Iowa has thousands fewer square miles than Nebraska but it has almost 3,000 more concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Opponents of the giant facilities argue there are enough. The increase in CAFOs nationwide has fueled opposition from nearby residents, along with environmental and animal rights groups.

In Iowa, one grassroots group has prevented around 100 of them from being built. Barb Kalbach, president of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, attributes Iowa's dismal water quality in large part to runoff from animal waste, applied to farm fields along with commercial fertilizer. Kalbach thinks rural Nebraska communities should also oppose such developments.

"That manure has to go somewhere," Kalbach pointed out. "It's not a question of, 'Well, should I, or I shouldn't I, put it on the ground,' you know? It's got to go. They've got to empty the pit, and so it's going to go. And if you have any kind of water issues whatsoever, people need to organize immediately."

The Environmental Protection Agency calls animal manure "a primary source of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface and groundwater." Roughly 20% of public water supplies and private wells in Nebraska test above recommended nitrate and nitrogen levels.

Jonathan Leo, a Nebraska environmental and land-use attorney, said CAFO owners usually contract with local farmers to use the animal waste. He noted for the largest operations, the massive amount of waste makes a methane digester system imperative.

"It breaks down manure into methane, which is a major greenhouse gas, for sale as an energy source to third parties," Leo explained. "And digestate, which is sold to off-site farmers as a nutrient additive to soil."

Leo and others helped residents of a small Nebraska town prevent development of a CAFO by an Iowa producer for more than 6,000 head of swine. Leo pointed out many who opposed it were farmers themselves.

"We worked with them about how to organize and understand their county's ordinance, with respect to CAFO permitting," Leo recounted. "And they appeared before their county board and their planning commission in a way that their own supervisors said, 'We've never seen this kind of citizen activism before.'"

The defeated operation would have been about a half-mile uphill from a stream which feeds a state recreation area lake used for swimming, boating and fishing.

As a result of a lawsuit by Food and Water Watch, the Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to begin studying the polluting effects of CAFOs, after years of being urged to do so.

West Virginia communities will see increased air pollution with little oversight under a new Trump administration proposal offering presidential exemptions from the Clean Air Act's requirements for hazardous air pollutants.

Sarah Vogel, senior vice president of healthy communities for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the move could affect more than 200 facilities, including 10 in the Mountain State, emitting toxic chemicals such as ethylene oxide and benzene.

"These are well-defined, highly hazardous chemicals, many cancer-causing compounds coming from a number of different industries, including the chemical and petrochemical industry," Vogel outlined.

A new analysis from the Environmental Defense Fund found more than 500 facilities across the U.S. eligible for pollution exemptions. Most are petrochemical manufacturing plants and coal-fired power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency has not made the requests for exemptions publicly available.

Vogel emphasized children and families who have no choice but to breathe the toxic air where they live will suffer the most.

"We're seeing this administration signal to companies that they can just continue to pollute in the name of either a so-called energy emergency or a national security issue," Vogel added.

Nearly 10,000 West Virginia children per year will suffer asthma attacks because of ozone from the oil and gas industry, and in 28 counties residents face higher cancer risks, according to the Clean Air Task Force.

The decades-long decline of Pennsylvania's coal industry could shift in another direction after a series of executive orders by President Donald Trump - although current market trends indicate it's unlikely.

Coal-fired power plants made up just over 16% of U.S. electricity in 2023. That's half what it was a decade ago.

Tom Schuster, director of the Sierra Club of Pennsylvania, said the coal industry is in irreversible decline that executive orders most likely can't change.

He said it's been outpaced by renewable energy, which has now surpassed coal in electricity generation over a 12 month period.

"Unfortunately," said Schuster, "what this order could do is expose people to higher electricity costs by keeping unprofitable plants online longer, and also jeopardize people's health by exempting them from environmental regulations."

The orders direct agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to ease restrictions on coal, which the president suggests could help meet rising energy demands of manufacturing and AI data centers.

Schuster said these actions are part of broader deregulation, and that Pennsylvanians know the risks of unchecked coal use.

He said in today's market, relying on coal to meet power demands is no longer viable.

One executive order claims mining and burning coal will bring back good-paying jobs, but Schuster said that's unlikely.

He pointed out that coal generated about half of Pennsylvania's electricity 15 years ago, but now makes up only 10% - and he said reopening retired plants isn't economical.

"There's only two conventional coal-fired power plants left in Pennsylvania," said Schuster. "There's a handful of smaller specialty plants that burn coal refuse, but it's a relatively small part of our energy generation today, so I don't think the economic impact in terms of coal-fired generation is going to be that much."

An executive order also aims to boost coal exports. Pennsylvania exports a fair amount of its coal, mainly to China - but the trade war and retaliatory tariffs could stymie that effort.

Environmental groups across Michigan are pushing back after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed it will fast-track Enbridge's Line 5 tunnel project without conducting a full environmental review.

Line 5 is a 645-mile pipeline transporting crude oil and natural gas liquids beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Speeding up the project is a response to President Donald Trump's declaration of a "national energy emergency."

Ashley Rudzinksy with the nonprofit Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities said with the federal process fast-tracked, the burden falls more heavily on the state's environmental agency to exercise due diligence. She added state laws require thorough permit reviews and meaningful opportunity for public input.

These laws include the Michigan Public Trust Law and the Submerged Land Act.

Rudzinski says there also are concerns about potential oil spills and threats to treaty rights.

"We have also seen many of our partners in this work, and allies - the six Tribal nations here in Michigan - pull out of continued negotiations with the Army Corps," Rudzinski pointed out. "In my estimation, that is because this process has become a sham."

Enbridge responded in a statement saying in part, "Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure" and it is safe. It went on to say Michigan approved environmental permits and tunnel placement but after nearly five years, the project still awaits a U.S. Army Corps decision on its environmental impact.

Critics of the Line 5 tunnel are urging Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy to deny the necessary permits.

Rudzinski warned the project may also become a burden on taxpayers.

"Enbridge has petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be able to pass the tunnel construction cost onto their shippers, who ultimately can pass that on to consumers," Rudzinski noted. "That means everyday folks will have to pay more for these products."

Enbridge has consistently stated it will bear the full financial responsibility for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Line 5 tunnel, and taxpayers will not be required to fund any part of the project.


get more stories like this via email