Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Iran Battles Fire in UNESCO-Listed Forest, Gets Turkey's Help

DUBAI (Reuters) -Iran has sought help to fight a devastating fire in UNESCO-listed forests in its north, with neighbouring Turkey sending...

DUBAI (Reuters) -Iran has sought help to fight a devastating fire in UNESCO-listed forests in its north, with neighbouring Turkey sending firefighting planes, Iran's top environmental official said on Saturday.The fire threatens the Hyrcanian forests, which stretch along the southern Caspian Sea coast and date back 50 million years. They are home to 3,200 plant species - a "floral biodiversity ... remarkable at the global level", according to UNESCO, which listed them as a World Heritage site in 2019."Two firefighting aircraft (and) one helicopter ... are being dispatched by the Turkish government today. There is also the capacity to have cooperation from Russia if needed," Vice-President Shina Ansari told state television.Two Iranian Ilyushin firefighting aircraft, seven helicopters and about 400 firefighters are battling the blaze, which follows a drought marked by rain levels across Iran at 85% below average. The fire reignited last Saturday following media reports that it was put out after breaking out in late October.Meanwhile, the head of a provincial nature protection unit said unauthorised hunters may have started the blaze and Reza Aflatouni, the head of Iran's forestry body, suggested that the fire may be linked to illegal efforts to destroy forested areas in order to build private residences, according to Iranian media reports.(Reporting by Dubai newsroomEditing by Mark Potter)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Iran’s Capital Must Relocate Due to Dire Water Situation, President Insists

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Tehran is running out of water. Rationing has begun in Iran’s capital city, with some of the approximately 10 million residents experiencing “nightly pressure cuts” between midnight and 5 am. The entire country is in an unprecedented drought, facing its driest—and hottest—autumn in nearly […]

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Tehran is running out of water. Rationing has begun in Iran’s capital city, with some of the approximately 10 million residents experiencing “nightly pressure cuts” between midnight and 5 am. The entire country is in an unprecedented drought, facing its driest—and hottest—autumn in nearly 60 years. Tehran has received no rain at all since the start of September, and no rainfall is expected for the foreseeable future. The city depends on five major reservoirs for its water supply. One has dried up completely, with another below 8 percent capacity. The managing director of the Tehran Regional Water Authority told state media last week that the Karaj Dam has only two weeks of drinking water left. The drought extends beyond the city, too. The water reserves of Mashhad, the second largest city in the country, have dropped below 3 percent capacity, putting 4 million people at imminent risk. But if nothing changes, Tehran may soon face Day Zero—or when a municipality can no longer supply drinking water to its residents and taps run dry. In October, President Masoud Pezeshkian claimed that Tehran could no longer serve as the country’s capital, citing the water crisis as a major factor. ”If it doesn’t rain in Tehran by late November, we’ll have to [formally] ration water,” Pezeshkian told Iranian state media on Thursday. “And if it still doesn’t rain, we’ll have to evacuate Tehran.” (Update: On Thursday, Pezeshkian president again said the capital will need be moved.) While it’s unlikely evacuation will happen any time soon, Tehran’s water crisis is not made equal. When the taps run dry, more affluent Tehranis purchase mineral water or rely on water tankers, a prohibitively expensive option for many. The rest must rely on charity, or they will die of thirst. Water use in Tehran is quite high, even for cities. But Iran’s water problems go deeper than this record-breaking drought. The country is uniquely isolated and subject to numerous sanctions, crippling the economy and making it very difficult for Iran to obtain state-of-the-art water technologies. It’s an enemy state to many of its neighbors, as well as regional leaders in desalination technology—Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. But desalination is largely irrelevant in an Iranian context, often coming at a high environmental cost. According to water issues analyst Nik Kowser, Iranians are under the thumb of a “water mafia”—a shadowy and well-connected network driving these megaprojects for their own gain. “Iran faces water bankruptcy, with demand far outstripping supply,” Kowsar wrote in Time. “The collapse of water security in Iran has been decades in the making and is rooted in a mania for megaprojects—dam building, deep wells, and water transfer schemes—that ignored the fundamentals of hydrology and ecological balance.” Trying to relocate 10 million people would be an incredible logistical challenge. Iran is also particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change: Over 82 percent of the country is arid or semi-arid, and Iran is sixth on the list of countries most prone to natural disasters. The country grows thirsty crops, and its quest for food security and self-sufficiency is a tremendous driver of its water bankruptcy. The agricultural sector comprises up to 90 percent of the country’s total water withdrawals. But Iran’s environmental crisis does strain existing geopolitical tensions both inside and outside of the country. Water is sometimes transported from one region of the country to supply another, driving fears that certain ethnic populations are intentionally being deprived at the expense of others. Yale University historian and Iran expert Arash Azizi, who is also a contributing writer for The Atlantic, told me that despite the tremendous humanitarian cost of continued sanctions, they are very unlikely to be removed in response to the water crisis. Tehran joins many, many other cities that have approached Day Zero, and it certainly will not be the last. São Paulo in Brazil and Cape Town, South Africa, had similar crises that ended with rainfall. Tehran might not be so lucky in terms of its weather forecast, though. So, let’s loop back to the idea of evacuating Tehran. It is, of course, incredibly unpopular. Iranians balked at the idea when the president mentioned the possibility. Former Tehran Mayor Gholamhossein Karbaschi said this was “a joke…Evacuating Tehran makes no sense at all.”Azizi thinks it’s unlikely that Iran will end up moving its capital anytime soon. The majority of jobs are in Tehran. And evacuating a city of upward of 10 million people would be an incredible logistical challenge. More importantly, relocation won’t fix the immediate issue of water access. But the current strategy of trucking in supplies, rationing water, and praying for rain is woefully inadequate to meet the moment. And water rationing is a stopgap measure. “Actually cutting off the supply to households or to individual neighborhoods de facto reduces their consumption,” said David Michel, senior fellow for water security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But the underlying demand is still there.” However, there are other kinds of strategies cities like Tehran could employ. Michel argued that cities have to prioritize business models that provide the resources and revenues needed for water systems to operate, maintain, and expand to serve new customers. “That challenge has put many city water systems around the world into this very challenging spiral where lots of municipal water systems’ revenues don’t cover the costs of operations and maintenance, much less expanding supply,” Michel said. Economic incentives like volumetric tariffs, where the cost of water is proportional to the amount consumed, could be beneficial. The more you use, the higher price you pay, essentially, with the hope of reducing pressure on the poorest consumers. Relief can’t come to Tehran soon enough. American cities in California and the southwest, with similarly arid climates and dwindling water supplies, should take heed. And everyone should pay attention when the president of Iran says the residents of its capital city may have to evacuate in a few months’ time. “You can imagine the psychological effect,” Azizi said. And that could be “the future of everywhere in the world.” This story was updated to reflect the Iranian president’s latest announcement.

The Climate Impact of Owning a Dog

My dog contributes to climate change. I love him anyway.

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. It’s not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It’s a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Until recently, I hadn’t devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox. Then I read an article in the Associated Press headlined “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog.”The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examined how people perceive the climate impact of various behaviors—options like “adopt a vegan diet for at least one year,” or “shift from fossil fuel car to renewable public transport.” The team found that participants generally overestimated a number of low-impact actions like recycling and using efficient appliances, and they vastly underestimated the impact of other personal decisions, including the decision to “not purchase or adopt a dog.”The real objective of the study was to see whether certain types of climate information could help people commit to more effective actions. But mere hours after the AP published its article, its aim had been recast as something else entirely: an attack on people’s furry family members. “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog,” one Reddit user wrote. Others in the community chimed in with ire, ridiculing the idea that a pet Chihuahua could be driving the climate crisis and calling on researchers and the media to stop pointing fingers at everyday individuals.Goldwert and her fellow researchers watched the reactions unfold with dismay. “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset,” she said. “They definitely don’t,” she added. “You can quote me on that.”Loki grinning on a hike in the Pacific Northwest. Photograph: Claire Elise Thompson/Grist

‘Superfluous consumerism’: adult Advent calendar trend alarms green groups

Trend is adding to ‘waste crisis’ owing to individual packaging and potential for unwanted items, campaigners sayThe trend for Advent calendars aimed at adults is “superfluous consumerism” that adds to excessive and wasteful consumption, according to environmental groups.While once children excitedly opened a door each day to see what festive picture lay behind it, adults can now count down the days to Christmas with calendars containing everything from luxury beauty products to instant mashed potato. Continue reading...

The trend for Advent calendars aimed at adults is “superfluous consumerism” that adds to excessive and wasteful consumption, according to environmental groups.While once children excitedly opened a door each day to see what festive picture lay behind it, adults can now count down the days to Christmas with calendars containing everything from luxury beauty products to instant mashed potato.This year’s adult versions include beauty calendars such as the Nivea Women’s one at about £30 and one from Liberty priced at £275.But some have raised concerns over the packaging involved in providing 24 products to either be unwrapped or revealed each day, and the potential for unwanted items.Anna Diski, a plastics campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: “Advent calendars like these probably contain two or three items you actually want, and 20 or so more you could do without. You don’t want that single-use plastic lingering in your bathroom cabinet, let alone in the natural environment.”Daniel Webb, the founder and director of the charity Everyday Plastic, said: “These luxury Advent calendars are a microcosm of a bigger problem, a system that keeps producing more and more stuff we don’t need and probably can’t afford.”The research firm Ipsos found seven in 10 Britons have a some point purchase an Advent calendar. While most bought chocolate ones (84%), beauty calendars are increasingly popular (15%), along with toy calendars (14%) and non-chocolate food versions (10%).The firm’s consumer intelligence platform, Ipsos Synthesio, has found online discussions around Advent calendars begin as early as September, driven by promotions by retailers and influencer-led unboxing videos.Webb said that encouraging people to shop for Christmas in the autumn was a decision “made by marketing departments, purely designed to drive overconsumption, not celebration”.He added: “I’m sure people find it fun and this isn’t about blaming anyone for wanting to celebrate – it’s about questioning why brands are choosing to fuel the waste crisis in this way. Real change means cutting plastic production and phasing out this kind of superfluous consumerism.”The beauty expert, journalist and author Sali Hughes said it was important to focus on asking “whether you would want at least five of the advent items if sold at full price”.She added: “If the answer is yes, then the whole calendar is probably worth the spend. If it’s no, then it’s a lot of money for the sake of novelty.“I also think it’s worthwhile imagining all the products in a pile, without the seductive packaging. If it consequently loses its allure, then you’re paying all that money for something pretty ephemeral that will, if its even been designed responsibly in the first place, just go into recycling after Christmas.”Samantha Dover, the insights director of beauty at the market analyst Mintel, said: “The adult Advent calendar trend isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, but the landscape in which these calendars sit is changing. In beauty, the high cost of many Advent calendars, even if they promise significant savings compared to buying individual products, means they are out of reach for many consumers.”Dover said the perceived savings mean they were still viewed as “good value for money”, adding: “It is likely that many consumers self-gift themselves calendars, and even split the cost with others and share products, as a result.” She said this could help reduce “waste often generated by Advent calendars”.Dr Christopher Carrick, the founder of bio-plastics manufacturer Lingin Industries, said government legislation was likely to have an impact on the calendars, which he described as “more packaging intensive, compared to the amount of actual product, than almost any other aspect of Christmas”.He said: “The extended producer responsibility which charges companies based on the amount of unsustainable packaging they put into the world is putting pressure on companies producing Advent calendars to reduce the amount of packaging.“This year, brands will have more responsibility over the costs associated with the waste generated by packaging, meaning designs and materials will need to be amended.”

COP30’s biofuel gamble could cost the global food supply — and the planet

What was once considered a climate holy grail comes with serious tradeoffs. The world wants more of it anyway.

First the plant stalk is harvested, shredded, and crushed. The extracted juice is then combined with bacteria and yeast in large bioreactors, where the sugars are metabolized and converted into ethanol and carbon dioxide. From there, the liquid is typically distilled to maximize ethanol concentration, before it is blended with gasoline.  You know the final products as biofuels — mostly made from food crops like sugarcane and corn, and endorsed by everyone from agricultural lobbyists to activists and billionaires. Biofuels were developed decades ago to be cheaper, greener alternatives to planet-polluting petrol. As adoption has expanded — now to the point of a pro-biofuel agenda being pushed this week at COP30 in Belém, Brazil — their environmental and food accessibility footprint has remained a source of fierce debate.  The governments of Brazil, Italy, Japan, and India are spearheading a new pledge calling for the rapid global expansion of biofuels as a commitment to decarbonizing transportation energy.  Though the text of the pledge itself is vague, as most COP pledges tend to be, the target embedded in an accompanying International Energy Agency report is clear: expand the global use of so-called sustainable fuels from 2024 levels by at least four times, so that by 2035, sustainable fuels cover 10 percent of all global road transport demand, 15 percent of aviation demand, and 35 percent of shipping fuel demand. By Friday, the last official day of COP30, at least 23 countries have joined the pledge — while Brazilian delegates have been working “hand in hand with industry groups” to get language backing biofuels into the final summit deal.  “Latin America, South East Asia, Africa — they need to improve their efficiency, their energy, and Brazil has a model for this [in its rollout of biofuels],” Roberto Rodrigues, Brazil’s special envoy for agriculture at the summit, said on a COP panel last weekend. As of the time of this story’s publication, the pro-biofuel language hadn’t made it into the latest draft text that outlines the main outcome of the summit released Friday — although it appears the summit could end without a deal.  Read Next At COP30 in Brazil, countries plan to armor themselves against a warming world Zoya Teirstein Though scientists continue to experiment with utilizing other raw materials for biofuels — a list which includes agricultural and forestry waste, cooking oils, and algae — the bulk of feedstocks almost exclusively come from the fields. Different types of food crops are used for different types of biofuels; sugary and starchy crops, such as sugar cane, wheat, and corn, are often made into ethanol; while oily crops, like soybeans, rapeseed, and palm oil, are largely used for biodiesel.  The cycle goes a little like this: Farmers, desperate to replace cropland lost to biofuel production, raze more forests and plow up more grasslands, resulting in deforestation that tends to release far more carbon than burning biofuels saves. But as large-scale production continues to expand, there may be insufficient land, water, and energy available for another big biofuel boom — prompting many researchers and climate activists to question whether countries should be aiming to scale these markets at all. (Thomson Reuters reported that global biofuel production has increased ninefold since 2000.) Biofuels account for the vast majority of “sustainable fuels” currently used worldwide. An analysis by a clean transport advocacy organization published last month found that, because of the indirect impacts to farming and land use, biofuels are responsible globally for 16 percent more CO2 emissions than the planet-polluting fossil fuels they replace. In fact, the report surmises that by 2030, biofuel crops could require land equivalent to the size of France. More than 40 million hectares of Earth’s cropland is already devoted to biofuel feedstocks, an area roughly the size of Paraguay. The EU Deforestation-Free Regulation, or EUDR, cites soybeans among the commodities driving deforestation worldwide. “While countries are right to transition away from fossil fuels, they also need to ensure their plans don’t trigger unintended consequences, such as more deforestation either at home or abroad,” said Janet Ranganathan, managing director of strategy, learning, and results at the World Resources Institute in a statement responding to the Belém pledge. She added that rapidly expanding global biofuel production would have “significant implications for the world’s land, especially without guardrails to prevent large-scale expansion of land dedicated to biofuels, which drives ecosystem loss.” Other environmental issues found to be associated with converting food crops into biofuels include water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, air pollution, and soil erosion. One study, conducted a decade ago, showed that, when accounting for all the inputs needed to produce different varieties of ethanol or biodiesel — machinery, seeds, water, electricity, fertilizers, transportation, and more — producing fuel-grade ethanol or biodiesel requires significantly more energy input than it creates.  Read Next ‘Everyone is exhausted’: First week of COP30 marked by frustration with slow progress Bob Berwyn, Inside Climate News Nonetheless, it’s not a shock to see Brazil betting big on biofuels at COP30. In Brazil, biofuels make up roughly a quarter of transportation fuels — a remarkably high proportion compared to most other countries. And that share, dominated by sugarcane ethanol, is still on an upward climb, with the Belém pledge evidence of the country’s intended trajectory.  A spokesperson from Brazil’s foreign affairs ministry told The Guardian that the “proponents of the pledge (which include Japan, Italy, India, among others) are calling upon countries to support quadrupling production and use of sustainable fuels — a group of gaseous and liquid fuels that include e-fuels, biogases, biofuels, hydrogen and its derivatives.” They added that the goal is based on the new IEA report that underscores the production increase as necessary to aggressively reduce emissions. That report suggests that if current and proposed national and international policies are implemented and fully legislated, global biofuel use and production would double by 2035. “The word ‘sustainable’ is not used lightly, neither in the report nor in the pledge,” the spokesperson said.  The issue, of course, is in how emissions footprints of something like ethanol fuel production are even measured. Much like many other climate sources, scientists argue that tracking greenhouse gas emissions linked to ethanol fuel should account for emissions at every stage — production, processing, distribution, and vehicle use. Yet that isn’t often the case: in fact, a 2024 paper found that Brazil’s national biofuel policy does not account for all direct and indirect emissions in its calculation.  The exclusions are evident of a larger trend, according to University of Minnesota environmental scientist Jason Hill. “Overall, either those studies have not included [direct and indirect emissions], or they found ways to spread those impacts over anticipated production, decades, centuries, or so forth, that tend to dilute those effects. So the accounting methods aren’t really consistent with what the best science shows,” said Hill, who studies the environmental and economic consequences of food, energy, and biofuel production.  In short: More biofuels means either more intensive agriculture on a smaller share of available cropland, which has its own detrimental environmental effects, or expansion of cropland, and the land-use emissions and environmental impacts that can carry. “Biofuel production today is already a bad idea. And doubling [that] is doubling down on an existing problem,” said Hill.  Read Next COP30 has big plans to save the rainforest. Indigenous activists say it’s not enough. Frida Garza & Miacel Spotted Elk Moreover, diverting crops like corn and soybeans from dinner plates to fuel tanks doesn’t just spark brutal competition for land and resources, it can also spike food prices and leave the world’s most vulnerable populations with less to eat.  A 2022 analysis of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, the world’s largest biofuel program, found that it has led to increased food prices for Americans, with corn prices rising by 30 percent and other crops such as soybean and wheat spiking by around 20 percent. This then set off a domino effect: Increasing annual nationwide fertilizer use by up to 8 percent and water quality degradants by up to 5 percent. The carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the mandate has ended up at least equaling the planet-polluting effects of gasoline.  “Biofuel mandates essentially create a baseline demand that can leave food crops by the wayside,” says Ginni Braich, a data scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder who has worked as a senior advisor to government clean technology and emission reduction programs. That’s because of the issue with supply and demand of food crops — higher competition for feedstocks hikes up the prices of food, feed, and farming inputs.  When there are biofuel mandates, which the IEA report underlying the Belém pledge recommends, demand remains inelastic — no matter the changes in yields, growing and weather conditions, prices, or markets. Say there is a huge drought that decimates crop yields, as one example, the baseline demand of biofuels still needs to be met despite depleted food stocks. In terms of supply, increasing growing area for biofuels typically means less area available to grow food crops — which can cause prices to surge alongside supply shortages, and spike costs of seed, inputs, and land. Nutritional implications should also be taken into account, according to Braich. Not only do people’s diets tend to shift when food gets more costly, but cropping patterns are already revealing adverse shifts in dietary diversity, which could be exacerbated by a further concentration on fewer crops. The Belém pledge, and Brazil’s intention to lead a global expansion of the biofuels market, does not bode well for people’s food accessibility nor for the future of the planet, warns Braich.  “It seems quite paradoxical for Brazil to promote the large-scale expansion of biofuels and also be seen as a protector of forests,” she said. “Is it better than decarbonization and fossil fuel divestment rhetoric without actual transition pathways? Yes, but in a lot of ways it is also greenwashing.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline COP30’s biofuel gamble could cost the global food supply — and the planet on Nov 21, 2025.

Dramatic Surge in Water Demand Predicted by 2040 Puts Ohio Farmers and Industry on Collision Course

A report on the future of water in central Ohio warns that industrial demands for water will skyrocket at the same time experts expect farmers will need to regularly irrigate their fields

Deep inside a report on the future of water in central Ohio is this warning: Industrial demands for water will skyrocket at the same time experts expect farmers will need to regularly irrigate their fields during the critical growing period of July through September.The competing demands of agriculture and industry – particularly the 130 data centers in central Ohio already consuming millions of gallons of water a day to cool computer equipment – would require billions of gallons of water daily, according to a 15-county Central Ohio Regional Water Study released this year by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.Industrial demand alone is estimated to increase across the 15-county region by approximately 120% between 2021 to 2050 – to 250 million gallons a day by 2050. Agricultural demands could reach an estimated 110 million gallons a day across the region by 2040 during the growing season.Some of the additional billions of gallons needed in the coming decades would come from surface sources such as rivers and lakes.But the study says virtually all of the water needed for agricultural irrigation would be pumped from groundwater sources – an additional 9.15 billion gallons a year across the 15-county region. That’s enough water to fill nearly 14,000 Olympic swimming pools. And all of that groundwater would come from the same aquifers depended upon by municipalities and rural owners of private wells for drinking water.Of growing concern for some who pay close attention to water demands in Ohio – especially as it continues to invite water-guzzling data centers to the “Silicon Heartland” – is that there are few regulations to manage the extraction of one of the state’s most valuable resources.“Water regulation is kind of the ‘Wild West’ in Ohio,” said Jim Roberts, executive director of the Licking Regional Water District, which is expanding to meet demands for water and sewer service in fast-growing western Licking County. “Sewage treatment is a lot more regulated.”And Glenn Marzluf, general manager and CEO of Del-Co Water Company in Delaware County – a nonprofit cooperative currently looking for a water source in northern Licking County – put it this way:“Ohio water laws are pretty simple: You own the land, you own the water,” Marzluf said after a town hall meeting in Utica, where he bluntly told folks that if his company decides to develop a “utility-scale” well field there that could draw up to 6 million gallons of water a day, area residents “would have little say in the matter.”Most Ohio farmers have never found it necessary to water their crops and pastures. In fact, across most of Ohio, farmers have done the opposite for more than two centuries since white settlers moved in and started digging ditches and burying field tile to drain wetlands to plow and plant in them.“We’re one of only three states in the U.S. that has dryland farming, which means we farm without irrigation,” said Bryn Bird, a Licking County resident and president of Ohio Farmers Union, which represents more than 2,500 family farms.“We can grow with what God gave us,” said Bird, who is also a produce farmer and Granville Township trustee in Licking County, where the growing number of data centers already are driving up demand for water. “It’s a massive benefit to us and to crop yields. Even if you irrigate, you don’t have the same yields.”But the report released earlier this summer by the Ohio EPA, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the Ohio Water Development Authority, with assistance from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and the Hazen and Sawyer consulting firm of New York, says that the changing climate in Ohio will drive an unprecedented demand by central Ohio farmers for surface and groundwater. Licking County farmers, for example, will need an estimated equivalent of 5 inches of rainwater a year for irrigation during the growing season, says the Central Ohio Regional Water Study. That’s more than a month’s worth of rain, based on the average monthly rainfall of about 3 inches.The state’s study was released in June – just before Ohio experienced its third drought in three years – and the last two were severe, including the driest August on record in Ohio in 2025.At the same time the agricultural needs are expected to spike, the industrial demand for water – especially by data centers, computer-chip makers and other tech companies – is expected to skyrocket from an insignificant amount in 2020 to more than 40 million gallons a day by 2030 – then up to about 70 million gallons a day by 2040 and as much as 90 million gallons a day by 2050.For context, the City of Columbus delivers more than 140 million gallons of water a day from its three water treatment plants to 1.25 million people and its industrial customers. A fourth treatment plant is under construction now at a cost of $1.6 billion to meet anticipated future demands.So in a state where there are few regulations to manage water resources, especially extraction from underground sources, those who need water and see what’s coming are rushing to stake their claims.That includes Del-Co and Licking Regional Water District in Licking County.While Del-Co is looking for water to the north near Utica, the Licking Regional Water District is looking for a well site near Hebron in southern Licking County. Roberts has said that the utility serving western and southern Licking County also has plans for a water treatment facility in St. Albans Township, south of Alexandria and west of Granville.He said the utility doesn’t plan to drill for water on the nearly 100 acres it owns near Rt. 161/37 and Outville Road, but it would be interested in a partnership with the City of New Albany and the New Albany Company, which owns 106 acres nearby. The City of New Albany and Village of Granville are currently conducting tests on that land to determine how much water could be pumped from wells there – and how any future pumping might affect Granville’s wells, which draw from the same aquifer.Bird grew up in arid Colorado singing songs as a child about turning off the water while washing her hands. With that perspective, Ohio’s willingness to turn over fertile farmland to industry – combined with its lack of both regulation of water resources and delineation of water rights to protect those resources – is shocking.“We are literally taking the nation’s breadbasket, where it’s most productive, most advantageous to farm, and turning it over for industrial use,” she said, adding that the protection of water should be a priority issue for the state legislature and the candidates for governor in next year’s election.Bird said the state’s water report does nothing to manage or protect a life-giving resource as important to human existence as oxygen. Bird fears that the water study serves mainly as a divining rod for those who are looking for water. Intentional or not, Bird said, “that report was written to tell all of the companies where to go. The report reads like, ‘This is where the water is, so go get it,’ rather than these are the areas that need to be protected.”She said she has talked about the need to protect Ohio’s water supply with campaign staffers for Democrat Amy Acton and Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, two of the declared candidates for governor in the 2026 election.And Bird said she has told anyone who will listen that Ohio is “just letting our water get sold.” ‘You have no idea what you have’ The Central Ohio Regional Water Study came after state officials promised Intel that if it built its proposed $28 billion computer-chip manufacturing campus in the New Albany International Business Park – in Licking County – state and local agencies would find the 6 million gallons or more a day it would need for its industrial process.So far, the City of Columbus has committed to meeting Intel’s anticipated water needs when the company begins producing computer chips in 2030 or after.The introduction to the study says that its “goal was to assess current and future water resource availability and demands in a 15-county area. This assessment allows the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to understand the need for water supply and infrastructure investments to support public and environmental health under changing conditions.”Bird said she works with farm groups in arid states such as California, the Dakotas and Oklahoma, and they look at Ohioans “like you’re insane – like you have no idea what you have there.”Managing the use of groundwater, she said, is all about the rate at which the underground aquifer recharges. These underground water reservoirs are replenished in part with surface water that percolates a few hundred feet or more down through topsoil, sand and gravel.Pumping water out faster than the aquifer can recharge can draw down the aquifer and dry up neighboring wells.“Oklahoma had one of the largest aquifers in the country at one time, and now they don’t,” Bird said, referring to the Ogallala Aquifer that stretches across several Plains states. “Because they overused it.”Some Ohioans believe we’ll never run out of water, said Kristy Hawthorne, executive director of the Licking County Soil & Water Conservation District. “We have to be able to have a conversation about this,” she said. “We need to bring people to the middle to ask: What if it does happen?”Licking County has been notably water rich, she said, but Ohioans need to talk about “the what-ifs” regarding the rapidly increasing demand for water, and the positive impact of water re-use and environmental restoration.“This discussion about water re-use is helping,” Hawthorne said. “It will help manage that water for potable use and industrial water, re-using that industrial water as much as possible.”And she said the wide-ranging H2Ohio program initiated by Gov. Mike DeWine in 2019 has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into projects across the state to help improve water quality and access to clean water by promoting best practices by farmers, building wetlands, replacing aging water lines and installing water treatment systems where there were none.Initially funded at $172 million in the 2020-21 state budget, the program grew to $270 million in the 2024-25 budget and was cut by nearly 40% to $165 million in the 2026-27 budget.“It has opened up conversations in the ag community and in working with local governments and soil & water conservation offices,” Hawthorne said. “It has broadened the conversation across all water users.”It will take a sustained conversation – and action – to protect Ohio’s water resources, she said.“Water is not an infinite resource,” Hawthorne said. “There is a finite amount of water, and we need to protect what we have because we can’t make any more.”Ohio has plenty of water, says State Climatologist of Ohio Aaron Wilson, but changing weather patterns mean that more of it is coming in the spring and less in the summer.“This year was a great example – a snapshot of the trend,” he said. “We had our eighth wettest April on record and our driest August on record.”For example, he said that Pickaway County, south of Columbus, saw 32 inches of rain in April, May and June – an average of more than 10 inches per month – and then had the driest August ever. “That’s incredible oscillation,” Wilson said. Historically, rain fell more evenly on Ohio throughout the year, with some months drier than others but without the wild swings from heavy rains just as planting season begins – making it challenging for farmers to get into the fields to plow and plant crops – to extremely dry periods when growing crops need rain most.“With these rapid oscillations,” Wilson said, “if you have irrigation, you can ensure that rain-fed crops will do well in those dry periods.”Irrigating farm fields, in many cases, would mean drilling wells, installing big pumps and investing in giant sprinklers, which roll across fields or slowly pivot around a point to water a big circle of land. Anyone who has flown over or driven by farms in arid states – as close to Ohio as Indiana – has seen the crop circles and the big sprinkler pipes that move on big wheels.But all of that would bring an added expense for Ohio farmers, most of whom have never needed such equipment in the past, said Dean Kreager, educator for agriculture and natural resources at the Ohio State University Agricultural Extension Service Licking County office in Newark.“It’s going to create some changes, for sure,” he said. “Crop prices would have to go up to offset the increase in costs.” And those increased costs might prompt some farmers to rethink what they grow and how they grow it.Jordan Hoewischer, director of water quality and research for the Ohio Farm Bureau, said there has been some farm irrigation in Ohio, “but the quantity of water is becoming more and more a factor.”’With the convergence of increased demand by industry and agriculture, he said, “there has to be some discussion about water re-use: How do we get nonpotable, gray water into the industrial process?”Hoewischer also said that the agriculture community could look at how farmers might use the drainage tiles that remove water from their fields during the wet springs to pump water back into the fields when needed.“We have a system underground already with drainage that potentially could be used to irrigate crops,” he said.Based on current trends, agriculture could become one of the largest users of water in Ohio by mid-century, “because we have millions of acres in agriculture,” said Vinayak Shedekar, an assistant professor of agricultural water management in Ohio State University’s Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering.Despite the growth of technology companies and other industries on former Ohio farmland, agriculture and food production combined remain the state’s biggest industry.“If every year starts looking like the last two in Ohio, where does that put us?” Shedekar asked. “It’s going to rain too much when we don’t need water – more intense and more of it – and then when the farmer turns his attention to summer and fall, we’re going to be drier and warmer.”He is the Ohio State professor who provided the prediction for the state’s water study that farmers would need to start irrigating fields by mid-century. His calculations indicate that rain in the growing season “is not going to go down to zero, but it’s going to look more like what we saw in 2024 and 2025 – and warmer. And if we have a 4-to-5-degree higher temperature, we’ll have more evaporation.“And that is why I am worried about the sustainability of grain crops in Ohio,” said Shedekar, who serves as the director of Ohio State’s International Program for Water Management in Agriculture and the Overholt Drainage Education and Research Program. “We have been on the borderline for sustainability.”Go to Nebraska or North Carolina, he said, and it would be hard to find corn or soybeans without irrigation. “They have soils that cannot hold a lot of moisture for a long time, and they tend to get really hot,” he said. “Or go to Washington and other western states. You cannot grow crops without irrigation. Well, you can grow crops, but it won’t be profitable.”In Ohio, the majority of crops have been rain-fed, he said, and that’s with a water deficit of 3-4 inches, compared to 9 or so inches in the West.But the predicted rising temperatures and reduced rainfall during the growing season is a bad combination for farmers, he said.“If you have a million acres you want to irrigate to about an inch, it’s a large amount of water because it’s such a large area, and that is the challenge,” Shedekar said. “We’re not saying we’re going to run out of water like the western states, but between June and October, central Ohio might be experiencing seasonal drought and seeing wells go dry because of irrigation demands.“That’s what I’m worried about – that by 2040, in the next two to three decades – that agriculture is going to rise up as a sector that needs water to survive,” he said about the dry growing season. “Because if we want to maintain yields, we will have to rely on irrigation.”The good news, he said, is that more people are starting to talk about the issue. “As a result, we could see more people pushing for more concrete steps toward water management,” he said.At the moment, he said, very little is being done to manage the use of Ohio’s water resources.“What is the state doing to regulate this? Very minimal in terms of surface and groundwater management,” he said.“We have enough water in our community retention ponds to water our lawns in Delaware County, but instead, we use Del-Co’s beautiful water – purified for drinking – on our lawns. Why? We should be using water from those ponds.“There are solutions like that, and some of them will have to be voluntary, because the government isn’t going to ask you to do it,” he said.And some companies moving to Ohio are coming from water-scarce states, “and they are thinking about their water footprint,” he said. “They are strategically investing in projects that retain water in the watershed where they are using water.”That includes projects such as investing in building or restoring wetlands, he said. Building a wetland of 200 to 300 acres, he said, is enough to have an impact.“We are optimistic when it comes to water conservation,” he said. “Any conservation is good conservation. I like that there is some initiative being taken by these companies. Could it be more strategic? Absolutely.”And maybe, he said, state and local government officials could do more to negotiate such things with the companies they recruit to Ohio. “As a state, we could be more strategic,” he said.This story was originally published by The Reporting Project and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.