ELKO COUNTY, Nev. – Pregnant women may want to move away from neighborhoods located close to fracked gas wells, according to a new Princeton University study that finds a higher rate of low birth-weight babies near the wells.
The researchers compared the locations of parents' homes to hospital records in Pennsylvania and found a strong correlation.
Study author Janet Currie, an economics professor at Princeton, says that the low birthweights were clustered, and much more likely to be right next to the well sites.
"What is surprising is, we found a fairly large effect for people living very close; but by the time you got to two miles away, we did not detect any effect," she says.
In Nevada, state records showed five hydraulic-fracking wells as of April 2017 - three in Elko County and one each in Nye and Eureka counties.
Industry reps argue that air pollution from gas wells and compressor stations disperses quickly, and they say they comply with all regulations. Multiple studies have linked low birth-weight to health issues down the road.
Currie says previous research points to culprits such as benzene, a volatile organic compound used in fracking fluid that has been linked to leukemia and blood disorders by the National Cancer Institute.
Beth Weinberger, a public health consultant with the Environmental Health Project, says benzene and soot particles in diesel exhaust are common in the gas fields and have been associated with preterm births in other studies.
"We know much of what's in the emissions, and in each of the studies, the researchers have found associations between exposure to gas drilling and birth outcomes," she explains.
The Princeton research suggests keeping drilling away from homes, through zoning or well set-back rules. Weinberger adds that even a portable air filter may help some homes reduce pollution levels.
get more stories like this via email
New Mexico has one of the nation's last "wild" rivers, free of human-made structures and community representatives will be back in the nation's Capitol this week to advocate for its protection.
A delegation of tribal leaders, local elected officials, veterans and community leaders will urge members of Congress to pass the M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act. Passage would protect nearly 450 miles of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and their tributaries.
Harry Browne, a commissioner in Grant County, said local residents have championed the legislation for nearly a decade.
"This region is among the nation's most economically challenged," Browne pointed out. "We deserve the benefits of Wild and Scenic Designation, increased tourism, increased investment by small businesses in outdoor recreation activities."
After four introductions, the bill passed out of a Senate committee last year with bipartisan support. As negotiated, it would allow grazing operations to continue on surrounding areas. Nonetheless, some landowners oppose the bill, worried it might restrict their Gila water use and lead to lawsuits.
In 2011, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico won the right to establish a reservation on homelands in southern New Mexico.
Pamela Eagleshield, vice chair of the tribe in Oklahoma, said many of the remaining 800 members hope to return and enjoy the pristine environment.
"Because our petroglyphs, our carvings, our culture, our history; everything that we have is there," Eagleshield emphasized. "If it's changed in any way, that's something that directly affects the spirituality of our people."
Browne noted the Grant County community-driven proposal will benefit people of all kinds.
"That is why my family and I moved here back in the early '90s," Browne stressed. "It would be devastating to see what we have here diminished by un-careful development."
New Mexico's outdoor recreation industry generates just over $2 billion in consumer spending by directly employing 28,000 people.
get more stories like this via email
The Supreme Court's decision in 2023 to roll back the Clean Water Act has meant less federal oversight in protecting the country's wetlands.
Illinois does not have a standalone program, and one organization hopes state legislators will pass measures to change this. Wetlands clean the water, reduce flooding and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
David McEllis, Illinois legislative director for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said Senate Bill 3669 and House Bill 5386 have passed out of their respective committees, but he expects future amendments.
"This would create, through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, a permitting process for when a landowner wants to destroy or fill in or work on wetlands in the state," McEllis outlined. "That covers the gap that was created by the Supreme Court decision."
The department believes landowners can play an important role in protecting the state's nearly 54,000 species of insects, birds, mammals, frogs and fungi by providing nesting and roosting places for habitat and making clean water accessible. The agency warns the state's natural areas are being lost to urban development and agricultural and industrial interests.
McEllis believes a wetlands standalone program would continue where the court's ruling left off and protect the state's remaining untouched and unprotected wetlands. The center's fact sheet said Illinois has already lost 90% of its wetland acreage and the status of the remaining 10% is unknown.
He pointed out the destruction of wetlands has taken place in Illinois for hundreds of years, since the state's establishment in the 1800s.
"There are some existing protections in the state in Cook County and some of the suburban counties, so those wetlands have some protection," McEllis acknowledged. "There are multiple rivers in downstate Illinois, and also wetlands areas throughout the state."
McEllis noted millions of wetlands have already been used for farming purposes, resulting in a loss for the state. A report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said wetlands currently cover nearly 6% of the land in 48 states. An estimated 95% of wetlands are freshwater; the rest are marine.
get more stories like this via email
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies has sued the U.S. Forest Service over a logging project in southwestern Montana.
The group claims the agency didn't do the necessary environmental impact review.
The project calls for cutting 11 miles of road into an area bordering the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area so loggers can take almost 11,000 acres of timber.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Executive Director Mike Garrity said the project threatens prime lynx habitat now, and for future generations.
"And lynx are listed as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act," said Garrity. "Lynx avoid clearcuts for up to 50 years, and they also avoid roads."
The edge of the Anaconda-Pintler is prime habitat for grizzly bears, too, which also avoid clear cuts and are most often killed close to logging roads.
The Forest Service has argued that managing forests by tree thinning helps limit wildfire danger. The suit awaits action in federal court in Missoula.
Garrity argued that the Forest Service violated a federal law requiring a thorough Environmental Impact Statement before starting a project, and discounted work that had already been done in the 115 square mile area.
"The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't consider the 145 miles of illegal roads in the project area," said Garrity. "They just pretended they didn't exist."
The Forest Service contends it held public meetings during the planning stages.
Garrity said since logging on the Anaconda-Pintler project has already started, the alliance may sue for an injunction to stop further work while the lawsuit proceeds.
Disclosure: Alliance for the Wild Rockies contributes to our fund for reporting on Endangered Species & Wildlife, Environment. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email