, hex is a manufactured chemical that does not occur naturally.
Warnings are posted at the Wolf River about the potential toxicity of fish caught there, a legacy of Velsicol. (Photo: Ashli Blow
Harvell gave conflicting remarks on the current source and acquisition of hex prior to storage at the Memphis facility. At the start of his presentation, Harvell said, “Velsicol is not manufacturing any products anywhere in the world, and we just broker chemicals.”
Moments later, he detailed “the four main products that Velsicol manufactures.” These four chemical products, including hex, are prominently advertised on Velsicol’s website.
As people asked for clarification about the product development in the meeting, Harvell backtracked, explaining, “I misspoke, but we’re not manufacturing. We’re storing them in the warehouses.”
Harvell initially denied that the company is extracting chemicals from contaminated water and soil on its site and reselling them as these products. However, his responses became inconsistent when a resident directly asked, “Where are you getting them from?”
Storing and distributing legacy pollutants
Hex is a crucial component in now-banned pesticides such as chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin – all of which are legacy chemicals that still contaminate soil and water on and around Velsicol’s Memphis facility to this day, although Velsicol does not manufacture it now.
Laboratory testing has identified chemical residue since the 1970s, when industrial hygienists reported excessive levels of hex to the EPA based on air sampling. Im 1982, a memo from the City of Memphis documented that soil samples taken from around the site exhibited the chemical’s oily-greasy nature and indicated the potential for hex preservation in the soil.
In the 1990s, Velsicol was the sole producer of chlordane in the United States, despite its banned status for use in the county. The Memphis plant continued to manufacture chlordane for international export. When it stopped production later that decade, the company then reported a subterranean plume of chemicals roughly the size of the Liberty Bowl stadium.
It contained 80,000 pounds of carbon tetrachloride.
According to the National Library of Medicine, hex can be produced as a byproduct of creating carbon tetrachloride. Recent reports filed with TDEC showed low levels of the hex compound remain on-site, while around 7,000 pounds of carbon tetrachloride persisted, as noted in the latest publicly available Corrective Action Effectiveness Report (CAER). These reports are required annually by TDEC, and David Winchell, a consultant for Velsicol and senior engineer with the firm WSP, signed the 2022 report.
During Thursday’s meeting, Winchell and Harvell took questions about if these legacy chemicals tie into their modern products, but they did not give straightforward answers.
When a woman in the meeting asked, “are those chemicals coming from out of the ground, because you’re cleaning up?” Winchell replied, “No, those are products. I’ll let George speak to that …”
Harvell continued, “Those four products, with the exception of hex, I don’t think we’re finding them on the plant side.”
The woman posed her question again, “Are they coming out of the ground?” Harvell empathically responded with “no.” She asked a third time about their origin, and in response, he said, “The carbon tetrachloride is coming out of the groundwater.”
Despite repeated inquiries from The Lookout to both TDEC and Velsicol regarding the specifics of extraction activities over the last decade and the remaining clean-up tasks, simple answers have not been provided.
The cost of clean up
Velsicol’s defunct 62-acre site in Memphis has led many residents to believe it’s a federal Superfund site, because of perceived inactivity and deteriorating infrastructure, though the EPA hasn’t listed it as such.
The facility is operating under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit, which allows Velsicol to legally store, treat and dispose of hazardous waste. Winchell and Harvell told people on Thursday they want to continue remediation of legacy pollutants, though it is unclear what is left to clean up.
In both federal programs, a distinction between RCRA and Superfund sites is that Superfund sites prioritize remediation and redevelopment, whereas RCRA is primarily focused on the management of hazardous waste. However, land reuse has successfully happened under RCRA permits.
The EPA typically designates a Superfund site when a company lacks the financial means to conduct clean-up or has abandoned its site.
The Memphis facility has faced several financial challenges over the decades. In 1986, people who lived near its rural dump site, then referred to by Velsicol as a farm, collectively filed a class-action lawsuit.
“Velsicol has taken the position that without the farm, the Memphis plant would close,” reads the court case. “Thus, the Court believes that it would be appropriate to deprive Velsicol of a reasonable part of the profit it made by improperly disposing of those chemical wastes to keep that plant open.”
The case raises questions about stockpiling chemicals and “unjust profits.” Attorneys argued that Velsicol may have pocketed between $23 and $63 million from not paying for proper chemical disposal, leading to significant settlements. The dump site later became a Superfund site, similar to the one in the Hollywood neighborhood, where Velsicol faced another class action lawsuit in 2008 for contamination, resulting in smaller settlements for affected residents.
During a months-long investigation into the Velsicol facility site in Memphis, The Lookout submitted a public records request to determine the company’s profits and clean-up expenditures over the past decade. The Tennessee Department of Revenue denied the request, citing sealed records.
Velsicol in Memphis is now navigating bankruptcy proceedings after filing for Chapter 11 in September. Discussions with the EPA and Department of Justice regarding future actions are underway, as confirmed by Harvell.
As part of the renewal process for Velsicol’s RCRA permit, the company must demonstrate to the state its financial ability to cover the costs of clean-up. In their previous permit renewal, Velsicol committed to providing $2.5 million for this purpose.
Velsicol is required to submit their current application to TDEC by April 3.
Following submission, TDEC will review and potentially revise the draft permit. This process can take over a year to complete, but in some cases, it can take as little as 60 days. If the review period is shorter, TDEC may hold public hearings on the draft permit as soon as this summer.
In the meantime, environmental justice movement organizers are trying to get a clearer picture of Velsicol’s present operations and upcoming plans.
The community wants more opportunities to engage with Velsicol over its redevelopment plans and federal funding opportunities, similar to those offered by the Superfund site process, particularly as the RCRA permit’s renewal occurs only once a decade — the only time public comment is required.
Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.
Ford BlueOval City, photographed while under construction in April 2023. (Photo: John Partipilo)
A high-stakes battle over the future of Tennessee’s wetlands has been playing out behind closed doors in recent weeks, with developers and environmental groups furiously lobbying on opposite sides of a bill to drastically roll back regulations.
The bill by Rep. Kevin Vaughan (R-Collierville) would limit state oversight over more than 430,000 acres of Tennessee wetlands. That’s more than half of the state’s critical ecosystems, which serve as a bulwark against floods and droughts, replenish aquifers and are prized by hunters, anglers and nature lovers.
Environmental groups warn that the proposed bill, if enacted by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee, could inflict irreparable harm on future generations.
“The proposed legislation favors the interests of developers over the safety of future flood victims and pocketbooks of Tennessee taxpayers,” said George Nolan, senior attorney and director of the Southern Environmental Law Center in Tennessee.
“Once a developer fills and paves over a wetland, it is gone forever. This is no time to repeal laws that have protected our wetlands for the last 50 years,” he said.
Vaughan called the measure an overdue check on red tape that costs developers time and money; he has denied weakened wetland regulation could lead to increased flooding.
The proposed legislation favors the interests of developers over the safety of future flood victims and pocketbooks of Tennessee taxpayers.
– George Nolan, Southern Environmental Law Center
He has accused state environmental regulators of “bureaucratic overreach” and “unnecessary inflation on the cost of construction” and pointed to the urgent need for relief from regulation given a building boom in the region he represents, where a new Ford plant is going up in Stanton just 40 miles from the offices of Township Properties, Vaughan’s real estate and development company.
“My district is one that is different from a lot of other people’s districts. We’re in the path of growth,” Vaughan told lawmakers.
Lee’s office did not respond to a question about whether he supports the bill.
West Tennessee Where Wetlands Abound.
There is perhaps nowhere else in the state where tensions between fast-tracking development and protecting wetlands are higher than West Tennessee.
BlueOval City, Ford Motor Co.’s $5.6 billion electric truck plant, has spurred a land rush in the region, with developers buying up properties, designing subdivisions and erecting apartment complexes at a fast clip ahead of its 2025 planned opening.
Restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores are springing up to accommodate an expected 11 percent increase in population by 2045 in the 21-county region surrounding the plant — making it the fastest-growing area in Tennessee.
West Tennessee counties also have some of the largest shares of wetlands that would lose protections under Vaughan’s bill.
The bill targets so-called “isolated wetlands” that have no obvious surface connection to a river or lake. Wetlands, however, rarely stand alone, often containing hidden underground connections to aquifers or waterways.
The 10 Tennessee counties with the largest share of at-risk “isolated” wetlands are located in West Tennessee, within commuting distance of the Ford plant.
Haywood County, where the plant is located, has more than 57,319 acres of wetlands that could lose protections under Vaughan’s bill — nearly 17 percent of all land area in the county, according to 2019 data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory compiled by the Southern Environmental Law Center.
The region also lies atop the Memphis Sand Aquifer, the primary water supply for urban and rural communities, and farmers in west Tennessee. Wetlands serve to recharge and filter water that supplies the aquifer.
“This is such a unique moment in west Tennessee history,” said Sarah Houston, executive director of the Memphis advocacy group Protect Our Aquifers, noting projected growth data that shows population increases of 200,000 or more in the next two decades.
“But when you’re removing protections for wetlands, you’re cutting out that deep recharge potential for all the water supply West Tennessee relies on,” she said.
Vaughn’s business among those to profit from building boom.
Developers who wish to fill in, build on or otherwise disturb wetlands must first apply for a permit from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, or TDEC, which can approve or reject the plans.
The process can prove costly; companies must hire lawyers, hydrologists and other experts before filing a permit. And if they get one, TDEC can require developers to pay expensive mitigation fees for disturbing wetlands — potentially adding tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to construction costs. The fees are used to preserve wetlands elsewhere, balancing out what is lost by a single project. The process can add months, or more, to construction timelines.
Vaughan has spoken openly about ongoing frustrations in his own business to comply with the state rules, describing TDEC regulators as overzealous in defining marshy or muddy lands that are created by tractor ruts or runoff as wetlands.
State records show that Vaughan as recently as December received state notice that a project he is spearheading contains two wetlands: one at 1.42 acres and another at 1.51 acres.
Given the presence of wetlands, “any alterations to jurisdictional streams, wetlands, or open water features may only be performed under coverage of, and conformance to, a valid aquatic resource alteration permit,” the Dec. 8 letter from TDEC to Vaughan said.
The project, a 130-acre site of the proposed new headquarters for Thompson Machinery, Vaughan’s client, will have to incur costly remediation fees should its permit to build atop wetlands be approved by TDEC.
It’s one of multiple development projects that Vaughan has been affiliated with that have butted into TDEC wetland regulations in recent years.
PAC money flows in from west Tennessee.
Vaughan also represented Memphis-based Crews Development in 2019 when the company received a notice of violation for draining and filling in a wetland without permission.
Vaughan did not respond to questions from the Lookout, including whether his sponsorship of the bill presents a conflict of interest.
He is not alone among developers in the region who are seeking favorable legislation during a period of rapid growth.
West Tennessee construction companies and real estate firms have spent big on a new political action committee formed in 2022 to influence legislative policy. The little-known Build Tennessee PAC spent $186,000 in the six months before the start of this year’s legislative session, the fourth largest spender over that period, according to campaign finance records analyzed by the Lookout.
Keith Grant, a prominent Collierville developer listed as Build Tennessee’s contact, did not respond to a request for comment.
The measure also has gained the backing of influential statewide groups, including the Tennessee Farm Bureau, the Home Builders Association of Tennessee, Associated Builders and Contractors and the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce.
Bradley Jackson, president and CEO of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, said last week the legislation — which Vaughan recently amended to make distinctions between different types of wetlands — represents a fair and balanced approach.
Jackson said the chamber convened a working group of five trade organizations last summer that concluded Tennessee’s wetland regulations need adjustment. “We feel this deal strikes a really good middle group. It provides the business community with consistency and certainty. We can ensure we’re being compliant,” Jackson said.
Vaughan offers ‘compromise’ amendment; environmental groups say it leaves wetlands unprotected.
The legislation is scheduled to be heard Wednesday in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, with an amendendment that makes distinctions between wetlands.
The amendment would allow developers to build on “low-quality” wetlands and up to four acres of “moderate” isolated wetlands without seeking state permission.
Environmental groups say the proposal continues to place large pieces of Tennessee wetlands at risk.
Rep. Kevin Vaughan, R-Collierville. (Photo: John Partipilo)
“Vaughan’s current amendment is not a compromise as it requires no mitigation for low-quality wetlands regardless of size and no mitigation for large swaths of moderate-quality wetlands,” Grace Stranch, chief executive officer of the Harpeth Conservancy said. “The development resulting from those huge carveouts will likely cause increased flooding, a decline in water quality, higher water bills, and aquifer recharge problems.”
The measure has also drawn pushback from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency.
“We at TDEC fear the proposal could result in greater back-end costs,” Gregory Young, the agency’s deputy commissioner, told lawmakers earlier this month.
Alex Pellom, chief of staff for the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, cautioned the bill could lead to more flooding; the state has already suffered its wettest years in history since 2019, leading to devastating floods, billions of dollars in property damage and loss of life.
“We continue to work with the sponsor to discuss potential solutions,” Eric Ward, a TDEC spokesperson, said last week.
A Supreme Court decision limits federal oversight.
Vaughan’s bill was introduced on the heels of a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that narrowed federal protections of wetlands, leaving it up to states to set their own rules.
The court concluded that only wetlands that have a surface water connection to rivers, lakes and oceans fall under federal oversight and are subject to Clean Water Act regulations.
There is little debate in the stormwater community about the value of wetlands as key instruments of maintaining water quality and mitigating damaging flooding.
– Aaron Rogge, Tennessee Storm Water Association
The majority of Tennessee’s wetlands — 432,850 out of the state’s 787,000 acres of wetlands in the state — do not have a surface connection to a water source, according to TDEC. It is these wetlands Vaughan is seeking to remove from state oversight and protection.
“This is going to be a major change to the way that the state manages its water resources, and likely one that we’ll look back on as a product of our current political climate,” said Aaron Rogge, a Nashville-based civil engineer who is also the current president of the Tennessee Stormwater Association.
“There is little debate in the stormwater community about the value of wetlands as key instruments of maintaining water quality and mitigating damaging flooding; in fact, many cities and counties choose to actively construct wetlands to manage their runoff,” he said.
Tennessee is not alone in targeting wetland regulation after the high court’s decision, according to Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation.
Legislatures in Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado are considering expanding wetland protections in light of the court’s decision while Indiana is among states considering a developer-backed bill similar to Vaughan’s.
“It’s a very fluid situation,” Murphy said. “In a lot of ways, it mirrors the politics of a state. But as you get down to state-level realities of what’s being lost, people are seeing what unregulated development means and often that means that their special places get paved over.”
Reporter Adam Friedman contributed to this story.
Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.
Tennessee officials are devising the state’s first-ever climate action plan thanks to federal funds through the Inflation Reduction Act.
So far, 33 states have created and released climate plans, according to Climate Central, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to reporting on the changing climate. Tennessee’s big-four cities — Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga — all have individual plans.
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) is now working with groups across the state for a greenhouse gas emission reduction plan, called the Tennessee Volunteer Emission Reduction Strategy (TVERS).
The “volunteer” part of the name is more than a reference to the Volunteer State, one of Tennessee’s nicknames. The planning approach so far does not seem to favor any mandates to curb climate change.
”Through TVERS, TDEC is focusing on voluntary or incentive-based activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants,” reads a website for the plan. “While other states have imposed mandates to reduce emissions, we hope to reach established goals through voluntary measures that may differ throughout the state.”
TDEC won $3 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in July to develop the statewide climate action plan. Nashville, Memphis, and Knoxville each received $1 million to develop further plans.
The state owes the EPA a draft of a greenhouse gas inventory by the beginning of next month, according to state documents. Tennessee has never published (and has maybe never conducted) an inventory of its greenhouse gas emissions.
When Memphis officials measured the city’s greenhouse gases for its climate action plan in 2016, they found emissions here came from three major sectors: energy, transportation, and waste.
Energy emissions were 46 percent of the total. The figure includes emissions from energy used in residential, commercial/institutional, and industrial buildings. Transportation emissions (42 percent) included passenger, freight, on-road and off-road vehicles. Waste emissions (12 percent) included solid waste disposal in landfills and wastewater treatment processes.
The total greenhouse gas output that year here was about 17.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. An EPA calculator says that amount of emissions is equal to more than 44 million miles driven by gas-powered cars, more than 94,000 railcars worth of coal burned, and more than 2 trillion smartphones charged. The Memphis climate plan said “emissions are fairly comparable to, and even lower than, several other peer cities, including Nashville, Atlanta, Louisville, and St. Louis.”
Credit: City of Memphis
After turning in a cursory greenhouse gas emissions inventory, the state will then owe the EPA a draft climate action plan by March. Then, officials will have to turn over a comprehensive climate action plan.
The process mandates states to provide greenhouse gas emission reduction measures. These could include “transitioning to low-or zero-emission vehicles, reducing carbon intensity of fuels, and expanding transportation options (biking, walking, public transit).” For buildings, these could include “increasing energy efficiency through incentive programs, weatherization retrofits, building codes and standards, and increasing electrification.”
Climate change has been a particularly thorny political issue in Tennessee with the state’s GOP-dominated legislature. This year, the General Assembly legally defined natural gas as “clean energy,” fought building codes that would reduce electricity consumption, and blocked a weather infrastructure project that would have given real-time data in every county.
In 2019, Gov. Bill Lee said he was was undecided as to whether climate change was real or not. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has battled companies on climate change issues throughout his tenure. But at least one Tennessee state government official was frank about climate issues during a presentation on the TVERS plan last month.
“Reducing emissions will result in cleaner air and improve public health,” said Jennifer Tribble, director of TDEC’s Office of Policy and Planning. “Greenhouse gas emissions are also contributing to the warming of our climate and an increase in number and severity of extreme weather events, such as drought, forest fires and hurricanes. These effects have important consequences on human health, such as exposure to extreme heat. Reducing these emissions will improve our resilience to these impacts in the long-term.”
Some carp caught in the Mississippi River are back on the menu.
Last week, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) lifted a “do not consume” advisory for silver carp and big head carp caught in the river. However, the advisory remains in effect for all other fish species in the river near Memphis.
The move was based on fish tissue samples collected last year and from historical data collected from 2005. The data show the carp are below Tennessee’s trigger point for all contaminants of concern.
“We provide these advisories so the community can make informed decisions about whether or not to consume fish where water contact hazards exist,” said TDEC Deputy Commissioner Greg Young. “Data studied from the collection in the Mississippi River have allowed TDEC to lift the previous advisory on the two species, and we are pleased to make this change. But we reiterate that the status for all other species has not changed.”
The blanket “do not consume” advisory was issued for all fish in the river in Shelby County in 1982 due to elevated levels of chlordane. The list was expanded in 1993 to include PCBs, endrin, dieldrin, and dioxin. Fish tested for these included sturgeon, buffalo common carp, catfish, carpsucker, sauger, bass, and crappie.
State officials are monitoring an alleged milk spill from the Prairie Farms dairy facility last week after complaints that Lick Creek was running white.
Locals from Overton Park to the Vollintine Evergreen neighborhood posted photos, comments, and questions online about the creek. Some neighbors said the cause was a milk spill from the Prairie Farms dairy facility on Madison. One commenter said Prairie Farms contacted him to say the spill was from a clogged sewer drain and that the problem would not happen again.
Prairie Farms did not respond to a request for comment.
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) responded to complaints from locals. However, investigators did not find much.
“TDEC investigated Lick Creek last week after receiving complaints of discolored water,” TDEC spokeswoman Kim Schofinski said in a statement. “TDEC staff did not observe any abnormal conditions on their site visit.
“However, TDEC will remain in close communication with the complainants and the city of Memphis regarding this location as our investigation continues.”
City officials said they were aware of the problem but could not give any information about it.
“The city’s Storm Water team is aware of the concerns at this location and, there is currently an active investigation regarding the complaint,” said Arlenia Cole, a spokeswoman in Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland’s office.
When asked if any more information was available or to speak with someone in the city’s storm water department, Cole said, “this is an active investigation and we are unable to add more context.”
Milk spills can upset ecosystems as it sucks oxygen from the water and can kill wildlife. In 2020, grocery store workers in Iowa poured 800 gallons of spoiled milk into a storm drain. That milk reached a tributary of a nearby creek, and killed fish.
A new, multi-year plan will electrify roads from Chicago to Orlando, and from Richmond to West Texas.
Six major utilities formed the Electric Highway Coalition earlier this month for a network of charging stations along roads in 16 states in the South and parts of the Midwest. The coalition includes American Electric Power, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy Corp., Southern Co., and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
The plan strives for a “seamless network” of DC, fast-charging stations to travel greater distances without the worry of “range anxiety,” or the fear of a low car battery with no close charger. Coalition members are working now to set locations for charging stations. Those sites will be along major highway routes with easy access and amenities, it said. The chargers for the station will be capable of getting drivers back on the road within 20-30 minutes.
“Together, we can power the electric road trip of tomorrow by ensuring seamless travel across a large region of the U.S.,” said TVA president and CEO Jeff Lyash. “This is one of many strategic partnerships that TVA is building to increase the number of electric vehicles to well over 200,000 in the Tennessee Valley by 2028.”
The coalition announcement comes after TVA teamed up with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) to develop and fund a fast-charging network across Tennessee’s highways and interstates.
In mid-November, the TVA board approved a new commercial rate structure just for electric vehicle charging stations. The vote was intended to support the expansion of EV charging infrastructure across the region, removing a big barrier for consumers to, perhaps, buy more electric vehicles.
Together, we can power the electric road trip of tomorrow by ensuring seamless travel across a large region of the U.S.
TVA president and CEO Jeff Lyash
TVA is also building partnerships with a number of agencies to increase the amount of electric vehicles in its seven-state service area. The push could bring up to $40 million in programs to support the adoption of electric vehicles over the next five years.
Lyash said electric vehicle adoption will spur economic activity, create jobs, keep refueling dollars in the local economy, reduce “the region’s largest source of carbon emissions,” and save money for drivers and businesses.
“Tennessee is on the forefront of the electric vehicle revolution thanks to its robust automotive manufacturing sector, supply chain capabilities, its highly trained workforce ,and its commitment to developing a reliable, fast-charging network,” said TDEC Commissioner David Salyers. “TVA’s participation in this coalition is a critical step in ensuring Tennessee’s fast charging network connects regionally and nationally, providing efficient transportation for future travelers while improving air quality in our state.”
Factory farms got looser laws thanks to state lawmakers last year but as that deregulation becomes a reality, some worry about the extra animal waste that comes with it.
On Monday, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) heard from the public on water-quality regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), or large livestock farming operations.
Previously “medium-sized” factory farms that had as many as 699 dairy cows, 2,499 fully grown hogs, or up to 124,999 chickens had to get a state permit (SOP) if it met federal requirements, according to the Tennessee Clean Water Network (TCWN).
That permit required these operations to have a state-approved plan for the storage, use, and disposal of animal waste. Tennessee Clean Water Network
Two larges lagoons hold animal waste behind three barns on a factory farm.
Now, “medium-sized” factory farms like these don’t have to have a permit at all and no plan for its animal waste.
“The intent of the loophole legislation was to attract more businesses to Tennessee,” said Kathy Hawes, executive director of TCWN. “But factory farms that generate millions of pounds of animal waste are not the sort of businesses we want in a state known for its beautiful waterways.”
How much animal waste is generated by those medium-sized factory farms?
[pullquote-1] ”Imagine a packed Neyland Stadium at UT vs Alabama,” reads a statement from the TCWN. “If those fans were trapped in there for 24 hours, they would generate more than 200,000 pounds of waste.
“The same amount of swine in that stadium? Over a million pounds in one day.”
If improperly stored, animal waste at these farms can contaminate groundwater and run off into natural waterways like lakes, rivers, and ponds.
The Sierra Club says factory-farm waste produces more than 168 gases, including hazardous chemicals like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and methane. Airborne particulate matter found near them can carry disease-causing bacteria, fungus, or other pathogens. These farms are also home to “infestations of flies, rats, and other vermin.”
When the bill was debated in the Tennessee General Assembly last year, Rep. Tim Wirgau (R-Buchanan) a pork producer in his district had an operation worth more than $100 million.
“I have farmers in my district in West Tennessee, as you know it is the largest agricultural part of the state, and they are coming to me saying, ‘I don’t want TDEC in my business,’ Wirgau said.
See the full debate here:
Agency Aims to Fight Factory Farm Rules (2)
The new rules have been placed on public notice. The deadline to comment is July 25th.
“TDEC may have the last say when it comes to executing these laws, but TCWN will put its thoughts to paper first – for any Tennessean to read,” Hawes said. “TCWN will issue a comment letter about these rules to TDEC by their deadline date of July 25.”
Tennessee Clean Water Network 
