A piece of Arizona legislation, with bipartisan backing, is aiming to bring better oversight and protections of groundwater, across five basins in rural Arizona.
The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Priya Sundareshan - D-Tucson - explained that the Rural Groundwater Management Act of 2025 would create water-management programs that would have a say over conservation efforts, and would strive to reduce groundwater use while improving the state of aquifers.
SB 1425, and its mirrored bill in the House, would also create local councils to monitor the basins.
Sundareshan said the bill is intended to protect folks from out-of-state entities that flock to Arizona for its lack of regulation, ultimately leaving communities dry.
"Residents whose wells are going dry, their foundations are cracking because the groundwater has been depleted so much that the aquifers are settling," said Sundareshan. "You have large-scale industrial agriculture that has moved in because of the complete lack of regulation."
Similar legislation failed last legislative session.
Sundareshan recalled that under the Republican majority at the state Legislature, the bill has not yet been heard in committee, and this week is the last week for such action.
She added that people's ability to continue living in small Arizona towns depends on water availability, and called on policymakers to act.
New data finds that most Arizonans - about 72% - believe inadequate water supply is a serious problem, according to the 2025 Conservation in the West Poll.
Sundareshan said the last time significant water legislation was passed in the state was in 1980, with the Groundwater Management Act.
"But it only really protected the urban areas, and it set up a process for further management of other areas in Arizona," said Sundareshan. "But it only created two tools - the active management area approach, and the other tool created is the INAs, the irrigation non-expansion areas."
INAs are created when the Arizona Department of Water Resources determines there is not enough groundwater in a given area to provide a "reasonably safe supply for irrigation," on cultivated lands, therefore having no need to establish an active management area.
Sundareshan said these tools cap the expansion of agricultural acreage in the state, but don't do much to manage the consumption of groundwater.
get more stories like this via email
A new report found 122 million Americans drink water with high levels of cancer-causing chemicals, frequently from runoff at livestock factory farms.
Researchers at the Environmental Working Group looked at water systems from 2019 to 2023. They found 6,000 water systems at some point had unsafe levels of "trihalomethane," which disinfects water contaminated with manure. The city of Baltimore and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission tested above the Environmental Protection Agency limit for the chemical a combined 255 times.
Anne Schechinger, agricultural economist and Midwest director of the Environmental Working Group, said the pollution affects everyone in the state.
"You can live miles and miles from ag, but still have ag pollutants in your drinking water," Schechinger pointed out. "You might see this report and think, 'Well I live in a city. I'm not anywhere near ag.' That doesn't mean that livestock manure is not impacting your drinking water."
Higher trihalomethane levels in drinking water can cause colon or bladder cancer, heart defects and stillbirths.
Schechinger argued President Donald Trump could reduce pollution by unfreezing funds helping farmers use healthier agricultural practices. Funds are currently frozen as Trump's Department of Government Efficiency tries to cut spending it views as wasteful.
"We can be putting more conservation practices on farm fields, like stream buffers or grass waterways, that really stop the flow of manure into water," Schechinger recommended. "That's something that was intended for this year, but the Trump administration has frozen the majority of agricultural conservation funding."
Schechinger added consumers can protect themselves by getting a water filter. Filters can help take chemical runoff out of drinking water.
get more stories like this via email
By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
In a single day, Lee Zeldin, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has spearheaded an institutional reversal of longstanding U.S. environmental policies in what he calls "31 historic actions." From questioning the well established finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to health to eradicating Clean Water Act provisions, the deregulation blitz could lead to increased pollution and risk to public health, environmental groups warn. "We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more," said EPA Administrator Zeldin.
Weakening Water Quality Laws Garners Support From Farm Lobby
One controversial action is a set of proposed changes to the Clean Water Act, established in 1972 to regulate pollutants in U.S. waters and prevent contamination from industries like factory farms and mineral mining. In a 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, the Court narrowed the definitions of protected waters to exclude certain wetlands unconnected to "navigable" waterways. Although Biden's EPA revised protections to include this ruling, Zeldin argues his predecessors "failed to follow the law and implement the Supreme Court's clear holding in Sackett." He now seeks to further deregulate waterway protections.
"The previous Administration's definition of 'waters of the United States' placed unfair burdens on the American people and drove up the cost of doing business," Zeldin said on Wednesday.
For states like Iowa where roughly half of water bodies are polluted (thanks in part to the 109 billion pounds of animal manure produced each year by factory farms in the state), the Clean Water Act already doesn't do enough to protect water as it stands, David Cwiertny, professor of civil engineering and director for the Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination at the University of Iowa, tells Sentient. It fails to meaningfully address non-point source pollution, and exempts major pollutant sources like subsurface agricultural drainage, he says.
"As a result, analyses have shown that Iowa has among some of the worst water quality in the nation based on impaired stream miles and lake area under the Clean Water Act. These impairments have endangered public drinking water supplies while also limiting recreational water access for Iowans," says Cwiertny.
The EPA's latest announcement may make matters worse. "It's hard to see water quality in Iowa improving with the proposed plans to rework WOTUS, which will most likely end up further reducing the number of water bodies protected by the Act," Cwiertny says.
Zeldin credited concerns from farmers and ranchers as a factor to the change, as attendee American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall said he was pleased with the decision, stating it provides clarity for farmers and will help them "protect the environment while ensuring they can grow the food America's families rely on."
Stacy Woods, research director for the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said the EPA is "giving a green light" for industrial agriculture to pollute and drain valuable wetlands. "Big Ag interest groups like the Farm Bureau pretend to represent small family farms when they are really working for giant industrial agricultural companies who could not care less about draining, polluting and flooding rural America in service of their bottom line. Missing from this conversation are the voices of farmers who are invested in being good stewards of their land and who are actually part of the rural communities that benefit from wetlands," Woods said in a statement.
Crackdowns on Environmental Pollutant Regulations Will Have an Outsized Impact on Vulnerable Communities
Water wasn't the only thing on the agenda, as oil and gas regulations are also under scrutiny, along with clean air standards and termination of the "Good Neighbor" rule that requires states to manage their own pollution that can be blown into nearby states.
"EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin today announced plans for the greatest increase in pollution in decades. The result will be more toxic chemicals, more cancers, more asthma attacks, and more dangers for pregnant women and their children. Rather than helping our economy, it will create chaos," Amanda Leland, Executive Director of the Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement.
Ending or revoking such regulations means fewer protections for communities with high numbers of low socioeconomic status residents. Pollution also disproportionately impacts Black and Hispanic communities, due in part to historical practices like redlining, which meant rejecting financial services to those looking to move to a residential area, often based on race or ethnicity. This practice, as well as ongoing pollution and other inequities, leads to concentration of vulnerable communities near hazardous pollution sources. Research shows these communities have higher rates of asthma and poor mental health. The EPA also plans to shut down its climate justice offices across the country whose primary focus is to help those most affected by the burdens of pollution and climate change.
These latest policy moves are likely to be met with legal action from both sides; environmental groups have already promised to "vigorously oppose" Zeldin's "attack" on public health while Trump's FBI pledged to criminally charge climate groups who received funding from the Biden administration.
"Though [these actions] will not hold up in the face of science or the court of law, they already pose grave and immediate threats to people and the environment," Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director with the Climate and Energy Program at the UCS, said.
Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Nebraska News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
The Clean Water Act, salmonella inspections and equity in the Packers and Stockyards Act are just a few of the regulations that the industry lobbying group the Meat Institute, formerly known as the North American Meat Institute, is calling for the Trump administration to pull back.
On January 27, Meat Institute president Julie Anna Potts penned a letter to the White House providing the new administration with "strategies to reduce burdensome regulations and address meat prices for consumers." In the letter, Potts blames the previous administration for inflation, which she claims was caused by increased regulation in the food industry. Potts also targets increased worker protections against discrimination, which she claims are part of diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
"Based on what they propose, the path to lower food prices is exploiting child labor and engaging in sharecropping production models," Austin Frerick, antitrust expert and author of Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America's Food Industry, tells Sentient. "They're grab-bagging words in the moment to fit their deregulatory race to the bottom."
If Trump takes the advice of this lobbying group - which touts its representation of meat packers and processors that "account for more than 95 percent of U.S. output" of processed meats - experts do not agree that prices will necessarily go down. According to Food & Water Watch staff attorney Emily Miller, the real issue at play is consolidation in the industry.
"We know that the real cost of high food prices in this country is not inflation or the cost of regulatory compliance, as the industry is claiming. It's corporate consolidation and greed," Miller says. "Rolling back regulations that are meant to protect farmers, slaughterhouse workers, frontline communities and consumers from exploitation and pollution will just allow the meat industry to break even more profit."
While food prices have increased at a fast rate - as much as 2.5 times the rate of inflation - corporate profits have sky-rocketed five times faster than inflation. Four companies control around 70 percent of the pork industry and four companies control more than half the chicken processing market.
Even if the industry successfully de-regulates and lowers costs associated with stricter environmental and worker protections, there is no guarantee that would result in lower food prices. Corporations can continue to pocket the difference.
What This Could Mean for Workers
One rule the Meat Institute wants to rescind is the Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The rule, which went into effect in 2024, "prohibits the adverse treatment of livestock producers and poultry growers based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), disability, marital status, or age."
The Meat Institute claims this rule "attempts to enshrine" diversity, equity and inclusion concepts into the act.
"I think this is definitely a way of baiting Trump to act," Miller says. "What they're really asking, pretty unabashedly, is for the ability to discriminate against other people for personal characteristics that have nothing to do with their business or the economy or anything that would have any sort of justification, which is pretty outrageous."
Another set of protections the Meat Institute targets in its bid to the new administration relates to contract chicken producers - farmers who raise chickens on a contract basis for mega-corporations like Tyson Foods. Passed under the Biden administration, the regulations had been intended in part to help chicken farmers who end up taking on enormous debts as part of their contractual agreements with poultry companies.
What This Could Mean for the Environment
The Clean Water Act is considered one of the cornerstones of environmental protection in the U.S., but when it comes to regulating the discharges from agriculture, it has long fallen short. Clawing back the already weakened regulatory power of the act could further pollute waterways that are already in poor shape, especially in states with increasing density of factory farms. For instance, more than half of rivers and streams are degraded in Iowa - a state where most counties are "severely or highly concentrated with factory farms."
Miller, of Food & Water Watch, notes that the federal government is under a court enforceable settlement that requires them to finalize the rule the Meat Institute wants to disassemble. Any effort to roll that back, she says, would be in direct violation of the settlement.
"The industry would, of course, want the least amount of regulation possible and to maintain the status quo that allows them to really harm the communities that neighbor these operations, which overwhelmingly are low income communities of color," she says.
In states dominated by factory farms, manure discharged into waterways has led to detrimental health outcomes, fish kills and higher drinking water costs.
In addition, much of the meat produced in Iowa factory farms is in turn exported. "We're basically destroying rural communities in the Midwest, notably Iowa, to feed foreign nations," Frerick says. "The environmental destruction these production models do and that says something when it's cheaper to do it here than in China."
Frerick argues that Republican administrations "turbocharge" the race to the bottom with de-regulation, opening the doors for catastrophic changes to not only the food system itself, but consumer trust and confidence that they are getting a safe product.
"You're playing Russian Roulette with people's health and safety. If you have one big scandal, one big outbreak, you could really shift people's consumption and food diets in profound ways that really can wreck an industry," Frerick says.
What This Could Mean for Food Safety
Pulling back proposed salmonella regulation could endanger consumers, Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director of the Center for Food Safety tells Sentient. Meat Institute is calling to replace a proposed rule that would increase monitoring in the poultry slaughter process with "a performance standard with the input of stakeholders."
"I'm concerned that the next thing they'll be pushing for is less aggressive enforcement of rules on E coli," he tells Sentient. "We don't want to go back to poor inspection with state inspectors that are being bribed and say that that's going to give us cheaper meat."
"You want a regulatory system where consumers know they're getting a healthy, safe product that was produced in a way that was ethical," Frerick says. "When you get rid of that, you're incentivizing the worst people."
The Bottom Line
"Any regulatory rollbacks that allow the meat industry to further consolidate its market power will just have the opposite effect on consumers and on food prices generally," Miller says. "Efforts to roll those things back would just continue to inflict harm on the people who are growing and producing our food in this country, and simply give a bigger profit margin to the corporations that are at the top of the food chain."
Though no distinct moves have been made to address the Meat Institute's requests, on January 31, the Trump White House announced a de-regulatory blitz, requiring that "whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed."
"Concentrated markets gouge. It's what they do. You see innovation and quality decline," Frerick tells Sentient. "Once you add in the cost, the negative externalities, all the pollution stuff, it's even more expensive. So we're being doubly-screwed, to be blunt."
Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
