GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Store, harvest, fix: How Texas can save its water supply

State lawmakers are poised to devote billions to save the state’s water supply. These are some of the ways the state could spend the money.

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. Bad news: Texas is running out of water. Good news: There are several solutions local and state leaders can take to make sure we don’t. The state’s water supply is threatened by a changing climate, rapid population growth, and outdated infrastructure, which loses billions of gallons of water each year. Texas’ water demand is growing. By 2070, the state is projected to need an additional 7.7 million acre-feet of water per year to meet the needs of residents, farmers, and industries if strategies are not implemented. The answers to our water crisis range from the traditional (think reservoirs) to the innovative (think desalination). Texas lawmakers are expected to pledge billions of dollars to the state’s water supply this spring. However, there is a big debate on which strategies to invest in. Do we invest more into creating new water supplies or repairing old, leaking pipes statewide? Related Story March 13, 2025 The Texas Water Development Board has recommended more than 2,400 water management strategy projects to increase water supply. The cost to implement those strategies is estimated to be $80 billion (in 2018 dollars) by 2070, not including inflation. No single solution can meet all of Texas’ water needs. And it will not be cheap. Water experts say policymakers must invest wisely, ensuring the most cost-effective and sustainable solutions are prioritized. Here’s a look at some of the solutions and their pitfalls. High Sierra Bar and Grill in Terlingua has taken a variety of steps to conserve water usage including reducing the flow of faucets and toilets, using sanitizing wash basins to clean glasses and only providing water to customers upon request. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune Conservation Many water experts say that conservation is the first line of defense. Cyrus Reed, a longtime environmental lobbyist at the Texas Capitol and conservation director for the state’s Sierra Club, called conservation “the most conservative and lowest cost approach” to meet our water needs. Conservation means using less water and using it more efficiently. That could look like reducing household and business water consumption through incentives, leak detection, and water-efficient appliances, improving irrigation techniques to minimize water loss, or encouraging industries to recycle water and reduce overall use. Related Story March 13, 2025 One example is in El Paso. Since the 1990s, the city has had a toilet rebate program that has helped residents conserve water and save money on monthly water bills. The program offers a $50 rebate for customers who purchase water-efficient toilets that use 1.28 gallons per flush, as opposed to older toilets that use as much as six gallons per flush. So far, they’ve given 54,000 rebates to their 220,000 customers, which includes homes, businesses and government agencies. “Conservation is often underutilized due to the need for behavior change and the lack of regulatory enforcement,” said Temple McKinnon, a director of water supply planning at the water board. Each of Texas’ 16 regional water plans includes conservation strategies. City of Odessa Water Distribution employees work through the night as they attempt to repair a broken water main in 2022. Credit: Eli Hartman for The Texas Tribune Fixing old infrastructure One of the obvious solutions — at least to water experts — is to fix the state’s aging water infrastructure. Leaking pipes and deteriorating treatment plants have led to billions of water being lost. In 2023 alone, 88 billion gallons of water were lost in Texas’ most populous cities, according to self-reported water loss audits submitted to the Texas Water Development Board. “The most efficient water source that we have is the water that we already have,” said John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board. Jennifer Walker, director for the Texas Coast and Water program with the National Wildlife Federation, said that fixing the infrastructure creates new water supplies because it’s water that wouldn’t be delivered to Texans otherwise. “Anything that we can do to reduce waste is new water,” Walker said. The Texas section of the American Society of Civil Engineers released their infrastructure report card last month. Texas received a D+ for drinking water, with the report emphasizing the role of aging infrastructure and the need for funding for infrastructure operation and maintenance. One reason why the state’s water systems have fallen behind is costs. Most water systems are run by cities or local agencies, which have tried to keep water rates and other local taxes low. This is particularly true in rural Texas communities that have smaller populations and tax bases. Texas 2036 has estimated the state’s water agencies need nearly $154 billion by 2050 for water infrastructure. Hector Sepúlveda pours a sample of the final concentrate water in the desalination process in the Kay Bailey Desalination Plant in El Paso on March 4. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune Desalination State Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, has proposed a bill that could dedicate millions for new water projects. His emphasis is on what water experts call “new water supplies.” One example is removing salt from seawater or brackish groundwater through a process called desalination, which makes water drinkable. Most communities need to increase their water supply, especially as existing supply may be dwindling or face uncertainty, said Shane Walker, a professor at Texas Tech University who serves as the director of the Water and the Environment Research Center. Desalination is one of the most promising solutions, Walker said. Texas is rich in both seawater along the Gulf Coast, and brackish groundwater, with underground reserves of salty water. He said cities and towns shouldn’t wait to tap into desalination until there are no options. “Start now before you're in a jam,” Walker said. Coastal cities like Corpus Christi are turning to seawater desalination as a drought-proof water source. While desalination plants are expensive to build and operate, the gulf region provides a large supply of water. By 2030, Texas is recommended to produce 179,000 acre-feet of desalinated seawater annually, increasing to 192,000 acre-feet by 2070, according to the latest state water plan. That’s enough water to support about 1.1 million Texans for one year. Texas also has vast reserves of brackish water underground, and cities like El Paso have already pioneered its use. The Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant is the largest inland desalination plant in the world. At max capacity, it can produce 27.5 million gallons of drinking water daily from brackish groundwater in the Hueco Bolson Aquifer. It also produces 3 million gallons of concentrate, which is the leftover water containing all the salt and impurities that was filtered out. A pipeline sends the concentrate more than 20 miles from the plant where it is injected underground. However, desalination comes with challenges: First, the process requires large amounts of energy to push water through membranes that separate salt and impurities, which is expensive. Then there’s the disposal of concentrated brine, a highly salty liquid that’s a byproduct of desalination. It must be carefully managed to avoid harming marine ecosystems or the environment. “It'll always come back to the concentrate disposal,” said Art Ruiz, chief plant manager for El Paso Water and the former manager of the city’s desalination plant. “No matter how small or how big [the plant], you're going to create a byproduct. The Archimedes screw pump moves water and sludge to a higher elevation at a San Antonio Water System wastewater treatment facility in 2024. Credit: Chris Stokes for The Texas Tribune Water reuse Recycling every drop of water is another solution. Water reuse allows treated wastewater to be reclaimed for various purposes, from irrigation to industrial cooling. One way of reusing water is direct potable reuse, which involves treating wastewater to drinking-water standards and either reintroducing it directly into the water supply or blending it with other sources before further treatment. Indirect potable reuse follows a similar process, but first releases treated water into a natural reservoir or aquifer before being re-extracted for use. Lubbock has recently started this practice with Leprino Foods, the world’s largest mozzarella cheese producer. The company opened an 850,000-square-foot facility in January and will produce 1.5 million pounds of cheese a day. In return for the water the company uses, Leprino will return around 2 million gallons of clean water to Lubbock every day. This accounts for about 6.25% of Lubbock’s daily water use. Leprino said they installed substantial capacity for water storage so the company could recover and store more water from the manufacturing process before it is cleaned. “In Lubbock, we’ve designed and constructed the facility with water stewardship in mind from day one,” Leprino said in a statement. El Paso is leading the way with its Pure Water Center Facility, which recently started construction. It will purify already treated wastewater for people to drink and deliver 10 million gallons daily. When it’s operating in 2028, it will be the first direct-to-distribution reuse facility in the country. While the concept, “toilet-to-tap” might seem unappealing at first, water utility experts say the advanced treatment process ensures the water is clean and safe. San Antonio has embraced reuse for non-drinking water, sending treated wastewater from the city's Steven M. Clouse Water Recycling Center back into the city and its rivers. Purple-marked pipes carry recycled water to irrigate golf courses, cool industrial towers, and sustain the downtown River Walk. Some is diverted to an energy plant, while the rest flows to the gulf. In dry times, this steady outflow keeps the San Antonio River running. Filters at El Paso's Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant remove salt from the Hueco Bolson aquifer and purify the water to drinking quality on March 4. Credit: Justin Hamel Aquifer storage and recovery Aquifer storage and recovery is exactly what it sounds like. A water utility can store excess water underground during wet periods, allowing it to be withdrawn during droughts. El Paso has a program that injects treated water into the Hueco Bolson aquifer for future use. San Antonio stores excess Edwards Aquifer water in a certain site within the Carrizo Aquifer during wet periods, then recovers it during droughts. This method reduces evaporation losses compared to above-ground reservoirs and provides a reliable emergency water supply. However, this process requires specific geological conditions to be effective, and not all areas of Texas have suitable aquifers for storage. In some cases, it can also take a long time to move water through all the levels underground to reach the aquifer. One method being explored is creating and using playa lakes to recharge aquifers. Playas are shallow lakes that form in arid, flat regions and catch rainwater runoff. They are dry more often than wet, which is how they function — the water seeps through cracks in the dry soil of the playa’s basin. “Every time a playa dries out and we get a rain event, that’s when recharge happens,” said Heather Johnson with Texas Parks and Wildlife in Lubbock. “You’ll get about three inches of rainwater infiltration into the playa basin annually.” Johnson said for every four acres of playa basin, approximately one acre-foot of water is recharged — about 326,000 gallons of water. That’s enough water to cover a football field with nine inches of water. Ducks Unlimited, a nonprofit national organization that manages wetlands and habitat conservations, is working with Texas Parks and Wildlife in the High Plains to recharge the Ogallala Aquifer. Tavin Dotson, the first regional biologist in the region for Ducks Unlimited, said playa lakes store a seed bank and when playas fill, plants begin to grow. This creates a grassy buffer around the playa — which acts as a natural filter to wash out contaminants before water reaches the playa basin and aquifers. Most of the Ducks Unlimited work in Texas is in the coastal areas. However, Dotson said there is a push to get the practice going even more in the High Plains, where the Ogallala Aquifer is facing declining levels. One of the practices involves filling pits and ditches that disrupt how playas function. Filling the pits allows playas to properly retain and filter water. Johnson said the High Plains contains more than 23,000 playa basins. A Bastrop County home designed with a rain collection system. Credit: Callie Richmond for The Texas Tribune Rainwater harvesting Rain harvesting — capturing and storing rainwater for later use — is another way of conserving. This technique provides a decentralized water source for irrigation and livestock. While rainwater harvesting is an effective conservation tool, it is limited by Texas’ variable rainfall patterns. It rains more in East Texas as opposed to the West. Still, some Texas groundwater districts actively promote rainwater harvesting to reduce reliance on municipal supplies. High Plains Underground Water Conservation District in Lubbock — the first groundwater district created in Texas — monitors water use and levels in the Ogallala, Edwards-Trinity and Dockum/Santa Rosa Aquifers. The organization also encourages ways to conserve water, including rainwater harvesting. In recent years, the water district has helped raise awareness of the practice in the region.The district gave away ten rain barrels and 12 rain chains in 2023. Most recently, the district sponsored several rainwater harvesting projects at the Lubbock Memorial Arboretum. Jason Coleman, general manager for the water district, said there are swales, or shallow areas, that catch rainwater. “They are constructed in the landscape to help mitigate some of the runoff that was occurring at the arboretum,” Coleman said. “They’re nicely constructed. There’s cobblestones and other nice features to make it a nice looking part of the landscape.” The American Dam diverts water in the Rio Grande between the U.S. and Mexico in El Paso on March 6. Credit: Justin Hamel Reservoirs Historically, Texas has relied on reservoirs to store and manage water — a solution that boomed after a devastating drought that lasted seven years in the 1950s. There are more than 180 across the state. However, building new reservoirs has become increasingly difficult due to land constraints, environmental concerns, and the high costs of construction. Despite these challenges, regional water planning groups proposed 23 new major reservoirs in the 2022 state water plan. However, new laws now require realistic development timelines and feasibility studies, meaning that reservoirs may not be seen as the go-to solution they once were. Matt Phillips, the deputy general manager for the Brazos River Authority, told lawmakers during a House committee meeting that the population for the basin will double by 2080. The river authority serves Waco, Georgetown, Round Rock, College Station and other cities. Phillips said they would need an additional 500,000 acre-feet of water to meet those demands. “All the cheap water is gone,” Phillips said. “Every drop of water we develop from here on is going to be exponentially more expensive than anything we’ve seen in the past, so we’re going to need help to get there.” State Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, filed legislation that would promote reservoir projects. Perry’s Senate bill mirrors the proposal for reservoirs. In both, the water development board would be able to use money from the Texas Water Fund to encourage regional and interregional project developments. This includes the construction of reservoirs and stormwater retention basins for water supply, flood protection and groundwater recharge. Disclosure: Ducks Unlimited, Texas 2036 and Texas Tech University have been financial supporters 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.

Water
Business
Conservation

Why the health risks from air pollution could be worse than we thought

A new study found elevated and previously overlooked health risks for communities living near industrial polluters.

Many people who live near heavy industry are routinely exposed to dozens of different pollutants, which can result in a multitude of health problems.Traditionally, environmental regulators have assessed the risks of chemical exposure on an individual basis. But that approach has led to underestimates of the total health risks faced by vulnerable populations, according to a new study.Now researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a new method for measuring the cumulative effects on human health of multiple toxic air pollutants. Their findings were published last week in Environmental Health Perspectives.Regulators typically measure community risk by looking at the primary health effects of individual chemicals, an approach that often fails to address their combined risks, said Keeve Nachman, the study’s senior author.Residents in disadvantaged communities are exposed to a toxic stew of chemicals daily, and they “don’t just breathe one at a time, [they] breathe all the chemicals in the air at once,” said Peter DeCarlo, another of the study’s authors.Follow Climate & environment“Very little has happened to protect these people. And one of the major reasons for that is that current approaches have not done a good job showing they’re in harm’s way,” Nachman said.“When we regulate chemicals, we pretend that we’re only exposed to one chemical at a time,” Nachman continued. “If we have each chemical and we only think about the most sensitive effect, but we ignore the fact that it could potentially cause all these other effects to different parts of the body, we are missing protecting people from the collective mixture of chemicals that act together.”Nachman, DeCarlo and their colleagues set out to more accurately account for the total burden of breathing multiple toxic air pollutants.The study assessed the risks faced by communities in southeastern Pennsylvania living near petrochemical facilities using a mobile laboratory to measure 32 hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, formaldehyde and benzene. The researchers developed real-time profiles of the pollution concentrations in the air and translated them into estimates of what people are actually breathing.Using these estimates and a database of the chemicals’ toxic effects on various organs, the researchers created projections of the long-term cumulative health impacts of the pollution.By looking past the immediate health effects of chemicals and measuring what happens as concentrations increase, negative health outcomes can be detected in other parts of the body, Nachman said.For example, while EPA risk assessments consider only the respiratory effects of formaldehyde, the study found potential health impacts in 10 other organ systems, including neurological, developmental and reproductive harms.The cumulative risk study appears at a fraught moment for environmental regulation. Although the Biden administration in November released a draft framework for monitoring the cumulative impact of chemical exposure, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back dozens of Biden administration environmental rules and is considering shutting down the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.A spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said in an email that the Johns Hopkins research “may provide some useful information” but that “further assessment, replication and validation will be needed” of the methods and substances assessed in the study.“ACC continues to support the development of scientifically robust data, methods and approaches to underpin cumulative risk assessments,” the spokesperson added.The EPA did not provide an immediate comment while it reviewed the study.Jen Duggan, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said communities often face higher health impacts than the EPA estimates due to their exposure to dangerous chemicals from multiple sources.“The authors of this paper powerfully demonstrate how EPA has repeatedly underestimated the true health risks for people living in the shadow of industrial polluters,” Duggan said.

Health
Pollution
Climate

Faith Leaders Push Back After EPA Head Disparages Climate Action as ‘Religion’

When Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin made a defiant reference to “climate change religion” in order to justify a plan to roll back environmental protections, American faith leaders and scholars reacted with confusion, sadness and anger. On March 12, the agency announced 31 actions to reconsider restrictions on air and water pollution and end […]

Jewish and Christian faith leaders responded to Lee Zeldin’s comments with “righteous anger” and called for policies that support a more just, livable world.By James BruggersWhen Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin made a defiant reference to “climate change religion” in order to justify a plan to roll back environmental protections, American faith leaders and scholars reacted with confusion, sadness and anger.

Climate
Pollution
Water

Egg prices hit record highs. Are you ready to try a vegan egg?

Bird flu has apparently done what environmentalists have long dreamed of: made Americans curious about egg alternatives.

Sometimes, Josh Tetrick will quiz strangers in the dairy aisle. He’ll strike up a conversation with a fellow grocery store patron and ask if they’ve heard about “this egg that’s made from plants?” He might point out the golden-yellow boxes shaped like milk cartons sitting on refrigerated shelves, not too far from the egg cartons. Generally, he finds that people don’t know what he’s talking about. “Most people will be like, ‘What?’” The product Tetrick is referring to — which, not coincidentally, he manufactures — is called Just Egg. It’s a liquid vegan egg substitute made from mung beans, a member of the legume family, and it’s designed to scramble just like a real chicken egg when cooked over heat. (The company also sells frozen omelette-style patties that can be heated up in a toaster oven and frozen breakfast burritos.) Along with his best friend Josh Balk, Tetrick cofounded the company Eat Just, formerly known as Hampton Creek, which developed Just Egg over years of testing. On a recent call with Grist, Tetrick described the products — which are meant to look, taste, and cook like real eggs — as “definitely, definitely weird.” But lately, Tetrick says the team at Eat Just has been hearing from restaurant owners and chefs overcoming the weirdness to inquire about becoming new customers — in part because avian influenza has sent egg prices soaring in January and February in the United States. Nationally, the average cost of a dozen large eggs rose to about $5.90 last month, up almost 100 percent from a year before, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In expensive cities like New York and San Francisco, a dozen eggs could cost $10 or more. The pressure has raised prices at some bakeries, brunch spots, and bodegas slinging bacon-egg-and-cheese sandwiches — and has made some buyers and consumers more open to alternatives.  Tetrick has said that Just Egg’s sales are now five times higher than at this time last year, and that a majority of its customers are omnivores. The latest outbreak of avian flu has apparently done what environmentalists and animal rights activists have long dreamed of: made Americans curious about vegan eggs. It’s a development that could indicate how consumers may learn to gradually embrace more environmentally sustainable options. The environmental benefits of not eating meat or dairy have long been documented. A quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the way we grow and produce food; within that, livestock — which includes raising animals for eggs and dairy — is responsible for about a third.  But brands that have tried to capitalize on the climate case for eating plant-based protein have failed to win over customers. Beyond Meat has struggled to reach profitability, while the CEO of Impossible Foods says the industry has done a “lousy job” of appealing to consumers.  Producing eggs has a lower environmental impact than raising beef and other forms of animal protein — but growing feed for laying hens still requires a significant amount of land and resources. Eat Just claims that making its mung bean-based alt-egg uses significantly less land and water than the conventional chicken egg. But Tetrick said its most effective marketing strategy is highlighting the benefits of eating a “healthier protein” for breakfast. For instance, Just Egg contains zero milligrams of cholesterol per serving, while one large chicken egg contains about 180 milligrams.  Josh Tetrick, CEO of the food tech company Eat Just, said sales of its vegan egg substitute are five times higher than last year. Eat Just Over the years, Tetrick’s company, which also houses the cultivated meat subsidiary Good Meat, has received criticism for allegedly exaggerating its environmental claims and sales figures. In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that the company — then called Hampton Creek — removed the climate benefits of its vegan mayonnaise product, Just Mayo, from its website after an external audit found they were inaccurate. Previously, Bloomberg reported that Hampton Creek had instructed contractors to buy back its vegan mayo from stores. Tetrick said that the buybacks were for quality assurance purposes only, but in 2016 both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched inquiries into the company for potentially inflating its sales numbers. The following year, both investigations were dropped.     Those in the plant-based industry say that once vegan alternatives taste as good as real meat and cost the same or less, then sales will go up. Entrepreneurs and advocates have focused on developing the technology, supply chains, and economies of scale needed to lower the price of animal-free protein products. But the current situation with vegan eggs suggests that change can also happen when the animal-based option becomes much more expensive. Prices vary from store to store and region to region, but on the online store for the Manhattan West location of Whole Foods, one 16-ounce carton of Just Egg, the equivalent of about 10 small eggs, costs $7.89. Meanwhile, a dozen eggs, depending on the brand, run from about $7 to up to $13.  Tetrick said that the newly interested potential customers currently talking to Eat Just aren’t motivated by climate change or animal welfare. Their point of view, in his words, is that they’re tired of the unpredictability of egg prices going up and down. That exasperation, he added, “is probably the most effective lens for change.” Earlier this month, Eat Just launched a campaign in New York City advertising its vegan breakfast sandwiches, sold at bodegas, as a “Bird Flu Bailout.” The company’s website cheekily boasts, “We’re in stock.” Founders of vegan egg companies argue that the root cause of price volatility for meat, eggs, and dairy is not any one disease or policy, but the way the United States raises animals. “When you cram animals together in really tight spaces, they’re gonna get sick,” said Tetrick. “It’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not MAGA’s fault. It’s just biology.”  A 2023 report by the United Nations Environmental Programme cited alternative proteins — meaning plant-based foods, as well as cultivated meat and fermentation-derived products — as a way to reduce the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks. Raising animals for human consumption requires a lot of antibiotics, which raises the risk of creating antibiotic-resistant pathogens. It also creates ideal conditions for viruses to spread, evolve, and cross over to new species. Lowering the global demand for animal protein could greatly reduce those risks. Or as Tetrick put it, “You can pack mung beans into tiny little spaces all you want. They’re not getting the flu.” Hema Reddy, who developed the vegan hard-boiled egg brand WunderEggs during the COVID-19 pandemic, offered a similar critique of industrial animal agriculture. “If the chickens are crowded together, then disease will follow,” she said. “The only solution,” she posited, “is to change the way we farm. And that’s a big step. It’s like moving the Titanic.” WunderEggs are made from almonds, cashews, and coconut milk and are currently sold in stores and online. Like Tetrick, Reddy says she has heard from plenty of newly interested restaurants in the last few months. But she is reluctant to draw long-term conclusions from it, arguing that consumer behavior doesn’t change that quickly. Many people, she argued, “probably want to eat eggs, they’re missing eggs,” and “they’re going to wait for things to get better.” Nationally, the average cost of a dozen large eggs rose to about $5.90 in February, up almost 100 percent from a year before. Zeng Hui / Xinhua via Getty Images But for some adoptees of vegan egg substitutes, the upsides of ditching chicken eggs is obvious. Chef Jason Hull, director of food services at Marin Country Day School in the Bay Area, has been using Just Egg for years. “They have nailed the delicious flavor of egg,” said Hull. He swaps out regular eggs for the plant-based version in baked goods like cookies, muffins, and quick breads, as well as in dishes like fried rice. There’s virtually no difference, he said. While he’s a longtime fan of the brand, the uptick in egg prices has validated his decision. “Especially with egg prices right now, I’m not going to use chicken eggs for baking or fried rice or things like that any time soon,” he said. Hull said some of his peers, especially those in other parts of the country, are potentially less open-minded about vegan egg substitutes. But rising costs may have them reconsidering. Other chefs are “warming up to it, absolutely,” he said. “And the high egg prices are kind of forcing that warm-up.” Wholesale egg prices are trending downward as of March, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, so this momentum could be short-lived. But it may only be a matter of time before the next price hike happens. “Because the virus is so ubiquitous in so many different environments … it’s hard to imagine the virus ever completely going away at this point,” said Maurice Pitesky, an associate professor in cooperative extension at University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Reddy insisted that taking advantage of a cost-of-living crisis to promote her product does not sit right with her, and she prefers to let consumers come to their own conclusions about what’s right for them. But if avian influenza continues to upend egg production in the U.S., that might mean the economic case for going dairy-free could become more and more evident with time. Regardless of what happens in the future, Reddy said, “I really think that now is the time for egg alternatives to shine.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Egg prices hit record highs. Are you ready to try a vegan egg? on Mar 31, 2025.

Activism
Agriculture
Animals

Record number of illegal sewage spills in Windermere last year

Campaigners identified 140 illegal spill days into the beauty spot in 2024

Record number of illegal sewage spills in Windermere last yearJonah FisherBBC environment correspondentReutersSewage spilled illegally into Britain's largest lake on a record number of days last year, an analysis of water company data by campaigners suggests.The analysis, which the BBC had exclusive access to, used United Utilities operational data to establish when the company was discharging sewage into Windermere when it should by law have been treating some of it.The campaigners from Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP) and Save Windermere identified 140 illegal spill days in 2024, more than in any of the three previous years. United Utilities told BBC News that the campaigners' findings were "inaccurate" and some of the data "erroneous". The company declined to put in writing, despite repeated requests, any specific examples of mistakes or omissions. Regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency are both currently investigating United Utilities operations. PAWindermere is one of Britain's most loved beauty spotsLast week the Environment Agency said United Utilities had spilled 77,817 times in 2024, the highest figure of all England's water companies. Many of the spills will have been legal. All water companies are legally allowed to discharge raw sewage to stop the network getting overwhelmed and this now happens regularly during periods of heavy rain.But almost all pumping stations and treatment plants operate under an environmental permit which specify that they must process or "pass forward" a certain amount of sewage and rainwater before spilling starts.The campaigners cross-referenced United Utilities datasets showing when an asset was spilling against how much sewage it was treating at the time. The campaigners' analysis – which has been shared with and scrutinised by the BBC - found days when illegal spills appear to have occurred at each of six sewage facilities around the lake, which combined to 140 days in 2024. That's more than in any of the previous three years, as the chart below shows.The longest illegal spill the analysis identified was for 10 days from Hawkshead pumping station, which flows into Windermere via Cunsey Beck."This is an indication that their works have not been maintained properly or they're not being watched over properly," says Prof Peter Hammond, a mathematican and retired academic from campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution. Prof Hammond's analysis of water company data has been cited by regulators and he has been praised in Parliament by water company executives for bringing problems to light they were previously unaware of. The latest analysis covers four years of data from six sites that discharge sewage into the Lake Windermere catchment.Comparisons over a longer time period are impossible as United Utilities has only had made full data sets available since 2021.Prof Hammond's analysis of water company data has been praised in ParliamentThe regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency have since 2021 been investigating whether the water companies have been treating enough sewage before they start to spill. The EA call it a "major criminal investigation" while Ofwat call it "the largest and most complex Ofwat has ever undertaken". Last week Yorkshire Water agreed to a £40m "enforcement action" after Ofwat uncovered "serious failures" in how it operated its treatment plant and network. Ofwat declined to comment on the campaigner's findings as their investigation into United Utilities is ongoing. In response to concerns about United Utilities the Environment Agency last year reviewed all of its environmental permits in the Windermere catchment and says this led directly to the water company tripling its investment plans for the area to £200m."We are currently carrying out investigations into suspected pollution incidents on the Windermere catchment and are unable to comment on these in detail until they have reached a conclusion," an EA spokesperson said when the campaigners' analysis was shared with them."Where we find breaches of environmental permits, we will take the appropriate enforcement action up to and including a criminal prosecution."Save WindermereSewage has been blamed for turning parts of the lake green – so called "algal blooming"United Utilities, which provides services to more than seven million people across north-west England, is more than £9bn in debt. Its chief executive Louise Beardmore confirmed to parliament in February that she was last year paid £1.4m including a bonus of £420,000."The methodology used by the campaigners is different to that used by the Environment Agency for its compliance assessments," the water company said in a statement."On top of that, erroneous data has been used, tags and naming conventions in data sets appear to have been misunderstood, and assumptions seem to have been made on whether different types of flow meters have been installed.""The methodology fails to use other corroborating information from the sites which would prove that spills did not occur. As a result, the numbers quoted are inaccurate."BBC News presented United Utilities with five examples of illegal spills the campaigners' analysis had identified using the company's data and asked for any evidence or explanation as to why they were not illegal. United Utilities repeatedly declined to do so in writing or on camera."What we're seeing is the failure of privatisation. We're seeing a prioritisation of dividend returns over the long-term environmental protection of places like Windermere" says Matt Staniek from Save Windermere."The bill payer has paid for a service that has never fully been provided, and the illegality demonstrates that for all to see."Over the next five years bills in the United Utilities area will go up by 32% above the rate of inflation. On average that will mean a rise of £86 for the year that starts in April. Louise Beardmore said the rises will fund the "largest investment in water and wastewater infrastructure in over 100 years". For Windermere that's set to mean nine wastewater treatment works, including two that were included in the campaigners' analysis being upgraded and a reduction in the number of overflows discharging into the lake.

Pollution
Waste
Water

For plants, urban heat islands don’t mimic global warming

Scientists have found that trees in cities respond to higher temperatures differently than those in forests, potentially masking climate impacts.

It’s tricky to predict precisely what the impacts of climate change will be, given the many variables involved. To predict the impacts of a warmer world on plant life, some researchers look at urban “heat islands,” where, because of the effects of urban structures, temperatures consistently run a few degrees higher than those of the surrounding rural areas. This enables side-by-side comparisons of plant responses.But a new study by researchers at MIT and Harvard University has found that, at least for forests, urban heat islands are a poor proxy for global warming, and this may have led researchers to underestimate the impacts of warming in some cases. The discrepancy, they found, has a lot to do with the limited genetic diversity of urban tree species.The findings appear in the journal PNAS, in a paper by MIT postdoc Meghan Blumstein, professor of civil and environmental engineering David Des Marais, and four others.“The appeal of these urban temperature gradients is, well, it’s already there,” says Des Marais. “We can’t look into the future, so why don’t we look across space, comparing rural and urban areas?” Because such data is easily obtainable, methods comparing the growth of plants in cities with similar plants outside them have been widely used, he says, and have been quite useful. Researchers did recognize some shortcomings to this approach, including significant differences in availability of some nutrients such as nitrogen. Still, “a lot of ecologists recognized that they weren’t perfect, but it was what we had,” he says.Most of the research by Des Marais’ group is lab-based, under conditions tightly controlled for temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide concentration. While there are a handful of experimental sites where conditions are modified out in the field, for example using heaters around one or a few trees, “those are super small-scale,” he says. “When you’re looking at these longer-term trends that are occurring over space that’s quite a bit larger than you could reasonably manipulate, an important question is, how do you control the variables?”Temperature gradients have offered one approach to this problem, but Des Marais and his students have also been focusing on the genetics of the tree species involved, comparing those sampled in cities to the same species sampled in a natural forest nearby. And it turned out there were differences, even between trees that appeared similar.“So, lo and behold, you think you’re only letting one variable change in your model, which is the temperature difference from an urban to a rural setting,” he says, “but in fact, it looks like there was also a genotypic diversity that was not being accounted for.”The genetic differences meant that the plants being studied were not representative of those in the natural environment, and the researchers found that the difference was actually masking the impact of warming. The urban trees, they found, were less affected than their natural counterparts in terms of when the plants’ leaves grew and unfurled, or “leafed out,” in the spring.The project began during the pandemic lockdown, when Blumstein was a graduate student. She had a grant to study red oak genotypes across New England, but was unable to travel because of lockdowns. So, she concentrated on trees that were within reach in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She then collaborated with people doing research at the Harvard Forest, a research forest in rural central Massachusetts. They collected three years of data from both locations, including the temperature profiles, the leafing-out timing, and the genetic profiles of the trees. Though the study was looking at red oaks specifically, the researchers say the findings are likely to apply to trees broadly.At the time, researchers had just sequenced the oak tree genome, and that allowed Blumstein and her colleagues to look for subtle differences among the red oaks in the two locations. The differences they found showed that the urban trees were more resistant to the effects of warmer temperatures than were those in the natural environment.“Initially, we saw these results and we were sort of like, oh, this is a bad thing,” Des Marais says. “Ecologists are getting this heat island effect wrong, which is true.” Fortunately, this can be easily corrected by factoring in genomic data. “It’s not that much more work, because sequencing genomes is so cheap and so straightforward. Now, if someone wants to look at an urban-rural gradient and make these kinds of predictions, well, that’s fine. You just have to add some information about the genomes.”It's not surprising that this genetic variation exists, he says, since growers have learned by trial and error over the decades which varieties of trees tend to thrive in the difficult urban environment, with typically poor soil, poor drainage, and pollution. “As a result, there’s just not much genetic diversity in our trees within cities.”The implications could be significant, Des Marais says. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases its regular reports on the status of the climate, “one of the tools the IPCC has to predict future responses to climate change with respect to temperature are these urban-to-rural gradients.” He hopes that these new findings will be incorporated into their next report, which is just being drafted. “If these results are generally true beyond red oaks, this suggests that the urban heat island approach to studying plant response to temperature is underpredicting how strong that response is.”The research team included Sophie Webster, Robin Hopkins, and David Basler from Harvard University and Jie Yun from MIT. The work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Bullard Fellowship at the Harvard Forest, and MIT.

Climate
Forests
Government

Cadia goldmine operators fined $350,000 for breaches of NSW clean-air laws

Testing had previously revealed the mine was emitting more than 11 times the legal limit of dust containing heavy metalsElection 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaignGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe operators of Cadia goldmine have been ordered to pay $350,000 in fines and convicted of three offences after a prosecution by the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority.Cadia Holdings Limited, trading as Cadia Valley Operations, pleaded guilty to three offences under the environmental protection act relating to breaches of clean air regulations at the mine in central west NSW.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

The operators of Cadia goldmine have been ordered to pay $350,000 in fines and convicted of three offences after a prosecution by the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority.Cadia Holdings Limited, trading as Cadia Valley Operations, pleaded guilty to three offences under the environmental protection act relating to breaches of clean air regulations at the mine in central west NSW.Justice Sarah Pritchard handed down her judgment in the land and environment court on Monday.The mine operator was fined $150,000 for offences in November 2021 and March 2022, and $200,000 for an offence in May 2023, but given a reduction in its penalty because of its guilty plea and other mitigating factors.It must also pay the EPA’s legal costs, and cover the cost of installing a new “dust tracking system” in Mudgee.Pritchard ordered that Newmont Australia, the owner of the mine, also had to publicise the ruling in a print advertisement in three newspapers, and on its Facebook and X accounts.Newmont acquired the previous owner, Newcrest, in November 2023.The EPA began investigating the central-west mine in 2023 after a community-driven water testing program that found elevated levels of heavy metals in the rainwater tanks of some nearby residences.It subsequently found that these levels were caused by dust emissions. The mine operator was exceeding the standard concentration for solid particles being emitted from mine surface exhaust fans at its main vent, known as Ventilation Rise 8 (VR8).In June 2023, the head of the NSW EPA criticised the operators of Australia’s largest goldmine for “completely unacceptable” levels of air pollution after testing revealed it was emitting more than 11 times the legal limit of dust containing heavy metals.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy 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 promotionThe EPA ordered the operators to take immediate action to reduce air pollution after they had provided preliminary air pollution test results to the EPA.That report found that VR8, also known as the “crusher vent” because it extracts contaminated air from where the ore is crushed deep underground, was expelling between 200 and 570 milligrams per cubic metre of dust – more than 11 times the regulatory limit for air pollution.This was despite a new ventilation system that included installing a bag house, which catches 1 tonne of dust an hour.The EPA chief executive officer, Tony Chappel, said at the time that the level of pollution recorded in those test results was “completely unacceptable” and that the mine had fallen well short of its legal obligations to meet clean air standards.“The clean air regulation states that for any point source of pollution, which that vent is, the maximum allowable standard of dust is 50 milligrams per cubic metre,” he said. “That’s the standard we’re talking about when we say they have to immediately comply.”

Pollution
Water

Brisbane 2032 is no longer legally bound to be ‘climate positive’. Will it still leave a green legacy?

Brisbane 2032 was supposed to be the first ‘climate-positive’ Olympic Games. But a quiet change to the host contract puts the commitment in doubt.

When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it came with a widely publicised landmark promise: the world’s first “climate-positive” games. The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest. In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive. Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee. But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time. A quiet retreat from climate positive Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development. This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment. Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations. It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024. The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract. International Olympic Committee Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”. But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”. It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”. Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed: to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023. Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games. But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”. Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement. A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements. Save Victoria Park, CC BY Aiming high, yet falling short Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short. In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures. Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes. Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual. Victoria Park controversy In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games. It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”. But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park. Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance. Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”. Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge. The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h). Save Victoria Park What next? The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy? Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin. Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.

Climate
Business
Forests

The Guardian view on new forests: a vision born in the Midlands is worth imitating | Editorial

If a tree-planting scheme in western England can match the first national forest, people as well as wildlife will benefitThe benefits for bats were presumably not at the top of the government’s list of reasons for announcing the creation of the new western forest. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, regards rules that protect these nocturnal mammals as a nuisance. Nevertheless, the rare Bechstein’s bat, as well as the pine marten and various fungi, are expected to be among species that benefit from the multiyear project, to which central government has so far committed £7.5m. Continue reading...

The benefits for bats were presumably not at the top of the government’s list of reasons for announcing the creation of the new western forest. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, regards rules that protect these nocturnal mammals as a nuisance. Nevertheless, the rare Bechstein’s bat, as well as the pine marten and various fungi, are expected to be among species that benefit from the multiyear project, to which central government has so far committed £7.5m.Like England’s only existing national forest, in the Midlands, this one will be broken up across a wide area, featuring grassland, farmland, towns and villages as well as densely planted, closed-canopy woodland. John Everitt, who heads the National Forest organisation (which is both a charity and a government arm’s length body), describes this type of landscape as “forest in the medieval sense with a mosaic of habitats”.Stretching from Gloucester in the north to Salisbury in the south and Weston-super-Mare in the west, the new project will span three counties and the city of Bristol. The aim is to combine the environmental benefits of tree planting with social and economic gains, such as new opportunities for tourism and leisure. Unlike in the Midlands, where the forest was established in a post-industrial landscape scarred by mining and clay pits, the western forest includes prime agricultural land. This means that while the Midlands is the model, this is in some ways a very different scheme. The hope is that it will demonstrate how forestry and agriculture can be combined – and counteract the view held in some rural communities that tree planting is anti-farming.The UK is underforested relative to the rest of Europe, and also among the most nature-depleted nations in the world. While tree cover in Scotland has substantially increased, in England it is estimated to be just 12.8% by Friends of the Earth, compared with an EU average of 38%. Increasing this figure is a pillar of climate change and biodiversity policies. The government’s target is 16.5% by 2050, to support the transition to net zero and boost wildlife. In the Midlands forest area, tree cover has increased from about 6% to about 26% over 30 years – with bats among the beneficiaries.When that forest was established, it was a regeneration project as much as an environmental one. Initially championed by two Tories well known for their commitment to nature – John Gummer (who went on to chair the UK’s Climate Change Committee) and Michael Heseltine (who owns an arboretum) – the scheme has since attracted cross-party support. The western forest is the first of three that were promised in Labour’s manifesto. In the Midlands there are plans to plant another 8m trees.The gains attributed to the forest there include higher property prices – a mixed blessing in any area, given their impact on lower-income renters and first-time buyers. As yet, reliable estimates of the scheme’s overall impact on carbon emissions (with tree planting offsetting emissions from development) do not exist. But the forest is working towards a net zero target. There is a vibrant outdoor learning programme in local schools. New jobs have been created in tourism, leisure and green industry. Given that local economies and landscapes change anyway, it is far better for public authorities with an interest in nature, as well as profit-seeking businesses, to be involved in overseeing this. The promise of a new forest in the west of England is a hopeful one.

Forests
Government
Business

Lack of fluoride, dentists leaves rural America at risk

Two recent polls have found that the largest share of Americans support fluoridation, but a sizable minority does not. Utah just became the first state to ban it.

In the wooded highlands of northern Arkansas, where small towns have few dentists, water officials who serve more than 20,000 people have for more than a decade openly defied state law by refusing to add fluoride to the drinking water.For its refusal, the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority has received hundreds of state fines amounting to about $130,000, which are stuffed in a cardboard box and left unpaid, said Andy Anderson, who is opposed to fluoridation and has led the water system for nearly two decades. This Ozark region is among hundreds of rural American communities that face a one-two punch to oral health: a dire shortage of dentists and a lack of fluoridated drinking water, which is widely viewed among dentists as one of the most effective tools to prevent tooth decay. But as the anti-fluoride movement builds unprecedented momentum, it may turn out that the Ozarks were not behind the times after all.“We will eventually win,” Anderson said. “We will be vindicated.”Fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, keeps teeth strong when added to drinking water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association. But the anti-fluoride movement has been energized since a government report last summer found a possible link between lower IQ in children and consuming amounts of fluoride that are higher than what is recommended in American drinking water. asaDozens of communities have decided to stop fluoridating in recent months, and state officials in Florida and Texas have urged their water systems to do the same. Last week, Utah became the first state to ban it in tap water.Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long espoused fringe health theories, has called fluoride an “industrial waste” and “dangerous neurotoxin” and said the Trump administration will recommend it be removed from all public drinking water.Separately, Republican efforts to extend tax cuts and shrink federal spending may squeeze Medicaid, which could deepen existing shortages of dentists in rural areas where many residents depend on the federal insurance program for whatever dental care they can find.Dental experts warn that the simultaneous erosion of Medicaid and fluoridation could exacerbate a crisis of rural oral health and reverse decades of progress against tooth decay, particularly for children and those who rarely see a dentist.“If you have folks with little access to professional care and no access to water fluoridation,” said Steven Levy, a dentist and leading fluoride researcher at the University of Iowa, “then they are missing two of the big pillars of how to keep healthy for a lifetime.”Many already are.James Flanagin, the only dentist in the tiny Arkansas town of Leslie, treats patients in the back of an antique store and, with hand-painted lettering, advertises his clinic and himself as a “pretty good dentist.” (Katie Adkins for KFF Health News)Katie AdkinsOverlapping ‘dental deserts’ and fluoride-free zonesNearly 25 million Americans live in areas without enough dentists — more than twice as many as prior estimates by the federal government — according to a recent study from Harvard University that measured U.S. “dental deserts” with more depth and precision than before.Hawazin Elani, a Harvard dentist and epidemiologist who co-authored the study, found that many shortage areas are rural and poor, and depend heavily on Medicaid. But many dentists do not accept Medicaid because payments can be low, Elani said.The ADA has estimated that only a third of dentists treat patients on Medicaid.“I suspect this situation is much worse for Medicaid beneficiaries,” Elani said. “If you have Medicaid and your nearest dentists do not accept it, then you will likely have to go to the third, or fourth, or the fifth.”The Harvard study identified over 780 counties where more than half of the residents live in a shortage area. Of those counties, at least 230 also have mostly or completely unfluoridated public drinking water, according to a KFF analysis of fluoride data published by the CDC. That means people in these areas who can’t find a dentist also do not get protection for their teeth from their tap water.A Flourish data visualizationThe KFF Health News analysis does not cover the entire nation because it does not include private wells and 13 states do not submit fluoride data to the CDC. But among those that do, most counties with a shortage of dentists and unfluoridated water are in the south-central U.S., in a cluster that stretches from Texas to the Florida Panhandle and up into Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.In the center of that cluster is the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority, which serves the Arkansas counties of Boone, Marion, Newton, and Searcy. It has refused to add fluoride ever since Arkansas enacted a statewide mandate in 2011. After weekly fines began in 2016, the water system unsuccessfully challenged the fluoride mandate in state court, then lost again on appeal.Anderson, who has chaired the water system’s board since 2007, said he would like to challenge the fluoride mandate in court again and would argue the case himself if necessary. In a phone interview, Anderson said he believes that fluoride can hamper the brain and body to the point of making people “get fat and lazy.”“So if you go out in the streets these days, walk down the streets, you’ll see lots of fat people wearing their pajamas out in public,” he said.Nearby in the tiny, no-stoplight community of Leslie, Arkansas, which gets water from the Ozark system, the only dentist in town operates out of a one-man clinic tucked in the back of an antique store. Hand-painted lettering on the store window advertises a “pretty good dentist.”James Flanagin, a third-generation dentist who opened this clinic three years ago, said he was drawn to Leslie by the quaint charms and friendly smiles of small-town life. But those same smiles also reveal the unmistakable consequences of refusing to fluoridate, he said.“There is no doubt that there is more dental decay here than there would otherwise be,” he said. “You are going to have more decay if your water is not fluoridated. That’s just a fact.”Flanagin, the only dentist in the tiny Ozark town of Leslie, Arkansas, runs his clinic in the back of an antique store. He says the town suffers from high levels of tooth decay because the local drinking water is not fluoridated.(Katie Adkins for KFF Health News)Fluoride seen as a great public health achievementFluoride was first added to public water in an American city in 1945 and spread to half of the U.S. population by 1980, according to the CDC. Because of “the dramatic decline” in cavities that followed, in 1999 the CDC dubbed fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.Currently more than 70% of the U.S. population on public water systems get fluoridated water, with a recommended concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter, or about three drops in a 55-gallon barrel, according to the CDC.Fluoride is also present in modern toothpaste, mouthwash, dental varnish, and some food and drinks — like raisins, potatoes, oatmeal, coffee, and black tea. But several dental experts said these products do not reliably reach as many low-income families as drinking water, which has an additional benefit over toothpaste of strengthening children’s teeth from within as they grow.Two recent polls have found that the largest share of Americans support fluoridation, but a sizable minority does not. Polls from Axios/Ipsos and AP-NORC found that 48% and 40% of respondents wanted to keep fluoride in public water supplies, while 29% and 26% supported its removal.Chelsea Fosse, an expert on oral health policy at the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, said she worried that misguided fears of fluoride would cause many people to stop using fluoridated toothpaste and varnish just as Medicaid cuts made it harder to see a dentist.The combination, she said, could be “devastating.”“It will be visibly apparent what this does to the prevalence of tooth decay,” Fosse said. “If we get rid of water fluoridation, if we make Medicaid cuts, and if we don’t support providers in locating and serving the highest-need populations, I truly don’t know what we will do.”Multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown what ending water fluoridation could look like. In the past few years, studies of cities in Alaska and Canada have shown that communities that stopped fluoridation saw significant increases in children’s cavities when compared with similar cities that did not. A 2024 study from Israel reported a “two-fold increase” in dental treatments for kids within five years after the country stopped fluoridating in 2014.Despite the benefits of fluoridation, it has been fiercely opposed by some since its inception, said Catherine Hayes, a Harvard dental expert who advises the American Dental Association on fluoride and has studied its use for three decades.Fluoridation was initially smeared as a communist plot against America, Hayes said, and then later fears arose of possible links to cancer, which were refuted through extensive scientific research. In the ‘80s, hysteria fueled fears of fluoride causing AIDS, which was “ludicrous,” Hayes said.More recently, the anti-fluoride movement seized on international research that suggests high levels of fluoride can hinder children’s brain development and has been boosted by high-profile legal and political victories.Last August, a hotly debated report from the National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program found “with moderate confidence” that exposure to levels of fluoride that are higher than what is present in American drinking water is associated with lower IQ in children. The report was based on an analysis of 74 studies conducted in other countries, most of which were considered “low quality” and involved exposure of at least 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water — or more than twice the U.S. recommendation — according to the program.The following month, in a long-simmering lawsuit filed by fluoride opponents, a federal judge in California said the possible link between fluoride and lowered IQ was too risky to ignore, then ordered the federal Environmental Protection Agency to take nonspecified steps to lower that risk. The EPA started to appeal this ruling in the final days of the Biden administration, but the Trump administration could reverse course.The EPA and Department of Justice declined to comment. The White House and Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions about fluoride.Despite the National Toxicology Program’s report, Hayes said, no association has been shown to date between lowered IQ and the amount of fluoride actually present in most Americans’ water. The court ruling may prompt additional research conducted in the U.S., Hayes said, which she hoped would finally put the campaign against fluoride to rest.“It’s one of the great mysteries of my career, what sustains it,” Hayes said. “What concerns me is that there’s some belief amongst some members of the public — and some of our policymakers — that there is some truth to this.”Not all experts were so dismissive of the toxicology program’s report. Bruce Lanphear, a children’s health researcher at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, published an editorial in January that said the findings should prompt health organizations “to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”“The people who are proposing fluoridation need to now prove it’s safe,” Lanphear told NPR in January. “That’s what this study does. It shifts the burden of proof — or it should.”Cities and states rethink fluorideAt least 14 states so far this year have considered or are considering bills that would lift fluoride mandates or prohibit fluoride in drinking water altogether. In February, Utah lawmakers passed the nation’s first ban, which Republican Gov. Spencer Cox told ABC4 Utah he intends to sign. And both Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller have called for their respective states to end fluoridation.“I don’t want Big Brother telling me what to do,” Miller told The Dallas Morning News in February. “Government has forced this on us for too long.”Additionally, dozens of cities and counties have decided to stop fluoridation in the past six months — including at least 16 communities in Florida with a combined population of more than 1.6 million — according to news reports and the Fluoride Action Network, an anti-fluoride group.Stuart Cooper, executive director of that group, said the movement’s unprecedented momentum would be further supercharged if Kennedy and the Trump administration follow through on a recommendation against fluoride.Cooper predicted that most U.S. communities will have stopped fluoridating within years.“I think what you are seeing in Florida, where every community is falling like dominoes, is going to now happen in the United States,” he said. “I think we’re seeing the absolute end of it.”If Cooper’s prediction is right, Hayes said, widespread decay would be visible within years. Kids’ teeth will rot in their mouths, she said, even though “we know how to completely prevent it.”“It’s unnecessary pain and suffering,” Hayes said. “If you go into any children’s hospital across this country, you’ll see a waiting list of kids to get into the operating room to get their teeth fixed because they have severe decay because they haven’t had access to either fluoridated water or other types of fluoride. Unfortunately, that’s just going to get worse.”Methodology: How We CountedThis KFF Health News article identifies communities with an elevated risk of tooth decay by combining data on areas with dentist shortages and unfluoridated drinking water. Our analysis merged Harvard University research on dentist-shortage areas with large datasets on public water systems published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The Harvard research determined that nearly 25 million Americans live in dentist-shortage areas that span much of rural America. The CDC data details the populations served and fluoridation status of more than 38,000 public water systems in 37 states. We classified counties as having elevated risk of tooth decay if they met three criteria:--More than half of the residents live in a dentist-shortage area identified by Harvard.--The number of people receiving unfluoridated water from water systems based in that county amounts to more than half of the county’s population.--The number of people receiving unfluoridated water from water systems based in that county amounts to at least half of the total population of all water systems based in that county, even if those systems reached beyond the county borders, which many do.Our analysis identified approximately 230 counties that meet these criteria, meaning they have both a dire shortage of dentists and largely unfluoridated drinking water.But this total is certainly an undercount. Thirteen states do not report water system data to the CDC, and the agency data does not include private wells, most of which are unfluoridated.KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this article.

Agriculture
Crisis
Food

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.