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.

It's good to be a California beaver. Again.

News Feed
Tuesday, January 7, 2025

For the first time in 200 years it’s great to be a beaver in California. In a show of unanimous bipartisan support, the state Legislature voted this summer to pass Assembly Bill 2196, which codifies the state’s Beaver Restoration Program at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The law gives the program, which implements beaver-assisted environmental projects, protection from state budget cuts and political upheaval, and it stands as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s devastating ruling in 2023 that removed up to 70% of the nation’s waterways and wetlands from Clean Water Act protections.California environmental activists, biologists and Indian tribes have been advocating for beavers for more than two decades, launching an extensive education campaign that included having to convince authorities that beavers are a native species throughout the state. Now the restoration effort will add to California’s “30x30” goals — the national effort to set aside and protect 30% of U.S. lands and coastal waters by 2030.A beaver management plan is underway, and $2 million has been allocated to develop statewide coexistence strategies and help relocate beavers from where they cause problems to where they can solve them. Finally Castor canadensis, long maligned as a pest, is getting a rebrand as an ecological hero.“I’m really proud of the transition we’ve made from laggard to leader on beavers,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources. “While there’s no silver bullet solutions to environmental restoration, beavers are a keystone species, and an important part of the puzzle to restore our ecosystems in California.”Beavers, once plentiful, were wiped out of most of their range in California by 1900, hunted by fur traders and chased out by development. Those that were left often annoyed landowners who didn’t want their trees gnawed down to the ground and carted off to build dams, or who found their farmland or roadways inundated when a beaver colony moved in nearby. “Nuisance” beavers were killed. And yet California needs beavers — they are nature’s superlative ecosystem and water engineers.Climate change has fundamentally altered California’s hydrology, delivering more rainwater and less snowmelt, exacerbating wildfire, drought and the depletion of groundwater and aquifers. When beavers move into a stream or creek and begin building their damming complexes, the ponds and wetlands they create are an antidote to all these problems.The water swelling out of a beaver pond is just the beginning. Beaver ponds slow rivers and streams, storing an average of three times the water that’s visible by creating what are essentially huge underground sponges that can keep things flowing in dry summers and during drought. In times of flood, those same sponges soak up some of the excess, creating resiliency.Studies have shown in stark terms how beavers fight fire. Satellite photos of the aftermath of the massive Manter fire in 2000 in Tulare County show a charred landscape except for a line of healthy green where beavers had built dams. Before and after data convinced the researchers that “Smokey the Beaver” was a low-cost creator of “ribbons” of fire-resistant habitat.Beavers are critical to healthy rivers and our future water supply. The wetlands ringing a beaver pond sequester carbon and clean the water, filtering out pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus. Beaver “engineers” build dams and canals that create connectivity between land and water; these beaver wetlands function as vital biodiversity hubs for plant and animal species, including many that are endangered. River wetland systems with beavers have 30% more animal and plant species than those without.In recent years, studies have established the dollar value of having beavers in the landscape. The University of Helsinki, for instance, estimated the savings at $500 million annually for the Northern Hemisphere alone.Molly Alves, a senior environmental scientist who joined the California Department of Fish and Wildlife this past summer as the Beaver Restoration Program supervisor, is mapping watersheds and collecting data so she can move nuisance beavers to where they can do the most good.“We are looking at the landscape as a whole,” she said. “Where is the greatest wildfire risk? What areas are most impacted by drought? Where is erosion?” She is also working on a progress report of current translocations.Last year, beavers were returned to two sites on the traditional lands of Indigenous Californians, the Mountain Maidu and the Tule River Indians.On land the Maidu call Tásmam Koyóm, 2,000 acres near the headwaters of the Feather River, seven beavers joined a single resident in October 2023. In June of 2024, the Fish and Wildlife department announced that another group of beavers was translocated to the south fork of the Tule River, in Sequoia National Forest east of Porterville, Calif.In both cases, the releases were true homecomings. Researchers found remnant beaver dams in the mountain meadow Tásmam Koyóm streams, and in the southern Sierra, as Kenneth McDarment, the range manager for the Tule River Tribe, puts it, “There are beaver in our [ancient] pictographs.”Tribal leaders worked with scientists, nonprofits and the state to prepare beaver-friendly habitat, planting willows and other plants beavers eat and installing human-made beaver dam analogs to bring enough water to the area that beavers could survive to establish colonies.The Maidu want Tásmam Koyóm to be a showcase for traditional ecological knowledge. “Bringing the beaver back,” said Lorena Gorbert, a spokesperson for the Maidu Consortium, “was bringing back more balance to the area, putting it back … the way it should be.”As for the Tule River site, as McDarment explains, “We were in a drought in 2014 and the river was drying up. We said, ‘Why not bring beaver home?’ When the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of waterways covered by the Clean Water Act, it denied protection from development, pollution and destruction to “noncontinuous” rivers and streams — these include tributaries and wetlands, the exact waterways that beavers help construct, maintain and keep healthy. We’ve already destroyed more than 50% of our national wetlands, even more in California. With pilot beaver relocations and the codification of the restoration project, California is pushing back against that history and the Supreme Court’s dangerous shortsightedness. It’s showing the nation how political engagement with nature-based solutions can create environmental and economic resiliency. All eyes are on California now … and its beavers.Leila Philip is the author of “Beaverland: How One Weird Rodent Made America.” She is a professor at the College of the Holy Cross, where she holds a chair in the humanities.

California has by law acknowledged beavers, nature's preeminent water and environmental engineers, as partners in environmental restoration.

For the first time in 200 years it’s great to be a beaver in California. In a show of unanimous bipartisan support, the state Legislature voted this summer to pass Assembly Bill 2196, which codifies the state’s Beaver Restoration Program at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The law gives the program, which implements beaver-assisted environmental projects, protection from state budget cuts and political upheaval, and it stands as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s devastating ruling in 2023 that removed up to 70% of the nation’s waterways and wetlands from Clean Water Act protections.

California environmental activists, biologists and Indian tribes have been advocating for beavers for more than two decades, launching an extensive education campaign that included having to convince authorities that beavers are a native species throughout the state. Now the restoration effort will add to California’s “30x30” goals — the national effort to set aside and protect 30% of U.S. lands and coastal waters by 2030.

A beaver management plan is underway, and $2 million has been allocated to develop statewide coexistence strategies and help relocate beavers from where they cause problems to where they can solve them. Finally Castor canadensis, long maligned as a pest, is getting a rebrand as an ecological hero.

“I’m really proud of the transition we’ve made from laggard to leader on beavers,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources. “While there’s no silver bullet solutions to environmental restoration, beavers are a keystone species, and an important part of the puzzle to restore our ecosystems in California.”

Beavers, once plentiful, were wiped out of most of their range in California by 1900, hunted by fur traders and chased out by development. Those that were left often annoyed landowners who didn’t want their trees gnawed down to the ground and carted off to build dams, or who found their farmland or roadways inundated when a beaver colony moved in nearby. “Nuisance” beavers were killed. And yet California needs beavers — they are nature’s superlative ecosystem and water engineers.

Climate change has fundamentally altered California’s hydrology, delivering more rainwater and less snowmelt, exacerbating wildfire, drought and the depletion of groundwater and aquifers. When beavers move into a stream or creek and begin building their damming complexes, the ponds and wetlands they create are an antidote to all these problems.

The water swelling out of a beaver pond is just the beginning. Beaver ponds slow rivers and streams, storing an average of three times the water that’s visible by creating what are essentially huge underground sponges that can keep things flowing in dry summers and during drought. In times of flood, those same sponges soak up some of the excess, creating resiliency.

Studies have shown in stark terms how beavers fight fire. Satellite photos of the aftermath of the massive Manter fire in 2000 in Tulare County show a charred landscape except for a line of healthy green where beavers had built dams. Before and after data convinced the researchers that “Smokey the Beaver” was a low-cost creator of “ribbons” of fire-resistant habitat.

Beavers are critical to healthy rivers and our future water supply. The wetlands ringing a beaver pond sequester carbon and clean the water, filtering out pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus. Beaver “engineers” build dams and canals that create connectivity between land and water; these beaver wetlands function as vital biodiversity hubs for plant and animal species, including many that are endangered. River wetland systems with beavers have 30% more animal and plant species than those without.

In recent years, studies have established the dollar value of having beavers in the landscape. The University of Helsinki, for instance, estimated the savings at $500 million annually for the Northern Hemisphere alone.

Molly Alves, a senior environmental scientist who joined the California Department of Fish and Wildlife this past summer as the Beaver Restoration Program supervisor, is mapping watersheds and collecting data so she can move nuisance beavers to where they can do the most good.

“We are looking at the landscape as a whole,” she said. “Where is the greatest wildfire risk? What areas are most impacted by drought? Where is erosion?” She is also working on a progress report of current translocations.

Last year, beavers were returned to two sites on the traditional lands of Indigenous Californians, the Mountain Maidu and the Tule River Indians.

On land the Maidu call Tásmam Koyóm, 2,000 acres near the headwaters of the Feather River, seven beavers joined a single resident in October 2023. In June of 2024, the Fish and Wildlife department announced that another group of beavers was translocated to the south fork of the Tule River, in Sequoia National Forest east of Porterville, Calif.

In both cases, the releases were true homecomings. Researchers found remnant beaver dams in the mountain meadow Tásmam Koyóm streams, and in the southern Sierra, as Kenneth McDarment, the range manager for the Tule River Tribe, puts it, “There are beaver in our [ancient] pictographs.”

Tribal leaders worked with scientists, nonprofits and the state to prepare beaver-friendly habitat, planting willows and other plants beavers eat and installing human-made beaver dam analogs to bring enough water to the area that beavers could survive to establish colonies.

The Maidu want Tásmam Koyóm to be a showcase for traditional ecological knowledge. “Bringing the beaver back,” said Lorena Gorbert, a spokesperson for the Maidu Consortium, “was bringing back more balance to the area, putting it back … the way it should be.”

As for the Tule River site, as McDarment explains, “We were in a drought in 2014 and the river was drying up. We said, ‘Why not bring beaver home?’

When the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of waterways covered by the Clean Water Act, it denied protection from development, pollution and destruction to “noncontinuous” rivers and streams — these include tributaries and wetlands, the exact waterways that beavers help construct, maintain and keep healthy.

We’ve already destroyed more than 50% of our national wetlands, even more in California. With pilot beaver relocations and the codification of the restoration project, California is pushing back against that history and the Supreme Court’s dangerous shortsightedness. It’s showing the nation how political engagement with nature-based solutions can create environmental and economic resiliency.

All eyes are on California now … and its beavers.

Leila Philip is the author of “Beaverland: How One Weird Rodent Made America.” She is a professor at the College of the Holy Cross, where she holds a chair in the humanities.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Labor’s nature laws risk collapse with deal yet to be struck on eve of parliament’s final sitting day

Greens expected to sign on to 11th-hour compromise after Labor offers new concessionsAnthony Albanese is yet to land a deal to rewrite federal nature laws ahead of parliament’s final sitting day of the year, leaving the long-promised reforms at risk of collapse for the second time in 12 months.But political, industry and environment movement sources expect the Greens will eventually accept an 11th-hour compromise after Labor offered new concessions to secure the minor party’s support. Continue reading...

Anthony Albanese is yet to land a deal to rewrite federal nature laws ahead of parliament’s final sitting day of the year, leaving the long-promised reforms at risk of collapse for the second time in 12 months.But political, industry and environment movement sources expect the Greens will eventually accept an 11th-hour compromise after Labor offered new concessions to secure the minor party’s support.The government was locked in tense negotiations with the Greens and the Coalition on Wednesday as it races to meet a self-imposed deadline of overhauling the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament breaks for summer.The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has become involved in negotiations, speaking directly with his Greens counterpart Larissa Waters in a bid to resolve the standoff.Albanese’s active role in party-to-party talks on legislation is typically a sign that negotiations have reached the pointy end.Government sources confirmed there was no deal as of Wednesday night.The prime minister was yet to hold leader-to-leader talks with Sussan Ley as of Wednesday night, although the environment minister, Murray Watt, did speak again with his Liberal counterpart, Angie Bell.Watt’s meeting with Bell showed the government remained open to a potential deal with the Coalition, although that option was considered less likely after Ley criticised Labor’s offer to them as “totally insufficient”.Guardian Australia understands the opposition requested additional business-friendly changes on Wednesday, further complicating the prospects of a last-minute deal between the major parties.After an initial package of concessions, including measures to effectively prevent the fast-tracking of coal and gas projects, failed to sway the Greens, the government offered further changes to the minor party on Wednesday.Guardian Australia has not seen the revised offer and neither the Greens or the government would confirm details of the updated proposal.The Greens party room met on Wednesday to consider a position.Inspired by Graeme Samuel’s 2020 review of the EPBC Act, the bill promises to better protect nature through new environmental standards while also speeding up project assessments.It will also establish a new environmental protection agency – a Labor election promise at the past two federal ballots.The bill has faced intense criticism from all sides. Environmentalists warn it won’t properly tackle the extinction crisis while industry fears that certain features, in particular a proposed new “unacceptable impact”, could knock out projects.If Labor can’t secure a deal on Thursday, it would mark the second time in 12 months that planned reforms to the EPBC Act have been pushed off the agenda.In the last term of parliament, the former environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, proposed a staged approach to reforms and introduced legislation to establish an environment protection agency.But when Plibersek was on the cusp of a deal with the Greens and independent senator David Pocock, the bill was vetoed by the prime minister after pressure from the Western Australian government and mining sector.Albanese decided against resurrecting the bill ahead of the federal election in May, delaying the reform task until after he was returned to power.In an email to supporters on Wednesday, the Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) – which has campaigned for years to fix the EPBC Act – said it preferred the government teamed up with the Greens.“The Greens offer includes most of LEAN’s key asks, and we are hopeful this will be the path forward. The Coalition offer, while clearly inferior, does not catastrophically weaken the Labor bills,” the email, seen by Guardian Australia, said.“We remain positive, though understandably nervous, and we know many of you feel the same.”

Labor’s attempts to woo Greens and Coalition on nature laws revealed amid criticism of ‘coin toss’

Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more groundFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night. Continue reading...

The fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night.The intensifying negotiations comes as the government’s own advisory body on threatened species - the threatened species scientific committee (TSSC) - warned the legislation had not got the balance right to meet the goal of no new extinctions.In a submission to a Senate inquiry examining the bills, the committee warned the bills appeared to increase the minister’s discretion to decide when environmental protections would be upheld and this “could undermine” efforts to protect wildlife and avoid extinctions.The environment minister, Murray Watt, presented separate amendments to the Coalition and the Greens on Tuesday morning as he continues to pursue potential deals with both.The Climate Council chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, criticised the government for treating the long-awaited reforms “like a coin toss”.“Do they really care about protecting Australians and our environment from climate change, or is it all just politics?” she said.Under his offer to the Greens, Watt has offered several changes to address the party’s concern that coal and gas projects could be fast-tracked under the revamped EPBC Act.In one concession, the government is prepared to limit a new “streamline assessment” process to restrict fossil fuel projects.Labor is also prepared to reverse a controversial decision to hand the so-called “water trigger” back to the states, and ensure the commonwealth minister retains the ability to approve projects even under agreements that devolve decision-making powers to the states.As revealed on Saturday, coal and gas projects would also be excluded from a special “national interest” exemption if the Greens agree to support the legislation.After discussing the concessions at a party-room meeting on Tuesday morning, Guardian Australia understands the Greens are still not satisfied with the laws.The list of written amendments did not include the government’s offer to subject native forest logging to national environmental standards within three years, as negotiations continue on that provision.The Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, on Wednesday said the three-year timeframe was “three years too long”.Watt presented a separate set of concessions to the Coalition on Tuesday morning, which included imposing a 14-day time limit on “stop-work orders” and clarification that the maximum fines for breaches of nature laws – which are set at $1.6m for individuals and $825m for businesses – would only apply in the “most serious and egregious cases”.The latest offer did not include changes to “unacceptable impact” – a new definition that would, if met, result in an application being immediately refused.Clarifying that definition has been a key demand for the Coalition and industry groups, who claim it would set too low a bar to kibosh a project.Legal and scientific experts have the opposite view, fearing the provision won’t properly protect the most at-risk species and ecosystems.Liberal sources confirmed the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, told the Coalition’s joint party-room meeting on Tuesday morning that failing to revise the definition was a “deal-breaker” for the opposition.Guardian Australia understands Watt remains open to reworking the “unacceptable impact” definition as well as the proposed new “net gain” test, which is supposed to force developers to make up for damage and deliver an overall benefit for the environment.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, said the concessions offered on Tuesday morning were “totally insufficient”.Ley said the fact that Watt was simultaneously negotiating with the Coalition and the Greens showed that his main motivation was a “political fix”.“Right now, we have an environment minister with two sets of amendments, one in each hand. They’re radically different, these amendments,” she said.“He’s saying to the Coalition, make a deal with me. He’s saying to the Greens, make a deal with me. What does that tell you? What that tells you is this is a minister in search of a political fix, not in search of the legislative reform we need to bring investment, to back-in communities and jobs and to build the energy future that this country deserves.”

Labor to rule out controversial ‘national interest’ exemption for coal and gas if Greens back nature laws

Exclusive: Concession follows fierce criticism of the workaround but may not be enough to convince minor partyGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastLabor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry. Continue reading...

Labor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry.The concession alone may not be enough to win over the Greens, who demand protections for native forests and consideration of the climate impacts of projects in exchange for backing the proposed overhaul of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.With the government desperate to pass the laws in parliament’s final sitting of the year, the environment minister, Murray Watt, is locked in negotiations with the Greens and Coalition in the hope of landing a deal next week.Neither side supports the bill in its current form, putting the onus on Labor to cough up concessions if it wants to avoid the long-awaited reform collapsing for the second time in 12 months.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, is willing to support the laws if Labor agrees to gut environment protections and strip back the powers of its proposed environment protection agency (EPA).Sign up: AU Breaking News emailA senior government source confirmed to Guardian Australia that, under a potential deal with the Greens, it would rewrite the proposed “national interest” test to prevent it being used to approve fossil fuel projects.Critical minerals projects could still be approved.Under the provision, which Samuel initially supported in his 2020 review of the EPBC Act as a “rare exception”, the minister would be able to ignore environmental standards and greenlight a project if it was deemed in the “national interest”.While Watt has stressed the provision was intended for projects related to defence, national security and emergencies, the level of discretion written into the legislation has left him unable to rule out the possibility of exemptions for coal and gas.The Labor MP Ed Husic previously warned a future Coalition minister could misuse the power while Henry and Samuel both predicted a “conga line” of developers would lobby for special carveouts.Labor’s grassroots environmental action group also called for the power to be axed or at least subject to parliamentary oversight.As of Friday afternoon, the Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, and the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, were still waiting for Labor’s options for a potential deal.The amendments would need to put forward in coming days to give both sides time to get a deal through their respective party-rooms early next week.The EPBC bills are listed for debate in the Senate on Wednesday. Parliament rises for the year on Thursday.Eucalypt forest at Waratah Gully in NSW’s South East Forest national park. Photograph: Auscape/Universal Images Group/Getty ImagesHanson-Young on Friday reiterated that the Greens wouldn’t support the legislation without extra protections for forests and the climate.Labor cast the Greens as perpetual “blockers” in the previous term of parliament, but Hanson-Young said the party wasn’t feeling pressure to cave to the government’s demands.“What plays on my mind is not allowing this government off the hook when they’re pushing for laws that will fast-track coal and gas,” she said.Ahead of Friday’s hearings, an alliance of major environment groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and the legal firm Environmental Justice Australia, urged major changes to a bill that it warned “[does] not protect nature”.Among its suggested changes, the alliance called for the removal of new discretionary powers for the minister, the closing of loopholes for native forest logging, better engagement with First Nations communities, scrapping or limiting a proposed “restoration contributions” fund, consideration of climate impacts and reversing the decision to delegate decisions under the so-called “water trigger” to the states.The alliance also wants the federal EPA to be the main decision-maker on projects, with the minister only allowed to intervene in “exceptional circumstances”.Under the government’s model, which critics note is not genuinely independent, the minister would either make decisions or delegate that responsibility to an EPA official.“We call on the Labor government to substantially improve the bills and negotiate in good faith with members of the Senate that care about nature and a vibrant, healthy Australia,” the groups said.At Thursday’s round of inquiry hearings, the celebrated environmentalist and former Greens leader Bob Brown said the laws were an “insult to the environmental conscience of Australia”.He said the absence of a requirement for decision-makers to consider a project’s greenhouse gas emissions – known colloquially as a “climate trigger” – was analogous to stripping a treasurer of powers over taxation.“And I say that must be taken seriously, because that’s how the situation is,” he said.

Sea level rise threatens thousands of hazardous sites: Study

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites...

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites at the greatest risk of severe flooding are located in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts. The study suggests that if destabilized, these hazardous sites could harm neighborhoods that researchers identified as “Hispanic, households with incomes below twice the federal poverty line, households without a vehicle, non-voters, and renters.” “Racial residential segregation and the inequitable distribution of stormwater infrastructure further contribute to racialized patterns of flood risk across U.S. cities,” researchers said. More than half of these sites could start to face severe flood risks much sooner, as early as 2050, the study stated. This is due to extreme coastal flooding that is expected to double by that year. Researchers studied hazardous sites in Puerto Rico and 23 states with a coastline. Using historical sea level measurements, they then analyzed sea level rises based on low- and high-level emission scenarios. The low-level scenario showed that 11 percent of sites were at risk. “Under the high emissions scenario, over a fifth of coastal sewage treatment facilities, refineries and formerly used defense sites, roughly a third of power plants, and over 40% fossil fuel ports and terminals are projected to be at risk by 2100,” researchers wrote. Rising flood waters could also bring health risks if industrial animal farms or sewage treatment plants are struck, University of Maryland professor Sacoby Wilson told The Associated Press. People near these waters could be exposed to bacteria like E. coli, while flooded industrial sites could expose chemicals that cause rashes, headaches, fatigue and burning of the eyes. “For folks who are vulnerable, maybe have an underlying health condition, those health conditions could be exacerbated during those flood events,” Wilson, who was not behind the new study, told the AP. The goal of the study is to “get ahead of the problem by looking far out into the future,” Lara J. Cushing, associate professor in the University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, told the AP at a press conference Wednesday. “We do have time to respond and try to mitigate the risks and also increase resilience,” added Cushing, who co-authored the paper. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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.