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.

Billpayers in England and Wales tricked into ‘stealth bailout’ of water companies

News Feed
Saturday, September 14, 2024

The water industry regulator has been accused of overseeing a “stealth bailout of water companies” over proposals to increase bills by up to 44% over the next five years.Campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (Wasp), which exposed suspected illegal discharges of sewage across England and Wales, has challenged Ofwat, the industry regulator, over the proposed price rises. The final determinations are due to be announced in December.In a submission to the regulator, Wasp says the review should not be finalised until ongoing investigations into the industry are concluded, including a wide-ranging review of the industry announced by environment secretary Steve Reed.It also says the regulator has failed to provide key data on how much shareholders in water firms have paid in upgrading infrastructure since privatisation, warning that billpayers have footed the bulk of the bill.The citizen science organisation believes that it forced environmental watchdogs into action after it deployed AI to detect previously untracked sewage discharges, publishing a paper in March 2021.Eight months later, the Environment Agency announced its largest ever criminal investigation into potential breaches of environmental conditions at wastewater treatment works.Ashley Smith, founder of Wasp, said water firms had built “illegal operation” into their business models, presiding over sewage pollution in rivers and along the coastline in England and Wales while taking billions of pounds in dividends. Consumers were now expected to pay for the clean-up operation.He said: “If the price review carries on as planned, customers are going to be forced to pay higher bills to conduct a stealth bailout of water companies. We think Ofwat is tricking the public into funding it.”Ofwat’s 2024 price review sets the price controls for water and sewage companies for 2025-30. It published a draft determination in July, proposing to increase total spending by the water industry in England and Wales from £59bn over 2020-25 to £88bn over 2025-30. The water firms requested investment and expenditure of £105bn.On average, household bills from water and wastewater companies will rise by £19 a year over the five years, before inflation.Average bills at Thames Water, the UK’s biggest water and sewage company, will rise more than £99 over the five-year period, from £436 to £535. The biggest increase is for customers of Southern Water –its proposed bills will rise by £183 (44%), from £420 to £603.From left: minister for water and flooding Emma Hardy, environment secretary Steve Reed and financial secretary to the Treasury Spencer Livermore at a water industry roundtable meeting this week. Photograph: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/PAOfwat says its regulatory framework has “enabled £200bn of investment since privatisation” but has not provided, on request from Wasp, the proportion of this investment that was paid for by shareholders in water firms. Wasp also alleges that Ofwat has not adequately tracked how this money has been spent and its impact on water quality in the environment.Since privatisation, water companies have paid out £53bn in dividends, according to Ofwat’s figures.A report in May by David Hall, a visiting professor in the Public Services International Research Unit at the University of Greenwich, claimed that shareholders had “invested less than nothing of their own money” in water companies in England and Wales. Ofwat said in response at the time that it “strongly refuted” the figures.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Wasp submission says: “It appears that the information underpinning Ofwat’s assertions regarding £200bn investment does not include reportable analysis of how much of that money came from shareholders. Not even a broad figure of percentage.“We accept the urgency of the need to resolve the infrastructure ‘black hole’, but that urgency should not be an excuse for exploiting the captive billpayer.”In 2022, the government’s Office for Environmental Protection announced that it would carry out an investigation into Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the regulation of combined sewer overflows in England. That is ongoing, and Wasp says a price review cannot be conducted in the usual way until this inquiry and others have reported.An Ofwat spokesperson said: “We have received responses to our consultation from many organisations, including environmental and consumer organisations, water companies, customers and investors.“Inevitably these reflect a diverse range of views on the proposals we have made. We will consider all of these responses carefully and set out our final decisions on 19 December.”A Water UK spokesperson said: “Water companies want to invest £105bn to support economic growth, build more homes, secure our water supplies and end sewage entering our rivers. Ofwat wants to cut that investment by £17bn – a record amount.“We cannot delay upgrading and expanding vital infrastructure any longer. Ofwat needs to reconsider its approach and approve these plans in full so we can get on with it.”

Campaign group challenges industry regulator over price rises for customers that will pay to upgrade infrastructureThe water industry regulator has been accused of overseeing a “stealth bailout of water companies” over proposals to increase bills by up to 44% over the next five years.Campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (Wasp), which exposed suspected illegal discharges of sewage across England and Wales, has challenged Ofwat, the industry regulator, over the proposed price rises. The final determinations are due to be announced in December. Continue reading...

The water industry regulator has been accused of overseeing a “stealth bailout of water companies” over proposals to increase bills by up to 44% over the next five years.

Campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (Wasp), which exposed suspected illegal discharges of sewage across England and Wales, has challenged Ofwat, the industry regulator, over the proposed price rises. The final determinations are due to be announced in December.

In a submission to the regulator, Wasp says the review should not be finalised until ongoing investigations into the industry are concluded, including a wide-ranging review of the industry announced by environment secretary Steve Reed.

It also says the regulator has failed to provide key data on how much shareholders in water firms have paid in upgrading infrastructure since privatisation, warning that billpayers have footed the bulk of the bill.

The citizen science organisation believes that it forced environmental watchdogs into action after it deployed AI to detect previously untracked sewage discharges, publishing a paper in March 2021.

Eight months later, the Environment Agency announced its largest ever criminal investigation into potential breaches of environmental conditions at wastewater treatment works.

Ashley Smith, founder of Wasp, said water firms had built “illegal operation” into their business models, presiding over sewage pollution in rivers and along the coastline in England and Wales while taking billions of pounds in dividends. Consumers were now expected to pay for the clean-up operation.

He said: “If the price review carries on as planned, customers are going to be forced to pay higher bills to conduct a stealth bailout of water companies. We think Ofwat is tricking the public into funding it.”

Ofwat’s 2024 price review sets the price controls for water and sewage companies for 2025-30. It published a draft determination in July, proposing to increase total spending by the water industry in England and Wales from £59bn over 2020-25 to £88bn over 2025-30. The water firms requested investment and expenditure of £105bn.

On average, household bills from water and wastewater companies will rise by £19 a year over the five years, before inflation.

Average bills at Thames Water, the UK’s biggest water and sewage company, will rise more than £99 over the five-year period, from £436 to £535. The biggest increase is for customers of Southern Water –its proposed bills will rise by £183 (44%), from £420 to £603.

From left: minister for water and flooding Emma Hardy, environment secretary Steve Reed and financial secretary to the Treasury Spencer Livermore at a water industry roundtable meeting this week. Photograph: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/PA

Ofwat says its regulatory framework has “enabled £200bn of investment since privatisation” but has not provided, on request from Wasp, the proportion of this investment that was paid for by shareholders in water firms. Wasp also alleges that Ofwat has not adequately tracked how this money has been spent and its impact on water quality in the environment.

Since privatisation, water companies have paid out £53bn in dividends, according to Ofwat’s figures.

A report in May by David Hall, a visiting professor in the Public Services International Research Unit at the University of Greenwich, claimed that shareholders had “invested less than nothing of their own money” in water companies in England and Wales. Ofwat said in response at the time that it “strongly refuted” the figures.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

The Wasp submission says: “It appears that the information underpinning Ofwat’s assertions regarding £200bn investment does not include reportable analysis of how much of that money came from shareholders. Not even a broad figure of percentage.

“We accept the urgency of the need to resolve the infrastructure ‘black hole’, but that urgency should not be an excuse for exploiting the captive billpayer.”

In 2022, the government’s Office for Environmental Protection announced that it would carry out an investigation into Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the regulation of combined sewer overflows in England. That is ongoing, and Wasp says a price review cannot be conducted in the usual way until this inquiry and others have reported.

An Ofwat spokesperson said: “We have received responses to our consultation from many organisations, including environmental and consumer organisations, water companies, customers and investors.

“Inevitably these reflect a diverse range of views on the proposals we have made. We will consider all of these responses carefully and set out our final decisions on 19 December.”

A Water UK spokesperson said: “Water companies want to invest £105bn to support economic growth, build more homes, secure our water supplies and end sewage entering our rivers. Ofwat wants to cut that investment by £17bn – a record amount.

“We cannot delay upgrading and expanding vital infrastructure any longer. Ofwat needs to reconsider its approach and approve these plans in full so we can get on with it.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

JD Vance Funded AcreTrader. Here’s Why That Matters.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. Its current offerings include 83 acres of almond trees in the San Joaquin Valley, advertised as “an opportunity to invest in a water-secure almond orchard in the world’s most […] The post JD Vance Funded AcreTrader. Here’s Why That Matters. appeared first on Civil Eats.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. Some of the most pristine farmland in California can be yours, at least by proxy, in just a matter of minutes. That’s the promise that AcreTrader, a company with the mission of simplifying investing in valuable U.S. farmland, makes to prospective financiers. Its current offerings include 83 acres of almond trees in the San Joaquin Valley, advertised as “an opportunity to invest in a water-secure almond orchard in the world’s most productive almond-producing region.” This property also boasts of senior water rights on the Kings River, suggesting that the land will continue to turn a profit long into the future—a dream of farmers and investors alike. AcreTrader is just one of many companies launched in the past decade that facilitate the sale of farmland, which has increasingly become a staple in investor portfolios. Recently, it was revealed that this includes the investment portfolio of vice presidential nominee JD Vance, the Republican senator from Ohio. “There’s no indication that Vance has divested from AcreTrader, and there’s every indication that that investment remains in place.” Vance invested up to $65,000 in private investments in AcreTrader during his stint as a venture capitalist, according to his 2022 financial disclosure to the Senate ethics committee. The investment firm Narya Capital—which Vance launched in 2020 with backing from PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel—was a vehicle for these investments, and a key backer in early funding rounds of the farmland startup. And while Vance is no longer listed as a partner at Narya Capital, according to his 2023 financial disclosure, he appears to still be an investor in the firm—or more technically, multiple legal entities with names including Narya. “There’s no indication that Vance has divested from AcreTrader, and there’s every indication that that investment remains in place,” said Lisa Graves, the executive director of True North Research, an investigative research group. She points to how Vance sold off his stock in “Narya Capital Management LLC” in 2023, but that’s not the same as the (albeit similarly named) investment vehicles used to invest in AcreTrader. In a social media post, Sarah Taber, a farm and food systems strategist and the Democratic candidate for North Carolina commissioner of agriculture, describes AcreTrader as “like Uber for buying U.S. farmland.” Like Uber, AcreTrader makes it easier for more buyers to gain quick access to an ordinarily expensive asset. “And who’s one of its key investors, profiting off of every sale?” Taber asks. “JD Vance.” For Taber, Vance’s large investment portfolio—in AcreTrader and a slew of other opaque start-up companies—raises questions about conflicts of interest and the mixing of venture capitalist and political pursuits. Vance’s 2022 portfolio also included AppHarvest, the start-up company that promised to revolutionize farming and bring good jobs to eastern Kentucky, only to quickly implode. “There’s an ethical case for any venture capitalist to disinvest from their interests before running for political office,” said Taber, in an interview with Civil Eats. “We don’t know what he’s incentivized to do.” AcreTrader streamlines the process of investing in valuable farmland across the U.S. and Australia—from the flooded rice fields of the Mississippi Delta to the vast tracts of high-yielding corn in the Midwest—by placing the farmland in a limited liability corporation, or LLC. “You can then purchase shares in that [LLC] through a simple online process that takes just minutes,” the company explains in a tutorial video for prospective investors. “AcreTrader handles the administrative details for you, and works with experienced farmers to manage the land.” “It’s just the expansion of the Real Estate Investment Trust [REIT] business model into farmland,” said Taber. “It’s basically like a mutual fund for real estate.” With the REIT model, instead of buying a single condo, you buy a share in a company that owns 100 or 200 condos. This investment vehicle was established by Congress in the 1960s, opening the doors to large-scale real estate investments for smaller investors. It’s a model that has enabled real estate hedge funds to buy up large swaths of the housing market, driving up demand and prices. Recently, companies have begun applying a REIT-like model to land. AcreTrader isn’t technically a REIT, but it’s similar in that it enables a wider pool of investors to passively invest in farmland, reaping the benefits of one of the most reliable assets to produce a return. But instead of buying shares in one company, like a REIT, investors buy shares in individual LLCs that own the property. This ownership model makes it hard to tell who is invested in the farmland and, therefore, more challenging to evaluate ethical conflicts and other risks of this investment, Taber observed. (Vance is listed as an investor in AcreTrader, not the individual LLCs, according to his Senate disclosure forms.) “What we’ve seen in reality is when investment interests come into communities, they drive up land prices and push farmers to increasingly marginal ends.” After a fixed period, typically between five and 10 years, investors sell the land almost inevitably at a higher price than they purchased it, given that farmland appreciates over time. As AcreTrader’s website boasts, “Land is one of the oldest investment classes in existence, which in many cases has produced significant wealth over generations.” On top of their earnings from the sale, investors potentially benefit as well from renting the land to a farmer, without being involved in managing it. AcreTrader is part of a larger trend of the financialization of farmland. The last two decades have witnessed a sharp uptick in investor interest in farmland as investors seeking to hedge against inflation and stock market volatility have turned to it as a reliable bet. Between 2008 and 2023, the amount of farmland purchased by investors increased by a staggering 231 percent. In recent years, bipartisan political leaders have pushed to curb foreign investments in U.S. farmland, citing the potential for a national security risk. Earlier this week, the Republican-controlled House passed a bill restricting citizens from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran from purchasing U.S. farmland. But even so, farmland is more concentrated in the hands of U.S. investors than ever before: Bill Gates, The Wonderful Company, and billionaire John Malone are the top owners of U.S. farmland. This investor-driven farmland “gold rush” has come with many unintended consequences for agriculture and farmers. It has led to the consolidation of farmland in regions with high-value land, while pricing out the farmers unable to compete with major investors for farmland. This has led land-strapped farmers to either drop out of farming or become tenant farmers, operating farms on rented land. “What we’ve seen in reality is when investment interests come into communities, they drive up land prices and push farmers to increasingly marginal ends,” said Paul Towers, the executive director of Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF). He says that he consistently observes farmers struggling to buy land, often outbid by investors who have the ability to pay for land entirely in cash. Even when investors seek to keep farmland in operation, rental arrangements can be challenging for farmers, because it gives them less freedom and security over their land, especially if they have a short-term lease. Towers has observed that leasing (rather than owning) farmland can make it harder for farmers in their network to make the kind of long-term investments in their land necessary for pursuing environmental and climate solutions “How can a farmer make significant investments in their soil health, if they don’t know if they’re going to be on that property next year?” said Towers. “Why would they invest in hedgerows for beneficial insects and pollinators? Why would they develop more water-holding capacity on their farm?” AcreTrader promises to be different, however, claiming to partner with farmers in “stewarding land” and “supporting livelihoods.” This includes the language of their leases: “We structure our leases according to industry leading sustainability standards, encompassing specific conditions related to soil fertility, erosion control, groundwater protection, and input management,” states the company’s website. AcreTrader declined a request to provide Civil Eats with a copy of a lease, or to explain the process for determining its sustainability standards. “Senator Vance has no involvement in AcreTrader’s operations or strategic direction.” “For AcreTrader’s typical buyers, the AcreTrader Platform connects U.S. investors to farmers who want to grow their operations, and we believe it’s a good thing to see capital formation in favor of helping the American farmer,” wrote Rob Moore, the company’s vice president, in an email. He also added, “Senator Vance has no involvement in AcreTrader’s operations or strategic direction.” Some caution against painting all investors with a broad brush, pointing to a potential role for some forms of investors in helping facilitate land access for farmers in some cases. “I do believe that there is an opportunity for investors to think about how to deploy non-destructive capital to access the purchase of farmland,” said Gaby Pereyra, a farmer and the co-director of the Land Network Program at the Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust. She points to Dirt Capital, which works with farmers in financing farmland, including through shared ownership models. This differs from AcreTrader’s model, which is aimed at helping investors, not farmers, buy farmland. The ownership of farmland can also be especially important to Black farmers who have been systematically denied land access, and therefore, denied one of the most reliable investments for generating wealth. “Most Black farmers for historical reasons, for family reasonsare seeking to own their land…because it’s related to reparations,” said Pereyra. “For Latino farmers, on the other hand, the ownership of land is related to self-determination, on being able to do the type of operation that they want,” Pereyra has observed in her work. In some cases, she’s seen that a rental agreement can provide self-determination, but it largely depends on the relationship with a specific landowner. And while AcreTrader emphasizes “land stewardship,” Pereyra pointed to how the company currently limits these rental partnerships to “row crop, permanent crop, and timber.” This leaves out diversified vegetable operations, the farms that are often engaged in some of the most innovative, climate-friendly practices. These are also the farms that tend to struggle to access crop insurance, lacking the guarantee of a stable income even when crops fail—which may deter investors. In general, the company mainly lists farmland with high-value crops that can deliver short-term profits, but aren’t always best for the environment. Take California’s almond industry, a water-intensive crop. “Almonds already use an estimated 28% of the reliable water supply available to California agriculture,” according to AcreTrader’s analysis. However, the company assures investors that “California’s almond industry isn’t going anywhere,” even as the state implements water restrictions. Instead,AcreTrader advises that investors seek out almond orchards with reliable water rights, expecting these properties to appreciate over time. On the other hand, the company advises against investing in almond orchards without water access, expecting these acres to shrink and be removed from production. It’s an approach to investing that appears to be based on a market analysis of the projected value for farmland and specific crops per region, rather than environmental or climate concerns. “What a lot of these these kinds of investment models fail to see is that farming is far more than just a short-term return [on an investment],” said Towers. The farming systems that we want to be investing in for our future—farms that can survive droughts, wildfires, erratic water supplies, and other climate extremes—are not always the methods that turn a profit the quickest. And while it’s hard to fully evaluate AcreTrader’s model, it’s clear that it allows an investor-backed startup to play a role in steering the future of agriculture and the U.S. food system. It begs the question: Should we trust investors with this power—even the many investors that claim to help farmers—over the most fertile, water-rich farmland in the U.S.? The post JD Vance Funded AcreTrader. Here’s Why That Matters. appeared first on Civil Eats.

Heat exposure, cloudy water, and bad air: The data gap of toxic prisons

There’s been a proliferation of data-driven mapping tools that illuminate disparities in environmental harm, but they do little to compel suitable solutions — especially for incarcerated people.

Since she began studying mechanical engineering as an undergraduate at Stanford University, Ufuoma Ovienmhada had little desire to build “tech for tech’s sake.” The university’s sustainability lab offered one route to the applied side of engineering that appealed to her. One summer, she worked with the lab’s researchers on a project in Ivory Coast, in West Africa, where she considered how engineering could be employed for sustainable development. Undergirding Ovienmhada’s academic work was a burgeoning political consciousness shaped by the police murders of unarmed Black people. In her recollection, her college tenure, between 2014 and 2018, was “the Black Lives Matter era of police violence being broadcast on social media every other week.” She regularly attended protests and participated in Black campus organizations where she and her peers frequently discussed police brutality. While researching policing protocols at Stanford, Ovienmhada remembers being told by a campus officer that someone walking down the street in a hoodie would automatically be considered suspicious. “You’re telling me that racism is embedded in how you operate,” she remembers thinking. Ovienmhada went on to enroll in a master’s program at the MIT Media Lab, where she studied the use of satellite imagery analysis to manage invasive species in the Republic of Benin. She was in school during yet another period of time punctuated by police murders — this time of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. The unprecedented nationwide protests against police brutality in the summer of 2020 encouraged Ovienmhada to pivot from international development work to the domestic issues of policing and mass incarceration. She wanted to figure out how she could apply her skills as an engineer and programmer to address the problems that concerned her most deeply. As young people across the country took the streets to demand an end to racist and violent policing, Ovienmhada learned about the nascent field of prison ecology, which focuses on the environmental hazards within and around carceral facilities (prisons, jails, and immigrant detention centers) and how they affect incarcerated people and surrounding communities.  At the time, academic writings in prison ecology were limited to a handful of journal articles in the social sciences. It seemed to her that few were considering how to apply quantitative methods to uncover the environmental issues affecting incarcerated populations. There was a gap in the data, and she felt called to help fill it.  A mock prison cell, intended to simulate the heat inside Texas prisons, sits outside the Texas State Capitol building in Austin, Texas in July, 2023. SERGIO FLORES/AFP via Getty Images Though the world of academia was only beginning to wake up to the study of prison ecology, organizers working against mass incarceration had already spent years drawing connections between environmental justice issues and the conditions in prisons. Members of the national grassroots organization Fight Toxic Prisons, or FTP, which uses advocacy and direct action to challenge the prison system, were well aware of not only the litany of environmental hazards that incarcerated people in the U.S. face, but also the value of quantitative research and, in particular, geospatial analysis in shaping the work of the decarceration movement.  “There is so much about this issue that is very geographical,” said Mei Azaad, an organizer with the Fight Toxic Prisons, adding that so many of the environmental hazards in prisons come from their proximity to oil and gas infrastructure or to Superfund sites. The lack of data to inform them where specific environmental hazards were concentrated was “something we kept running up against,” she said. By 2020, FTP had been doing disaster response work for a few years, and they knew how useful it would be to have a flood risk map overlaid on top of a map of U.S. carceral facilities, something they could refer to when determining how to prioritize their advocacy efforts. Meanwhile, in the course of her own research, Ovienmhada realized that she could apply her knowledge of remote sensing, which enables practitioners to map a range of environmental indicators such as flood risk, air quality, and heat exposure to wide geographic areas, to contribute better applications of geospatial analysis. From her apartment in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ovienmhada had been keeping up with FTP’s work. On social media, they often posted data and mapping-oriented information about prisons. She was initially hesitant to reach out to the group and offer her help — aware of the hesitation that community organizers often have toward academics. But, coincidentally, a friend who worked on FTP’s disaster response team heard about Ovienmhada’s satellite imagery-based approach to studying prison ecology, and offered to make the connection.  Ovienmhada joined FTP’s rapid response team in 2022, the year the Category 4 Hurricane Ian barreled through central Florida, taking out power in wide areas of the state, killing 149 people, and causing over $100 billion in damage. As the storm approached the Florida coast, she made a map showing that several of the state’s carceral facilities were in mandatory evacuation zones, but were not being evacuated. After a phone banking campaign in which they informed Tampa’s Hillsborough County Jail of the map they’d made, the facility decided to evacuate its incarcerated residents. “We can’t say that they did this because of FTP but it was cool to see this kind of map used to mobilize,” Ovienmhada said. The Toxic Mapping Project allows users to explore a range of environmental hazards in prisons. Over the past several years, a growing body of academic work has established that prisons expose incarcerated people to a long list of severe environmental hazards. A 2022 report from the American Journal of Public Health found that nearly half of the country’s prisons rely on water from sources contaminated with “forever chemicals,” toxic compounds that do not break down easily in the body and have been linked to serious health effects like cancer and kidney disease. Earlier this year, a group of researchers examined heat exposure for all 4,078 operational carceral facilities in the continental U.S. between the years 1982-2020, and found that prison populations are highly vulnerable to extreme heat exposure, a problem that is only increasing with the climate crisis. Though these kinds of research projects offer valuable insights into environmental conditions afflicting prisoners, Ovienmhada said, they do not often respond to the needs of groups like FTP that want to use satellite data to take immediate action against specific prisons and, ultimately, to advance decarceration.  Ovienmhada found that she enjoyed using the skills she’d developed to aid FTP’s organizing work. But the technical abilities to design maps and build models weren’t the only hurdles that the practical applications of prison ecology had to overcome. The programs and server space to build the maps can cost thousands. They needed money, which is often more readily available to research a problem than to do something about it.  Ovienmhada’s connection with FTP coincided with the Biden Administration’s big push for environmental justice, a span of several years that saw the formation of White House advisory committees on the issue and the dispersal of millions of federal dollars to research projects illuminating the disproportionate impacts of environmental stressors on communities of color across the country. For the first time, federal agencies were under a federal directive to support environmental justice initiatives. In April 2023, President Biden passed Executive order 14096, which directs the federal government to strengthen its commitment to environmental justice by funding scientific research and data collection initiatives, in addition to engaging with local communities. Ovienmhada was just starting her PhD in aerospace engineering when she noticed that NASA had published a solicitation for proposals from academics to use the agency’s satellite imagery to study environmental injustices. The highest tier of funding — $250,000 — was to be awarded to projects that developed a geospatial tool for integrating satellite data and other socioeconomic information around an environmental justice issue. It was the opportunity Ovienmhada and FTP had been waiting for. They quickly put together an application, in which they proposed a different approach to data gathering. Rather than just visualizing environmental-hazard data on top of a map of U.S. carceral facilities, they wanted to incorporate the voices of people held in those same facilities. This qualitative approach, they reasoned, would fill in gaps in their knowledge, illuminating problems that couldn’t be picked up by an infrared camera hovering in space. Several months after they submitted the application, they were informed that they’d won.  They saw the tool they wanted to develop as an intervention into the proliferation of data-driven mapping tools that government agencies and academics have built over the past four years, which illuminate disparities in environmental harm across the country but do little to compel suitable solutions. The federal Council on Environmental Quality, for instance, released the Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool, an interface that explores the concentration of climate risk in low income communities. The Environmental Protection Agency also published a mapping tool called EJScreen, which allows users to track the geographic distribution of a range of environmental hazards and see how they’re concentrated in communities of color. Though developed as part of federal initiatives to advance environmental justice, Ovienmhada said, these resources do not adequately engage the communities most impacted by environmental hazards, thus limiting their efficacy in affecting tangible, grassroots change. “Just making stuff visible is not environmental justice,” Ovienmhada said. Read Next How schools, hospitals, and prisons in 15 states profit from land and resources on 79 tribal nations Anna V. Smith & Maria Parazo Rose One man who they interviewed for their project (all the interviewees were paid) was formerly incarcerated at the Texas based prison farm Clemens Unit. He said the facility had air conditioned rooms where inmates could sit and cool off on sweltering summer days. But the prison guards were “sadistic human beings,” he said. ”You could be on the verge of a heatstroke and [they’re] not going to open your cell and escort you to respite.”  What this shows, Oviemhada argues, is that a solution that may seem obvious when viewing the data through a normative lens (the establishment of “cooling” rooms) won’t necessarily keep incarcerated people safe if other, experiential aspects of life in prisons are not accounted for (the guards’ behavior). Accounting for the guards’ behavior, she said, requires a reckoning with the wider system of mass incarceration, which punishes people “through neglect, violence, retaliation, slavery, environmental harm, and forced or cheap labor.”  It took about two years for Oviemhada, Azaad, and the rest of the FTP team to collect the data and interviews and build the web-based platform, called the Toxic Prisons Mapping Project, which launches today. Listening to the voices of former prisoners and their loved ones describe the state of the air, water, and land in and around U.S. prisons, users can get a sense of the material realities behind the numbers. Several people, for instance, described laying in pools of water or soaking their clothes to stay cool in the summertime. Others recalled inhaling thick wildfire smoke and not being provided protective equipment or other resources to keep themselves safe. Multiple people interviewed for the project described off-colored smelly tap water that, being behind bars, they had no choice but to drink.  Ovienmhada and Azaad told Grist that they intend for the Project to be a source of education, broadening the public’s knowledge of environmental hazards in prisons. Additionally, they hope that the families of incarcerated people will use the tool to learn more about the facilities where their loved ones are being kept, and to advocate for measures that will improve their conditions. Members of other organizations that conduct disaster-response efforts at carceral facilities can also use the tool to inform and direct their organizing efforts. But even something like a successful evacuation strategy during a storm is just a short term victory, and not what organizers like Azaad are ultimately fighting for. She and others who worked on the tool don’t just want to see less toxic prisons; their ultimate goal is to see no prisons.  In the long term, Azaad continued, they are working toward “a world where both people and land are not seen as disposable.” The way she sees it, industries treat land like a disposable resource to degrade and pollute in the same way that the state incarcerates people it deems unworthy or unable to participate in society. “The same logic that allows a Superfund site to exist allows a prison to exist,” Azaad said. That’s why, she concluded, the environmental movement should see itself not as distinct from, but as a partner to, the fight against prisons.  “If we want a world without prisons, we also need to heal the land,” she said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Heat exposure, cloudy water, and bad air: The data gap of toxic prisons on Sep 18, 2024.

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.