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.

A Closer Look at America’s Water Crisis

News Feed
Wednesday, May 29, 2024

The sunflowers behind Conjunto Preschool in Española, New Mexico, are still inedible.  The soils that they sprout from are saturated with tetrachloroethene. The water poured by preschoolers, receiving some of their first lessons in gardening around these raised beds, is contaminated with trichloroethylene.  More than two decades ago, byproducts from cleaning supplies flowed from a local dry cleaner and laundromat into Española’s sole groundwater aquifer, the only source of drinking water for the town’s 10,000 residents. The contaminants also trickled into individual wells, a key water source for the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe’s 2,400 members. For eighteen years, the fifty-eight-acre North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund site underwent studies, treatments, and reviews at the direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2019, cleanup and maintenance duties were transferred to the state’s hands. To this day, according to Beata Tsosie, a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo, their water remains affected. “Humans are an indicator species for the health of the environment, especially Indigenous people,” says Tsosie, the organizational director of Breath of My Heart Birthplace, a free midwifery care clinic and birth center in Española. Tsosie is also involved in Indigenous and environmental advocacy work.  “We’ve seen cancers, we’ve seen miscarriages, we’ve seen birth defects—the burden of proof of the harm [is] falling on us as one of the most impacted communities,” she adds. Yet these school garden sunflowers continue to grow. And, if they had not been deemed “unacceptable risks to human health” by EPA guidelines, their seeds, stems, leaves, and petals could have been used in local recipes and healthy meals. Until then, the community continues to hope for a future brimming with cleaner, healthier New Mexico waters—a vision that last May, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5 to 4 favor of Sackett v. EPA, turned all the more hazy.   The Clean Water Act’s scope shrunk significantly as a result of the ruling, which removed federal protections for America’s small streams and wetlands that do not run with water year-round or are disconnected from major waterbodies. No state lost more than New Mexico, where an arid climate and mountainous geography make seasonal flows, isolated basins, and small channels the norm. Overnight, 96 percent of the state’s waterways—which in addition to supplying water for drinking and sanitation support the economies of subsistence fishers, growers, and a $2.4 billion outdoor recreation industry—were left federally unguarded, vulnerable to pollution and unregulated usage.  Making matters worse, says Rachel Conn, the deputy director of Amigos Bravos, a freshwater-focused environmental nonprofit in Taos, New Mexico, is a well-intentioned yet unprepared state government. The New Mexico Water Quality Act (NMWQA), a strong piece of state-level legislation, is the last safeguard standing for a majority of the state’s waters. Yet currently, it’s more bark than bite with virtually no infrastructure to support and enforce it. “We don’t have a state program, we don’t have the regulations set, we don’t have the staff hired, we don’t have the systems in place to implement its protections,” Conn says. “So we’re left really vulnerable to unregulated discharges of pollution into our waterways.” New Mexico is one of only two states without a surface water permitting program, and one of three states that lacks the authority to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPES) permits under the Clean Water Act. Officials estimate between $43 million and $54 million would be needed annually to support such a program. A significant victory was achieved this past January, when the state legislature approved the Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund with bipartisan support. The fund’s $300 million appropriation is the state’s first-ever consistent and long-term funding source for water and stream conservation.  But how and if the funds are allocated and used across New Mexico’s departments and communities remains to be seen. For the sake of its waters, the state has only a short window to get its act together. In roughly five years’ time, the current EPA-issued permits that regulate discharge and pollution—in mining, construction, or other development-oriented enterprises—will expire.  “That’s kind of the point we expect to see a lot of permits drop off,” Conn says. “It’s hard to monitor projects that go forward without a paper trail.” In April, New Mexico’s water worries featured prominently in the American Rivers Association’s annual “Most Endangered Rivers of 2024” report. It was a unique yet necessary decision to give the top spot to the entirety of the state’s riparian ecosystem, says Matt Rice, the association’s southwest regional director.  While a majority of New Mexico’s freshwater flows in its four largest rivers—the Rio Grande, the Gila, the San Juan, and the Pecos—there is virtually no part of the state’s vast watershed that is unconnected. High-elevation wetlands filter snowmelt into cool headwaters that flow into tributaries and channels, eventually proceeding to rivers’ main stems. But these alpine ecosystems, which act as water-purifying sponges, are no longer protected due to the Supreme Court’s decision. What begins in the mountains cascades down to surface water, crop fields, sinks, and showers. “If there’s pollution going into one part of the watershed, it’s going to end up in the main stem, where there are structures that divert surface water for drinking,” Conn says. “If the water is dirtier, it is going to be more expensive to treat, and [that] will be a huge financial burden on New Mexico communities.” In May, New Mexico’s government released a new Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan, outlining its intentions to strengthen water infrastructure, supply systems, and treatment facilities. The report also included dismal weather forecasts that these goals would need to overcome: statewide average temperature increases of between 3 degrees Fahrenheit and 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and from 5 to 10 percent less precipitation in all but a few counties by 2050. “We no longer use the word ‘drought,’ because it suggests that there’s an end,” Rice says. “This is a different world, this is the aridification of the West. The climate crisis is a water crisis.” “Temperature is considered a pollutant,” Conn adds. New Mexico’s current hydrology and its leadership’s actions have the potential to be a blueprint for states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado. “If we can demonstrate to the Western United States that a diverse group of people, organizations, and interests can get together and protect rivers of natural, cultural, and community value, we can do anything,” Rice says.  And it isn’t just the West watching. Drier summers and milder winters across the country are already demoting full-time flows to weaker or part-time trickles. In February, a study of North American rivers published in Science found that 40 percent of the continent’s northern rivers, and 18 percent of its central rivers, are experiencing a “significant decrease in river flow seasonality.”  New Mexico is the last U.S. state with a citizen’s legislature, meaning that its lawmakers receive no salary and tend to step down at the end of their respective terms. This June, both the Senate (20 seats) and House (28 seats) chambers are up for election, setting up a major shake-up at a time when bipartisan partnership and prioritizing of water is needed more than ever.  “When everyone was talking about Flint, Michigan, it’s like, ‘We have that here, too,’ ” says Demis Foster, the executive director of Conservation Voters New Mexico, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to informing voters and holding leaders accountable on matters of the environment. “This is a very heartfelt issue here, and we have a lot of young people running for office who have watched their community suffer. It gives me hope that we have real community people running.” Across party lines and in both rural and urban counties, water is a top concern for New Mexico’s voters. According to a 2024 Colorado College State of the Rockies poll, 88 percent of the state’s respondents said that poor water quality due to old infrastructure or pollutants was a serious problem, and 96 percent said low river flows were an extremely serious problem. In the poll’s 2023 edition, 83 percent of New Mexicans said they “support requiring local governments to determine whether there is enough water available before approving new residential development projects.” The next state legislature session, which lasts 60 days in odd-numbered years, opens in January 2025. For the sake of the state’s waters, Foster says, not a minute can afford to be wasted.  “We have to be ready with some kind of state rulemaking and policy that we can get put in place immediately,” she says. “So we have a water coalition in New Mexico now that is working really intensely on how we can put the policy together. These new candidates are going to be key to getting that done for us.” The effects of both climate and policy changes are felt first and most intimately at the local level.  In Northern New Mexico, these impacts are expected to endanger the health of acequias—surface-water community ditches that collect and divert freshwater from headwaters and streams, and have been prevalent in rural communities since Spanish colonizers and settlers introduced the practice in the 1600s. In the years since, these have become crucial social and environmental pillars within New Mexican culture and economies, providing small ranchers and growers with the water they need to water fields, grow crops, and raise livestock.  “Acequias are fundamental cornerstones of New Mexico’s history and culture, they’re important and beautiful components of life and water rights across generations,” Conn says. Those dependent on these shared ditches, which have offered families and low-income residents cost-effective access to water for generations, will now face the real possibility of their contamination.  Though acequias aren’t the only water-distribution solution, they also are not ubiquitously appreciated. Indigenous growers know there used to be a greater balance between the use of irrigation ditches and dryland farming techniques that are less water-intensive, such as rainwater catchment, earthwork building, contour farming, and food forest ecologies. In the past, these growing practices withstood times of pre-colonization drought. But Tsosie has observed an increased number of irrigation systems in her Santa Clara Pueblo, a legacy of Spanish influence. Here, the history of New Mexico’s hydrology has been reflected by the hardiness of her community’s seeds. “There’s a possibility that some of our seeds may have gotten spoiled by having an abundance of water,” she says. “But we still have a lot of dryland seeds that grow only with rainwater.”  The resurgence of these older growing methods may prove vital for small-time farmers, both Indigenous and non, whose only water supplies are now doubly endangered by pollution and drought. The possibility of relying on city water systems and state-led testing programs is both uncertain and potentially expensive, sparking questions that New Mexico’s government will need to answer soon. “The cost to farmers, if contamination in our water and sewage systems is found, is going to be huge,” Tsosie says. “How are we going to adapt and switch over to different technologies? Is crop sampling [for toxic chemicals] going to be available? Are we going to have to pay for that?”

New Mexico’s unprotected waters demonstrate how pollution, drought, and the climate crisis converge to harm communities.

The sunflowers behind Conjunto Preschool in Española, New Mexico, are still inedible. 

The soils that they sprout from are saturated with tetrachloroethene. The water poured by preschoolers, receiving some of their first lessons in gardening around these raised beds, is contaminated with trichloroethylene

More than two decades ago, byproducts from cleaning supplies flowed from a local dry cleaner and laundromat into Española’s sole groundwater aquifer, the only source of drinking water for the town’s 10,000 residents. The contaminants also trickled into individual wells, a key water source for the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe’s 2,400 members.

For eighteen years, the fifty-eight-acre North Railroad Avenue Plume Superfund site underwent studies, treatments, and reviews at the direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2019, cleanup and maintenance duties were transferred to the state’s hands. To this day, according to Beata Tsosie, a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo, their water remains affected.

“Humans are an indicator species for the health of the environment, especially Indigenous people,” says Tsosie, the organizational director of Breath of My Heart Birthplace, a free midwifery care clinic and birth center in Española. Tsosie is also involved in Indigenous and environmental advocacy work. 

“We’ve seen cancers, we’ve seen miscarriages, we’ve seen birth defects—the burden of proof of the harm [is] falling on us as one of the most impacted communities,” she adds.

Yet these school garden sunflowers continue to grow. And, if they had not been deemed “unacceptable risks to human health” by EPA guidelines, their seeds, stems, leaves, and petals could have been used in local recipes and healthy meals. Until then, the community continues to hope for a future brimming with cleaner, healthier New Mexico waters—a vision that last May, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5 to 4 favor of Sackett v. EPA, turned all the more hazy.  


The Clean Water Act’s scope shrunk significantly as a result of the ruling, which removed federal protections for America’s small streams and wetlands that do not run with water year-round or are disconnected from major waterbodies.

No state lost more than New Mexico, where an arid climate and mountainous geography make seasonal flows, isolated basins, and small channels the norm. Overnight, 96 percent of the state’s waterways—which in addition to supplying water for drinking and sanitation support the economies of subsistence fishers, growers, and a $2.4 billion outdoor recreation industry—were left federally unguarded, vulnerable to pollution and unregulated usage. 

Making matters worse, says Rachel Conn, the deputy director of Amigos Bravos, a freshwater-focused environmental nonprofit in Taos, New Mexico, is a well-intentioned yet unprepared state government. The New Mexico Water Quality Act (NMWQA), a strong piece of state-level legislation, is the last safeguard standing for a majority of the state’s waters. Yet currently, it’s more bark than bite with virtually no infrastructure to support and enforce it.

“We don’t have a state program, we don’t have the regulations set, we don’t have the staff hired, we don’t have the systems in place to implement its protections,” Conn says. “So we’re left really vulnerable to unregulated discharges of pollution into our waterways.”

New Mexico is one of only two states without a surface water permitting program, and one of three states that lacks the authority to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPES) permits under the Clean Water Act. Officials estimate between $43 million and $54 million would be needed annually to support such a program. A significant victory was achieved this past January, when the state legislature approved the Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund with bipartisan support. The fund’s $300 million appropriation is the state’s first-ever consistent and long-term funding source for water and stream conservation. 

But how and if the funds are allocated and used across New Mexico’s departments and communities remains to be seen. For the sake of its waters, the state has only a short window to get its act together. In roughly five years’ time, the current EPA-issued permits that regulate discharge and pollution—in mining, construction, or other development-oriented enterprises—will expire. 

“That’s kind of the point we expect to see a lot of permits drop off,” Conn says. “It’s hard to monitor projects that go forward without a paper trail.”


In April, New Mexico’s water worries featured prominently in the American Rivers Association’s annual “Most Endangered Rivers of 2024” report. It was a unique yet necessary decision to give the top spot to the entirety of the state’s riparian ecosystem, says Matt Rice, the association’s southwest regional director. 

While a majority of New Mexico’s freshwater flows in its four largest rivers—the Rio Grande, the Gila, the San Juan, and the Pecos—there is virtually no part of the state’s vast watershed that is unconnected. High-elevation wetlands filter snowmelt into cool headwaters that flow into tributaries and channels, eventually proceeding to rivers’ main stems. But these alpine ecosystems, which act as water-purifying sponges, are no longer protected due to the Supreme Court’s decision. What begins in the mountains cascades down to surface water, crop fields, sinks, and showers.

“If there’s pollution going into one part of the watershed, it’s going to end up in the main stem, where there are structures that divert surface water for drinking,” Conn says. “If the water is dirtier, it is going to be more expensive to treat, and [that] will be a huge financial burden on New Mexico communities.”

In May, New Mexico’s government released a new Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan, outlining its intentions to strengthen water infrastructure, supply systems, and treatment facilities. The report also included dismal weather forecasts that these goals would need to overcome: statewide average temperature increases of between 3 degrees Fahrenheit and 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and from 5 to 10 percent less precipitation in all but a few counties by 2050.

“We no longer use the word ‘drought,’ because it suggests that there’s an end,” Rice says. “This is a different world, this is the aridification of the West. The climate crisis is a water crisis.”

“Temperature is considered a pollutant,” Conn adds.

New Mexico’s current hydrology and its leadership’s actions have the potential to be a blueprint for states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado. “If we can demonstrate to the Western United States that a diverse group of people, organizations, and interests can get together and protect rivers of natural, cultural, and community value, we can do anything,” Rice says. 

And it isn’t just the West watching. Drier summers and milder winters across the country are already demoting full-time flows to weaker or part-time trickles. In February, a study of North American rivers published in Science found that 40 percent of the continent’s northern rivers, and 18 percent of its central rivers, are experiencing a “significant decrease in river flow seasonality.” 


New Mexico is the last U.S. state with a citizen’s legislature, meaning that its lawmakers receive no salary and tend to step down at the end of their respective terms. This June, both the Senate (20 seats) and House (28 seats) chambers are up for election, setting up a major shake-up at a time when bipartisan partnership and prioritizing of water is needed more than ever. 

“When everyone was talking about Flint, Michigan, it’s like, ‘We have that here, too,’ ” says Demis Foster, the executive director of Conservation Voters New Mexico, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to informing voters and holding leaders accountable on matters of the environment. “This is a very heartfelt issue here, and we have a lot of young people running for office who have watched their community suffer. It gives me hope that we have real community people running.”

Across party lines and in both rural and urban counties, water is a top concern for New Mexico’s voters. According to a 2024 Colorado College State of the Rockies poll, 88 percent of the state’s respondents said that poor water quality due to old infrastructure or pollutants was a serious problem, and 96 percent said low river flows were an extremely serious problem. In the poll’s 2023 edition, 83 percent of New Mexicans said they “support requiring local governments to determine whether there is enough water available before approving new residential development projects.”

The next state legislature session, which lasts 60 days in odd-numbered years, opens in January 2025. For the sake of the state’s waters, Foster says, not a minute can afford to be wasted. 

“We have to be ready with some kind of state rulemaking and policy that we can get put in place immediately,” she says. “So we have a water coalition in New Mexico now that is working really intensely on how we can put the policy together. These new candidates are going to be key to getting that done for us.”


The effects of both climate and policy changes are felt first and most intimately at the local level. 

In Northern New Mexico, these impacts are expected to endanger the health of acequias—surface-water community ditches that collect and divert freshwater from headwaters and streams, and have been prevalent in rural communities since Spanish colonizers and settlers introduced the practice in the 1600s. In the years since, these have become crucial social and environmental pillars within New Mexican culture and economies, providing small ranchers and growers with the water they need to water fields, grow crops, and raise livestock. 

Acequias are fundamental cornerstones of New Mexico’s history and culture, they’re important and beautiful components of life and water rights across generations,” Conn says.

Those dependent on these shared ditches, which have offered families and low-income residents cost-effective access to water for generations, will now face the real possibility of their contamination. 

Though acequias aren’t the only water-distribution solution, they also are not ubiquitously appreciated. Indigenous growers know there used to be a greater balance between the use of irrigation ditches and dryland farming techniques that are less water-intensive, such as rainwater catchment, earthwork building, contour farming, and food forest ecologies. In the past, these growing practices withstood times of pre-colonization drought.

But Tsosie has observed an increased number of irrigation systems in her Santa Clara Pueblo, a legacy of Spanish influence. Here, the history of New Mexico’s hydrology has been reflected by the hardiness of her community’s seeds.

“There’s a possibility that some of our seeds may have gotten spoiled by having an abundance of water,” she says. “But we still have a lot of dryland seeds that grow only with rainwater.” 

The resurgence of these older growing methods may prove vital for small-time farmers, both Indigenous and non, whose only water supplies are now doubly endangered by pollution and drought. The possibility of relying on city water systems and state-led testing programs is both uncertain and potentially expensive, sparking questions that New Mexico’s government will need to answer soon.

“The cost to farmers, if contamination in our water and sewage systems is found, is going to be huge,” Tsosie says. “How are we going to adapt and switch over to different technologies? Is crop sampling [for toxic chemicals] going to be available? Are we going to have to pay for that?”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Labyrinthine Rules That Created a Housing Crisis

The rules that govern land are the foundation of our lives.

This article has been adapted from the introduction of On the Housing Crisis: Land, Development, Democracy. Consider how a home is built in America. Long before the foundation is poured, the first step is to check the rule books. For the uninitiated, the laws that govern the land appear hopelessly technical and boring, prescribing dozens upon dozens of requirements for what can be built and where. Zoning ordinances and other land-use regulations or zoning ordinances reach far beyond the surface-level goal of preserving health and safety. Instead, they reveal a legal regime stealthily enforcing an archaic set of aesthetic and moral preferences. Preferences that flourished out of a desire to separate Americans by race have evolved into a labyrinthine, exclusionary, and localized system that is at the core of the housing crisis—and very few people know about it.In America, we’ve delegated the power over how our land is used to the local level, and seeded the process with various veto points. We’ve done this under the misguided assumption that decentralization will make the process more democratic. In reality, this system has resulted in stasis and sclerosis, empowering small numbers of unrepresentative people and organizations to determine what our towns and cities look like and preventing our democratically elected representatives from planning for the future.[From the July/August 2023 issue: Colorado’s ingenious idea for solving the housing crisis]Say you own a single-family home. You and your partner bought it during the pandemic purchasing frenzy, and now you find yourself blessed with a child. You decide that you’d love to have your father move in with you to help with child care when you return to work. Although you love your dad, making sure he has his own living space is probably best for everyone involved.So you decide to build a little backyard cottage, sometimes called a “granny flat,” a “mother-in-law suite,” or, more formally, an “accessory dwelling unit.” But then you discover that your property is not zoned for a secondary home, no matter how small. You’re annoyed—It’s not like I’m trying to build an apartment building, and this is my land right? You go to city hall and ask the planner to help you fill out an application for a variance. You’re pretty handy, so you’ve worked out the specifications for the home you’re building (again, on your property) and you submit your application to the city.Next you attend a city-council meeting, where you’re No. 3 on the agenda. You wait your turn for hours, thinking, Who could possibly have time for this? while listening to people who claim to be your neighbors—you don’t recognize them—complain about bike lanes. Finally, you’re up, and you get a question about parking availability. You tell the council that your father is going to share your car, and that you already have a two-car driveway and a garage. You’re then peppered with questions about whether the structure will cast shadows on your neighbors’ property, whether you intend to rent out the unit someday, whether you’ve looked into potential environmental damage to your lawn, whether you promise to respect the historic integrity of the neighborhood. Someone makes a comment about “out-of-towners” with their big money coming and driving up the prices. But then the meeting is over, and you hope that’s the last of it.It isn’t. In the following months, you’re asked to make a bunch of changes to your plan and resubmit it. Unfortunately, someone on your block has made it his business to draw out this process as long as possible. He is frustrated by all the new homes going up as the suburb grows. Apparently he thinks they’re ugly. You end up negotiating directly with him and realize that, if you reconfigured the cottage and got all the legal approvals necessary to satisfy his concerns, you’d have to shell out an extra $20,000 that you don’t have. Often, you consider giving up.But let’s say the local authorities get around to granting permission. That’s not necessarily the end of the road. A determined opponent could sue, claiming that your little cottage will degrade the environment or that you ignored some minor permitting technicality, or he could fight to get your neighborhood added to a historic registry, and on and on. Proving that you’ve actually harmed the environment or degraded the neighborhood character is secondary; the claim alone is enough to keep your plans—and your life—in limbo.Not every story about housing development is quite this miserable, but many are. The most unlikely part of this saga is that our protagonist even tries to get an exception from the existing, restrictive rules. Most people wouldn’t bother with a variance; they would just give up. Developers don’t like to bother with variances, either; they want to avoid the serpentine process our unlucky hero found herself trapped in.[Jerusalem Demsas: Meet the latest housing-crisis scapegoat]For our fictional new parent, the costs are weighty: A grandfather is deprived of the chance to live with his family, a grandchild is deprived of that relationship, two parents are forced to shell out thousands of dollars for day care, and the people who wanted to buy the grandfather’s home now have to look elsewhere. The knock-on effects are endless. The parents will have less money to save for their child’s future, and they will drive up the demand—and thus prices—for day-care services; they may even have to subsidize the grandfather’s elder care. These individual setbacks can seem minor, but multiplied across tens of thousands of communities, they add up to a national tragedy.The American population is growing, and aging, and in many cases looking for smaller houses. But the types of homes Americans need simply don’t exist. All across the country, local governments ban smaller houses (have you tried looking for a starter home recently?), apartment buildings, and even duplexes—the sorts of places a grandparent, or a young person, or a working family might want to live. The shortage has been estimated at 4 million homes, and that scarcity is fueling our affordability crisis. In the end, whatever does get built reflects the cost of delays, the cost of complying with expensive requirements, the priced-in threat of lawsuits, and, most important, scarcity.Americans are aware by now that the housing affordability crisis is acute, but many don’t understand what’s causing it. All too often, explanations center on identifying a villain: greedy developers, or private-equity companies, or racist neighbors, or gentrifiers, or corrupt politicians. These stories are not always false, nor are these villains imaginary, but they don’t speak to root causes.I’ve told these stories myself, often identifying NIMBYs as the villains. This term, an acronym for “not in my backyard,” is used to refer specifically to those who support something in the abstract but oppose it in their neighborhood. But NIMBY has experienced the sort of definitional inflation that happens to all successful epithets and now refers to anyone who opposes development for the wrong reasons.An intense focus on the moral failings of various people and organizations can be a distraction. Exposing terrible landlords is important, but perhaps even more important is addressing why they have so much power. Pointing out that a billionaire is trying to thwart the construction of townhouses in his affluent neighborhood is useful, but even more useful is understanding why he might succeed.I believe that opposing housing, renewable-energy development, or even bike lanes for bad reasons is wrong (and my disdain for people who do so is evident in many of these articles). But NIMBYs are a sideshow. A democracy will always have people with different values. The problem is that the game is rigged in their favor. NIMBYs haven’t won because they’ve made better arguments or because they’ve mobilized a mass democratic coalition—I would very much doubt that even 10 percent of Americans have ever seriously engaged in the politics of local development. NIMBYs win because land politics is insulated from democratic accountability. As a result, widespread dissatisfaction with the housing crisis struggles to translate into meaningful change.[Jerusalem Demsas: Housing breaks people’s brains]When democracies fail to translate voter desires into reality, we should try to identify what’s causing the disconnect. In this case, the trouble is that our collective frustration about our economic outcomes is directed at elected officials who have little or nothing to do with how our land is used. We should change that.The politics of land should play out in the domain of democratic participation instead of leaving it to the zoning boards, historic-preservation committees, and courtrooms. Instead of relying on discretionary processes subject to review by countless actors, governmental bodies, and laws, states should strip away veto points and unnecessary local interference.In general, debates about how our land is used should happen where more people are paying attention: at the state level, where governors, watchdog institutions, and the press are able to weigh in and create the conditions for the exercise of public reason. Not at the hyperlocal level, where nobody’s watching and nobody’s accountable.Right now we have theoretical democracy: democracy by and for those with the lawyers, time, access, and incentive to engage in the thorny politics of land. But despite the pretty name of “participatory democracy,” it is anything but. “Democracy is the exercise of public reason,” the political philosopher John Rawls wrote. Relatedly, the economist and philosopher Amartya Sen argued that “democracy has to be judged not just by the institutions that formally exist but by the extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people can actually be heard.”All 340 million of us could, I suppose, become obsessed with land-use regulations and show up at dozens of meetings a year to make our voices heard. We could worm our way into sparsely attended communities and spend hours going back and forth with the unrepresentative actors who have the time, the money, and a curious combination of personality traits, and who have already hijacked this process. But we won’t. And a true democracy does not simply offer the theoretical possibility of involvement in decision making: It offers institutions that can hear us where we are. The rules that govern land are the foundation of our lives. Americans should take a closer look into how they are determined.This article has been adapted from the introduction of On the Housing Crisis: Land, Development, Democracy.

Costa Rica Faces Alarming Rise in Childhood Obesity Rates

Recent statistics have unveiled a growing health crisis in Costa Rica, with an alarming 31.5% of children and adolescents aged 5-19 being overweight and 12.3% classified as obese. This troubling trend has sparked significant concern among health professionals across the country, prompting calls for immediate action. Dr. Nydia Amador, a public health specialist and founder […] The post Costa Rica Faces Alarming Rise in Childhood Obesity Rates appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Recent statistics have unveiled a growing health crisis in Costa Rica, with an alarming 31.5% of children and adolescents aged 5-19 being overweight and 12.3% classified as obese. This troubling trend has sparked significant concern among health professionals across the country, prompting calls for immediate action. Dr. Nydia Amador, a public health specialist and founder of the Healthy Costa Rica Association, emphasizes the gravity of the situation. “We are witnessing our children on a path to chronic illness, and we must act swiftly to prevent this dire outcome,” she warns. Dr. Amador’s concerns are echoed by nutritionists and other health experts who see the long-term implications of this epidemic. The National Children’s Hospital has reported treating 50 minors aged 10-15 for type 2 diabetes this year alone, a condition typically associated with poor diet and lack of physical activity. These cases serve as a stark reminder of the severity of the situation and the immediate health impacts on Costa Rica’s youth. Dr. Amador points to aggressive marketing of ultra-processed foods on social media as a key contributing factor to this crisis. “We’re living in obesogenic environments. Our children are constantly bombarded with advertisements promoting foods high in sugar, saturated fats, calories, and sodium,” she explains. This digital onslaught makes it increasingly challenging for children to make healthy food choices. The problem extends beyond just weight issues. According to the 2018 Cardiovascular Risk Factors Survey conducted by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS), among children aged 9-11, 29% had elevated triglycerides, and 15% had high cholesterol levels. These statistics paint a worrying picture of the overall health of Costa Rica’s young population. Despite the World Health Organization’s urgent call for policies to reduce unhealthy food consumption among youth, Costa Rica has been slow to respond. Dr. Amador suggests implementing measures such as front-of-package labeling and taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to combat this growing health crisis. “These policy interventions have proven effective in other countries and could significantly impact our children’s health,” she argues. The crisis is further exacerbated by modern lifestyles. “Children today live on social networks,” Dr. Amador notes, “which is far from being a healthy space for them. Instead, it’s a place where they are permanently and aggressively exposed to marketing strategies designed by the food industry.” Nutritionists are particularly concerned about the shift in dietary patterns. There has been a notable increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods, coupled with a decrease in the intake of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. This nutritional transition is contributing significantly to the obesity epidemic and associated health problems. As Costa Rica grapples with this issue, health experts stress the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to promote healthier lifestyles among the country’s youth. These strategies must address not only diet and physical activity but also the broader environmental and social factors contributing to the problem. The government, schools, parents, and the food industry all have crucial roles to play in reversing this trend. Experts call for a multi-faceted approach, including education programs, improved school meal standards, increased opportunities for physical activity, and stricter regulations on food marketing to children. As the country faces this health challenge, the message from health professionals is clear: immediate and decisive action is needed to safeguard the health and future of Costa Rica’s younger generation. The post Costa Rica Faces Alarming Rise in Childhood Obesity Rates appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

EPA faults Mississippi state communications on water risks ahead of Jackson crisis

Mississippi’s state health department did not adequately enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act in Jackson, contributing to the 2022 crisis that left 150,000 residents without drinking water, according to a report released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General. The OIG found that annual inspections by the Mississippi State Department of...

Mississippi’s state health department did not adequately enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act in Jackson, contributing to the 2022 crisis that left 150,000 residents without drinking water, according to a report released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General. The OIG found that annual inspections by the Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) between 2015 and 2021 did not properly document inadequacies in Jackson’s water system or properly notify the city of those issues. “As a result, the EPA did not have a comprehensive understanding of the extent of the management and operational issues at Jackson’s system,” the report states. “The MSDH oversight failures obscured Jackson’s long-standing challenges, allowed issues to compound over time, and contributed to the system’s eventual failure.” The report also found that the state failed to report two Safe Drinking Water Act violations in 2016 and 2017 in a timely manner and took no formal enforcement actions for more than four years beginning in September 2018. As a result, the city had no violations listed from 2012 to 2017 and could not be flagged as an enforcement priority for the EPA. The report also found that on one occasion, in July 2015, samples collected by the state showed lead levels past the threshold at which action must be taken, but the state did not notify Jackson of the elevated levels until the following January. The OIG report recommends that the agency develop a method to ensure sanitary surveys are adequate, and for the agency’s assistant administrator for water to update EPA guidance. It further recommends developing guidance specific to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has agreed with all of the recommendations. The August 2022 crisis began after flooding of the Pearl River knocked the city’s biggest water treatment plant out of commission, leaving some residents without clean water for months. The capitol city was once majority-white but after federal desegregation in the 1960s, large portions of its white population left for the suburbs, depleting its tax base. Since then, it has frequently been the site of political standoffs between its predominantly Black and Democratic leadership and the state’s white, Republican leaders. Following the 2022 crisis the EPA referred the city to the Justice Department, leading to the appointment of a third-party manager. The Hill has reached out to the MSDH for comment.

California’s Fire-Insurance Crisis Just Got Real

The Park Fire has sent homeowners falling through the state’s shredded safety net.

Susie Lawing moved to Cohasset, a small community located in the forested canyons above the city of Chico, California, in the 1970s. After she and her husband divorced, Lawing stayed, presiding over 26 acres of lush family compound. Loved ones built homes of their own on the property, and they began hosting weddings and retreats. Lawing started to grow her own food.All of that is now gone, she told me. Two weeks ago, the Park Fire ripped through the property. Lawing, now 81, lost everything. She did not have insurance. Lawing lives modestly on Social Security benefits, supplemented by renting out her home and selling essential oils, and simply could not afford the $12,000 a year—$1,000 a month—home-insurance policy she was quoted for a state-backed policy, the last resort for many homeowners. Paying that would have doubled her monthly expenses. “There was no way I could afford that,” she told me. “What do you do? You just let it go.”Now the family faces the prospect of rebuilding without a safety net. Lawing’s daughter has set up a GoFundMe page for her. (Her grandson Myles Lawing also has a GoFundMe set up for his dad, who had an uninsured home on the property.) Others on the crowdfunding site are raising money for families who’d lost their homes to fire once before, when just six years ago, the deadly Camp Fire raged through the town of Paradise, just 30 minutes down the road. Some Paradise families, such as the Bakers, chose to resettle in Cohasset, only to have their new home burn.This is the reality of California’s new age of fire. Wildfires have gotten more ferocious in recent years, thanks in part to warming temperatures: Park is the fourth largest in the state’s recorded history. As homes in high-risk areas become harder to insure, premiums are rising, and some insurers are leaving the state altogether. The safety net that people once depended on has developed holes, and now people are falling through.“People need insurance. It’s essential for their recovery,” Carolyn Kousky, the associate vice president for economics and policy at Environmental Defense Fund, told me. But if state-funded insurance is people’s only option, she said, the question becomes “How much are we going to subsidize that?” As climate change brings about bigger fires and stronger hurricanes and more intense floods, the country is being forced to decide what homes to save and whom to leave on their own.California’s insurance crisis first started around 2017. In that year and the ones that followed, a series of costly fires erased decades of profits, and forced insurance companies to reconsider their rates and their presence in the state. Premiums began rising, and in the past two years, major national companies including State Farm, Farmers, and Allstate, as well as smaller firms, have pulled back, declining to renew tens of thousands of policies. Coming on top of rising inflation and building costs, wildfires have made the cost of doing business just too high, insurers argue. For those living in areas where no private company will take on the risk, California offers a last-resort option called FAIR. From 2019 to 2024, as insurance companies retreated, the number of California FAIR plans has more than doubled. But FAIR plans are also getting more expensive. Many Californians are underinsured—and some are opting to go without insurance at all.The people living in the Park Fire burn area are struggling with these exact dynamics. Counting how many people are uninsured in a given area is difficult. But from 2015 to 2021, insurance companies issued almost 7,000 nonrenewal notices in Cohasset’s zip code, which has about 13,000 properties total, according to state data, analyzed and provided to me by First Street Foundation, a nonprofit that models climate risk. That means insurance companies potentially pulled policies for more than half of the homes in the area. And these data are only through 2021, before the exodus of insurers began in earnest.Cohasset is located in an extremely risky part of the state; First Street Foundation’s models put it at severe fire risk, and predict that 100 percent of the structures in the area will be threatened in the next 30 years. People might balk at high insurance rates, but those prices are a warning of disaster to come. “As brutal as it is, when insurance companies stop offering insurance, it’s a signal that the risk is uninsurable—that those losses are coming,” Abrahm Lustgarten, a reporter and the author of On the Move, a book about climate migration, told me. Blunting these signals with policies such as state-subsidized insurance plans may create incentives to stay when families should really consider leaving.But moving isn’t easy. It means leaving a life behind, perhaps generations’ worth of local memories. It means uprooting oneself from the community you grew up in, and maybe even saying goodbye to loved ones. For some, this is too difficult. Others are just overly optimistic about the risk—psychology and behavioral-economics research suggest that people have a hard time processing such risk, Kousky pointed out.Others just can’t afford to go elsewhere. Leaving a place might mean leaving a job, or a business, or a garden that helps you save on groceries. California is an extremely expensive place to live. Moving from the edge of the forest to a city would be safer, but infeasible for some people. Sky-high costs of living have pushed people farther and farther out in search of cheaper housing—and directly in the path of fire. Lustgarten’s reporting suggests that Americans are less likely to pick up and run in terror from disaster, he told me, and more likely to uproot when the cost of staying becomes unrealistic, whether because of a disaster like Park or the rising cost of air-conditioning in a hot area like Phoenix. At first, such migration can be incremental—moving from one town to another nearby, as the people who moved from Paradise to Cohasset did, which didn’t put them beyond risk. People may have to experience loss multiple times before they truly uproot themselves.The Park Fire is still burning, slinking through the Sierra Nevada and threatening thousands of homes and buildings in the small mountain towns that dot the region. Already, some 600 structures have burned. FEMA provides some individual assistance in the aftermath of a disaster. But the agency has warned over and over that the funding it can offer is no substitute for insurance. Many fire victims are now turning to crowdfunding resources such as GoFundMe to try to blunt catastrophic financial losses: In the past five years, the number of wildfire fundraisers on GoFundMe has tripled, a representative for the company told me in an email.Lawing’s daughter Jessica Adams told me that she probably wouldn’t be grieving the loss of her family’s compound so hard if they’d had insurance. They still would have been devastated—but at least they’d know they had money to rebuild. Her mom wants to move back to the property—to get out of the city where she’s taken refuge and back up into the hills where the birds and frogs sing. They’re considering building some kind of yurt or tiny house. But they’re facing a long road back to any kind of stability. “I don’t know what the answer is. But I sure wish there was more support,” Adams told me. Her voice began to wobble, then break. “It really would have been nice if my mom had insurance. And she couldn’t get it.”In the coming decades, as climate change makes disasters more likely, Americans will need to decide how to approach situations like this. The solutions don’t have to mean clearing whole areas of people altogether. Kousky said that, in the case of floods, she’s seen proposals to offer lower premiums only to the people who really need it—while forcing more affluent families to pay the full price to live in these zones. She told me that she hasn’t seen that policy suggested for wildfire insurance yet. The reality, though, is that people will continue to live in places like Cohasset, even if it means taking the risk that a fire could burn through their life and leave them scrambling for a way to recover.

Oklahoma’s Oil Industry Touts a Voluntary Fund to Clean Up Oil Wells. Major Drillers Want Their Contributions Refunded.

Oklahoma’s oil industry pays into a voluntary fund to clean up oil wells, but many drillers opt out. The money that has been refunded to these companies in recent years could have restored an estimated 1,500 orphan well sites. The post Oklahoma’s Oil Industry Touts a Voluntary Fund to Clean Up Oil Wells. Major Drillers Want Their Contributions Refunded. appeared first on .

Co-published with ProPublica Oklahoma’s oil and gas industry touts its altruism and environmental stewardship by pointing to a voluntary levy that companies pay on their production, which is then used to clean up orphan wells that have been left to the state. But some of Oklahoma’s biggest oil companies have opted out of the fund, forcing the state to return millions of dollars that would have otherwise gone to restoring land scarred by discarded drilling infrastructure and contaminated by leaks and spills, according to a ProPublica and Capital & Main analysis. The list of companies that received such refunds includes some of the Oklahoma oil industry’s household names, such as Ovintiv and Chesapeake Energy Corp. It also includes the two richest people in the state: Harold Hamm, a pioneer in fracking technology and the founder of the multibillion-dollar Continental Resources, and George Kaiser, whose success as head of his family’s oil company helped him buy the Bank of Oklahoma. All told, dozens of oil companies received refunds worth about $11 million over the past seven years, ProPublica and Capital & Main found. Put another way, for every $100 the state brought in via this funding mechanism, it sent $8.58 back to oil companies. The Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, created by the Legislature in 1993, collects a 0.1% assessment on oil and gas production that functions like a tax on the state’s largest industry. The roughly $163 million collected — after refunds — since the levy’s inception has funded the restoration of more than 20,000 sites. If the board had not had to issue the millions of dollars in refunds, it could have restored an additional 1,500 orphan well sites, according to the board’s average cleanup bill. Until they are plugged, these wells can leak a litany of pollutants, from toxic gasses to salty wastewater, presenting an environmental crisis across Oklahoma. ProPublica and Capital & Main reached out to all 76 companies that requested refunds in the past seven years as well as to the main in-state trade groups, the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance and the Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma. The Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma, Hamm’s Continental Resources, Kaiser’s Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., Chesapeake Energy and Ovintiv did not respond to requests for comment. Only two oil producers answered questions: one said she requested refunds to cut down on contact with regulators, while the other dismissed concerns about the refunds, stating that “it’s not that much money.” Zack Taylor, a spokesperson for the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance, wrote in an email that the board “has done very important work cleaning up abandoned well sites all over Oklahoma.” But, he added, “We believe it should be an opt in program so the smaller producers and royalty owners could agree up front whether or not to participate.” In addition to paying for orphan well site cleanup, the Energy Resources Board’s levy funds pro-fossil fuel marketing campaigns that range from K-12 curricula promoting the industry in classrooms to programming with Mike Rowe, the reality television star known for the show “Dirty Jobs.” Mindy Stitt, the Energy Resources Board’s executive director, said the state’s oil companies “exemplify what it means to be a good neighbor.” “They contribute millions of dollars to our programs, even if they must request a refund some years, making significant impacts across our state,” she said. Oklahoma’s Orphan Well Epidemic Farmers chat near a well on a farm in south-central Oklahoma. Photo: Mark Olalde/ProPublica. Not everyone sees it that way. Don Scott has worked his farm in south-central Oklahoma for years, harvesting hay while carefully avoiding an orphan well that scars one of his fields. The green pump jack stood inoperable on a recent visit to the farm, rust eating through the metal. Salt contamination had turned the soil an unnatural white, the dirt cracking at the base of the well. The well occupies otherwise productive land and could leak more pollutants into the environment. “And that ain’t counting the aggravation of having to work around it,” said Scott, whose father and grandfather worked in the oil fields and who now laments the state’s orphan well epidemic. More than 18,000 wells have already been labeled as orphans by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the state’s main oil regulatory body. That number is likely to swell, as the state has more than a quarter-million unplugged wells — some active, some already idle — according to data from energy software firm Enverus. But the money available for cleanup pales in comparison to the task. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission collects its own tax, which has generated only a several-million-dollar orphan well fund. The state quickly exhausted federal money it received from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to plug wells. And drillers have set aside only 0.6% of the projected cleanup cost via financial instruments called bonds, according to a ProPublica and Capital & Main analysis of state data. This leaves the Energy Resources Board and its voluntary cleanup fund as an important tool in Oklahoma’s struggle to address its unplugged wells. If the Energy Resources Board fund continues to be voluntary in a state that’s already slow to impose regulations on its most lucrative industry, critics say, then companies should at least be required to set aside enough money to plug their own wells. “Local industry also has a part to play in funding remediation,” said Kara Joy McKee, director of the Sierra Club’s Oklahoma chapter. “It should be a general obligation of the industry that has received so much wealth from the resources of this state.” Big Oil, Big Refunds Some of the state’s major oil producers top the list of companies that requested refunds. Continental Resources received nearly $1.6 million in refunds over the seven years for which the Energy Resources Board maintains data, while Kaiser-Francis Oil took in about $490,000. Ovintiv, an $11 billion oil company, was by far the largest recipient, as its subsidiaries and related entities got more than $3.8 million back. Next on the list, a partnership between large driller Mach Resources and private equity firm Bayou City Energy Management received more than $2.1 million in refunds. Neither company responded to requests for comment. The Oklahoma City-headquartered Chesapeake Energy, valued at $10 billion, also appeared on the list, getting a more than $400,000 refund. And companies belonging to the McCasland family, longtime Oklahoma oil producers, filed dozens of requests totalling several hundred-thousand dollars in refunds. One of the family’s companies, Twin D Energy, repeatedly pursued the refund, even when it stood to only get back amounts as low as $2.57, $3.47 and $3.71 in a given year. Tom McCasland III, the president of the family’s companies, said they only request refunds for their own portion of oil production, not for other working interest owners. ‘It Ought to Be There Permanently’ Oklahoma has a sunset law that sets the date by which the state must dissolve or renew certain government agencies, and the Energy Resources Board is facing the chopping block. In 2023, its sunset date was pushed back to 2025 to give lawmakers time to decide what to do with the agency. But several bills proposed in this year’s and last year’s legislative session to extend or update the board’s mandate failed. Instead, the state’s oil trade groups have entered negotiations to draft their own language destined for the Legislature. Some of their ideas threaten to further undermine funding for the board’s cleanup work. On one hand, the trade groups are discussing provisions to allow the board to plug wells instead of only cleaning up surface contamination. But some oil companies are also aiming to make it easier to avoid paying the assessment that funds the board’s work, potentially only collecting money from drillers who opt in. “There are people that don’t feel that it is really refundable,” said McCasland, who serves as the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance’s chairman in addition to his work with his family’s oil companies. As a result, the negotiations have included discussions about the ease of getting the money back. Every dollar refunded is one less dollar spent cleaning up the industry’s orphan wells, so landowners like Scott, the farmer with an orphan well on his land, might have to continue waiting to see old, leaking infrastructure removed from their property. The Energy Resources Board is a “good thing,” Scott said, and it has begun cleanup on his land. So he expressed frustration upon learning that oil companies regularly ask the board for refunds. “Once it’s paid in,” he said, “it ought to be there permanently.” Copyright 2024 Capital & Main and ProPublica

Suggested Viewing

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.