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.

Warming waters are ‘scrambling ocean life’ on all sides of the United States

News Feed
Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Off the coast of Oregon, hidden just beneath the surface, once-towering seaweed forests are beginning to resemble clear-cut wastelands.Bull kelp, a giant species of seaweed that can grow 100 feet tall underwater and is known as the “sequoias of the sea,” is dying at a record pace, and so far, it’s not coming back. The kelp forests that formed the backbone of Oregon’s offshore ecosystems, affecting everything from snails to whales, have declined by two thirds since 2010.“It got so bad, we stopped doing kayak fishing tours,” said Dave Lacey, a boat captain in Port Orford. “We used to pull in about $10,000 every summer. Now that’s totally gone. We just gave up on it. I didn’t want to take people’s money and not catch any fish.”From the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, rising water temperatures and more frequent heat waves are changing what’s found under the surface, as mass migrations of whole species transform generational fishing business, offshore recreation and even what’s on the menu at local restaurants.Ethan Hamel (left) and Earl Long (right) work to load whitefish into the sorting bin on Saginaw Bay, MI on Tuesday June 11, 2024. (Santino Mattioli | MLive)In 2024, Advance Local Media newsrooms in Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan and Oregon set out to document the changes. Some of what fishermen are reporting is sudden, the effects decisive and clear, while other changes are more subtle and still emerging.Scientists are just beginning to document the changing patterns, as they tease apart how warming waters affect ecosystems influenced by many variables. For now, scientists are sure things are getting hotter, and the fishermen are sure marine species are on the move. And no one can say for certain what comes next.“One of the things that keeps me up at night is … in addition to all the changes we’re seeing, we know there are going to be big surprises,” said Malin Pinsky, a professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University.“And those are going to likely disrupt our economies, likely disrupt the ecosystem — the ocean ecosystems — that we rely on,” he told NJ.com.(Andre Malok | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)Off the Atlantic coast, the lucrative black sea bass are heading farther and farther north as water temperatures increase. That’s a boon for New Jersey, where fishing operations are expanding, but not so much for North Carolina, where sea bass numbers are plummeting.The change is so rapid that the government can’t keep up. Even in places where black sea bass are thriving, outdated limits mean they can’t be caught.“This commercial quota has needed, and can easily sustain, an increase,” Patrick Knapp, a Rhode Island fisherman, wrote to regulators. “The science is there and so are the fish.”In the Gulf of Mexico, tropical fish like snook are making their way north, where sportfish competitions off Alabama have added categories for colorful species that are normally found in the Florida Keys. While amateurs welcome the tropical catch, warming temperatures are disrupting the patterns of popular fishing targets, as oysters and corals struggle to hold on in their historic ranges.“We’ve always had that cobia run in March and April and we would see them migrate in,” said Frank Harwell, a long-time fishing boat captain who’s fished coastal Alabama most of his life. “We don’t see that at all anymore.”Even the Great Lakes are affected, as there isn’t as much ice cover as there used to be. That means the whitefish hatch earlier, making them more vulnerable to predators. At the same time, invasive mussels are gobbling up their food, throwing a historic fishery into turmoil.“If there is enough ice cover over them and they do hatch, they’re having a hard time finding food up until about age 2,” said Lakon Williams of Bay Port Fish Company, which still operates two fishing boats on Lake Huron.In Oregon, the loss of the kelp forests is leading to changes big and small, from a drop in the commercial red sea urchin harvest to a decline in recreational fishing near the shore to the complete disappearance of red abalone snails. It’s like a forest with no trees, and nowhere for the snails and fish to live, said Sarah Gravem, a marine ecologist at Oregon State University.“We went snorkeling one day and there was zero kelp, except for this one old kelp from the year before that had made it through,” Gravem told The Oregonian/OregonLive. “I dove down to the bottom on this scraggly looking, ugly kelp and on the kelp’s holdfast there was a single abalone licking the stem. And about 17 urchins were on its back and coming up behind it and this abalone was just trying to shake them off. It was the most heartbreaking moment.”In Hot WaterThe last 10 yearsBy most measures, 2023 broke records. Analysis done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed 2023 was the hottest year on record in North America, South America and Africa. It was the second warmest year ever in Europe and Asia.The global surface temperature rose higher above its historical average than ever before last year. And many areas are continuing to break heat records in 2024.While the change in temperature is evident and easily documented, the impacts are harder to suss out.Recording ecosystem-wide changes is a difficult and slow process that often takes years before trends clearly emerge, Dana Infante, chair of Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, told MLive.com.“This isn’t an overnight thing because we also know there are natural fluctuations, right? We want to be sure that the changes that are being detected are real,” Infante said.“The warming has been the most dramatic in the last 10 years. We’re just on the cusp of researchers really starting to get some literature out that documents changes.”For many of these changes, there are more factors than just temperature to blame. Invasive species are taking a toll in Michigan. Plastic pollution is affecting marine life off New Jersey. Changes in freshwater flow can be devastating to Gulf oysters. Hordes of purple urchins, emboldened by the disappearance of their predator, are devouring kelp in Oregon.But warming waters seem to be a common culprit.“Climate change is scrambling ocean life in many ways right now, including warming waters, loss of oxygen, and more acidification than we’ve seen historically,” said Pinsky, the Rutgers professor. “It’s pushing fish and other marine life to new locations and driving them to disappear from places that we’ve relied on them (to be) for decades and centuries.“All of this then affects our fisheries and affects our coastal economies and eventually affects the food that ends up on our dinner plates and ends up in the global supply chain.”Captain Art Unkefer from the fishing boat Rufus II watches ice being poured on black sea bass on a dock in Sea Isle City on Saturday, May 25, 2024. (Jim Lowney | For NJ Advance Media)Dinner plates have already been impacted.The Atlantic northern shrimp population in the Gulf of Maine collapsed after a record-setting marine heat wave in 2012. Research has shown that warmer temperatures hurt the shrimp’s ability to reproduce, and made the waters more palatable for the longfin squid, a voracious predator that took a toll on the northern shrimp.“My first reaction when I saw the 2012 survey data was shock, perhaps even horror, and disbelief,” said Anne Richards, a retired biologist formerly with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass.“Though recruitment had been down in the previous years, we would not have expected to see the bottom fall out of the adult population like that. It was unprecedented,” she told NJ.com.Since 2013, the fishery is still closed and has not recovered, and its future is very much in doubt.“Not all species react the same way to climate change,” Richards said. “So there will be new suites of species coexisting that hadn’t really interacted before, with perhaps unpredictable results.”In Alabama’s Gulf Coast, researchers found a direct link between oyster harvests and marine heat waves — consecutive days where the temperature far exceeds the average for that date.Fresh from Alabama coastal waters, wild oysters sit on a dock after being brought in on Feb. 11, 2020, the last day of Alabama's 2019-20 oyster season.  (Lawrence Specker | LSpecker@AL.com)Oyster reproduction plummeted in years that included long-lasting marine heat waves, according to research by Sean Powers, chair of the University of South Alabama’s Stokes School of Marine and Environmental Sciences and other researchers.“It is a real problem with oysters that we’re experiencing such high extreme temperatures, and that’s going to make the environment much less hospitable for the oysters,” Powers told AL.com.Bottom-dwelling Atlantic surf clams have also suffered from warmers waters off New Jersey’s coast in recent years.In the Florida Keys, there has been a lot of attention on coral reefs, bleached by the heat.Mandy Karnauskas, Research Fishery Biologist and Ecosystem Science Lead for NOAA’s Southeast Fisheries Science Center in Miami, said that 2023 was an especially bad year for corals in the Florida Keys.“We have really clear evidence on how that heat stress and these heat waves impact our corals, and last year, we actually had a really bad year,” Karnauskas said. “In 2023 the ocean was really hot. I know we had some buoys out in the coastal areas, but well offshore where the temperature was actually over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.”According to NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program, some coral types such as elkhorn corals are particularly vulnerable. NOAA noted that of 160 elkhorn coral genotypes documented in the Florida Keys, only 37 remained in fall of 2023.“Climate change is scrambling ocean life in many ways right now, including warming waters, loss of oxygen, and more acidification than we’ve seen historically.”Malin Pinsky, professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers UniversityIn April 2024, NOAA warned the planet was experiencing a global coral bleaching event, the fourth documented in the past decade.Coral bleaching is when a normally vibrant, colorful coral turns white due to stress. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the coral is dead — they can recover if conditions improve — but it means the coral is in dire straits.Off the coast of Oregon, the bull kelp acts much like a coral reef, creating a refuge that sustains a chain of wildlife. Now researchers and nonprofit groups are beginning to try to restore that ecosystem by regrowing kelp forests that are disappearing fast.Members of the Oregon Kelp Alliance enter the Pacific Ocean on May 24, 2024 to snorkel and dive in one of Oregon’s last remaining kelp forests, at Cape Arago State Park near Coos Bay. (Gosia Wozniacka / The Oregonian)Part of the problem for the kelp was the disappearance of the sunflower sea star, which turned out to be a key cog in the ecosystem. The sea stars eat purple sea urchins, a round, spiky invertebrate that eats kelp like a teenager eats french fries.“I don’t think the outbreak was triggered by global warming. But the warmness made everything worse,” said Gravem, the marine ecologist at Oregon State. “It’s clear the stars died a lot faster in warmer waters than in colder.”When the sea stars suffered huge losses beginning in 2013, the urchin populations exploded, with the hungry echinoderms devouring the underwater forests. Now, efforts are underway to replant the kelp and breed and reintroduce the sea stars to rescue Oregon’s iconic marine ecosystem. But it’s a tall order.Aaron Galloway, a marine ecologist at the University of Oregon who regularly dives off the Pacific coast for his research on the sea stars, said he’s not sure what comes next for the great kelp forests.A bull kelp’s air-filled bladder floats up to the surface off the Oregon coast, its fronds or blades providing a perfect hiding place for tiny baby fish. (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Reserves Program)“I’m somewhat optimistic that there’s going to be some recoveries, but it’s also a time of great sadness,” he told The Oregonian/OregonLive.“I mean, there’s so much change happening in the ocean. I’m not sure what’s going to be here in the future.”

What's under the surface has always been a little mysterious. But that's never been more true, as rising temps shuffle species on all sides of the country.

Off the coast of Oregon, hidden just beneath the surface, once-towering seaweed forests are beginning to resemble clear-cut wastelands.

Bull kelp, a giant species of seaweed that can grow 100 feet tall underwater and is known as the “sequoias of the sea,” is dying at a record pace, and so far, it’s not coming back. The kelp forests that formed the backbone of Oregon’s offshore ecosystems, affecting everything from snails to whales, have declined by two thirds since 2010.

“It got so bad, we stopped doing kayak fishing tours,” said Dave Lacey, a boat captain in Port Orford. “We used to pull in about $10,000 every summer. Now that’s totally gone. We just gave up on it. I didn’t want to take people’s money and not catch any fish.”

From the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, rising water temperatures and more frequent heat waves are changing what’s found under the surface, as mass migrations of whole species transform generational fishing business, offshore recreation and even what’s on the menu at local restaurants.

Ethan Hamel (left) and Earl Long (right) work to load whitefish into the sorting bin on Saginaw Bay, MI on Tuesday June 11, 2024. (Santino Mattioli | MLive)

In 2024, Advance Local Media newsrooms in Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan and Oregon set out to document the changes. Some of what fishermen are reporting is sudden, the effects decisive and clear, while other changes are more subtle and still emerging.

Scientists are just beginning to document the changing patterns, as they tease apart how warming waters affect ecosystems influenced by many variables. For now, scientists are sure things are getting hotter, and the fishermen are sure marine species are on the move. And no one can say for certain what comes next.

“One of the things that keeps me up at night is … in addition to all the changes we’re seeing, we know there are going to be big surprises,” said Malin Pinsky, a professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University.

“And those are going to likely disrupt our economies, likely disrupt the ecosystem — the ocean ecosystems — that we rely on,” he told NJ.com.

(Andre Malok | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

Off the Atlantic coast, the lucrative black sea bass are heading farther and farther north as water temperatures increase. That’s a boon for New Jersey, where fishing operations are expanding, but not so much for North Carolina, where sea bass numbers are plummeting.

The change is so rapid that the government can’t keep up. Even in places where black sea bass are thriving, outdated limits mean they can’t be caught.

“This commercial quota has needed, and can easily sustain, an increase,” Patrick Knapp, a Rhode Island fisherman, wrote to regulators. “The science is there and so are the fish.”

In the Gulf of Mexico, tropical fish like snook are making their way north, where sportfish competitions off Alabama have added categories for colorful species that are normally found in the Florida Keys. While amateurs welcome the tropical catch, warming temperatures are disrupting the patterns of popular fishing targets, as oysters and corals struggle to hold on in their historic ranges.

“We’ve always had that cobia run in March and April and we would see them migrate in,” said Frank Harwell, a long-time fishing boat captain who’s fished coastal Alabama most of his life. “We don’t see that at all anymore.”

Even the Great Lakes are affected, as there isn’t as much ice cover as there used to be. That means the whitefish hatch earlier, making them more vulnerable to predators. At the same time, invasive mussels are gobbling up their food, throwing a historic fishery into turmoil.

“If there is enough ice cover over them and they do hatch, they’re having a hard time finding food up until about age 2,” said Lakon Williams of Bay Port Fish Company, which still operates two fishing boats on Lake Huron.

In Oregon, the loss of the kelp forests is leading to changes big and small, from a drop in the commercial red sea urchin harvest to a decline in recreational fishing near the shore to the complete disappearance of red abalone snails. It’s like a forest with no trees, and nowhere for the snails and fish to live, said Sarah Gravem, a marine ecologist at Oregon State University.

“We went snorkeling one day and there was zero kelp, except for this one old kelp from the year before that had made it through,” Gravem told The Oregonian/OregonLive. “I dove down to the bottom on this scraggly looking, ugly kelp and on the kelp’s holdfast there was a single abalone licking the stem. And about 17 urchins were on its back and coming up behind it and this abalone was just trying to shake them off. It was the most heartbreaking moment.”

In Hot Water

The last 10 years

By most measures, 2023 broke records. Analysis done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed 2023 was the hottest year on record in North America, South America and Africa. It was the second warmest year ever in Europe and Asia.

The global surface temperature rose higher above its historical average than ever before last year. And many areas are continuing to break heat records in 2024.

While the change in temperature is evident and easily documented, the impacts are harder to suss out.

Recording ecosystem-wide changes is a difficult and slow process that often takes years before trends clearly emerge, Dana Infante, chair of Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, told MLive.com.

“This isn’t an overnight thing because we also know there are natural fluctuations, right? We want to be sure that the changes that are being detected are real,” Infante said.

“The warming has been the most dramatic in the last 10 years. We’re just on the cusp of researchers really starting to get some literature out that documents changes.”

For many of these changes, there are more factors than just temperature to blame. Invasive species are taking a toll in Michigan. Plastic pollution is affecting marine life off New Jersey. Changes in freshwater flow can be devastating to Gulf oysters. Hordes of purple urchins, emboldened by the disappearance of their predator, are devouring kelp in Oregon.

But warming waters seem to be a common culprit.

“Climate change is scrambling ocean life in many ways right now, including warming waters, loss of oxygen, and more acidification than we’ve seen historically,” said Pinsky, the Rutgers professor. “It’s pushing fish and other marine life to new locations and driving them to disappear from places that we’ve relied on them (to be) for decades and centuries.

“All of this then affects our fisheries and affects our coastal economies and eventually affects the food that ends up on our dinner plates and ends up in the global supply chain.”

Captain Art Unkefer from the fishing boat Rufus II watches ice being poured on black sea bass on a dock in Sea Isle City on Saturday, May 25, 2024. (Jim Lowney | For NJ Advance Media)

Dinner plates have already been impacted.

The Atlantic northern shrimp population in the Gulf of Maine collapsed after a record-setting marine heat wave in 2012. Research has shown that warmer temperatures hurt the shrimp’s ability to reproduce, and made the waters more palatable for the longfin squid, a voracious predator that took a toll on the northern shrimp.

“My first reaction when I saw the 2012 survey data was shock, perhaps even horror, and disbelief,” said Anne Richards, a retired biologist formerly with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass.

“Though recruitment had been down in the previous years, we would not have expected to see the bottom fall out of the adult population like that. It was unprecedented,” she told NJ.com.

Since 2013, the fishery is still closed and has not recovered, and its future is very much in doubt.

“Not all species react the same way to climate change,” Richards said. “So there will be new suites of species coexisting that hadn’t really interacted before, with perhaps unpredictable results.”

In Alabama’s Gulf Coast, researchers found a direct link between oyster harvests and marine heat waves — consecutive days where the temperature far exceeds the average for that date.

Fresh from Alabama coastal waters, wild oysters sit on a dock after being brought in on Feb. 11, 2020, the last day of Alabama's 2019-20 oyster season.  (Lawrence Specker | LSpecker@AL.com)

Oyster reproduction plummeted in years that included long-lasting marine heat waves, according to research by Sean Powers, chair of the University of South Alabama’s Stokes School of Marine and Environmental Sciences and other researchers.

“It is a real problem with oysters that we’re experiencing such high extreme temperatures, and that’s going to make the environment much less hospitable for the oysters,” Powers told AL.com.

Bottom-dwelling Atlantic surf clams have also suffered from warmers waters off New Jersey’s coast in recent years.

In the Florida Keys, there has been a lot of attention on coral reefs, bleached by the heat.

Mandy Karnauskas, Research Fishery Biologist and Ecosystem Science Lead for NOAA’s Southeast Fisheries Science Center in Miami, said that 2023 was an especially bad year for corals in the Florida Keys.

“We have really clear evidence on how that heat stress and these heat waves impact our corals, and last year, we actually had a really bad year,” Karnauskas said. “In 2023 the ocean was really hot. I know we had some buoys out in the coastal areas, but well offshore where the temperature was actually over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.”

According to NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program, some coral types such as elkhorn corals are particularly vulnerable. NOAA noted that of 160 elkhorn coral genotypes documented in the Florida Keys, only 37 remained in fall of 2023.

“Climate change is scrambling ocean life in many ways right now, including warming waters, loss of oxygen, and more acidification than we’ve seen historically.”

Malin Pinsky, professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University

In April 2024, NOAA warned the planet was experiencing a global coral bleaching event, the fourth documented in the past decade.

Coral bleaching is when a normally vibrant, colorful coral turns white due to stress. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the coral is dead — they can recover if conditions improve — but it means the coral is in dire straits.

Off the coast of Oregon, the bull kelp acts much like a coral reef, creating a refuge that sustains a chain of wildlife. Now researchers and nonprofit groups are beginning to try to restore that ecosystem by regrowing kelp forests that are disappearing fast.

Members of the Oregon Kelp Alliance enter the Pacific Ocean on May 24, 2024 to snorkel and dive in one of Oregon’s last remaining kelp forests, at Cape Arago State Park near Coos Bay. (Gosia Wozniacka / The Oregonian)

Part of the problem for the kelp was the disappearance of the sunflower sea star, which turned out to be a key cog in the ecosystem. The sea stars eat purple sea urchins, a round, spiky invertebrate that eats kelp like a teenager eats french fries.

“I don’t think the outbreak was triggered by global warming. But the warmness made everything worse,” said Gravem, the marine ecologist at Oregon State. “It’s clear the stars died a lot faster in warmer waters than in colder.”

When the sea stars suffered huge losses beginning in 2013, the urchin populations exploded, with the hungry echinoderms devouring the underwater forests. Now, efforts are underway to replant the kelp and breed and reintroduce the sea stars to rescue Oregon’s iconic marine ecosystem. But it’s a tall order.

Aaron Galloway, a marine ecologist at the University of Oregon who regularly dives off the Pacific coast for his research on the sea stars, said he’s not sure what comes next for the great kelp forests.

A bull kelp’s air-filled bladder floats up to the surface off the Oregon coast, its fronds or blades providing a perfect hiding place for tiny baby fish. (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Reserves Program)

“I’m somewhat optimistic that there’s going to be some recoveries, but it’s also a time of great sadness,” he told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

“I mean, there’s so much change happening in the ocean. I’m not sure what’s going to be here in the future.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Some big water agencies in farming areas get water for free. Critics say that needs to end

The federal government is providing water to some large agricultural districts for free. In a new study, researchers urge the Trump administration to start charging more for water.

The water that flows down irrigation canals to some of the West’s biggest expanses of farmland comes courtesy of the federal government for a very low price — even, in some cases, for free.In a new study, researchers analyzed wholesale prices charged by the federal government in California, Arizona and Nevada, and found that large agricultural water agencies pay only a fraction of what cities pay, if anything at all. They said these “dirt-cheap” prices cost taxpayers, add to the strains on scarce water, and discourage conservation — even as the Colorado River’s depleted reservoirs continue to decline.“Federal taxpayers have been subsidizing effectively free water for a very, very long time,” said Noah Garrison, a researcher at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. “We can’t address the growing water scarcity in the West while we continue to give that water away for free or close to it.”The report, released this week by UCLA and the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, examines water that local agencies get from the Colorado River as well as rivers in California’s Central Valley, and concludes that the federal government delivers them water at much lower prices than state water systems or other suppliers.The researchers recommend the Trump administration start charging a “water reliability and security surcharge” on all Colorado River water as well as water from the canals of the Central Valley Project in California. That would encourage agencies and growers to conserve, they said, while generating hundreds of millions of dollars to repair aging and damaged canals and pay for projects such as new water recycling plants.“The need for the price of water to reflect its scarcity is urgent in light of the growing Colorado River Basin crisis,” the researchers wrote. The study analyzed only wholesale prices paid by water agencies, not the prices paid by individual farmers or city residents. It found that agencies serving farming areas pay about $30 per acre-foot of water on average, whereas city water utilities pay $512 per acre-foot. In California, Arizona and Nevada, the federal government supplies more than 7 million acre-feet of water, about 14 times the total water usage of Los Angeles, for less than $1 per acre-foot. And more than half of that — nearly one-fourth of all the water the researchers analyzed — is delivered for free by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to five water agencies in farming areas: the Imperial Irrigation District, Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District, as well as the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Nevada and the Unit B Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona. Along the Colorado River, about three-fourths of the water is used for agriculture.Farmers in California’s Imperial Valley receive the largest share of Colorado River water, growing hay for cattle, lettuce, spinach, broccoli and other crops on more than 450,000 acres of irrigated lands. The Imperial Irrigation District charges farmers the same rate for water that it has for years: $20 per acre-foot. Tina Shields, IID’s water department manager, said the district opposes any surcharge on water. Comparing agricultural and urban water costs, as the researchers did, she said, “is like comparing a grape to a watermelon,” given major differences in how water is distributed and treated.Shields pointed out that IID and local farmers are already conserving, and this year the savings will equal about 23% of the district’s total water allotment. “Imperial Valley growers provide the nation with a safe, reliable food supply on the thinnest of margins for many growers,” she said in an email.She acknowledged IID does not pay any fee to the government for water, but said it does pay for operating, maintaining and repairing both federal water infrastructure and the district’s own system. “I see no correlation between the cost of Colorado River water and shortages, and disagree with these inflammatory statements,” Shields said, adding that there “seems to be an intent to drive a wedge between agricultural and urban water users at a time when collaborative partnerships are more critical than ever.”The Colorado River provides water for seven states, 30 Native tribes and northern Mexico, but it’s in decline. Its reservoirs have fallen during a quarter-century of severe drought intensified by climate change. Its two largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are now less than one-third full.Negotiations among the seven states on how to deal with shortages have deadlocked.Mark Gold, a co-author, said the government’s current water prices are so low that they don’t cover the costs of operating, maintaining and repairing aging aqueducts and other infrastructure. Even an increase to $50 per acre-foot of water, he said, would help modernize water systems and incentivize conservation. A spokesperson for the U.S. Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of Reclamation, declined to comment on the proposal.The Colorado River was originally divided among the states under a 1922 agreement that overpromised what the river could provide. That century-old pact and the ingrained system of water rights, combined with water that costs next to nothing, Gold said, lead to “this slow-motion train wreck that is the Colorado right now.” Research has shown that the last 25 years were likely the driest quarter-century in the American West in at least 1,200 years, and that global warming is contributing to this megadrought.The Colorado River’s flow has decreased about 20% so far this century, and scientists have found that roughly half the decline is due to rising temperatures, driven largely by fossil fuels.In a separate report this month, scientists Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall said the latest science suggests that climate change will probably “exert a stronger influence, and this will mean a higher likelihood of continued lower precipitation in the headwaters of the Colorado River into the future.” Experts have urged the Trump administration to impose substantial water cuts throughout the Colorado River Basin, saying permanent reductions are necessary. Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter, researchers at Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy, have suggested the federal government set up a voluntary program to buy and retire water-intensive farmlands, or to pay landowners who “agree to permanent restrictions on water use.”Over the last few years, California and other states have negotiated short-term deals and as part of that, some farmers in California and Arizona are temporarily leaving hay fields parched and fallow in exchange for federal payments.The UCLA researchers criticized these deals, saying water agencies “obtain water from the federal government at low or no cost, and the government then buys that water back from the districts at enormous cost to taxpayers.”Isabel Friedman, a coauthor and NRDC researcher, said adopting a surcharge would be a powerful conservation tool. “We need a long-term strategy that recognizes water as a limited resource and prices it as such,” she wrote in an article about the proposal.

California cities pay a lot for water; some agricultural districts get it for free

Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.

In summary Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada. California cities pay far more for water on average than districts that supply farms — with some urban water agencies shelling out more than $2,500 per acre-foot of surface water, and some irrigation districts paying nothing, according to new research.  A report published today by researchers with the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and advocates with the Natural Resources Defense Council shines a light on vast disparities in the price of water across California, Arizona and Nevada.  The true price of water is often hidden from consumers. A household bill may reflect suppliers’ costs to build conduits and pump water from reservoirs and rivers to farms and cities. A local district may obtain water from multiple sources at different costs. Even experts have trouble deciphering how much water suppliers pay for the water itself. The research team spent a year scouring state and federal contracts, financial reports and agency records to assemble a dataset of water purchases, transfers and contracts to acquire water from rivers and reservoirs. They compared vastly different water suppliers with different needs and geographies, purchasing water from delivery systems built at different times and paid for under different contracts. Their overarching conclusion: One of the West’s most valuable resources has no consistent valuation – and sometimes costs nothing at all.  Cities pay the highest prices for water. Look up what cities or irrigation districts in California, Nevada and Arizona pay for surface water in our interactive database at calmatters.org “It costs money to move water around,” the report says, “but there is no cost, and no price signal, for the actual water.” That’s a problem, the authors argue, as California and six other states in the Colorado River basin hash out how to distribute the river’s dwindling flows — pressed by federal ultimatums, and dire conditions in the river’s two major reservoirs. The study sounds the alarm that the price of water doesn’t reflect its growing scarcity and disincentivizes conservation. “We’re dealing with a river system and water supply source that is in absolute crisis and is facing massive shortfalls … and yet we’re still treating this as if it’s an abundant, limitless resource that should be free,” said Noah Garrison, environmental science practicum director at UCLA and lead author on the study.  Jeffrey Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, applauded the research effort. Though he had not yet reviewed the report, he said complications abound, built into California’s water infrastructure itself and amplified by climate change. Moving, storing and treating water can drive up costs, and are only sometimes captured in the price.  “We’ve got to be careful about pointing our fingers and saying farmers are getting a free ride,” Mount said. Still, he agreed that water is undervalued: “We do not pay the full costs of water — the full social, full economic and the full environmental costs of water.”  Coastal cities pay the most The research team investigated how much suppliers above a certain purchase threshold spend on water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.  They found that California water suppliers pay more than double on average than what Nevada districts pay for water, and seven times more than suppliers in Arizona.  The highest costs span the coast between San Francisco and San Diego, which the researchers attributed to the cost of delivery to these regions and water transfers that drive up the price every time water changes hands.  “In some of those cases it’s almost a geographic penalty for California, that there are larger conveyance or transport and infrastructure needs, depending on where the districts are located,” Garrison said.  Agricultural water districts pay the least In California, according to the authors, cities pay on average 20 times more than water suppliers for farms — about $722 per acre foot, compared to $36.  One acre foot can supply roughly 11 Californians for a year, according to the state’s Department of Water Resources.  Five major agricultural suppliers paid nothing to the federal government for nearly 4 million acre-feet of water, including three in California that receive Colorado River water: the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Palo Verde Irrigation District.  Tina Anderholt Shields, water manager for the Imperial Irrigation District, which receives the single largest share of Colorado River water, said the district’s contract with the U.S. government does not require any payment for the water.  Cities, by contrast, received less than 40,000 acre-feet of water for $0. The report notes, however, that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a major urban water importer, spends only 25 cents an acre-foot for around 850,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River.  Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River resources at Metropolitan, said that the true cost of this water isn’t reflected in the 25-cent fee, because the expense comes from moving it. By the time the Colorado River water gets to the district, he said it costs several hundred dollars. Plus, he added, the district pays for hydropower, which helps cover the costs of the dams storing the water supply. “That enables us to only pay 25 cents an acre foot to the feds on the water side, because we’re paying Hoover Dam costs on the power side.” Federal supplies are the cheapest; transfers drive up costs Much of the difference among water prices across three states comes down to source: those whose supplies come from federally managed rivers, reservoirs, aqueducts and pumps pay far less on average than those receiving water from state managed distribution systems or via water transfers.  Garrison and his team proposed adding a $50 surcharge per acre-foot of cheap federal supplies to help shore up the infrastructure against leaks and losses or pay for large-scale conservation efforts without tapping into taxpayer dollars.  But growers say that would devastate farming in California.  “It’s important to note that the ‘value’ of water is priceless,” said Allison Febbo, General Manager of Westlands Water District, which supplies San Joaquin Valley farms. The report calculates that the district pays less than $40 per acre foot for water from the federal Central Valley Project, though the Westlands rate structure notes another $14 fee to a restoration fund. “The consequences of unaffordable water can be seen throughout our District: fallowed fields, unemployment, decline in food production…” The Imperial Irrigation District’s Shields said that a surcharge would be inconsistent with their contract, difficult to implement, and unworkable for growers.  “It’s not like farmers can just pass it on to their buyers and then have that roll down to the consumer level where it might be ‘manageable,’” Shields said. The most expensive water in California is more than $2,800 an acre-foot The most expensive water in California, Arizona or Nevada flows from the rivers of Northern California, down California’s state-managed system of aqueducts and pumps, to the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency in Riverside County. Total cost, according to the report: $2,870.21 per acre foot.  Lance Eckhart, the agency’s general manager, said he hadn’t spoken to the study’s authors but that the number sounded plausible. The price tag would make sense, he said, if it included contributing to the costs for building and maintaining the 705-mile long water delivery system, as well as for the electricity needed to pump water over mountains.  Eckhart compared the water conveyance to a railroad, and his water agency to a distant, distant stop. “We’re at the end, so we have the most railroad track to pay for, and also the most energy costs to get it down here,” he said.  Because it took decades for construction of the water delivery system to reach San Gorgonio Pass, the water agency built some of those costs into local property taxes before the water even arrived, rather than into the water bills for the cities and towns they supply. As a result, its mostly municipal customers pay only $399 per acre foot, Eckhart said.  “You can’t build it into rates if you’re not going to see your first gallon for 40 years,” Ekhart said.  The study didn’t interrogate how the wholesale price of imported water translates to residential bills. Water managers point out that cheap supplies like groundwater can help dilute the costs of pricey imported water.  The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, for instance, purchases water imported from the Colorado River and Northern California to fill gaps left by local groundwater stores, supplies from the Owens Valley, and other locally managed sources, said Marty Adams, the utility’s former general manager. (The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was unable to provide an interview.) Because the amount of water needed can vary from year to year, it’s added as an additional charge on top of the base rate, Adams said. “If you have to pay for purchased water somewhere, when you add all the numbers up, it comes out in that total,” he said.  “The purchased water becomes the wildcard all the time.”

Scientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the Water

Parkinson’s disease has environmental toxic factors, not just genetic.

Skip to main contentScientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the WaterNew ideas about chronic illness could revolutionize treatment, if we take the research seriously.Photograph: Rachel JessenThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers.Start your free trial to access The Big Story and all premium newsletters.—cancel anytime.START FREE TRIALAlready a subscriber? Sign InThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers. START FREE TRIALword word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word wordmmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1

Drinking water contaminated with Pfas probably increases risk of infant mortality, study finds

Study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire shows residents’ reproductive outcomes near contaminated sitesDrinking water contaminated with Pfas chemicals probably increases the risk of infant mortality and other harm to newborns, a new peer-reviewed study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire finds.The first-of-its-kind University of Arizona research found drinking well water down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%, pre-term birth of 20%, and low-weight birth of 43%. Continue reading...

Drinking water contaminated with Pfas chemicals probably increases the risk of infant mortality and other harm to newborns, a new peer-reviewed study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire finds.The first-of-its-kind University of Arizona research found drinking well water down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%, pre-term birth of 20%, and low-weight birth of 43%.It was also tied to an increase in extremely premature birth and extremely low-weight birth by 168% and 180%, respectively.The findings caught authors by surprise, said Derek Lemoine, a study co-author and economics professor at the University of Arizona who focuses on environmental policymaking and pricing climate risks.“I don’t know if we expected to find effects this big and this detectable, especially given that there isn’t that much infant mortality, and there aren’t that many extremely low weight or pre-term births,” Lemoine said. “But it was there in the data.”The study also weighed the cost of societal harms in drinking contaminated water against up-front cleanup costs, and found it to be much cheaper to address Pfas water pollution.Extrapolating the findings to the entire US population, the authors estimate a nearly $8bn negative annual economic impact just in increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. The cost of complying with current regulations for removing Pfas in drinking water is estimated at about $3.8bn.“We are trying to put numbers on this and that’s important because when you want to clean up and regulate Pfas, there’s a real cost to it,” Lemoine said.Pfas are a class of at least 16,000 compounds often used to help products resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate in the environment, and they are linked to serious health problems such as cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders and birth defects.Pfas are widely used across the economy, and industrial sites that utilize them in high volume often pollute groundwater. Military bases and airports are among major sources of Pfas pollution because the chemicals are used in firefighting foam. The federal government estimated that about 95 million people across the country drink contaminated water from public or private wells.Previous research has raised concern about the impact of Pfas exposure on fetuses and newborns.Among those are toxicological studies in which researchers examine the chemicals’ impact on lab animals, but that leaves some question about whether humans experience the same harms, Lemoine said.Other studies are correlative and look at the levels of Pfas in umbilical cord blood or in newborns in relation to levels of disease. Lemoine said those findings are not always conclusive, in part because many variables can contribute to reproductive harm.The new natural study is unique because it gets close to “isolating the effect of the Pfas itself, and not anything around it”, Lemoine said.Researchers achieved this by identifying 41 New Hampshire sites contaminated with Pfoa and Pfos, two common Pfas compounds, then using topography data to determine groundwater flow direction. The authors then examined reproductive outcomes among residents down gradient from the sites.Researchers chose New Hampshire because it is the only state where Pfas and reproductive data is available, Lemoine said. Well locations are confidential, so mothers were unaware of whether their water source was down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site. That created a randomization that allows for causal inference, the authors noted.The study’s methodology is rigorous and unique, and underscores “that Pfas is no joke, and is toxic at very low concentrations”, said Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst with the Environmental Working Group non-profit. The group studies Pfas exposures and advocates for tighter regulations.The study is in part effective because mothers did not know whether they were exposed, which created the randomization, Evans said, but she noted that the state has the information. The findings raise questions about whether the state should be doing a similar analysis and alerting mothers who are at risk, Evans said.Lemoine said the study had some limitations, including that authors don’t know the mothers’ exact exposure levels to Pfas, nor does the research account for other contaminants that may be in the water. But he added that the findings still give a strong picture of the chemicals’ effects.Granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis systems can be used by water treatment plants and consumers at home to remove many kinds of Pfas, and those systems also remove other contaminants.The Biden administration last year put in place limits in drinking water for six types of Pfas, and gave water utilities several years to install systems.The Trump administration is moving to undo the limits for some compounds. That would probably cost the public more in the long run. Utility customers pay the cost of removing Pfas, but the public “also pays the cost of drinking contaminated water, which is bigger”, Lemoine said.

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.