December, 02 2008, 12:50pm EDT
Governors and Obama Should Make Water Infrastructure a Top Economic Stimulus Priority
Green solutions for clean water and flood protection save money, create jobs, improve public safety
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania
American Rivers today called on the National Governors Association
and President-elect Obama to make green solutions for the nation's
water treatment systems, sewers and levees a top economic stimulus
priority that will save money, create jobs, and improve public safety.
Governors from 40 states are meeting with the President-elect today to
discuss economic stimulus measures including infrastructure investments.
"If the economic stimulus plan doesn't include significant
investments in green solutions for our water infrastructure needs, a
once-in-a-century opportunity will be lost," said Betsy Otto, vice
president for strategic partnerships at American Rivers.
Our country is fast approaching a crisis point when it comes to
clean water. The nation's sewer systems, pipes, and levees are outdated
and crumbling, and global warming threatens communities with more
floods, droughts and waterborne diseases. The American Society of Civil
Engineers recently graded the nation's dams a D, and wastewater and
drinking water systems a D-, the lowest grades of any infrastructure
category.
American Rivers applauded the National Governors Association and its
chairman, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, for including
investments in drinking water systems, flood control, and water
reclamation in its economic stimulus recommendations. But while the NGA
proposed $15.2 billion in water infrastructure investments, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that fixing the nation's
water infrastructure will cost at least $277 billion, and not fixing it
will cost even more.
American Rivers urged the governors and the President-elect to
invest in green infrastructure solutions to cost effectively stretch
investments in water. Green infrastructure can help supply clean water,
reduce polluted runoff, stop sewer overflows, and minimize flooding and
thus enhance community safety.
Green infrastructure incorporates both the natural environment and
engineered systems and provides a wide array of benefits. It means
planting trees and restoring wetlands, rather than building a costly
new water treatment plant. It means choosing water efficiency instead
of building a new water supply dam. It means restoring floodplains
instead of building taller levees.
"We need to invest more in water infrastructure, but we need to
invest more wisely, too," said Otto. "Making significant, strategic
green investments in our water infrastructure will save money, create
good jobs, and give our country a head start on an important new sector
of the economy."
Green infrastructure creates jobs in many sectors that can't be
outsourced, including plumbing, landscaping, engineering, building, and
design. Green solutions also support supply chains and the jobs
connected with manufacturing of materials from rain barrels to
permeable pavement.
Many forward-looking cities are already embracing green
infrastructure, including New York, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, San
Francisco, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Toledo,
Cincinnati, and Philadelphia, as well as many others.
The following core principles should guide water infrastructure
funding so that proven, cost-effective green solutions are chosen
instead of old, outdated, costly approaches:
Nature works best: Rivers, streams, wetlands, floodplains, and
forests provide a suite of critical services like clean water and flood
protection, and should be viewed as essential and effective components
of our water infrastructure. The reason New York City has great
quality tap water is because the city invested in water protection by
purchasing land around its Catskills reservoirs rather than by building
expensive treatment plants. That strategy ensured that polluted run-off
from roads and lawns doesn't enter the water supply and saved the city
over $6 billion in capital and maintenance costs.
Don't waste money: Spending money wisely means investing in
multi-purpose solutions that lower costs and provide more benefits.
Recently, the City of Indianapolis announced that by using wetlands,
planting trees, and disconnecting downspouts to limit stormwater flows
into its combined sewer system, the city will be able to install much
smaller sewer pipes, saving over $300 million.
Enhance community safety and security: Traditional infrastructure
isn't designed to handle the increased floods and droughts that come
with global warming, so we need a modern approach to protect public
health, safety, and quality of life. Green solutions give communities
the flexibility and security they need. Napa, CA solved flooding
problems by choosing to restore the Napa River's natural channel and
wetlands, rather than lining the river with concrete. The effort has
protected 2,700 homes and prevented $26 million in flood damage each
year.
American Rivers is the only national organization standing up for healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. Through national advocacy, innovative solutions and our growing network of strategic partners, we protect and promote our rivers as valuable assets that are vital to our health, safety and quality of life. Founded in 1973, American Rivers has more than 65,000 members and supporters nationwide, with offices in Washington, DC and the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, California and Northwest regions.
LATEST NEWS
'A Clear Breach': Watchdog Hits FIFA With Ethics Complaint Over Made-Up Trump 'Peace Prize'
Multiple rights organizations have slammed FIFA for giving Trump a "peace prize" given what they describe as his "appalling" human rights record.
Dec 09, 2025
International soccer organization FIFA has now been hit with an ethics complaint over its widely criticized decision to award President Donald Trump its first-ever "FIFA Peace Prize" last week.
The Athletic reported on Monday that FairSquare, a watchdog organization that monitors human rights abuses in the sporting world, filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee alleging that FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly violated the organization's own code of ethics, which states that "all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral... in dealings with government institutions."
The complaint then documents multiple cases in which Infantino allegedly broke the political neutrality pledge, including his public lobbying for Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize; a November interview at the America Business Forum in which Infantino called Trump "a really close friend," and hit back at criticisms that the president had embraced authoritarianism; and Infantino's decision to award Trump with a made-up "peace prize" after failing to help him secure a more prestigious version.
FairSquare zeroed in on Infantino's remarks during the 2026 World Cup draw last week in which he told Trump that "you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it in an incredible way, and you can always count, Mr. President, on my support."
The organization remarked that "any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Infantino’s comments would conclude that he a) encouraged people to support the political agenda of President Trump, and b) expressed his personal approval of President Trump’s political agenda." This was a particularly egregious violation, FairSquare added, because Infantino was "appearing at a public event in his role as FIFA president."
Even without Infantino's gushing remarks about Trump, FairSquare said that "the award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality."
FairSquare isn't the only organization to criticize Trump receiving a "peace prize" from the official governing body behind the World Cup.
Human Rights Watch was quick to blast FIFA last week for giving Trump any sort of peace prize given what it described as the administration’s “appalling” human rights record.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU, also said that Trump was undeserving of the award, and he noted the administration “has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US—including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says Ground Attack on Venezuela Imminent—Plus Colombia, Mexico Also in US Crosshairs
"It's now taken as a given... that Trump is mulling a ground invasion of Venezuela and a dramatic expansion in his bombing campaign with no congressional authorization," said one critic.
Dec 09, 2025
President Donald Trump said in an interview published Tuesday that a US land attack on Venezuela is coming and signaled that he is open to launching similar military action against Colombia and Mexico.
“We’re gonna hit ’em on land very soon, too,” Trump told Politico's Dasha Burns, citing the pretext of stopping fentanyl from entering the United States.
Trump repeated his baseless claim that during the administration of his predecessor, the "very stupid" former President Joe Biden, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro "sent us millions of people, many from prisons, many drug dealers, drug lords," and "people in mental institutions."
Burns then noted that most of the illicit fentanyl sold in the United States "is actually produced in Mexico," which along with Colombia is "even more responsible" for trafficking the potent synthetic opioid into the US. She asked Trump if he would "consider doing something similar" to those countries.
"I would," Trump replied. "Sure, I would."
Pressed on his contradictory pardon of convicted narco-trafficking former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández while threatening war against Venezuela, Trump feigned ignorance, claiming that "I don't know him" and asserting that "he was set up."
Trump's latest threat against Venezuela comes amid his deployment of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of the oil-rich South American nation, his approval of covert CIA action against Maduro's government, and more than 20 airstrikes on boats his administration claims without evidence were smuggling drugs in the southern Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.
The Trump administration's targeting of Venezuela evokes the long history of US "gunboat diplomacy" in Latin America and continues more than a century of Washington's meddling in Venezuelan affairs. It also marks a historic escalation of aggression, as the US has never attacked Venezuelan territory.
Officials in Venezuela and Colombia, as well as relatives of men killed in the boat bombings, contend that at least some of the victims were fishermen who were not involved in drug trafficking.
The strikes have killed at least 87 people since early September, according to administration figures—including shipwrecked survivors slain in a so-called double-tap bombing. Legal experts and some former US military officials contend that the strikes are a violation of international law, murders, war crimes, or all of these.
Critics also assert that the boat strikes violate the War Powers Act, which requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days. The Trump administration argues that it is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, citing as precedent the Obama administration's highly questionable claim of immunity from the law when the US attacked Libya in 2011.
A bipartisan bid to block the boat bombings on the grounds that they run afoul of the War Powers Act failed to muster enough votes in the Senate in October.
"Note that it’s now taken as a given—as an unremarkable and baked-in fact about our politics—that Trump is mulling a ground invasion of Venezuela and a dramatic expansion in his bombing campaign with no congressional authorization," New Republic staff writer Greg Sargent observed Tuesday in response to the president's remarks to Politico.
"What emerges from this interview," he added, "is that Trump is pulling all of this—the substantive case for these bombings, the legal justification for them, the rationale for mulling a massive military escalation in the Western Hemisphere—out of his rear end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cold Blooded Murder': US Rights Coalition Sues Trump Over Unlawful Boat Strikes
If the Office of Legal Counsel opinion “seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis,” said one attorney.
Dec 09, 2025
A coalition of US rights organizations is suing the Trump administration to obtain its documentation outlining the legal justifications for its campaign of military strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
The ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the New York Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday announced they had filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act demanding the release of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that provided the legal framework for the strikes, which many human rights organizations have decried as acts of murder.
The groups said that the Trump administration's rationales for the strikes deserve special scrutiny because their justification hinges on claims that the US is in an "armed conflict" with international drug cartels akin to past conflicts between the US government and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.
The groups argued there is simply no way that drug cartels can be classified under the same umbrella as terrorist organizations, given that the law regarding war with nonstate actors says that any organizations considered to be in armed conflict with the US must be an "organized armed group" that is structured like a conventional military and engaged in "protracted armed violence" with the US government.
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, accused the administration of warping the law beyond recognition in defense of its boat-bombing campaign.
"The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat," Azmy explained. "If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name."
Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said the American public deserves to know "how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians as lawful and why it believes it can hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to people committing these crimes."
Ify Chikezie, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the Trump administration was making a mockery of government transparency by refusing to release its OLC documentation justifying the strikes, and demanded that "the courts must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately."
The administration's boat-bombing spree, which so far has killed at least 87 people, has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks after it was revealed that the US military had launched a second strike during an operation on September 2 to kill two men who had survived an initial strike on their vessel.
While the September 2 strike has drawn the most attention, Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, argued last week that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been “illegal under both domestic and international law.”
“All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life,” she said. “Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


