November, 18 2015, 11:30am EDT
New Report: Water Quality Trading Schemes Quietly Upending Clean Water Act in More Than 20 U.S. States
One scheme in Ohio allowed for a 600 percent increase in wastewater discharge beyond Clean Water Act limits
WASHINGTON
oday Food & Water Watch released a report outlining how overly complex programs of water pollution trading (also known as water quality trading, or nutrient trading) are being quietly implemented across the country with the active endorsement and funding of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The report, which looks closely at the implementation of water pollution trading in Pennsylvania and Ohio, is based on over 1,000 documents obtained by Food & Water Watch through the states' Right to Know Law and Freedom of Information Act, respectively. The analysis reveals a broken system of inherently unaccountable and highly questionable practices, through which agricultural operations such as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs, or factory farms) will only continue to pollute our waterways, while power plants and other pollution sources that purchase credits will get to discharge more.
"Water pollution trading proponents trumpet successes, but scrutiny of these programs tells a different story," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Pollution trading destroys accountability and the rights of citizens to protect their waterways -- cornerstones of the Clean Water Act -- yet some, astonishingly, continue to hold up the practice as the future of pollution control."
Some of the findings of the report, Water Quality Trading: Polluting Public Waterways for Private Gain, include:
- In Pennsylvania, all of the authority, verification and trading of water pollution credits has been placed in the hands of for-profit companies like Red Barn. A significant number of pollution credits in the state is being generated through what can only be described as a shell game, whereby piles of manure move from place to place to pollute local waterways while middlemen brokers skim profits from sales of highly questionable credits.
- Water pollution trading has put an end to accountable Clean Water Act permitting at Brunner Island, the 59th most polluting power plant in the United States. Brunner Island now operates under a fictitious "net zero" nutrient discharge permit, whereby the facility is free to discharge as much nutrient pollution as it can purchase credits for. It was the third largest buyer of nitrogen credits in Pennsylvania in both 2013 and 2014, purchasing 87,000 credits in 2013 and 78,000 in 2014 -- amounting to almost 10 percent of all credits purchased statewide in those years.
- Under its expansion and subsequent participation in the Ohio River Basin trading program, Alpine Cheese Company was permitted to increase its phosphorous discharge levels to 36.4 million gallons per year -- a 600 percent increase in wastewater discharge over what should have been allowed to protect local water quality. Between 1999 and 2014, the company had 1,251 permit violations -- the bulk of them occurring between 2005 and 2011, while the nutrient trading pilot program was being developed and later implemented.
According to the report, with the use of water pollution trading, our transparent, accountable Clean Water Act system of point source regulation is being replaced with one that makes it virtually impossible for anyone to ever properly track point source compliance. The credits that these facilities rely on are not the product of any measured decrease in pollutant loads from credit-generating agricultural sources like factory farms, but from complex models filled with variables and from questionable manure transport programs that simply move pollutants from one impaired waterway to another.
"I've spent many years confronting factory farms and their irresponsible waste disposal practices that are poisoning waterways and communities, including Toledo, Ohio, where 500,000 people lost their drinking water in the summer of 2014 because of unchecked agricultural pollution," said Lynn Henning, regional associate for the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project and recipient of the 2010 Goldman Environmental Prize. "To clean up these facilities, we need mandatory reductions, not another voluntary scheme like pollution trading where factory farms can profit from the sale of unverified pollution credits."
Regional water pollution trading programs are taking off in the watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay and the Ohio River Basin, currently covering nine states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. Trading programs are also active in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin, and are under consideration in several other states.
"I work every day with communities across the Bay states, including Pennsylvania, who struggle to get access to clean water," said Maria Payan, regional consultant for the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project. "Now, with pollution trading, one of our most important tools in that struggle -- the Clean Water Act -- is being taken away. We can no longer hold polluters accountable, when they simply buy their way out of permit compliance."
The report includes the following recommendations:
- Congress needs to reaffirm that the Clean Water Act does not allow for point source pollution trading.
- Federal agencies, particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture, need to stop spending taxpayers' dollars to promote these pay-to-pollute schemes across the country.
- State and federal governments need to replace voluntary pollution control approaches with mandatory measures in the nonpoint source sector.
- Federal agencies must fund agricultural Best Management Practices without compromising current point source controls.
- The environmental community needs to wake up to the dangers of water pollution trading.
- Advocacy groups need to legally challenge water pollution trading programs.
"We cannot leave the fate of our waterways to the vagaries of the market," said Hauter. "Handing over pollution management to the same industry that brought us the mortgage crisis will spell the end of environmental protections that have helped keep our drinking water safe."
The report will is available at https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/water-quality-trading-polluting-public-waterways-private-gain.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Study Shows Trump's Tightened Embargo on Cuba 'Has Killed a Lot of Babies'
“The question is how many more babies will have to die before the current economic siege against Cuba is lifted.”
Apr 27, 2026
The publication Monday of another report showing that President Donald Trump's tightening of the 65-year US embargo of Cuba over his two terms in office is "likely the primary cause of a major increase in infant mortality" on the economically besieged island prompted renewed calls for the lifting of deadly sanctions.
The report by Alexander Main, Joe Sammut, Mark Weisbrot, and Guillaume Long of the Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) found an "unprecedented increase" in Cuba’s infant mortality rate (IMR), which soared 148% between 2018 and 2025.
In the early-to-mid 2010s, Cuba’s IRM was typically around 4–5 deaths per 1,000 live births, with the country regularly ranked in the top 10-15 nations with the lowest infant mortality. By 2025, the figure had soared to 9.9 deaths out of every 1,000 infants born alive.
The report's authors said that had Cuba's IMR remained unchanged since 2018, roughly 1,800 fewer babies would have died.
“The blockade has had a particularly dire effect on Cuba’s healthcare infrastructure, with frequent power outages interrupting the use of critical equipment for the treatment of patients, including incubators for premature babies, and ventilators to help sick newborns breathe,” said Sammut, CEPR's senior research fellow.
The report examines the social and economic consequences of Trump's tightened sanctions regime, focusing on the impact of the embargo on Cuba’s healthcare sector.
According to CEPR:
Trump administration pressure on Cuba has included restrictions that have sharply diminished the island’s important tourism sector; severely limited exports of goods to Cuba—including essential medication and medical equipment; cut Cuba’s access to international financial markets by putting the country back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list; curbed remittances; pressured countries to end their partnerships with Cuba’s medical missions; and notably imposed a recent fuel blockade that prevents Venezuelan oil from reaching the island.
Trump has recently ratcheted up military threats and economic pressure on Cuba, which was already reeling from decades of US sanctions and the inefficiencies of centralized state control. His tightened embargo has severely restricted fuel imports, exacerbating an energy emergency characterized by blackouts and deadly suffering among the most vulnerable Cubans, including sick people and children.
“The Trump policy of ‘maximum pressure’ on Cuba has killed a lot of babies—and, although we don’t yet have data for the last few months, it’s highly likely that more babies are dying now, and at an even higher rate than last year as a result of the current US fuel blockade targeting Cuba,” said Main, CEPR's director of international policy. “The question is how many more babies will have to die before the current economic siege against Cuba is lifted.”
It's not just babies. As Common Dreams reported last month, nearly 100,000 Cubans—including 11,000 children—werer waiting for surgery. Childhood cancer survival rates have also fallen significantly.
"The sanctions on Cuba starkly illustrate how these economic sanctions work: They target the civilian population, often with the goal of provoking regime change,” said Weisbrot, CEPR's co-director. “This can dramatically increase death rates."
During his first term, Trump began rolling back the Obama administration’s diplomatic normalization with Cuba's socialist government. He activated a provision of the Helms-Burton Act allowing lawsuits over property confiscated after the Cuban Revolution, and on his last day in office he redesignated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism.
Critics denounced the move as absurd, especially given that Cuba has never carried out any acts of terrorism—unlike the United States and the militant Cuban exiles it harbors, who have a decadeslong record of terrorist bombings and other attacks, as well as numerous failed or aborted attempts to assassinate former revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.
The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the blockade—which Cuba's government says has cost the island more than $1 trillion—33 times.
“The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention when there is armed conflict, and can be prosecuted as a war crime," Weisbrot noted. "This would appear to be applicable now that the current naval blockade involves the US military.”
Previous reports have sounded the alarm on Cuba's rising IMR, including a United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation published in February that put the 2025 infant mortality rate a 7.4, considerably lower than the CEPR analysis. The British Medical Journal Pediatrics Open in February reported a 9.9 IMR for Cuba.
The IMR surge comes amid reporting that the Pentagon is “quietly ramping up” preparations to wage war on Cuba, which would be the 11th country attacked by Trump, the self-proclaimed president of peace, the most of any US leader ever.
US Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) introduced a war powers resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Cuba without congressional authorization as required by law. The resolution could be put to a vote as soon as Tuesday.
Numerous war powers resolutions related to Iran, Venezuela, and Trump’s extralegal high seas boat bombings have failed to pass.
World leaders, activists, and academics are among those urging the US to lift the embargo on Cuba.
"Stop this damned blockade on Cuba and let the Cuban people live their lives," Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said last week in Barcelona. "Cuba has problems. But they are Cuba's problems. Not Lula's. Not Trump's. Not the empire's."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California 'One Step Closer' to Taxing Billionaires With Enough Signatures to Make Ballot
"In a nation as rich as ours, that’s the least we deserve," said one proponent of the billionaire tax.
Apr 27, 2026
The coalition behind a plan to tax California billionaires on Monday announced it's reached a major milestone in its efforts to get its proposed wealth tax on ballots this fall.
The California Billionaire Tax coalition revealed it has now filed more than 1.5 million signatures, or nearly twice the 875,000 signatures required to make the California Billionaire Tax Act an official state ballot initiative.
The proposed tax, which has drawn opposition from Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and support from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), will hit the state's billionaires with a one-time 5% wealth tax that proponents say will be used to fund local hospitals, food aid, and public education.
Mayra Castañeda, an ultrasound technologist and a member of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which proposed the ballot initiative, said that the tax was essential to preserve quality of healthcare in California.
"When funding is cut, it brings a world of pain," said Castañeda. "It means longer ER waits, fewer healthcare workers, rural hospitals shutting down, delayed care, and lives lost that could have been saved. It's clear that most Californians and most billionaires recognize how reasonable and necessary this proposal is—both to keep emergency rooms open and to save California businesses from closing."
Jared Hamil, a member of Teamsters Local 396, said gathering more than 1.5 million signatures in favor of the tax means "we are one step closer to the California we deserve."
"We deserve to be able to afford to see a doctor when we’re sick," Hamil emphasized. "We deserve to know our local hospital will be open and ready to treat you in an emergency. In a nation as rich as ours, that’s the least we deserve."
A poll of California voters conducted last month by the University of California, Berkeley found that the proposed billionaire tax is broadly popular, with support outweighing opposition by a roughly two-to-one ratio.
An analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that the tax will raise $100 billion in revenue over the next five years, which would be enough to fill the hole in California's state budget caused by the Republican-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act that takes an ax to spending on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Becomes First US State to Ban Surveillance Pricing for Groceries
A new law will ban retailers from using shoppers' personal data to hike grocery prices—but consumer advocates warn it contains loopholes that companies could exploit.
Apr 27, 2026
Maryland will become the first US state to outlaw "surveillance pricing" for groceries after Democratic Gov. Wes Moore signed a bill on Monday barring retailers and food delivery services from using customers' personal data to alter prices.
The practice has already become rampant in online commerce, with companies like Amazon, Uber, and Delta Air Lines accused of using everything from browsing history and location to demographic information to squeeze every possible cent from consumers.
The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, which takes effect in Maryland beginning on October 1, targets the growing use of such tactics by grocery chains and delivery apps, which Moore has accused of using "new technologies to drive up the bill for working families."
These include electronic shelf labels, which advocates have warned could allow companies to instantly change grocery prices based on the time of day, weather, and other factors that influence consumer demand.
“Digital price tags are replacing paper ones. It’s happening because we are having cameras that are watching aisles, it’s happening because we have apps that are moving from search-based to predictive,” Moore said.
Moore has cited an investigation published in December by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found that Instacart was running a “pricing experiment” that charged some customers as much as 23% more for the same items than others based on shoppers' personal data.
Another investigation by Consumer Reports last May found that Kroger was collecting lengthy profiles of individual customers, including estimates of their household size, education level, income, and even perceived "loyalty" to the company, along with sometimes dozens of other pages of personal data.
"Surveillance pricing can drive up the price of food," said Grace Gedye, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. "Retailers have a lot of data about individual shoppers: how often we search for or hover over particular items, whether we live near competitor stores, inferences about our likes and dislikes, our dietary needs, our income, our family size, and more."
"Surveillance pricing," she said, "allows companies to take advantage of that information asymmetry and charge you as much as they think you’re individually willing to pay.”
To combat this, Maryland's new law requires that shelf prices remain steady for one full business day. It also bars retailers from using surveillance data, such as inferred income, ethnicity, family size, neighborhood, or purchasing history, to raise prices for individuals.
Companies that violate the law will receive civil penalties of up to $10,000 for first offenses and $25,000 for repeat offenses. They will also be given 45 days to correct violations before these fines apply.
Gedye said, "While it’s encouraging to see the Maryland Legislature take up this issue, this law has loopholes that will limit its real-world impact."
The law faced fierce opposition from industry groups, including the Maryland Retailers Alliance. The group ultimately withdrew its opposition, but only after several new provisions were introduced that Consumer Reports said "undercut" the law's effectiveness.
While the law bans the use of personal data to set higher prices, the group said there is no way to determine what constitutes a "baseline or standard price," meaning price fluctuations could easily be marketed as discounts. It also said companies could use loyalty and subscription programs—which are exempt from the law—to raise prices.
The group also warned that the law is too hard to enforce, since only the Maryland attorney general, not customers themselves, can bring suits, which it said is a "departure from Maryland’s primary consumer protection law."
Many other states—including California, New York, and Illinois—are considering similar bans, and legislation has been proposed at the federal level to outlaw surveillance and surge-pricing practices nationwide.
Gedye said, "We urge other state legislatures considering personalized pricing legislation to build in stronger consumer protections and avoid loopholes that weakened this bill.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular