-
A federal court has sided with a refinery in Southern Oklahoma over the Environmental Protection Agency, saying the EPA couldn’t go back on an exemption it had issued for renewable fuel requirements.
-
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced recipients for $128 million worth of environmental justice grants.
-
Norman is working to map out which neighborhoods are most at risk for having lead water service lines.
-
The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new Superfund site at Oklahoma’s Fansteel Metals, Inc. Covering 105 acres in Muskogee within the Cherokee Nation reservation, the facility contains radioactive and toxic materials that could threaten the health and safety of people living nearby if not properly contained.
-
The amended EPA rule is to comply with a Supreme Court ruling this year that narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act and the agency's power to regulate waterways and wetlands.
-
The family of “forever chemicals” known as PFAS is associated with a number of health risks. Ahead of proposed EPA regulations on some PFAS, experts and officials are working to make sure our drinking water is safe.
-
The EPA has completed less than 5% of its Endangered Species Act caseload in reviewing pesticides. Now the agency is proposing a new strategy for scrutinizing agricultural chemicals’ effects on listed species.
-
Oklahoma’s plan to meet federal smog regulations has been in limbo for months after a rejection from the Environmental Protection Agency and a lawsuit in response to that rejection. According to a new court ruling, the state will not have to implement a stricter federal smog plan while it waits on that lawsuit.
-
Oklahoma has managed to restore nearly 100 unhealthy streams — more than any other state. Oklahoma officials say credit is due to individual farmers and the conservation programs that support them.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot enforce the Clean Water Act on wetlands that aren’t physically connected to lakes and rivers, even if they feed into those water bodies. The decision in Sackett v. EPA invalidates the EPA’s recently expanded definition of the Clean Water Act’s scope.