In a new report, a coalition of New York environmental groups said dredging the Hudson River of toxic chemicals has failed.

The report by Friends of a Clean Hudson River showed PCB chemical levels are higher than anticipated. The Environmental Protection Agency dredged the river between 2009 and 2015 for 30 years worth of chemicals General Electric dumped into it.

Ned Sullivan, president of Scenic Hudson, said while dredging is typically an effective way to clean pollutants out of a river, the EPA's effort was ineffective.

"The problem is that EPA struck a deal with GE that was too much in favor of the polluter," Sullivan contended. "They didn't require GE to clean up enough contamination."

Other federal agencies noted this. A 2015 report found GE did not do enough dredging, and the EPA did not force the company to do more.

Sullivan argued the first step to true remediation is having the EPA admit the finding was correct, and prepare for more extensive dredging.

Some 200 miles of the Hudson River are considered a Superfund site due to the high amount of contamination, and 40 miles of the Upper Hudson are GE's responsibility. Friends of a Clean Hudson River's assessment contended current sediment recovery rates are unlikely to allow fish to recover naturally.

Sullivan noted the effects it would have.

"PCBs are a forever chemical, they don't naturally break down in the environment," Sullivan stressed. "And as you move up the food chain to other wildlife that consumes fish, as well as humans, the PCBs become more and more concentrated at every level in the food chain."

The EPA has warned against eating fish caught in the river between Troy and Hudson Falls, but people still do.

Sullivan emphasized PCBs are here to stay unless more is done. He said other parts of the river also need to be monitored, since they are just as toxic as the dredged area.

"We've called on EPA to require a formal investigation of the Lower Hudson, 160 miles below the Troy Dam, where no remediation has been done," Sullivan pointed out. "We know there is additional contamination because the fish in that Lower Hudson remain unsafe to eat."

GE implemented two of three sediment collection programs this year. A third program, which includes deeper sediment sample collection, starts in 2024.


get more stories like this via email

A bill introduced in Congress is facing backlash from nonprofit organizations, warning it could stifle free speech.

The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act would postpone tax deadlines for citizens who are unlawfully detained abroad or held hostage but it would also give the federal government the power to remove the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group it deems to be supporting "terrorist organizations."

Critics of the bill claimed it would give President-elect Donald Trump the power to make decisions about churches, universities, news outlets and more.

Lisa DePaoli, communications director at the Center for Coalfield Justice, said it could be used to stifle the environmental work they do in Pennsylvania.

"The main issue for us is that it could take away our nonprofit designation, and it could take away our First Amendment rights," DePaoli contended. "If stripped of our rights, it'll just make the fight to protect our communities that much harder."

Proponents said it would require the federal government to provide evidence a nonprofit has supported a listed terrorist organization. More than 130 religious, civil rights and other advocacy groups have joined the ACLU in asking lawmakers to vote against the bill.

According to the ACLU, there would be a 90-day period in which a nonprofit group could defend itself against the accusations. However, the federal government might not have to turn over the evidence it would be using to make its case.

DePaoli noted she has concerns environmental groups would be specifically targeted with such powers.

"We obviously don't consider ourselves a terrorist organization but I do know that, in the past, some environmental organizations have been labeled as such," DePaoli pointed out. "It feels like a really slippery slope to me. We don't want our First Amendment rights taken away. We want to be able to speak out and express if we're upset with something they're doing."

The bill passed the House last Thursday, in a vote of 219 in support and 184 against. Fifteen Democrats sided with all but one Republican to support the bill.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana environmental advocates are facing uncertainties following the election.

Changes in federal leadership could shift key environmental protections, creating questions for state policies on coal ash and water quality.

Sam Carpenter, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, noted federal regulations, like those from the Environmental Protection Agency, have helped Indiana manage environmental challenges, including addressing unlined coal ash pits contaminating groundwater. With shifting federal priorities, there is a question of what will happen to the protections.

"The EPA had recently come out with guidelines that require those to be cleaned up," Carpenter pointed out. "There are similar things with coal-fired power plants where we still rely quite a bit on our coal power generation which is dirty."

Carpenter argued the plants are costly and harmful to health and the climate. Supporters of reduced regulation argue scaling back federal oversight could ease economic pressures on Indiana's coal industry and reduce costs for energy providers.

Carpenter expressed concern over Indiana's legislative stance, emphasizing a need for strong regulations to protect the well-being of Hoosiers and natural resources in the state amid increased development.

"What we need to think about is protection of our health, protection of our water, of our natural assets," Carpenter emphasized. "In our statehouse there is a real concern about regulation. We rely on some protection for natural resources."

Despite the challenges, Carpenter urged residents to stay hopeful and engaged, stressing involvement is a powerful antidote to despair. He assured supporters the council would keep pushing for clean energy, water quality improvements and partnerships across political lines to secure a healthier environment.


get more stories like this via email

Hispanic families who fish to put food on the table are disproportionately affected by mercury, which accumulates in seafood in Southern California.

Surveys at 10 piers in Los Angeles and Orange counties found 60% of the anglers were Latino and native Spanish speakers, and 78% of them were fishing to feed their families.

Sofia Barboza, ocean manager for the Hispanic Access Foundation, said the families are exposed to toxins in fish from polluted waters.

"We found that Hispanic anglers in California are actually ingesting an average of 13.9 micrograms of mercury per day via fish consumption that they had caught in local waters," Barboza reported. "This is double the amount of mercury that has been determined as safe by the EPA."

Fish with high mercury levels have also been found in the Bay Area, the Central Coast near Humboldt and Deer Creek. A newly-released report from the foundation about Latinos in U.S. fisheries found 5% of Latinos in California, or about 785,000 people, work in the agricultural, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining sectors. But no research yet exists to determine how many Latinos are in commercial fishing.

Barboza suggested the warning signs about pollution at the piers, as well as government websites, should be translated into Spanish.

"Even though 28% of the California population speaks Spanish, the California Fish and Wildlife Department fishing regulations are not provided in Spanish on their website," Barboza pointed out. "Something we would like to see moving forward."

The report also recommends stronger oversight of commercial fishing companies hiring Hispanic migrant workers on H2B visas to ensure they receive fair wages, safe working conditions and access to safe housing.