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

Want to understand Texas’ water crisis? Start with the guide to water terms.

Water is complex. So are the terms used to describe it. Get to know the language as Texas debates how to save its water supply.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here. Texas legislative leaders have prioritized securing the state’s long-term water supply this year. The state is losing billions of gallons of water annually to poor infrastructure. Warmer weather is depleting the state’s reservoirs and rivers. And the state’s rapid growth — and increased energy demands — is adding considerable pressure. While the debate over solutions is just getting started at the Legislature, the most likely outcome will include asking voters to approve more money for water projects. That means you’ll hear a lot about water between now and the November election. Water is complicated, and so is its language. To better understand Texas’ water landscape, the Texas Tribune created the glossary below. Water sources Swallows fly over the Little Wichita River on Monday, May 6, 2024 in Henrietta, Texas. The proposed Lake Ringgold dam will be built on the river if a permit to construct Lake Ringgold, a reservoir the City of Wichita Falls says will help with future water needs, is approved. Residents and ranchers of Clay County say they will lose acres of their property and claim the project is unnecessary. Credit: Desiree Rios for The Texas Tribune Groundwater — Water that exists underground in soil, sand and rock. Groundwater is created by precipitation, including rain and melting snow and ice that seeps into the ground. Aquifers — A body of rock or sediment underground that holds groundwater. Aquifers can be formed through many types of sediments, including gravel, sandstone, and fractured limestone. In Texas, there are nine major aquifers and 22 minor aquifers that store groundwater. Private landowners and cities access this water using wells. Recharge — An increase in the amount of water that enters an aquifer. This can occur naturally, through precipitation that seeps into the soil and moves down where water is stored. Or it can come from human-controlled methods, like redirecting water across the surface through basins or ponds, or injecting water directly through injection wells. Surface water — Any source of water that is found above ground, on the Earth’s surface. This includes saltwater in the ocean, and freshwater in rivers, streams and lakes. Surface water supplies in Texas come from 15 major river basins, eight coastal basins and more than 180 reservoirs. Water table — An underground boundary that separates the soil surface and the area where groundwater is being stored. Water management Recycled water outfall at the Steven M. Clouse Water Recycling Center in San Antonio in 2024. Credit: Chris Stokes for The Texas Tribune Reservoirs — Man-made lakes that serve as big pools to hold drinking water. Most reservoirs are created by constructing dams across rivers or lakes to control water levels. The dam and gates control the amount of water that flows out of the reservoir. Reservoirs are built to hold back a certain amount of water because water levels in a river can vary over time. There are different types of reservoirs; the most common are for flood control and water conservation. Texas has 188 reservoirs that supply water to people. Dam — A barrier that stops or controls the flow of surface water. Modern-day dams are often made of concrete, though they can also be made of steel or PVC. Drought — An extended period with less than average rain, snow or ice, which impacts water levels at aquifers and reservoirs. A lack of water leads local officials to place restrictions on people’s water usage and limits agricultural production. Texas water planners use the 1950 drought as a benchmark for statewide water planning. Acre-foot — An acre-foot of water is enough to cover approximately the size of a football field to a depth of one foot. One acre-foot of water is equal to almost 326,000 gallons — enough water to last six Texans for one year. Cubic feet per second (cfs) — The rate at which water passes a specific point over a period of time. It's often used to report the flow of streams. One cfs is equal to about 450 gallons per minute. Irrigation — The application of water to crops through pipes, canals, sprinklers or drip streams. Water reuse — The process of reclaiming water from a variety of sources to treat and recycle for other purposes. Water infrastructure — Man-made systems for meeting water and wastewater needs, such as dams, wells, conveyance systems, water pipes and water treatment plants. Governance From left, Sarah Schlessinger, Texas Water Foundation, Sarah Kirkle, Texas Water Association, Heather Harward, Texas Water Supply Partners, Lara Zent, Texas Rural Water Association, Vanessa Puig-Williams, Environmental Defense Fund, and Jeremy Mazu, Texas 2036, sit on a panel during Texas Water Day at the Texas Capitol on March 3. Credit: Lorianne Willett/The Texas Tribune Water utility — A public or private entity that provides water directly to residents and businesses. For the majority of the utilities, an acronym is listed after the name describing the type of utility. Examples: Municipal Water Authority, Municipal Utility District, Water District and Water System. Rule of capture — The law that essentially means the first person to extract groundwater is the rightful owner of that source of water. Landowners own the water beneath them and reserve the right to pump as much water as they need. Texas governs groundwater by this rule. Groundwater conservation districts — A local or regional governing body tasked with developing and implementing management plans to conserve and protect groundwater resources. Districts try to maintain a balance between protecting property rights and protecting the water resource. Texas Water Development Board — The state agency created after an intense drought in 1950. It serves as a bank that funds water projects across the state to fix leaking pipes, flood mitigation projects and water research. Texas Water Caucus — A bipartisan group of lawmakers that focuses on prioritizing the state’s water resources at the Capitol. The caucus was established during the 2023 legislative session. It includes 74 members from the House of Representatives and one Senate member. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — A state agency that regulates air, water and waste management. This agency issues permits to businesses and people for surface water. Boil-water notice — An alert that indicates when water in a distribution system may be unsafe for consumption. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, requires that residents of the affected area boil water to help destroy harmful bacteria when they want to use it for drinking and cooking. TCEQ is also the agency that must lift the notice. Texas Water Fund — A one-time investment of $1 billion created in the 2023 legislative session using surplus state funds that funded water infrastructure projects. Texas water plan — A guide the state uses to manage the long-term demand for the state’s water resources. The plan accounts for the water needs for municipal, irrigation, and livestock, among other uses. It also addresses each region in Texas and proposes water supply solutions to meet demand. It is written by the Texas Water Development Board, and the final plan is submitted to the Texas Legislature, governor and lieutenant governor. Other types of water and treatments Groundwater, picked up by wells near Rancho Viejo, goes through microfiltration at the SRWA Brackish Groundwater Treatment Facility in Brownsville on July 15, 2024. Credit: Eddie Gaspar/The Texas Tribune Desalination — The process of removing salt from seawater or salty groundwater so it can be used for drinking water, irrigation and industrial uses. Researchers say desalination could be a solution to water shortages. Produced water — Water that comes out of the ground as wastewater during the extraction of oil and gas production. Brackish water — Salty groundwater with salinity levels higher than fresh water, but lower than sea water. Brackish groundwater forms when fresh and sea water mix or rainfall seeps into the ground and mixes with minerals within the subsurface. Water runoff — When there is more water than the land can absorb, causing erosion, flooding, and water pollution. Sources: We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more. Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Destruction of Ukraine dam caused ‘toxic timebomb’ of heavy metals, study finds

Researchers say environmental impact from Kakhovka dam explosion comparable to Chornobyl nuclear disasterThe destruction of a large Ukrainian dam in 2023 triggered a “toxic timebomb” of environmental harm, a study has found.Lakebed sediments holding 83,000 tonnes of heavy metals were exposed when the Kakhovka dam was blown up one year into Russia’s invasion, researchers found. Continue reading...

The destruction of a large Ukrainian dam in 2023 triggered a “toxic timebomb” of environmental harm, a study has found.Lakebed sediments holding 83,000 tonnes of heavy metals were exposed when the Kakhovka dam was blown up one year into Russia’s invasion, researchers found.Less than 1% of these “highly toxic” heavy metals – which include lead, cadmium and nickel – are likely to have been released when the reservoir drained, the scientists found. They said the remaining pollutants would leach into rivers as rains wore down the sediment, threatening human health in a region where river water is widely used to make up for shortages in municipal water supplies.The lead author, Oleksandra Shumilova, said the scale of the environmental impacts was comparable to the Chornobyl nuclear disaster.“All these pollutants that were deposited on the bottom can accumulate in different organisms, pass through the food web, and spread from vegetation to animals to humans,” said Shumilova, a scientist at the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries. “Its consequences can be compared to the effects of radiation.”The researchers linked on-the-ground measurements with remote sensing data and hydrology models to map the environmental impacts of the dam’s destruction, which flooded the region and killed 84 people. They estimated water from the breach killed 20-30% of floodplain rodents, along with the entire juvenile fish stock.They said the reservoir released 9,000-17,000 tonnes of phytoplankton each day in the first week after the dam was blown up, driving an increase in water turbidity that led to the “probable loss” of 10,000 tonnes of macroinvertebrates.The destruction of natural life detailed in the study appears to contrast with the striking images of wildlife that has returned to the reservoir since the dam burst. White willows and black poplars have reforested the land, and wild boars and other animals have taken over areas that people still avoid. Fish that have not been seen for decades, such as sturgeon and herring, have returned to the water.The researchers expect that the area will reach a level of biodiversity equivalent to 80% of an undammed ecosystem within five years.“It’s not recovery, it’s better to use a word such as re-establish,” said Shumilova. “It means that it will develop its own way, but not necessarily to the initial conditions.”The Kakhovka dam, which was built in the 1950s on the Dnipro River, was destroyed on 6 June 2023 while under Russian occupation. Its reservoir supplied water to cool the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and irrigate southern Ukraine.Before and after Nova Kakhovka dam collapse in Ukraine – videoUkrainian ecologists have debated whether the dam should be rebuilt after the war – and how much land should be flooded if it is – with some arguing for the new ecosystem to be left alone as part of a growing movement to rewild human-disturbed areas. Shumilova said that the unresolved question of heavy metal contamination complicated this approach, because it was unclear whether the vegetation was enough to keep the exposed sediments in place.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“It’s still something that people have to investigate,” she said. “Presently, it’s difficult because of the war – it’s difficult for scientists to go there to take samples and conduct experiments.”Shumilova, a Berlin-based researcher whose home town of Mykolaiv was cut off from water for a full month at the start of the war, said the study findings were relevant for peacetime removals of large dams, as well as for other wars between industrialised countries.Water has repeatedly been used as a weapon of war in Ukraine, with attackers and defenders having blown up dams for military gain. Legal scholars say the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine blames on Russia, and which Russia disputes, could constitute an environmental war crime.Shah Maruf, a law researcher at the University of Dhaka who has published research on the legal consequences of the Kakhovka dam’s destruction, said the new findings “suggest that the damage is ‘widespread, long-term, and severe’, fulfilling one of the key requirements for an environmental war crime”.But he added that the speed of the ecosystem’s recovery could affect the strength of the case. “If the recovery is faster – and if that was anticipated by the perpetrator while attacking – that may compromise the finding of ‘long-term’ damage in the context of environmental war crime.”Last month, a separate study exploring the effects of the Kakhovka dam destruction on the Black Sea ecosystems observed some habitats and species replenishing, but found “significant habitat destruction, disturbances and pollutant damages remain”.Carol Stepien, an ecologist at the Smithsonian Institution and co-author of the study, said Ukraine’s freshwater, estuarine and marine species “evolved under conditions of longtime flux”, exposing them to a range of temperatures, salinity levels and habitat qualities. This “may aid their resilience and recovery”, she added.

Texas is running out of water. Here’s why and what state leaders plan to do about it.

The state’s water supply faces numerous threats. And by one estimate, the state’s municipal supply will not meet demand by 2030 if there’s a severe drought and no water solutions are implemented.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here. Texas officials fear the state is gravely close to running out of water. Towns and cities could be on a path toward a severe shortage of water by 2030, data compiled in the state's 2022 water plan by the Texas Water Development Board indicates. This would happen if there is recurring, record-breaking drought conditions across the state, and if water entities and state leaders fail to put in place key strategies to secure water supplies. At risk is the water Texans use every day for cooking, cleaning — and drinking. State lawmakers are debating several solutions, including finding ways to bring new water supply to Texas, and dedicating more money to fix dilapidated infrastructure. For most other Texans, however, the extent of their knowledge of where water comes from is the kitchen faucet and backyard hose. But behind every drop is a complicated system of sources, laws and management challenges. So, where does Texas get its water? Who owns it? And why are we running out? Let’s break it down. Where does Texas get its water? Texas’ water supply comes from two main sources: Groundwater makes up 54%. It is water that is stored underground in aquifers. Surface water makes up 43%. It is water from lakes, rivers and reservoirs. Texas has nine major aquifers and 22 minor ones. They are large formations underground made of sand, gravel, limestone and other porous rocks. The formations act as giant tubs that hold and filter the water. The largest is the Ogallala Aquifer underneath the Panhandle and West Texas. It is also the biggest aquifer in the U.S., and Texas shares it with seven other states. It’s a lifeline for farms and ranches in the Texas High Plains. However, overuse is rapidly depleting it. Another major source is the Edwards Aquifer, which provides drinking water to San Antonio and the surrounding Hill Country. The state also gets water from 15 major river basins and eight coastal basins, lakes, and more than 180 reservoirs. Reservoirs are man-made lakes created by damming rivers to store water for drinking, agriculture and industry. Like aquifers, they are not endless supplies — water levels can depend on rainfall. And climate change, which alters precipitation patterns, leads to more droughts and fluctuating water levels. Major surface water sources include the Rio Grande, Colorado River, and reservoirs like Lake Travis in Austin and Toledo Bend in East Texas. Does water supply vary region by region? Yes, and where you get your water from depends on where you live. Groundwater is not equally available across the state. As water expert Carlos Rubinstein puts it: "People don’t all live next to rivers, and the aquifer isn’t a bathtub with the same amount of water everywhere. Rocks and sand get in the way." For example, people living in Lubbock get their water from several sources — two water well fields, Lake Meredith and Lake Alan Henry. Texans living in Fort Worth get their water from mostly surface water sources — lakes, reservoirs and the Trinity River. Is my city going to run out of water? How can I check? Since water supply varies by region, the Texas Tribune created an address-search tool. This tool shows where your local water supply comes from and what supply and demand projections look like for the future. The tool also explains how you can get more involved in water planning. This can be by attending meetings with regional groups who plan for water needs and use, providing public comments to the water development board as they draft new water plans, or by reaching out to lawmakers. Who owns Texas’ water — and who governs it? Water in Texas is a legally complex, highly managed resource. If you own land above an aquifer in Texas, you own the groundwater beneath it — just like owning oil or gas. You don’t have to pump it to claim it; it’s yours by default. However, that doesn’t mean you should use as much as you want. There are consequences. “Groundwater is your long-term bank account,” says John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board. “The more you withdraw, the faster it declines because it doesn’t replenish quickly.” To manage this, some areas have groundwater conservation districts that regulate how much water can be pumped. Since groundwater is owned by the landowner, general managers at the districts say they constantly have to strike a balance between protecting water supplies and respecting private property rights. “We have to let landowners use their water,” says Ty Edwards, general manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District. “But we also have to protect everyone else’s wells. It’s a juggling act.” Unlike groundwater, surface water belongs to the state. To use it — whether it’s for cities, farms, or businesses — you need a permit from the state’s environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Texas follows a “first in time, first in right” system, meaning older water rights take priority. In a drought, those with senior rights get water first, and newer users might be cut off entirely. “Think of it like a sold-out concert,” said Rubinstein, a former chair of the Texas Water Development Board. “There are no more tickets. The only way to get more water is to build new storage, but that’s easier said than done.” Texas’ two separate legal systems for water — one for groundwater and one for surface water — makes management tricky. Dupnik, the water board administrator, said Texas is unique in having the system divided this way. Just nine states, including Texas, have this two-tiered system. “Most states are usually one or the other,” Dupnik said. The two water resources are also deeply connected. About 30% of the water in Texas rivers comes from groundwater, according to a water board study. When wells pump too much, rivers and springs can dry up. Sharlene Leurig, a managing member with environmental consulting firm Fluid Advisors, said it’s important for people to understand the relationship between the two. “Depletions of one drives depletions of the other,” Leurig said. Why are people concerned about water now? Texas is growing, and its water supply isn’t keeping up. With droughts, overuse and changing rainfall patterns, water is becoming a scarce resource. The 2022 Texas Water Plan estimates the state’s population will increase to 51.5 million people by 2070 — an increase of 73%. At the same time, water supply is projected to decrease approximately 18%. The biggest reduction is in groundwater, which is projected to decline 32% by 2070. This shortfall will be felt most in two major aquifers: The Ogallala Aquifer, as a result of its managed depletion over time, and the Gulf Coast Aquifer, which faces mandatory pumping reductions to prevent land sinking from over-extraction. Texas is not only losing water to overuse. The state’s aging water pipes are deteriorating, contributing to massive losses from leaks and breaks. A 2022 report by Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of environmental groups, estimated that Texas water systems lose at least 572,000 acre-feet per year — about 51 gallons of water per home or business connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of Austin, El Paso, Fort Worth, Laredo and Lubbock combined. These old pipes also raise concerns about water quality and supply. Breaks trigger boil-water notices, while repairs and replacements strain budgets. This issue is amplified by the lack of funding for maintenance in some areas and the increasing demand for water due to population growth. Who’s using the most water and how is that changing? Irrigation holds the top spot for water use in Texas, according to the water board. In fact, agriculture has been the dominant water consumer for decades. In 2020, over a third of irrigation and livestock water in Texas came from the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. At the same time, more than one-fifth of non-agricultural water came from the Trinity River Basin. But the way water is used is shifting. By 2060, municipal water demand is projected to overtake irrigation as the biggest user, according to the water board. Agriculture producers will struggle to meet water prices, said Alan Day, general manager of the Brazos Groundwater Conservation District. As climate change intensifies, he said, water supply may decrease in certain parts of the state and compound challenges for farmers and ranchers. “With water getting more expensive, we’re seeing a shift from agricultural use to municipal demand,” he said. Day added that water use isn’t just about who’s taking the most — it’s about where it’s coming from, who’s willing to pay for it, and how we decide to share it in the future. “What do we want our shared water resources to look like 50 years from now?” Day said. “That’s a moving target. And it’s a political hot potato.” The state’s water plan says Texas does not have enough water supply to meet the growing need of 6.9 million acre-feet of additional water supplies by 2070 — enough to support 41.4 million Texans for one year. If water strategies are not implemented, the plan says approximately 25% of Texas’ population in 2070 would have less than half the municipal water supplies they will require during a significant drought. “There's going to be a fight over at what level does harm occur to any of these particular aquifers,” Day said. How are we planning for water shortages? The water board is responsible for planning for water shortages. The agency uses the 1950s drought or “drought of record” as a benchmark for statewide water planning. Temple McKinnon, the director of water supply planning at the state agency, said using the “worst-case scenario” allows water planners to come up with strategies for how to meet future water needs. That planning has manifested in state legislation and infrastructure investment. In 2023, voters approved a one-time use of $1 billion to fund infrastructure projects. This year, two Republican lawmakers, state Sen. Charles Perry from Lubbock and state Rep. Cody Harris of Palestine, filed constitutional amendments to dedicate $1 billion annually for up to 10 years for water projects. Harris also filed House Bill 16 — a sweeping priority bill that touches on water funds, flood plans, and the development of infrastructure to transport water into a water supply system. Senate Bill 7, which Perry is expected to author, was named a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and would increase investments in water supply efforts. Texas budget writers have already signaled a willingness to invest at least $2.5 billion in water plans. Perry previously told the Tribune he wants as much as $5 billion. A key part of this effort is the creation of a statewide water grid — a network of pipelines and supply connections to better distribute water across Texas. Currently, water systems across the state operate independently. A new water grid would allow Texas to shift water from wetter regions to drier ones when supply shortages hit. However, a framework is still being developed to determine who will oversee and manage this interconnected system. Lawmakers, including Perry, are also eyeing new water resources to meet future water supply needs. Some Texas cities, like Corpus Christi along the coast, are turning to desalination to treat seawater and make it drinkable. El Paso has been a leader in this effort, but focusing on cleaning brackish groundwater — slightly salty water found deep underground — enough to drink. Experts say that the state has untapped water resources — potentially enough to meet the state’s long-term needs. Disclosure: Texas Living Waters Project has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more. Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

EPA chief: Deregulation will make it easier to buy cars, heat homes

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on Thursday pitched the Trump administration’s deregulation effort as a step that will make it easier for Americans to buy a car, heat their homes and operate small businesses. "It means that it's going to be easier to purchase a car. It's going to be easier to heat...

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on Thursday pitched the Trump administration’s deregulation effort as a step that will make it easier for Americans to buy a car, heat their homes and operate small businesses. "It means that it's going to be easier to purchase a car. It's going to be easier to heat your home. Operating a small business is going to be easier,” Zeldin told Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo, when asked what deregulation would mean for “ordinary Americans.” “People who are looking for employment are going to have more opportunities,” Zeldin added. The remarks come a day after the EPA indicated it plans to slash a broad suite of rules and determinations that aim to cut pollution or mitigate climate change — including from cars and power plants. The EPA said it would consider rolling back Biden-era regulations that are expected to sharply increase the number of electric vehicles sold as well as speed coal plant closures. It is also considering rolling back regulations on the neurotoxin mercury coming from power plants and general air pollution limits for deadly soot.  The agency also said it would reconsider the finding that climate change poses a threat to the public — which lays the regulatory groundwork for further climate action. Additionally, the agency indicated it would close offices dedicated to fighting pollution in underserved and minority communities around the country. But Zeldin, on Thursday, defended the EPA’s commitment to maintain a clean environment but said that can’t come at such a steep economic cost. “We want to make sure that Americans have access to clean air, land, and water. That's the first pillar of powering the great American comeback,” Zeldin said. “But while we are doing that, we need to unleash energy dominance, pursue permitting reform, make America the [artificial intelligence] capital of the world, bring back those American auto jobs.” “The American public spoke loud and clear that they want this economic relief, and at the end of the day, that's what we're talking about here,” he said. “We refuse to do our part to suffocate the economy. It is the exact opposite.”

Houston’s Fifth Ward residents offered free cancer screenings as water, soil testing continues

The cancer screening initiative comes weeks after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its first round of soil testing results from the area, which found elevated levels of highly toxic chemical compounds at some locations.

Sandra Edwards wears a “Creosote Killed Me” shirt, which were made in response to the creosote contamination allegedly caused by the Union Pacific Railyard. Taken on Jan. 27, 2021.Some residents of Houston's Fifth Ward, where there is ongoing soil and water testing for cancer-causing toxic chemicals, now have the opportunity to receive free cancer screenings as part of a new collaboration between city leaders and a national nonprofit. Houston City Council member Letitia Plummer has coordinated with the National Minority Quality Forum (NMQF) to bring the free screenings to Fifth Ward. The neighborhood will be the first of 20 sites nationwide to participate in NMQF's Cancer Stage Shifting Initiative. According to the Washington-based nonprofit, the new initiative aims to enroll 100,000 participants across the country over the next five years. Over the next several weeks in Houston, volunteers working alongside Egality Health will be going door-to-door to survey residents and provide the opportunity to be screened, with priority for those who have lived in the neighborhood the longest. Plummer said the program is designed to provide testing to those in Fifth Ward who might otherwise not have access to it. Fifth Ward is a predominantly Black and low-income community. "Not having access to health care or not having any type of early detection opportunities is really even more of a problem in the area," Plummer said. "Having the opportunity to have some type of early detection cancer screening is really, really paramount." The cancer screening initiative comes weeks after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its first round of soil testing results from the area, which found elevated levels of highly toxic chemical compounds at some locations. However, the results did not meet the EPA's threshold for immediate intervention, according to the agency. The soil testing occurred around the now-defunct Houston Wood Preserving Works — a wood treatment facility operated by the former Southern Pacific Railroad from 1911 to 1984. The facility is now owned by Union Pacific Railroad. According to the EPA, creosote, a likely human carcinogen, was the main preserver used at the facility. Plummer said 200 residents per year, for the next two years, will be able to participate in the screening program. "So, it's really important to note here that this is a blood analysis and we're looking for cancer indicators," she said. "So, if [indicators] come up, the next step would be for us to refer them to their primary care physician." If a resident tests positive for cancer indicators but doesn't have insurance, Plummer said the Harris County health department will assist in securing treatment. "If they are uninsured, then we have the commitment from Harris Health to get them eligible for a gold card," she said. "Once they get the card, then they will be able to have their [primary care physician] at Harris Health. ... Obviously, we'll track them along the way, so they'll never be left without information." Beyond screening residents for cancer, research will also be a key aspect of the initiative, Plummer said, especially since Black residents have been under-represented in past clinical research. "Historically, these medications don't work on Black and brown people ... and it's because we don't get in these studies," she said. "So, for medications to work better, we have to educate our communities to say, ‘Listen, I know historically y’all's mindset is the Tuskegee Experiment.' ... We've got to clear that and make sure that we set the record straight on how research works." Plummer said Fifth Ward's Grace Clinic will be administering the screenings and Quest Diagnostics will be conducting the lab testing. The research will also be conducted under an Institutional Review Board (IRB), which will review the ethics of the study. "IRB is a regulation of how research has to be done based on the federal government's Heath and Human Services," she said. "This is an IRB-approved test or screening. It gives validity to the process." NMQF and all of the other partners involved in the initiative will be hosting a community presentation from 5-8 p.m. Thursday at the DeLuxe Theater, 3303 Lyons Ave. Plummer said she hopes the screenings can start a chain reaction of future assistance to a community whose concerns have historically been overlooked. "I think it's important for people to understand that we had to start somewhere," she said. "We're not excluding anyone. We just had to get a starting point. And if this is successful, then I do believe that there will be an opportunity to do more tests. We just have to start."

What’s happening to EPA-funded community projects under Trump?

PITTSBURGH — The Biden administration pledged more than $53 million to community groups across the country for air monitoring projects in 2022, many of which were just getting underway when Trump took office. Trump issued executive orders that temporarily froze federal funding for environment-related projects (along with other key services and programs across the country), then fired and re-hired staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has caused confusion and delays in the implementation of key environmental health programs nationwide. The uncertainty has only been intensified by the news that the agency is repealing dozens of environmental regulations and plans to close all of its environmental justice offices. Programs facing a funding freeze included the 132 air monitoring projects in 37 states slated to receive $53.4 million in federal funding, which represent the agency’s largest investment in community air monitoring to date. Western Pennsylvania is one of a handful of geographic regions that received funding for multiple community air monitoring projects under the program. The region is home to numerous pollution sources that impact environmental health, including fracking, steel mills, petrochemical plants, and other industrial manufacturing. Exposure to this pollution increases the risk of cancer, heart and respiratory disease, premature death, and even mental illness. “I think there’s a misconception about abuse and waste of these federal funds that is so important to counter,” Ana Tsuhlares Hoffman, director of the air quality program at Carnegie Mellon University’s CREATE Lab, told EHN. The CREATE Lab is managing and analyzing the data collected from all of the federally-funded community air monitoring projects in western Pennsylvania. Organizations receiving federal funding, Hoffman said, need to be “open and up front about what we stand to lose if we lose this funding.” EHN spoke with Hoffman about how the Trump administration’s actions have impacted air monitoring projects in the region, and environmental health research and advocacy more broadly. Editor’s note: This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. EHN: What impacts on local environmental health research and advocacy have you seen from the federal funding freeze? Hoffman: We had four weeks of waking up not knowing if we’d be able to pay salaries for key staff or keep our promises to community members while our funds weren’t accessible and EPA staff were not allowed to communicate with us at all. It was a long, difficult process to administer the grants for the EPA’s community air monitoring projects. I’m so grateful to the nonprofits that took on this role — they’re all tiny compared to the organizations that usually receive federal funding, but they stepped up to figure out how to administer these grants on behalf of smaller grassroots organizations and individuals who’d been doing this work on their own for decades. Local nonprofits including FracTracker Alliance, Protect PT, GASP, and the Breathe Project worked together to decide who would represent different geographies and specific industrial polluters that had concerned residents for a long time. There was a lot of pressure to comply with the EPA requirements, which included a long list of quality assurance concerns we’d never encountered before. Securing those grants was hard-won and painful to achieve, but at the end of the process we felt like we’d leveled up our air monitoring capabilities in a meaningful way. We spent years getting to this place, and were just starting to collect air monitoring samples and process data when we learned about the funding freeze. It felt like years’ worth of activists’ and researchers’ time and effort was hanging in the balance. The big concern was whether we’d be able to pay people who were just hired to conduct new, federally-funded air monitoring projects, and whether we’d be able to keep the commitments that we’ve made to residents. That was a horrible moment where we had to go to residents to say, “We know we’ve been telling you for years that we’re working to get you answers about what you’re breathing next to this compression station or factory, but we’re not sure if we can follow through on that commitment.” EHN: What’s the status of those air monitoring projects now? Hoffman: As of right now, our grants have been un-suspended and reinstated, and we are able to access our funds, so we’re resuming the work. Our legal advisors have reminded us that we need to stay in compliance with our grant funds by continuing the work, even if it seems like there’s a chance the rug will be pulled out from under us. There’s a national network of federal funding recipients that’s facilitated by the Environmental Protection Network, which has been providing pro bono legal assistance to groups impacted by the federal funding freeze. They helped us organize instead of panicking, and groups across the country were able to successfully win back access to our funding by working in a coordinated way. Speaking as a university representative, there are labs like the CREATE Lab all across the country that serve local environmental research needs and are funded by federal dollars that are in much worse straits than we are. In cases like that, universities will have impossible decisions to make about whether to continue to support those initiatives as they lose funding for the administrative staff that keep universities running. EHN: How do you think Trump's rollbacks of environmental and health regulations could impact enforcement of those regulations at the federal, state, and local level? We’ve always had to use a combined effort of people power and legal support to effectively watchdog industrial polluters. But now we have less hope that our already significantly-underfunded agencies, like the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, will be able to respond to concerns and conduct inspections in the way that they need to. There already aren’t enough investigators to come out when watchdogs produce evidence of pollution events that are worthy of investigation, and I do think enforcement is now being deprioritized. We’ll have to be more thoughtful and diligent in our data collection and evidence collection efforts. We’ll have to be systematic as best we can to try and help fill those gaps. EHN: How are environmental health advocates changing course to adapt to the new political landscape? I think we will have to adjust our hopes for engagement with the EPA. We’ll have to collectively change gears to hold polluters accountable as best we can while federal agencies lose access to the resources they need to properly enforce environmental regulations. We’ll have to accept that “energy dominance for America” means that any push to shift to a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly economy is going to be hampered, and that our hopes for building a better future will likely need to be put on pause while we focus on defending our previous progress. We’ll really need to work together. We all only have so many brain cells and so many hours in the day, but when we work collectively we’re much more powerful.

PITTSBURGH — The Biden administration pledged more than $53 million to community groups across the country for air monitoring projects in 2022, many of which were just getting underway when Trump took office. Trump issued executive orders that temporarily froze federal funding for environment-related projects (along with other key services and programs across the country), then fired and re-hired staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has caused confusion and delays in the implementation of key environmental health programs nationwide. The uncertainty has only been intensified by the news that the agency is repealing dozens of environmental regulations and plans to close all of its environmental justice offices. Programs facing a funding freeze included the 132 air monitoring projects in 37 states slated to receive $53.4 million in federal funding, which represent the agency’s largest investment in community air monitoring to date. Western Pennsylvania is one of a handful of geographic regions that received funding for multiple community air monitoring projects under the program. The region is home to numerous pollution sources that impact environmental health, including fracking, steel mills, petrochemical plants, and other industrial manufacturing. Exposure to this pollution increases the risk of cancer, heart and respiratory disease, premature death, and even mental illness. “I think there’s a misconception about abuse and waste of these federal funds that is so important to counter,” Ana Tsuhlares Hoffman, director of the air quality program at Carnegie Mellon University’s CREATE Lab, told EHN. The CREATE Lab is managing and analyzing the data collected from all of the federally-funded community air monitoring projects in western Pennsylvania. Organizations receiving federal funding, Hoffman said, need to be “open and up front about what we stand to lose if we lose this funding.” EHN spoke with Hoffman about how the Trump administration’s actions have impacted air monitoring projects in the region, and environmental health research and advocacy more broadly. Editor’s note: This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. EHN: What impacts on local environmental health research and advocacy have you seen from the federal funding freeze? Hoffman: We had four weeks of waking up not knowing if we’d be able to pay salaries for key staff or keep our promises to community members while our funds weren’t accessible and EPA staff were not allowed to communicate with us at all. It was a long, difficult process to administer the grants for the EPA’s community air monitoring projects. I’m so grateful to the nonprofits that took on this role — they’re all tiny compared to the organizations that usually receive federal funding, but they stepped up to figure out how to administer these grants on behalf of smaller grassroots organizations and individuals who’d been doing this work on their own for decades. Local nonprofits including FracTracker Alliance, Protect PT, GASP, and the Breathe Project worked together to decide who would represent different geographies and specific industrial polluters that had concerned residents for a long time. There was a lot of pressure to comply with the EPA requirements, which included a long list of quality assurance concerns we’d never encountered before. Securing those grants was hard-won and painful to achieve, but at the end of the process we felt like we’d leveled up our air monitoring capabilities in a meaningful way. We spent years getting to this place, and were just starting to collect air monitoring samples and process data when we learned about the funding freeze. It felt like years’ worth of activists’ and researchers’ time and effort was hanging in the balance. The big concern was whether we’d be able to pay people who were just hired to conduct new, federally-funded air monitoring projects, and whether we’d be able to keep the commitments that we’ve made to residents. That was a horrible moment where we had to go to residents to say, “We know we’ve been telling you for years that we’re working to get you answers about what you’re breathing next to this compression station or factory, but we’re not sure if we can follow through on that commitment.” EHN: What’s the status of those air monitoring projects now? Hoffman: As of right now, our grants have been un-suspended and reinstated, and we are able to access our funds, so we’re resuming the work. Our legal advisors have reminded us that we need to stay in compliance with our grant funds by continuing the work, even if it seems like there’s a chance the rug will be pulled out from under us. There’s a national network of federal funding recipients that’s facilitated by the Environmental Protection Network, which has been providing pro bono legal assistance to groups impacted by the federal funding freeze. They helped us organize instead of panicking, and groups across the country were able to successfully win back access to our funding by working in a coordinated way. Speaking as a university representative, there are labs like the CREATE Lab all across the country that serve local environmental research needs and are funded by federal dollars that are in much worse straits than we are. In cases like that, universities will have impossible decisions to make about whether to continue to support those initiatives as they lose funding for the administrative staff that keep universities running. EHN: How do you think Trump's rollbacks of environmental and health regulations could impact enforcement of those regulations at the federal, state, and local level? We’ve always had to use a combined effort of people power and legal support to effectively watchdog industrial polluters. But now we have less hope that our already significantly-underfunded agencies, like the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, will be able to respond to concerns and conduct inspections in the way that they need to. There already aren’t enough investigators to come out when watchdogs produce evidence of pollution events that are worthy of investigation, and I do think enforcement is now being deprioritized. We’ll have to be more thoughtful and diligent in our data collection and evidence collection efforts. We’ll have to be systematic as best we can to try and help fill those gaps. EHN: How are environmental health advocates changing course to adapt to the new political landscape? I think we will have to adjust our hopes for engagement with the EPA. We’ll have to collectively change gears to hold polluters accountable as best we can while federal agencies lose access to the resources they need to properly enforce environmental regulations. We’ll have to accept that “energy dominance for America” means that any push to shift to a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly economy is going to be hampered, and that our hopes for building a better future will likely need to be put on pause while we focus on defending our previous progress. We’ll really need to work together. We all only have so many brain cells and so many hours in the day, but when we work collectively we’re much more powerful.

Deregulatory Blitz at EPA Includes Climate and Water Rules That Impact Agriculture

On March 12, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced more than 30 deregulatory actions the agency is taking, including steps to roll back rules that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and farm pollution, and to eliminate environmental justice efforts. In their last evaluation of the climate crisis, the world’s top scientists found climate change is […] The post Deregulatory Blitz at EPA Includes Climate and Water Rules That Impact Agriculture appeared first on Civil Eats.

On March 12, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced more than 30 deregulatory actions the agency is taking, including steps to roll back rules that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and farm pollution, and to eliminate environmental justice efforts. In their last evaluation of the climate crisis, the world’s top scientists found climate change is already making it harder for farmers to produce food—and that challenges including extreme heat, droughts, and destructive weather events will get worse without rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Zeldin’s actions will move the EPA off that path significantly with a reconsideration of what is called the “endangerment finding,” a scientific decision the agency made determining greenhouse gases endanger public health, which underpins the agency’s other climate rules and regulations. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families,” Zeldin said in a statement. Another stop in Zeldin’s plan is to once again review a rule that determines which bodies of water are subject to restrictions on runoff from farms. Called Waters of the U.S., or “WOTUS,” the rule has been in flux for decades, with every administration changing it and the Supreme Court already weighing in. It has been a key issue for the American Farm Bureau Federation, and House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson thanked Zeldin “for listening to America’s farmers and delivering much needed relief to our rural communities.” And Zeldin officially ended all of EPA’s office environmental justice work, shutting down offices around the country. Some environmental justice programming at EPA focused on communities disproportionately affected by air and water pollution from the food system. “By shutting down environmental justice, Trump’s EPA is turning its back on protecting clean air and safe drinking water for every American, regardless of where they live or who they voted for,” said Michelle Roos, Executive Director at the Environmental Protection Network, in a statement. (Link to this post.) The post Deregulatory Blitz at EPA Includes Climate and Water Rules That Impact Agriculture appeared first on Civil Eats.

Cattle killed by wolves could net Oregon ranchers bigger state payouts. If Democrats defy environmentalists

For years, Oregon ranchers have complained about wolves preying on their cows, horses and other animals.

Oregon ranchers want higher payouts from the state to recoup their losses for cattle and other livestock killed by wolves. But the fate of a bill that would increase those payments will be determined by whether enough Democratic lawmakers, who hold the majority in Salem, are willing to defy environmentalists and support the proposal.For years, Oregon ranchers have complained about wolves preying on their cows, horses and other animals. Because shooting a wolf is against state hunting laws, lawmakers in 2011 agreed to compensate ranchers for the financial loss of any animal that dies following a wolf attack.Ranchers say the money is vital to keeping their operations profitable. In 2023, Oregon counties gave ranchers $70,300 from state coffers for dead or injured cattle that experts determined were likely attacked by wolves. Ranchers are currently compensated for the market value of the cattle lost to wolves.But ranchers say the losses they suffer are deeper than merely the cost of a replacement calf or cow. “Wolf depredation is not only a financial concern, it is an emotional and mental concern and it is causing a great deal of stress to ranchers across entire sections of the state,” Gabrielle Homer, president-elect of Oregon CattleWomen, said in written testimony to lawmakers.Numerous Republican lawmakers agree.Sen. Todd Nash, a Republican from Enterprise and former president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, introduced a bill in January that would require the state to pay ranchers at least the fair market value – and in many cases far more – for animals injured or killed by wolves. Under the bill, Oregon would have to pay seven times the market value of cow calves, sheep and goats, and three times the market value for other cows.These multipliers, ranchers say, are necessary because wolf attacks on herds can negatively impact cattle and ranchers in many unseen ways. “This stress impacts every animal and comes at a cost to the rancher in the way of less pounds to sell, an animal aborting or not rebreeding, and the overall disposition of their cattle,” Oregon cattle ranchers Creighton and Gabriella Nevin wrote to lawmakers.Republicans and a few moderate Democrats have expressed support for the bill. But some Democrats, who have a supermajority in both chambers and will ultimately control which bills pass this session, have shown reluctance to support the proposal. A large reason for their hesitancy: environmentalist opposition to the bill.Wildlife and environmental advocacy groups argue the proposal would worsen the already-tense relationship between ranchers and wolves and could result in ranchers getting money that would be better spent on preventing wolves from attacking cattle in the first place. In 2023, Oregon counties spent more than $400,000 from the state on preventative measures to stop wolves from attacking cattle. Those included building new fences, reducing cattle bone piles or carcasses that can draw wolves and installing alarm systems that can sense and deter wolves. But because that program receives funding from the same pool of money that pays farmers for livestock lost to wolves, environmentalists worry that the bill will decrease funding for preventative efforts. (Another Republican bill would deposit $2 million into this pool, to be used for preventative efforts and to compensate ranchers).“At a time when Oregonians and the Legislature are being asked to tighten our belts due to shifting funds, this bill benefits only a small number of Oregonians who are already eligible for market-rate compensation of lost or missing livestock,” Michael Dotson, executive director of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, wrote to lawmakers.Also, wildlife advocates say, increasing the amount of money that ranchers receive for lost cattle will decrease their desire to use non-lethal methods to deter wolves.“Why bother to implement those methods if, when one of your livestock becomes a confirmed or probable wolf kill, you’ll receive payments of up to seven times their value?” Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote to lawmakers.Environmentalists also push back on several of the ranchers’ assertions. While ranchers say they should receive more money for indirect effects on their cattle following wolf attacks, environmentalists say those effects have not been closely studied and are difficult to quantify, and therefore should not necessarily result in higher payouts to ranchers.Wildlife advocates say they don’t have a problem with ranchers being compensated for killed animals, but they want to negotiate with lawmakers and ranchers to reach a compromise that would prioritize the safety of wolves. Now, lawmakers are conflicted. On Tuesday, the Senate Committee On Natural Resources and Wildfire decided to postpone a vote on the bill after two Democrats expressed hesitancy to support it.“Is the real complaint that we’re not doing enough on the prevention part?” Sen. Kathleen Taylor, D-Portland, asked Tuesday. “If that’s what’s actually really going on, then maybe we could have an opportunity to achieve both.”Similar bills in at least two previous legislative sessions have died after ranchers, environmentalists and lawmakers failed to reach a consensus. But three Senate Democrats have joined several Republicans in co-sponsoring the bill, signalling that at least some Democrats are ready to pass the proposal. With Republicans making up 12 of the Senate’s 30 members, it will take at least four Democrats’ agreement to pass the bill through that chamber.But whether they can convince enough of their colleagues in both chambers to agree remains to be seen.Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat from Ashland and chair of the committee, acknowledged Tuesday that Democrats in the full House and Senate might not want to support the bill. But he said passing the proposal as written, meeting some of the ranchers’ long standing requests, would be a strong starting point to eventually reach a compromise.“What we are doing here is putting on the table a specific proposal, instead of saying, ‘“Let’s work group this more,’” he said.— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.Latest local politics stories

‘This will make our town uninhabitable’: The long-awaited Delta tunnel strikes fear in locals

The governor’s planned $20 billion tunnel to divert more water south and bypass the Delta would bring years of construction noise, pollution and traffic. Residents worry their rural farm towns will never be the same.

In summary The governor’s planned $20 billion tunnel to divert more water south and bypass the Delta would bring years of construction noise, pollution and traffic. Residents worry their rural farm towns will never be the same. Change tends to come at a creeping pace, if at all, in the Sacramento River community of Hood. Families that settled in this Delta outpost generations ago remain today, and pear orchards planted decades ago are still the region’s signature crop. Now Hood, population 271, is facing a formidable transformation that residents fear will shatter their sleepy agricultural community. One of the smallest towns in the region, Hood lies at ground zero of the main construction site for the Newsom administration’s proposed Delta water tunnel project.  “This will make our town uninhabitable,” said longtime resident Dan Whaley, who helps manage his family’s business, the Willow Ballroom, a community landmark across the main street from Hood’s post office. “There will be so much heavy equipment and traffic and people going through town that the locals will be driven out.” The $20 billion water conveyance project will feature a 45-mile, 36-foot-wide tunnel beneath the West Coast’s largest estuary. Its two intake facilities — which will draw river water into the system — will be situated just a river bend north and south of Hood.  Dan Whaley, owner of the Willow Ballroom in Hood, says tunnel construction noise and traffic will ruin his town. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters Various versions of the tunnel concept have been discussed for decades. The goal is to upgrade the massive project that sends water to 27 million people, mostly in Southern California, and vast sprawls of farmland. By diverting river water miles upstream, the tunnel would bypass the ecologically sensitive Delta, where regulations restrict pumping, and allow more water to be sent south. The tunnel project still needs several state and federal permits, and faces multiple legal challenges from environmental and community groups, including the Delta Legacy Communities, a nonprofit representing Hood and other small towns along the lower Sacramento River. In spite of these obstacles, state officials anticipate starting construction as soon as 2029.  Standing north of town beside Highway 160, Mario Moreno pointed upstream, across an old Bosc pear orchard inside of a levee. The entire property, he said, could eventually become a complex of cement and steel, with a holding basin and a chasm that draws water into the tunnel system.  Turning south, he gestured past Hood, toward the downstream intake site. “And my little town is right there,” said Moreno, who grew up in Hood and now lives in nearby Elk Grove but remains chairman of the Hood Community Council.   Mario Moreno describes the potential impacts of the Delta tunnel project in Hood. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters The planned intakes will be massive industrial complexes, lining thousands of feet of riverbank and covering hundreds of acres of farmland with fuel stations, septic systems, sludge-drying fields, access roads, parking and grout-mixing stations. Construction will mean years of noise, air pollution, dust and traffic. Once operational, the intakes will be capable of diverting 6,000 cubic feet per second of water — a fraction of the Sacramento’s flood-stage flows but more than its volume in dry periods.   The water will flow by gravity through protective fish screens, under the highway and into sedimentation basins. As the water clarifies, it will move toward the intake shafts and drop into the tunnel system, which will lead to Bethany Reservoir, near Tracy. Eventually, the water will enter the California Aqueduct, the main artery that transports water south. Major water agencies that could receive its water endorse the Delta Conveyance Project, as it’s officially called.   But opposition runs statewide, with many environmentalists saying the project is a water grab that will destroy what’s left of the Central Valley’s fish populations. Anti-tunnel sentiment is especially fierce in the Delta, where many fear the project will leave them with the dregs of the river.  Carrie Buckman, the tunnel project’s environmental program manager with the California Department of Water Resources, said pumping limits will protect the river, and existing rules that safeguard downstream water quality will remain in place.  But Delta farmer Harvey Correia, who grows chestnuts and figs 25 miles downstream of Hood, said saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay is already a recurring problem for him, and he believes the tunnel will make it worse.  “The farther upstream they divert the water, the lower our water quality will be,” Correia said. Dirk Heuvel, of McManis Family Vineyards, said half of the 400-acre vineyard he leases will be lost to the southern intake. The facility will also cut off his access to clean river water, forcing him to draw from nearby Snodgrass Slough. Fed by irrigation runoff, the slough’s water quality is poor, which Heuvel said will reduce the quality of grapes and wine and harm his brand.  “If you asked me today if I wanted to lease that property, I’d walk away,” Heuvel said.  Modernizing the Delta water system In an early iteration in 1965, the Delta tunnel was to be an aqueduct. Billed “the peripheral canal,” it was killed by voters in 1982. It reemerged in the 2000s as a pair of tunnels. In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom downsized the plan to a single tunnel and has promoted it since. California’s Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said the “whiplash between very dry conditions and very wet conditions” gives the project great urgency. In December, Newsom called the tunnel “the most important climate adaptation project in the United States of America.”  According to state officials, the tunnel will increase annual Delta exports of water by half a million acre-feet, enough to serve almost 5 million people. Buckman said this will offset expected water losses this century due to climate change.  Jay Lund, a UC Davis professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering and geography, said the upstream tunnel intakes will be much less vulnerable to saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay, adding a layer of protection to the state’s water supply. He said the tunnel will provide cleaner water than the supply pumped from the southern Delta, which must undergo costly treatment. The tunnel’s upstream diversion point will avoid the earthquake risk of the levees rupturing and allowing seawater to flood water pumps and other facilities, according to state officials, though they acknowledge this danger is small.   An aerial view of Threemile Slough in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta near Rio Vista on May 19, 2024. The Delta is formed by the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers before their waters flow into San Francisco Bay. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters State officials routinely remind the public of potential water supply benefits of the tunnel with a “what if” recap of recent rainstorms.  “If we had had Delta conveyance in place this year … by the time we got to that big three-day storm in February, we would already have filled San Luis Reservoir,” said Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth during a March 4 presentation, referring to a large storage facility near Interstate 5 in Merced County.  Chasms, cranes and boring machines Such arguments about bolstering California’s water supply do little to gain the support of Hood, Courtland, Locke and other Delta communities south of Sacramento, where the construction will bring traffic, dust, and other daily disturbances. Building the project will be a gargantuan undertaking lasting an estimated 13 years, and the intakes in Hood are just the beginning. Every few miles along the tunnel path, crews will dig vertical access shafts, some more than 100 feet wide. These will serve as entry, exit and servicing sites for tunnel-boring machines.  The excavation will produce 14 million cubic yards of earth. This sludge will be tested for hazardous contaminants and, when necessary, disposed of offsite. Much of the rest will be spread across fields and, to suppress dust emissions, planted with cover crop seeds.  To address the plethora of expected impacts on Delta residents, state officials have proposed a suite of “community benefits.” Outlined in the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report, these benefits include new recreation areas, swimming lessons for all Delta residents, support of local agriculture and various economic development programs.  Gia Moreno, Mario Moreno’s niece and a teacher in Clarksburg, thinks the offerings will be too little, too late.  “We won’t even be here to benefit from any of the things they’re offering,” she said. While the proposed benefits include “marketing of the region for tourism,” restaurant owner Michelle Mota expects through-town traffic will decline. Mota, who runs the Hood Supply Co Bar and Grill with her husband, fears the project will displace residents, deter visitors and make her restaurant unprofitable.  “It’s our only means of livelihood right now,” Mota said. “We’re really unsure about the future.”  Rep. Josh Harder, a Stockton Democrat, described the benefits as “a bribe program to placate outraged communities.” First: A view of the Sacramento River as it passes by the town of Hood. Last: Residents in Hood posted a “No Tunnel” sign. Photos by Fred Greaves for CalMatters Michael Brodsky, an attorney for the town’s community council, believes Hood has been selected as the tunnel intake site not for any technical reason but because the town is small and lacks political power.  “Hood doesn’t have any high-value land uses,” Brodsky said. He believes the state chose to place the intakes away from more prosperous (and much larger) communities, such as southern Sacramento, to “not bother people who can fight back and cause a problem.” But Graham Bradner, executive director of the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority — an assemblage of water districts supplied by the State Water Project — said river flow patterns, adjacent levee integrity and considerations of existing land use make the chosen sites optimal.  Bradner helped oversee a series of 19 stakeholder engagement meetings held between 2019 and 2022. The meetings, including a team of appointed community representatives, aimed to address Delta residents’ concerns about the tunnel project. But they left some participants frustrated. Several residents told CalMatters that moderators tightly restricted discussions and directed conversation away from topics including relocating the intakes farther from Hood.  Osha Meserve, an attorney representing Delta community members in legal challenges against the tunnel, attended the meetings and said discussing project alternatives “wasn’t on the table.” “The reality is this will be a mega-project constructed in a pretty rural area. It’s in everyone’s interest to ensure…that it moves forward in a way that respects the Delta and its uniqueness.”Graham Bradner, Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority Doug Hemly, a retired fifth-generation pear farmer who lives just south of Hood, has long challenged the idea of tunneling water from the northern Delta. Like many other locals, he thinks state officials have not given due consideration of alternative routes and different designs — or even a no-project alternative — that would have less impact on the region.  “There were a lot of approaches that were dismissed by (state officials) for reasons that never made a lot of sense other than that’s not what they wanted,” said Hemly, whose house would be just a few rows of pear trees south of the southern intake. For instance, fortifying levees protecting the Delta pumps from saltwater intrusion would be much cheaper, said Emily Pappalardo, a Delta levee engineer.  Retired pear farmer Doug Hemly in front of his home in Hood that has been in his family for 150 years . Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters Bradner, representing water districts, said project leaders have altered the plans in a variety of ways to ease environmental and community impacts, but he also recognized that the tunnel could significantly change the Delta.  “The reality is this will be a mega-project constructed in a pretty rural area,” he said. “It’s in everyone’s interest to ensure, if this project moves forward, that it moves forward in a way that respects the Delta and its uniqueness.” ‘Negative outcomes for Bay-Delta fish’ Tunnel opponents also fear for the Delta’s fish, birds and other wildlife. Already strained by the state and federal pumps that can reverse river flows and derail fish migrations, the estuary has collapsed from a once-thriving ecosystem into an aquatic ICU of endangered species and harmful algal blooms.   Officials say the tunnel will help because of the upstream position of the intakes. By skimming off river flows many miles from the heart of the estuary, the tunnel, state officials say, will produce more water for people with fewer environmental impacts.  But Jon Rosenfield, science director at San Francisco Baykeeper, said the environmental analyses “of every iteration” of the tunnel “that’s been proposed since 2008 have pointed to negative outcomes for Bay-Delta fish, wildlife, and water quality.” The project’s final environmental report predicts, among many other impacts, lower survival of young salmon. Rosenfield said chronically depleted river flow is the key driver of Bay-Delta fish declines. While the tunnel’s operating rules aim to keep flows downstream of the intakes at no less than 10,000 cubic feet per second, Rosenfield said this is a feeble protection. He cited 2023 research showing that juvenile Chinook salmon mortality rises rapidly once Delta river flows drop below 35,000 cubic feet per second.   Tunnel opponent State Sen. Jerry McNerney, a Democrat from Stockton, said diversion limits ostensibly safeguarding the estuary would become unreliable if the tunnel is built. He predicts that the cost will be at least twice the estimated $20 billion, and water agencies covering the bill, he said, will push for waivers on environmental rules protecting the Delta to maximize their return on investment.    “If they have a drought in Southern California, they’re just going to try and turn it on,” he said. “I have every reason to believe that if that tunnel gets built, it’s going to get used in a way that’s detrimental to the Delta and the state of California.” Anglers begin a morning of fishing on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Stockton. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters Water agencies poised to benefit from the tunnel have publicly endorsed it. These include the State Water Contractors, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Kern County Water Agency, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which pledged in December to pay $142 million for the project’s environmental planning and pre-construction costs. But tapping deeper into the Delta is not a fair solution to perceived shortages in other regions, said Max Gomberg, a water equity and affordability consultant and a former staff member of the state water board. He said cutting farm deliveries to Kern County, which receives Delta diversions, would free up enough water to solve urban shortages.  “The core ethos of water since Europeans arrived is to take more, and it really hasn’t changed. The fundamental issue with the tunnel is it perpetuates that.”Max Gomberg, water equity expert and former water board member Agriculture consumes four times the water that California’s towns and cities do, and Gomberg thinks the state’s farm production has surpassed sustainability. “The core ethos of water since Europeans arrived is to take more, and it really hasn’t changed,” Gomberg said. “The fundamental issue with the tunnel is it perpetuates that.” The tunnel debate has many water supply experts touting alternative measures for reducing demand for Delta water. These include using less water, capturing urban stormwater, improved groundwater management and recycling more wastewater — all areas being pursued by water districts around Southern California. Per capita potable water use across Southern California has declined by almost 50% since 1990 in spite of a growing population. Bruze Reznik, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper, said focusing on increased Delta imports will divert interest and money away from local initiatives to conserve and recycle water. “We’ll never wean ourselves 100% off imported water, but there’s a lot more we can do,” Reznik said. As planning proceedings go on, Hood, which is unincorporated, and surrounding communities can’t shake the feeling that they are being sacrificed.     “We’re small, we’re an easy target,” said Gia Moreno, who grew up in Hood and now lives in South Sacramento but routinely visits her hometown to see family. Like so many others in the region, she has grown cynical about the state’s treatment of the town that her ancestors helped settle. Over the years, she said she’s noticed several times a conspicuous omission on some project maps: the community of Hood.  To Moreno, it’s more than a mapping error, it’s a sign:   “They don’t intend for Hood to be here,” she said.  More about the delta ‘Dirty Delta’: California’s largest estuary is in crisis. Is the state discriminating against people who fish there? by Rachel Becker October 8, 2024October 9, 2024 $20 billion: The Delta tunnel’s new price tag by Rachel Becker May 16, 2024May 16, 2024

Cargo ship captain arrested after North Sea collision raises environmental concerns

Authorities arrested the captain of the cargo ship Solong after a fatal North Sea collision led to a jet fuel spill, raising alarms about marine pollution.Robyn Vinter, Josh Halliday, and Karen McVeigh report for The Guardian.In short:The Solong collided with the Stena Immaculate, which was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel for the U.S. Air Force; at least one tank is leaking into the North Sea.Authorities arrested the Solong’s captain on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a crew member went missing.Experts warn that jet fuel is highly toxic to marine life, with potential long-term ecological consequences.Key quote:“The health and environmental effects will be short- and long-term, local and regional.”— Dr. Jennifer Allan, Cardiff UniversityWhy this matters:Jet fuel spills can have severe consequences for marine ecosystems, harming fish, birds, and coastal habitats. Unlike crude oil, jet fuel evaporates quickly but is more acutely toxic, potentially disrupting food chains and contaminating fisheries. The North Sea supports diverse marine life and a significant fishing industry, making this spill particularly concerning. Investigations will determine the full extent of the damage, but containment efforts are already underway.Related: Oil pollution in UK seas underreported by nearly half, warns Oceana

Authorities arrested the captain of the cargo ship Solong after a fatal North Sea collision led to a jet fuel spill, raising alarms about marine pollution.Robyn Vinter, Josh Halliday, and Karen McVeigh report for The Guardian.In short:The Solong collided with the Stena Immaculate, which was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel for the U.S. Air Force; at least one tank is leaking into the North Sea.Authorities arrested the Solong’s captain on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a crew member went missing.Experts warn that jet fuel is highly toxic to marine life, with potential long-term ecological consequences.Key quote:“The health and environmental effects will be short- and long-term, local and regional.”— Dr. Jennifer Allan, Cardiff UniversityWhy this matters:Jet fuel spills can have severe consequences for marine ecosystems, harming fish, birds, and coastal habitats. Unlike crude oil, jet fuel evaporates quickly but is more acutely toxic, potentially disrupting food chains and contaminating fisheries. The North Sea supports diverse marine life and a significant fishing industry, making this spill particularly concerning. Investigations will determine the full extent of the damage, but containment efforts are already underway.Related: Oil pollution in UK seas underreported by nearly half, warns Oceana

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.