PORTLAND, Ore. - Oregon lawmakers want cities to be allowed to put their cash in banks other than large, for-profit institutions. Bills in the Legislature -- Senate Bill 339 and House Bill 2743 -- would enable municipalities to create public banks, which are owned and run by a state or municipality.

James Davis, who chairs the Oregon Public Bank Alliance, said cities then could deposit their reserves somewhere besides big banks. He said that would create the capacity for public municipal banks to provide bigger loans and bonding for cities when they want to build infrastructure, such as buildings and bridges.

"The kind of interest that cities currently pay to the big for-profit Wall Street banks - it's exorbitant and it can be cut almost in half when working with a municipal bank," he said. "That cuts the cost of building a school dramatically, which stretches our tax dollars quite a bit."

Davis said lawmakers are looking at legislation that clarifies language allowing cities to create public banks because there is some question about the legality under the Oregon Constitution of creating a state bank.

Davis noted that these wouldn't be brick-and-mortar institutions. He said public banks create the capacity for other institutions to provide assets such as business loans at lower interest rates than big banks.

"That's because the credit unions and the community banks are going to be the public face for those loans," he said. "So, it's not a competition model, it's really a cooperation model. It really benefits our local banks and credit unions."

One prominent model for public banking is the Bank of North Dakota, which has been around for more than a century. Davis said that bank has weathered financial crises such as the Great Recession of 2008 well and helps provide such benefits as low-interest student loans.

"That's the power a public bank can create for our communities," he said, "when we design economic systems that kind of keeps the money in the community and helps to build a more resilient banking infrastructure here."


get more stories like this via email

A New York law takes effect in January, banning the use of PFAS in clothing.

The law is another step in ending the unnecessary use of the long-lasting substances known as "forever chemicals" in everyday products. The New York law covers a wide array of clothing and is a response to research showing continuous exposure to the chemicals can have a host of negative health effects.

Kate Donovan, northeast regional director of environmental health for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said PFAS chemicals have many uses in clothing manufacturing.

"PFAS is used in lots of consumer products but in particular, in clothing for its water repellency, as well as stain resistance and wrinkle-free properties," Donovan outlined. "These are the types of clothing and apparel that we would see PFAS being used in."

New York joins seven other states also banning the use of PFAS in textiles, although many brands and companies are already eliminating them on their own in their products. Before this law, New York had already banned the chemicals in food packaging and firefighting foam.

Bills banning other forever chemical uses will be reintroduced in the 2025 legislative session. Three bills propose ending the use of PFAS in household products, personal care and cosmetics, and menstrual items.

Donovan pointed out in addition to people's health, the manufacturing processes for the products affects the environment.

"We have lots of industrial and commercial processes in the state that use PFAS for their equipment or their machinery," Donovan noted. "What happens is, these manufacturing and industrial processes release PFAS into wastewater, into air, and other discharges that enter into our environment."

She added half of the water systems in the state contain some level of PFAS chemicals, with more than 250 local waterways exceeding state-regulated levels. The state Department of Health estimates 548 public water systems exceed the federal maximums for PFAS. Implementing the proper treatment infrastructure would come with significant costs.


get more stories like this via email

The Environmental Protection Agency this week banned a toxic chemical commonly used in dry cleaning and other consumer products.

Trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene have been used for decades and are known to affect the liver, brain, kidney and immune and nervous systems. Research shows dry-cleaning and laundry workers are at increased risk of dying from cancer.

Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former principal deputy assistant administrator for science at the EPA Office of Research and Development, said businesses will be required to use alternatives and employees will be safer at work, adding the changes also affect surrounding communities.

"If you happen to live near a dry-cleaning facility, you know there would be the potential for the ground to be contaminated and for these chemicals to get into the water supply," Orme-Zavaleta pointed out.

California has been ahead of the curve. In 2007, the state banned installations of new perchloroethylene dry-cleaning machines, required existing ones be shut down by 2010, and required a complete ban of use of the chemical by 2023.

Orme-Zavaleta noted many environmental statutes are aimed at cleaning up hazardous chemicals. While recent legislation has enabled the EPA to more effectively reduce exposures or prevent them from happening in the first place, she stressed the effort takes time and resources.

"The agency's been playing a lot of catch up," Orme-Zavaleta acknowledged. "They need to keep going, but they also need to be looking to the future, especially looking at some of the new chemicals coming into commerce."

According to the advocacy group Heal the Planet, the dry-cleaning industry uses hundreds of millions of gallons of solvents such as perchloroethylene every year, the chemical's airborne particles are difficult to detect in the air and can linger for weeks.


get more stories like this via email

Kentucky residents are being notified about their lead water pipes that could be posing a health danger. According to an EPA report, around 40,000 service lines in the Commonwealth contain lead, and earlier this year the agency announced a new rule requiring drinking water utilities in all states to identify and replace lead pipes within ten years.

Dr. Leah Werner, family physician and assistant professor at Oregon Health and Science University, said the federal change increases water sampling and transparency about lead between communities and local governments, and added that there are actions residents can take, too.

"People can also test their own water, and really the best way to do that is to look at your either your city government website, and beyond that, the government is mandated to help you with testing kits, but Home Depot and places like that also sell lead testing kits," she explained.

The mailed notices from utilities will confirm whether or not a home relies on lead water lines, or if the piping materials is unknown, and if any pipes need to be replaced.

Werner added that if a family is concerned that they and their children may be exposed to lead, it's important to visit a primary-care physician as soon as possible, who can also be a guide through the process of testing and treatment for lead exposure.

"Lead crosses the placenta, so that is really dooming a fetus before even being born, to the same sort of cognitive impairments and behavioral issues that children who are exposed to lead suffer," Werner continued.

According to the CDC, exposure to lead can reduce IQ in children and be a primary driver to learning disabilities and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, permanently damage the brain and nervous system, and cause speech and hearing problems.


get more stories like this via email