MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – Just a couple of days are left to comment on a plan by the Trump administration to undo Obama-era protections for the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. President Trump has vowed to take steps to reopen the ocean territories to oil and gas drilling, saying it would boost the economy and expand America's energy potential.

But, what it will do to wildlife and the environment is causing concern for coastal defender Mike Gibaldi with the Miami chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. He cites the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 as what could happen off Florida's coast.

"Water moves, wind blows, storms come ashore," he says. "Anything that's off or near Florida could potentially bring oil to my family's beach, up the whole coast."

In a poll late last year by the Natural Resources Defense Council and League of Conservation Voters, nearly 60 percent of those surveyed say they would support permanently protecting the Arctic and Atlantic coasts.

The managing attorney for Earthjustice's oceans program, Steve Mashuda, says it's not worth the risk.

"The harm that would be caused by an oil spill, any kind of industrial development of that scale in these waters is counterproductive for the economy that exists along the Atlantic coastline today," he explains.

Mashuda says carbon pollution already is damaging the coastline because global warming is causing the water levels to rise. The threat to wildlife is extreme as well.

"The seismic airgun surveys which are currently proposed for a vast swath of the Atlantic coast, these surveys are incredibly devastating to marine mammals in particular, but also to fish and the zoo plankton that form the base of the food chain," he notes.

Acting Assistant Interior Secretary Kate MacGregor says under the Obama administration, 94 percent of the outer shelf was off limits to development, despite interest from state and local governments and industry leaders. She adds the Trump administration is dedicated to energy dominance.


get more stories like this via email

A pair of new reports shows Ohio communities are quietly leading the way on clean energy, from urban centers to small towns, with solar power playing an increasingly central role.

Advocates said the findings reflect an economic opportunity for the state and a potential bipartisan path forward on climate action.

The new annual report from the nonprofit Power A Clean Future Ohio highlighted sustainability wins in communities across the state.

Joe Flarida, executive director of the group, said local action has often outpaced state-level efforts, and emphasized energy and climate work is happening across the political spectrum.

"We've seen this local movement building in Ohio, and it's not just building in big cities, it's building in small villages, suburban, rural, across the board," Flarida explained. "They make up all types of political backgrounds, demographics, economic traits and characteristics of these communities."

In 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed House Bill 201, blocking cities from restricting natural gas use, a move clean energy advocates said has undercut local sustainability efforts even as community projects expand statewide.

Another new report from the crisis management firm UNPREDICTABLEcity found residential solar installations are booming statewide, including in rural and traditionally conservative areas.

Jon-Paul D'Aversa, principal at UNPREDICTABLEcity and the report's lead author, said solar is becoming increasingly normalized among homeowners and comes down to basic economics.

"Electricity in particular has risen 30% since 2019," D'Aversa pointed out. "There's a lot of pressure right now on folks to have that addressed. One of the ways that we see a lot of people addressing this (is) by just purely economics, for a lot of folks."

He added his company's report attributes the growth to falling solar costs and new local policies making installation easier. Analysts said Ohio's solar expansion is a promising sign for the state's energy independence and future economic competitiveness.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Approximately 122 million people are exposed to potentially toxic byproducts in their drinking water. The possibly toxic mix is the result of organic material, like manure, interacting with disinfectants in the treatment process. According to a new report by the environmental non-profit Environmental Working Group, when the manure and other organic materials interact with chlorine, the result is a chemical byproduct that raises a number of health risks, including some that may have long-lasting health consequences for consumers.

“It’s not just that there’s manure in your water and that’s unsafe, but it’s that manure and other organic materials are then triggering these unsafe contaminants,” Environmental Working Group Midwest Director Anne Schechinger tells Sentient.

The 1.7 billion animals raised for consumption in the United States produce approximately 941 billion pounds of manure each year. Smaller water systems and residents living on private wells are especially vulnerable to agricultural pollution, but this new report raises another concern. The problem with disinfection byproducts — of specific concern in this report are trihalomethanes (TTHMs) — reaches cities including New York City and Los Angeles, which each had at least one test above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by the Environmental Protection Agency in the last five years.

From 2019 to 2023, the five years this report covers, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (that serves the Washington D.C. suburb in Maryland) tested above the MCL level 218 times. TTHMs can form when chlorine interacts with a host of organic matter ranging from dead vegetation to, as this report states, manure.

In a 2021 notice the EPA drafted for water utilities to notify residents that they have high levels of TTHMs in their water, the regulators wrote: “Some people who drink water containing trihalomethane in excess of the MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.” Four years later, the regulatory landscape looks very different — the EPA is moving to dismantle Clean Water Act protections and the phrase “Safe Drinking Water” is banned at the Department of Agriculture.

The new report from EWG states that six of the 10 systems that tested at or above the maximum containment level at least once “are also listed among the states with the most livestock.” EWG cites research that documents how runoff from animal farms, and swine farms in particular, can contain extremely high levels of precursors that can turn into harmful chemicals during the disinfection process. Dairies are a major culprit too.

As cities grapple with multiple hot-button water issues from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to nitrate, the list of things to filter out seems to be continuing to grow. Water experts say disinfection byproducts like TTHMs could be filtered out with new technology targeting PFAS, if that regulation sticks.

‘Clean’ Water?

“What unknown things that we don’t yet know are in our drinking water” are the “bread and butter” of Susan Richardson’s lab. Richardson is a professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, where she has been studying disinfection byproduct chemicals for around 30 years.

When we treat water, Richardson says, we’re killing harmful microbes. “But the problem is that the disinfection byproducts are an unintended consequence of trying to kill harmful pathogens,” she says.

Richardson says the interaction between the disinfectants and natural organic matter like manure can result in disinfection byproducts — as do tea leaves, algae and many other things produced in nature.

In 2024, the Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency passed a new regulation to address PFAS, requiring public utilities to comply with new maximum contaminant levels in treated water.

Richardson’s opinion is that the regulatory approach to PFAS was rushed, and yet the outcome could have a silver lining. As utilities look to install new systems to filter out the PFAS, the systems can include filters that remove other contaminants too.

Certain filters, like granular activated carbon filters, can take out the precursor chemicals that lead to disinfection byproducts like TTHMs. They aren’t cheap. Richardson lives in Columbia, South Carolina, where the water plant serves around 375,000 customers. Installing that type of filtration system would cost the city approximately $200 million — not to mention approximately $24 million per year on upkeep.

In 2024, the EPA announced $1 billion in funding for communities and people on private wells impacted by PFAS contamination. Cities like Columbia plan to use this to partially fund their projects, if the funding remains.

A Defunded Landscape

The EWG report recommends starting to fix the problem at the source, in this case, they argue, on the farm. But under the Trump administration, funding for on-the-farm conservation practices aimed to reduce pollution in waterways is currently paused.

“When you take away hundreds of millions of dollars from cover crops and stream buffers and filter strips, you’re also taking away a reduction in nitrate and manure and other contaminants running off farm fields,” Schechinger says.

The Trump administration has not publicly commented on the future of PFAS, but just a few days ago, an anonymous EPA employee told the Guardian that the agency is considering a more lax approach to regulating chemicals such as PFAS.

“I think we have good water,” Richardson says, holding up her water bottle. “I’m drinking it. But, I think we can do better. I know we can do better, and I want us to do better.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

A major player in the Northwest's energy landscape is considering changes in the future, as extreme climate events make power delivery in Oregon more unpredictable.

Like utilities in the region, the Bonneville Power Administration - a nonprofit federal administration - is considering joining a larger energy market to ensure reliable access for customers.

BPA is favoring a market known as Markets+, which it says will be less expensive in the long run but could cost between $79 million and $129 million more for ratepayers in 2026.

However, organizations like Save Our Wild Salmon favor the Day-Ahead Energy Market, or EDAM.

Tanya Riordan, policy and advocacy director with the organization, said BPA needs to consider tribal rights in the region, especially when it comes to salmon.

"We can have a more open governance model," said Riordan, "that gives state officials and consumers an equal role, which would keep salmon recovery priorities at the forefront, which is what the EDAM market would offer."

Riordan said the transition to a larger energy market would reduce pressure on the federal hydropower system, also reducing pressure on the region's rivers and salmon.

A formal document outlining BPA's decision is expected in May.

Ben Otto, an energy consultant with the Northwest Energy Coalition, said he also favors EDAM.

He said the BPA has a unique role in the Northwest, with obligations to its customers, but also to the rest of the region by selling hydropower to keep bills low and running a transmission grid in the Northwest.

"Also by mitigating the impacts to salmon and wildlife and tribal interests," said Otto, "this is really important - and we really think that those obligations need to play a more significant role in Bonneville's decision, and we look forward to that being reflected in their record."

Otto said EDAM would reduce costs and be just as reliable as Markets+, and would make the integration of clean energy easier.

He noted that BPA wouldn't fully join the market, regardless of its choice, until 2028 - and so he's urging the administration to take its time making a decision.

"We believe a market that gives a strong role for public interest and state policy is a better fit for Bonneville's obligations than Markets+," said Otto, "which is really more of like a business league and more commercially focused."




get more stories like this via email