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.

DC Sues Federal Government Over Pollution in Anacostia River

News Feed
Friday, January 10, 2025

The District of Columbia on Friday filed a lawsuit against the federal government over pollution in the Anacostia River, arguing it has inflicted “catastrophic harm” on the mostly poor and minority communities living along the urban waterway.The lawsuit argues that federal government, which owns and controls the riverbed, has since the 1800s dumped toxic waste, heavy metals and chemicals including carcinogenic PCBs in the river and refused to clean it up. The 9-mile (14-kilometer) river flows through Washington, D.C. and parts of Maryland. For decades, it was treated as a municipal dumping ground for industrial waste, storm sewers and trash. That contamination largely affected communities of color.The lawsuit alleges that PCBs from the Washington Navy Yard were dumped in the river along with hazardous chemicals from the Kenilworth Landfill and chemical waste from federal printing facilities. It also blamed the federal government for poorly managing the District of Columbia's sewer system, which led to the dumping of raw sewage and toxic waste into the river.That pollution has led to swimming bans and warnings about fishing along the river, the lawsuit alleges, calling the federal government its biggest polluter.“It has systematically contaminated the River through the indiscriminate dumping and release of hazardous substances and through destructive dredge and fill operations,” the lawsuit says.The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said pollutants in the river don't break down and cause long-lasting harm to the environment, aquatic wildlife, and human health, including cancer, neurological and developmental disorders and birth defects.The District of Columbia is demanding that the federal government pay for the river's cleanup. The lawsuit comes as the District of Columbia has made progress in cleaning up the river and returning to a time where residents fished and boated and wildlife including bald eagles, osprey, cranes, kingfishers and eel thrived there.A $3.29 billion sewer upgrade, including a series of tunnels drilled under the city to capture storm and sewage water, has reduced overflows into the river by 91%, according to DC Water, the city’s water utility. The final section of the Anacostia Tunnel System went online in 2023, and the overall system is expected to reduce overflows by 98%.Pepco, the city’s utility, also reached an agreement with the District of Columbia to pay more than $57 million for discharging hazardous chemicals from their power plants into soil, groundwater and storm sewers for decades that polluted the Anacostia and other areas. The settlement was believed to be the largest in the utility’s history.The payments will be used in part to clean up the river. Other measures the city government instituted like a fee on plastic bags since 2009 have also helped keep trash out, experts say.Still, the Anacostia remains polluted. It received a failing grade for the third time in six years in 2023 from a nonprofit that grades the river’s health based on its fecal bacteria content and the state of its aquatic vegetation.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

The District of Columbia is suing the federal government over pollution in the Anacostia River, hoping it will lead to a cleanup of the urban waterway

The District of Columbia on Friday filed a lawsuit against the federal government over pollution in the Anacostia River, arguing it has inflicted “catastrophic harm” on the mostly poor and minority communities living along the urban waterway.

The lawsuit argues that federal government, which owns and controls the riverbed, has since the 1800s dumped toxic waste, heavy metals and chemicals including carcinogenic PCBs in the river and refused to clean it up. The 9-mile (14-kilometer) river flows through Washington, D.C. and parts of Maryland. For decades, it was treated as a municipal dumping ground for industrial waste, storm sewers and trash. That contamination largely affected communities of color.

The lawsuit alleges that PCBs from the Washington Navy Yard were dumped in the river along with hazardous chemicals from the Kenilworth Landfill and chemical waste from federal printing facilities. It also blamed the federal government for poorly managing the District of Columbia's sewer system, which led to the dumping of raw sewage and toxic waste into the river.

That pollution has led to swimming bans and warnings about fishing along the river, the lawsuit alleges, calling the federal government its biggest polluter.

“It has systematically contaminated the River through the indiscriminate dumping and release of hazardous substances and through destructive dredge and fill operations,” the lawsuit says.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said pollutants in the river don't break down and cause long-lasting harm to the environment, aquatic wildlife, and human health, including cancer, neurological and developmental disorders and birth defects.

The District of Columbia is demanding that the federal government pay for the river's cleanup.

The lawsuit comes as the District of Columbia has made progress in cleaning up the river and returning to a time where residents fished and boated and wildlife including bald eagles, osprey, cranes, kingfishers and eel thrived there.

A $3.29 billion sewer upgrade, including a series of tunnels drilled under the city to capture storm and sewage water, has reduced overflows into the river by 91%, according to DC Water, the city’s water utility. The final section of the Anacostia Tunnel System went online in 2023, and the overall system is expected to reduce overflows by 98%.

Pepco, the city’s utility, also reached an agreement with the District of Columbia to pay more than $57 million for discharging hazardous chemicals from their power plants into soil, groundwater and storm sewers for decades that polluted the Anacostia and other areas. The settlement was believed to be the largest in the utility’s history.

The payments will be used in part to clean up the river. Other measures the city government instituted like a fee on plastic bags since 2009 have also helped keep trash out, experts say.

Still, the Anacostia remains polluted. It received a failing grade for the third time in six years in 2023 from a nonprofit that grades the river’s health based on its fecal bacteria content and the state of its aquatic vegetation.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

UK government vows to clean up Windermere after sewage criticism

Environment secretary points to measures to stop lake being ‘choked by unacceptable levels’ of pollutionThe government has said it will “clean up Windermere” after criticism over the volume of sewage being pumped into England’s largest lake.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, pledged “only rainwater” would enter the famous body of water in the Lake District, putting an end to the situation where it Windermere was being “choked by unacceptable levels of sewage pollution”. Continue reading...

The government has said it will “clean up Windermere” after criticism over the volume of sewage being pumped into England’s largest lake.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, pledged “only rainwater” would enter the famous body of water in the Lake District, putting an end to the situation where it Windermere was being “choked by unacceptable levels of sewage pollution”.Reed highlighted a range of measures being put in place, including investment from the water company United Utilities. The company, which has been a major polluter of the Unesco world heritage site, recently conceded defeat in its legal efforts to block the public from accessing data related to how much sewage it was dumping into the lake.United Utilities had argued that information on how much phosphorus was being detected at a main sewage treatment works on Windermere did not fall into publicly accessible environmental information.On top of legal discharges made by the company into the important habitat, various investigations have found it also illegally dumped millions of litres of raw sewage into the watercourse.Reed and the water minister, Emma Hardy, will be in Windermere on Monday as part of a “Things Can Only Get Cleaner” tour, to see where investment in water infrastructure will underpin the building of new homes, create jobs and bolster local economies.Reed said: “Windermere is a stunningly beautiful national treasure – but it’s being choked by unacceptable levels of sewage pollution.”He added that the government was “committed to cleaning up this iconic lake” as part of its Plan for Change scheme to upgrade the crumbling water infrastructure and increase economic growth using more than £100bn of private investment.The government was also working “to stop all sewage going into the lake and restore it to its natural beauty”, Reed added.Local groups and organisations have set up a feasibility study to look into what is needed to eliminate sewage discharges into Windermere and draw on successful examples and innovation from around the world.The study has been set up by a coalition that includes United Utilities, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, Save Windermere, Love Windermere, the Lake District national park authority and Westmorland and Furness council.A £200 investment from United Utilities will go towards upgrading 10 wastewater treatment works at Windermere and reducing spills from four storm overflows discharging into the lake to two a year by 2030. Upgrades to the remaining two storm overflows are due from around 2030-35.The private sector money will go towards sewage pipes, water treatment works and nine reservoirs, supporting 1.5 m new homes, 150 large infrastructure projects and power industries such as gigafactories and datacentres.Money from water company fines and penalties has been ringfenced to deliver local water projects, and schemes to clean up waterways are to get up to £11m.Windermere is home to more than 14,000 people and its scenery, rare species and cultural heritage attract seven million visitors a year, generating £750m for the local economy.

Trump’s Cuts to Federal Work Force Push Out Young Employees

The loss of early career workers has raised concerns about the impact on the next generation of civil servants.

About six months ago, Alex Brunet, a recent Northwestern University graduate, moved to Washington and started a new job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an honors paralegal. It was fitting for Mr. Brunet, 23, who said he had wanted to work in public service for as long as he could remember and help “craft an economy that works better for everyone.”But about 15 minutes before he was going to head to dinner with his girlfriend on the night before Valentine’s Day, an email landed in his inbox informing him that he would be terminated by the end of the day — making him one of many young workers who have been caught up in the Trump administration’s rapid wave of firings.“It’s discouraging to all of us,” Mr. Brunet said. “We’ve lost, for now at least, the opportunity to do something that matters.”Among the federal workers whose careers and lives have been upended in recent weeks are those who represent the next generation of civil servants and are now wrestling with whether they can even consider a future in public service.The Trump administration’s moves to reduce the size of the bureaucracy have had an outsize impact on these early career workers. Many of them were probationary employees who were in their roles for less than one or two years, and were among the first to be targeted for termination. The administration also ended the Presidential Management Fellows Program, a prestigious two-year training program for recent graduates interested in civil service, and canceled entry-level job offers.The firings of young people across the government could have a long-term effect on the ability to replenish the bureaucracy with those who have cutting-edge skills and knowledge, experts warn. Donald F. Kettl, a former dean in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, says that young workers bring skills “the government needs” in fields like information technology, medicine and environmental protection.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Why fear of billion-dollar lawsuits stops countries phasing out fossil fuels

Companies can sue governments for closing oilfields and mines – and the risk of huge damages is already stopping countries from passing green laws, ministers sayRevealed: how Wall Street is making millions betting against green lawsIn the mountains of Transylvania, a Canadian company makes plans for a vast gold and silver mine. The proposal – which involves razing four mountain tops – sparks a national outcry, and the Romanian government pulls its support.After protests from local communities, the Italian government bans drilling for oil within 12 miles of its shoreline. A UK fossil fuel firm has to dismantle its oilfield. Continue reading...

In the mountains of Transylvania, a Canadian company makes plans for a vast gold and silver mine. The proposal – which involves razing four mountain tops – sparks a national outcry, and the Romanian government pulls its support.After protests from local communities, the Italian government bans drilling for oil within 12 miles of its shoreline. A UK fossil fuel firm has to dismantle its oilfield.Beneath the grey whales and sea turtles of Mexico’s gulf, an underwater exploration company gets a permit to explore a huge phosphate deposit. Before it can begin, Mexico withdraws the permit, saying the ecosystem is “a natural treasure” that could be threatened by mining.Campaigners in London in 2016 protest against two trade agreements with ISDS clauses, hoping to draw attention to a legal action by a mining company against Romania. Photograph: Mark Kerrison/AlamySuch cases appear to be part of the bread and butter of governments – updating environmental laws or responding to voter pressure. But every time, the company involved sued the government for lost profits and often, they won (Romania prevailed in its case, Italy and Mexico were forced to pay out).They are among more than 1,400 cases analysed by the Guardian from within the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, a set of private courts in which companies can sue countries for billions. There have been long-held concerns about ISDS creating “regulatory chill” – where governments are scared off action on nature loss and the climate crisis by legal risks. Now, government ministers from a range of countries have confirmed to the Guardian that this “chilling” is already in effect – and that fear of ISDS suits is actively shaping environmental laws and regulations.What is it?Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) was created to help companies protect investments abroad. It allows companies to sue countries for lost profits caused by government action including corruption, seizure of assets or the introduction of health and environmental policies.The system was created in the 1960s by the World Bank. It was intended to give companies confidence to invest in poorer countries with weak political systems where they might not get a fair hearing in domestic courts.How does it work?The foreign company must put forward a case showing that the state has damaged its profits. Most international investment treaties and free-trade deals include ISDS clauses. Cases are heard by a private arbitration tribunal, and typically decided by a panel of three arbitrators – one chosen by the company, one chosen by the state and the third selected jointly.How much are the cases worth?Awards regularly amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, and some are in the billions. In 2024 the average amount awarded was $385m (£304m). The average sum awarded is increasing and these payouts can make up a sizeable chunk of poorer countries' annual budgets. Who is involved?The fossil fuel and mining industries are the most litigious in the ISDS system, accounting for more than 30% of known cases.Most claims are brought by companies based in rich countries against the governments of developing countries. Companies registered in developed countries file 81% of ISDS lawsuits, according to UN data, while developing countries have faced 62% of cases.How common is it?ISDS began as an obscure legal mechanism, averaging about one case a year for its first decade. Now, dozens are brought every year, with Guardian analysis finding more than 900 since 2013.In April 2018, New Zealand banned new offshore oil exploration projects, but stopped short of an outright ban or revoking existing concession. James Shaw, who was climate minister at the time, said it was because of the risk of being sued by foreign oil and gas companies. “When we implemented the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, we had to construct that incredibly carefully in order to avoid the risk of litigation. The way that we did that was to leave existing permits in place,” he said. As a result, New Zealand was unable to be a full member of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance.Shaw said the implications of ISDS were discussed around the cabinet table, with the ministry of foreign affairs and Trade pushing back on environment policies and “frequently talking about the risk that we would end up in litigation”, although ISDS was rarely explicitly cited.“We could see what was happening around the world”, he said. “We’d keep track of the number of ISDS cases that were being taken and what percentage of those were essentially hostile to environmental regulation.” The Waiho Papa Moana Hikoi (protest march) in Auckland in 2014. The protestors were opposing drilling for deep sea oil. Photograph: Phil Walter/Getty ImagesToby Landau, who has been a leading arbitration lawyer for 30 years, said acting in accordance with the Paris agreement could result in “very significant claims” for countries. He said: “It matters hugely because of the climate emergency that we are in – we’ve got an imperative under the Paris agreement to act quickly and decisively.”The idea that this does not create a chilling effect is an “outdated and inaccurate view”. He says: “My impression from working closely with governments is that ISDS is now increasingly on their radar, that is it’s increasingly an issue for them to consider: whether implementing a particular policy might give rise to claims.“We’re left with two regimes that conflict: the Paris agreement requires (broadly) that fossil fuels be phased out, and the ISDS regime provides guarantees for investors that protect their investment – even if it is a fossil fuel investment. That’s the conflict – it’s as simple as that.”My impression from working with governments is that ISDS is now increasingly on their radar, it’s increasingly an issueToby Landau, arbitration lawyer“International arbitration costs a lot of money,” says Manuel Díaz-Galeas, attorney general of Honduras, which is fighting cases claiming $18bn (£14bn) – greater than the country’s annual budget. “The thousands of millions of dollars claimed in compensation is simply absurd,” he says.Díaz-Galeas adds that the effects of ISDS claims are particularly significant for countries such as Honduras with high poverty rates and limited budgets.Rob Davies, who was minister of trade and industry of South Africa from 2009 to 2019, withdrew the country from a number of treaties with ISDS clauses from 2013 onwards. He says ISDS posed “significant risk” to the government’s legislation.“Companies have got the right to challenge any policy … that will impact their expectation of profitability in the future, no matter what the regulation is, no matter what its motivation is, no matter how well designed it is or anything,” he says. Davies believes more recently fossil fuel companies are using the ISDS provisions to “thwart regulations on green transition”. He says: “It has a chilling effect, particularly on developing countries.”In 2021, the International Energy Agency released a report saying the 1.5C pathway requires no new oil, gas or coal. But the issue of regulatory chill has been acknowledged by a number of international bodies, including the 2022 IPPC report on climate change. “Numerous scholars have pointed to ISDS being able to be used by fossil fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets,” the authors wrote. The UN, Council of Europe and European parliament have all raised similar concerns about climate action being delayed or watered down by ISDS.Protestors opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement, which contains ISDS clauses, rally in Ottawa, Canada in 2017. Photograph: The Canadian Press/Alamy“There can be astronomical costs associated with these cases,” says Kyla Tienhaara, an associate professor at the School of Environmental Studies at Queen’s University in Canada. Countries are afraid of implementing environmentally friendly policies because they can’t afford the cost of ISDS, says Tienhaara. “Governments don’t even have the funding to deal with the case in the first place.”The Guardian investigation into ISDS reveals $84bn in payouts from governments to fossil fuel companies. More than $120bn of public money has been awarded to private investors across all industries since 1976. The average payout for a fossil fuel claim was $1.2bn.Some cases can cost countries a significant portion of their total annual budget. For example, in 2015 Occidental Petroleum received a $1.1bn payout from the Ecuadorian government. The country’s budget was $29.8bn in 2016. Honduras faces 11 claims, with one seeking damages equal to 30% of the country’s GDP.The problem is increasingly being discussed by climate ministers and heads of state. On the campaign trail in 2020, US presidential candidate Joe Biden said he opposed ISDS clauses in trade agreements because they allow “private corporations to attack labour, health and environmental policies”.Members of the European parliament protest against ISDS during a plenary session in February 2019. Photograph: Frederick Florin/AFP/Getty ImagesLast March, Ireland’s former president Mary Robinson said there was a “growing number of claims brought by fossil fuel companies against governments wanting to take action to tackle the climate emergency”, claiming fossil fuel companies were seeking financial compensation from states that decided to tackle the nature and climate crisis. “I cannot overstate just how perverse this is,” she said.The Danish government set a deadline to stop fossil fuel exploration by 2050 as opposed to 2030 or 2040 because it would have had to pay “incredibly expensive” compensation to companies, on top of lost revenue for the Treasury, then-climate minister Dan Jørgensen said.A 2023 UN report by David Boyd, the special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, found Denmark, New Zealand and France had limited their climate policies because of the threat of ISDS, with the Spanish government saying it has slowed its transition away from fossil fuels over “fear of being sued by a foreign investor”. The report stated that this threat has become a “major obstacle” for countries addressing the climate crisis.Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverage.

Beavers know better. They saved the Czech government $1 million!

After a plan for building a dam stalled in the Czech Republic for seven years, beavers stepped in and did what beavers do, building the dam for free! The post Beavers know better. They saved the Czech government $1 million! first appeared on EarthSky.

Watch this video of how beavers saved the Czech government 1 million dollars. Beavers saved the Czech government $1 million! In 2018, the Czech government proposed a project to create a dam on a river southwest of Prague. The intention was to revive the local ecosystem and protect the species that inhabit the river. However, bureaucracy paralyzed the project, and a colony of beavers, who do not care about paperwork, got to work. In this way, a group of eight beavers built the dam their own way. That is, they simply used stones, wood and mud. What began as a small pond became a wetland that continues to grow thanks to the work of these rodents. Apart from being hardworking, they are also smart, as they chose the best possible location for their architectural masterpiece. The Czech government planned the construction of a dam southwest of Prague. But due to bureaucracy, the next phase never started. After 7 years of waiting, a colony of beavers got to work and built a natural dam in the right placement. Image via Steve/ Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 2.0). The 2025 EarthSky lunar calendar makes a great gift. Get yours today! What happened to the dam? The story begins in 1925, in the Brdy region, about 40 miles (64 km) southwest of Prague. The Czech government gave this region to the military as a training area, and the military built a drainage system on the Klabava river. Eventually, the Czech government wanted to demolish it and replace it with a new dam to revive the ecosystem. However, due to negotiations on the ground, permission difficulties and governmental red tape, the plan remained nothing more than that. The status of the project was idle for seven years. And then, after all the waiting, the paralyzed project was suddenly complete, and for free! Because there were no labor or material costs, the beavers have saved the Czech government $1.2 million USD. The head of the Protected Landscape Area (PLA) in Brdy, Bohumil Fišer, stated: The Military Forest Administration and the Vltava River Basin Authority were negotiating the project and addressing land ownership issues. The beavers got ahead of them, saving us 30 million Czech korunas. They built the dams without any project documentation and at no cost. We can already see a small pond and the surrounding wetland forming. These rodents used nothing but stones, wood and mud to build the dam, saving the Czech government $1.2 million USD. Image via Ralf Schick/ Pixabay. Beavers are masters of engineering These animals may not have a master’s degree in engineering or architecture, but they don’t need to. That’s because beavers are born knowing how to build a dam. Many people consider these rodents hardworking animals and masters of engineering. In fact, this eight-member colony built a natural dam in the perfect spot. And they’re still working to create more wetlands. According to Jaroslav Obermajer, head of the Central Bohemia office of the Czech Nature and Landscape Protection Agency: Beavers always know best. The locations where dams are built are always perfectly chosen; even better than what we designed on paper. Here’s Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, where many beavers live. See that pile of branches? That’s a natural beaver dam construction. Image via Pixabay. Why do beavers build natural dams? Beavers act on instinct. Dam-building gives them a home with underwater entrances only, where they can be safe from land predators, such as wolves or bears. They both live and store food inside the dams. Some people consider these animals a nuisance, as they gnaw on trees and plants for wood and can change the environment quickly. However, they are also capable of returning fresh water to areas that would otherwise have been deserted. They expand wetland ecosystems to the benefit of other creatures. Crayfish, frogs and many other species thrive in these wetlands. These ecosystem engineers keep water in pools with three simple materials: wood, mud and stones. They place stones at the base of the dams and then add tree trunks and branches. The mud acts as cement and settles the construction. This is a beaver lodge in Canada. The entry is underwater. Beavers are safe from land predators here. Image via Bridesmill/ Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0). What benefits do these natural dams produce? These natural dams are so well built they can last for many years, allowing the surrounding ecosystem to flourish. Here are a few ways they benefit the environment. Carbon capture. Beaver dams encourage plant growth and peat formation, which traps carbon, preventing it from being released into the air. This helps mitigate against climate change. Water purification. Beaver dams can filter water almost twice as efficiently as human-built treatment plants. Flood prevention. Beaver dams help to control runoff from heavy rain, thus reducing the risk of flash flooding. Drought mitigation. These dams retain water in the soil, keeping the area moist. In addition, this can help protect areas against wildfire. Beavers in the world As you might expect, a moist area is less likely to burn. So, beaver dams can also help limit forest fires. For example, in 2018, a fire devastated a large swath of Idaho. However, the valleys the beavers inhabited remained lush, moist and green. Scientists have also discovered that beaver ponds can reduce the effect of heavy metals at a rate two to four times greater than a riffle reach (a fast-flowing section of stream with a rocky bed). California recognized the environmental benefits of beavers and launched a beaver-based restoration program in 2023. The Europeans did the same with the Eurasian beaver. Hunting nearly drove this species to extinction. But thanks to recent conservation efforts, beavers have been successfully reintroduced to several areas, including the Czech Republic. Gerhard Schwab, beaver manager for the southern part of Bavaria for the Federal Nature Conservation Association, returned delighted from a field study of beaver habitats and enthusiastically announced the discovery of a valley in Belgium filled with newly formed ponds and streams. This is a clear example of the beaver’s ability to transform its environment. It seems that we still have a lot to learn from these natural engineers! Beavers are masters of engineering. The natural dams they build can last for many years. In addition, there are many ways they benefit the environment. Image via Minette Layne/ Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 2.0). Bottom line: Some people consider beavers a nuisance because they can take down trees and change the water flow of rivers and streams. But many others have recognized all the good they can do. Ask the government of the Czech Republic! Read more: Can beavers revitalize California’s mountains and meadows? Read more: Parachuting beavers created a fire-resistant wetlandThe post Beavers know better. They saved the Czech government $1 million! first appeared on EarthSky.

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.