United Nations experts are raising concerns about chemical giants DuPont and Chemours, saying they've violated human rights in North Carolina.

At a virtual news conference this week, a UN representative said these companies have been releasing harmful PFAS chemicals into the environment near the lower Cape Fear River.

Emily Donovan, co-founder of the group Clean Cape Fear, said more than 300 different chemicals in their water led them to seek help from the UN. She said getting clean and safe drinking water has been an issue for decades, and local residents continue to suffer the consequences.

"The amount of sicknesses and illnesses happening in our region is incredibly depressing and hurtful," said Donovan.

Last fall, she said, the UN wrote to the companies expressing concern. In their responses, DuPont denied responsibility for a Fayetteville Works Plant, a suspected contamination source, and Chemours claimed it has reduced its PFAS releases and exposure.

Donovan said they're still figuring out how widespread the pollution is. They know it affects eight counties, about a half-million people and around 10,000 wells. With Chemours planning an expansion and perhaps even importing international waste, she said the situation is becoming dire for local communities.

"We are tired of being a sacrifice zone," she added.

Dr. Marcos Orellana, special rapporteur on toxics and human rights for the United Nations, warns that PFAS chemicals are a danger worldwide. He criticized companies that refuse to acknowledge the potential dangers and don't do more to protect residents.

"The concerns in regards to Cape Fear and the Fayetteville Works are extremely concerning," he said, "because of disinformation spread by companies, because of the dumping and pollution, inadequate controls that have affected people's access to clean drinking water."

The letter called on the companies to take action to prevent PFAS exposure and protect local residents. The UN has also contacted state and federal regulators, demanding that they seek greater accountability from polluters. Orellana said the U.S. government has yet to respond.


get more stories like this via email

Chesapeake Bay has added more than six billion oysters since 2017 through the Chesapeake Oyster Alliance.

And last year, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation grew more than 100,000 oysters to be placed in the bay.

But oyster populations were not always on the upward trend. Overharvesting, pollution, and disease caused massive declines in oyster populations.

Today, only 3% of historic native oyster populations in the bay remain.

Jessica Lutzow, Virginia oyster restoration specialist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, says the mollusks are considered the "popular kid."

Oysters in Chesapeake Bay are a keystone species, providing many benefits to the bay environment.

"They filter up to 50 gallons of water a day," said Lutzow. "We're talking about a three- to four-inch oyster filtering that much water a day. You have this little, resilient creature that's doing so much for it all at once."

Oysters are also consequential in preserving coastlines. When oyster reefs form, they serve as natural buffers against coastal erosion and storm surges.

Oyster reefs disperse wave energy to protect coasts from the full force of severe storms. To grow oysters, a volunteer suspends a wire cage full of baby oysters - also called spats - from a dock or marina.

The only upkeep required is keeping the cage clean to provide enough waterflow to the oysters. Lutzow said she's encouraged by these oyster milestones.

"It's such a positive outcome," said Lutzow, "and I see it progressing in the future as people really start to fully understand how important these creatures are, and how important the other animals and plants that are on the reefs are as well. The oysters can help create that habitat to keep those animals thriving as well. "

Conservationists are currently working to reach their goal of adding 10 billion oysters to the bay by the end of the year.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation expects they will grow nearly 200,000 oysters this year.




get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups are suing South Fork Coal Company, alleging the company has repeatedly violated federal law in Greenbrier County.

The lawsuit said the company has continued to discharge pollutants into nearby waterways at levels exceeding legal limits. Environmental advocates said despite years of dumping pollutants, the state's environmental protection department has not taken action to stop South Fork Coal.

Andrew Young, chair of the extractive industries committee for the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, said the lawsuit is asking for an injunction to immediately stop the dumping and ensure the company properly reclaims the land.

"We noticed that South Forks' own monitoring data showed that they were often discharging pollutants like iron, manganese, in excess of their legal limits," Young pointed out. "The allegations are based largely on what the company itself is reporting."

Advocates said the five mines in the lawsuit all discharge pollutants into the Laurel Creek Watershed and/or the South Fork of the Cherry River Watershed. Both streams feed into the Gauley River, an internationally renowned destination for whitewater rafting and kayaking, and home to the endangered candy darter.

The lawsuit also highlighted the company's failure to submit required water quality assessments and reclaim unused sites. Young argued the company's neglect of water and land standards puts local communities and the outdoor recreation economy at risk.

"The mines at issue here lie adjacent to the Monongahela National Forest, and it's less than six miles from the world-renowned Cranberry glades and Cranberry Glades Wilderness Area," Young explained.

The state's tourism industry brought in nearly $9 billion last year. According to the governor's office, more than 75 million visitors traveled to the Mountain State last year, and spent more than $6 billion.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

A new report from environmental watchdog group Food & Water Watch suggests that almost 2 million fish were killed from manure spills in Iowa between 2013 and 2023. The 179 spills occurred throughout the state, with a major hotspot for spills in the northwest corner of the state. Earlier this year, the group reported that Iowa factory farms produce more waste than any other state, at 109 billion pounds of manure annually, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

The report and accompanying map, released on Dec. 9, designated over 700 segments of Iowa water as “impaired” — not meeting the standards necessary to support aquatic life, public water supplies or recreation. Details include where in the state spills occur, who owns the operation and if they are repeat offenders.

Manure spills in the state of Iowa have contributed to what environmental advocacy groups call a water quality crisis. In the capital city of Des Moines, the local water supply has one of the world’s largest nitrate removal facilities. Nitrate is the resulting chemical of manure that is not absorbed by the soil or crops. Due to high levels of nitrate in water, which can cause blue baby syndrome in children and colon cancer in adults, the Des Moines Water Works has to run its nitrate removal system more frequently as the situation worsens — at a cost of anywhere from $10,000 to $16,000 per day, which falls entirely on utility customers.

“When you think about the nature of what they’re spilling and the quantities of what they’re spilling, it’s the difference between life and death, and people are being strapped down with medical debt and suffering in a prolonged way,” Food & Water Watch Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel tells Sentient.

According to the report, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources fined 171 of the 179 offenders at $635,808 over the ten-year period it studied. That’s less than half of what Des Moines Water Works spent on its nitrate removal system in 2015, at $1.4 million. There are gaps in the state reporting as well. The total volume of the spills is difficult to determine because most reports do not contain information on how much manure is spilled. And in those that do note volume, the range is anywhere from 500 to 1 million gallons.

“The fines that the DNR has leveled against these companies do not represent restitution for the damage that they’re causing to Iowa,” Mankel says. “They also don’t represent a real demand that these corporations change the way that they’re doing business.”

In 2024 alone, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources documented 13 fish kill events, one of which regulators directly tied to animal waste. This one “anthropogenic” spill in northwest Iowa — caused by dairy manure land-applied runoff —killed anywhere from 100,001-500,000 fish.

Many concentrated animal feeding operations operate without the proper discharge permits, rendering their spills more difficult to track. In October, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a petition from 13 groups — including Food & Water Watch — calling for stricter regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Today, Food & Water Watch is calling for a “Clean Water for Iowa Act” to be passed in the state legislature. The act would require all medium and large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations to get National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

This report and map are released in the midst of a health crisis in the Midwest, which some observers and critics argue is tied to, or exacerbated by, large-scale industrialized agriculture. Mankel points to cancer incidence in the state of Iowa; it’s the only state in the country with rising cancer rates (though other factors, like obesity and alcoholism rates may play a role).

“We’re paying for it,” Mankel says. “I really want Iowans to understand that these problems are a policy choice, and that we are being burdened with paying the true cost of massive profits that these corporations are reaping from our state, and that’s a very intentional choice on behalf of lawmakers.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email