President Donald Trump's new executive order on California water policy is drawing criticism from many water conservation advocates.
The order directs the feds to study ways to override state environmental protections and send more water from northern California down south.
Bruce Reznik, executive director of the nonprofit L.A. Waterkeeper, said the devastating fires can be blamed on extreme winds, dry brush and local infrastructure issues, not on a lack of water. He said Trump is taking advantage of a disaster to benefit corporate farms.
"To the extent that they're going to deliver more water, a lot of that is going to big agriculture in the Central Valley," Reznik observed. "Folks that have supported Trump."
Groups such as Restore the Delta said Trump's policies could harm the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystems and devastate the salmon fishery. They also oppose Gov. Gavin Newsom's Delta Conveyance Project, which the state said is intended to capture more water from large but infrequent storm events.
Reznik argued if the state and federal governments really want to make an impact, they would invest a lot more money into existing projects to clean up contaminated groundwater, improve conservation and recycle more wastewater.
"In L.A. County, we import about 700 million gallons of water a day, of the 1.2 billion gallons we use," Reznik noted. "Importing that water requires a lot of energy and expense. Right now, we treat it, flush it, treat it again, and then we dump about 450 million to 500 million gallons of that back into the ocean. The Metropolitan Water District, the county and the city have plans that we could be reclaiming 330 million gallons a day. That would reduce our regional demand for imported water and save the energy it takes to move it here from faraway places."
get more stories like this via email
The State of Minnesota faces a new lawsuit over the connection between harmful nitrates from farm fields and the threat they pose to natural resources.
Groups behind the legal action have said that, despite recent changes, regulations need to be stronger. A trio of organizations, including the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, filed the lawsuit Tuesday. It comes just after the state finalized new permitting rules for larger animal feedlots. They cover practices such as manure application, with the hope of limiting surface and groundwater pollution.
The MCEA's supervising attorney, Joy Anderson, said actions like that are helpful, but don't go far enough.
"Those only apply to the largest feedlots in the state - about the top 6% of feedlots," she said. "The rules that we are asking MPCA to look at would cover all the registered feedlots. And so, that's many, many thousands more feedlots."
The plaintiffs want a district court to force the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Agriculture to revisit their rules for these water permits, and make sure vulnerable regions have enough safeguards. In a joint statement, the agencies said they can't comment on the case, adding that the recent changes strike a balance in protecting the environment and supporting farmers.
Jeff Broberg, founder and member of the Minnesota Well Owners Organization, another plaintiff in the case, said information gathering has vastly improved in trying to get a handle on this longstanding problem. But he feels some tools are still being left on the shelf.
"We've made huge investments in data, geology, hydrology, land use, fertilizers," he said, "and we're asking that all of those tools be put to work."
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture just published an updated online map, showing vulnerable areas it said will help farmers comply with the Groundwater Protection Rule. But Broberg said it has limitations. These groups have said the case also is a response to the new Trump administration, contending that the federal EPA likely won't be as forceful on this issue as it was under President Joe Biden.
get more stories like this via email
Lead contamination in drinking water continues to be a significant concern in Ohio.
With new federal regulations to tackle the issue, local water utilities are accelerating their efforts to replace aging infrastructure.
Kevin Kappers, lead program manager for the Greater Cincinnati Water Works, explained what the changes mean.
"How EPA regulates lead and copper in drinking water changed, so all utilities are reacting to make sure they stay in compliance," Kappers pointed out. "We have already had a lead service line replacement program since 2018, but what that means for us is, we're accelerating that."
Federal Lead and Copper Rule Improvements mandate replacing lead service lines within the next decade. But concerns remain about funding and logistic challenges, especially for smaller Ohio communities with fewer resources to comply with these changes.
Alicia Smith, executive director of the Junction Coalition in Toledo, and other advocates stressed the importance of communication and transparency about lead contamination between cities and their residents.
"You have to tell families what and how this impacts their lives. If you don't do that, then no one's doing it right," Smith argued. "The intersectionality of infrastructure impacts public health, public safety and public awareness, for the benefit of environmental and economic justice."
Maureen Cunningham, chief strategy officer and director of water at the Environmental Policy Innovation Center, emphasized the hazards of lead in water systems.
"Lead is a neurotoxin; there's basically no safe level of lead in drinking water for human health," Cunningham noted. "Replacing lead service lines, and replacing all lead in our water systems, will significantly reduce and hopefully even eliminate the threat of lead in drinking water."
Jeff Swertfeger, superintendent of water quality and treatment for the Greater Cincinnati Water Works, stressed the importance of public participation in updating the systems.
"Participation by the people who own those houses that may have lead lines is really important, to get cooperation in order to get those lines out," Swertfeger explained. "A lot of our pipes are over 100 years old. There's a lot of needs in drinking water now, besides just lead."
Nationally, $15 billion in federal funding is available for lead line replacements.
Disclosure: The Environmental Policy Innovation Center contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Environment, and Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Some one million cattle confined in Colorado factory feedlots produce 24 billion pounds of manure each year.
That's four times the amount of feces produced by humans in the state, according to Food and Water Watch's latest map.
Untreated manure contains a number of pollutants, and is prime breeding habitat for harmful bacteria - including E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella.
Amanda Starbuck, research director with the watchdog group, said that much manure can pose serious risks to drinking water.
"These feedlots operate as sewer-less cities, essentially," said Starbuck. "They produce a ton of manure, but this manure is oftentimes not treated before being released into the environment, spread on nearby fields."
Colorado ranks fourth nationally for the number of beef cattle on factory feedlots, where animals are fattened up before being delivered to slaughterhouses.
Defenders of the practice argue large-scale operations bring jobs and other economic benefits to rural economies, and help feed the nation.
Two decades ago, the average Colorado feedlot held 7,000 cattle. But by 2022, as corporations acquired more family-scale operations, that number increased to an average of 13,000 cattle.
Starbuck said money generated by these facilities doesn't necessarily benefit the local economy.
"Factory farms are not job creators, they are job destroyers," said Starbuck. "So if you really care about jobs, you need to be supporting your local farmer. We need to support smaller processing and slaughtering facilities for these farmers. Because right now that money just gets sucked out of the local economy."
Starbuck noted that if feeding the nation was the goal, growing corn and hay for cattle to produce meat is far less efficient than simply growing food to feed people.
"Ninety-nine percent of the corn we grow in the U.S. goes into animal feed, and into ethanol, and into food additives," said Starbuck. "So the food system is not about feeding people, it's really about increasing the profits for these multi-national corporations."
get more stories like this via email