

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Local residents and clean water advocates today filed a
challenge to Clark County's on-going failure to protect rivers, streams
and comply with laws limiting stormwater pollution.
The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed an appeal on behalf
of three local conservation organizations asking the Washington State
Pollution Control Hearings Board to throw out a recent agreement
between Clark County and the Washington Department of Ecology. Local
residents and clean water advocates argue the state authorized
inadequate development standards that will generate illegal stormwater
pollution.
"Clark County's refusal to comply with state stormwater requirements
is unfair to other cities and counties that are working hard to clean
up our polluted waterways," said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman,
who is representing the groups. "When it comes to clean water, everyone
needs to do their share."
Stormwater contains toxic metals, oil, grease, pesticides,
herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. Last year, the Environmental
Protection Agency released a startling report on toxics in the Columbia
Basin, which identified stormwater as a leading cause of toxic
pollution in the basin. When stormwater runs off parking lots,
buildings, and other urban development, it carries with it toxic
metals, particularly copper and zinc, which harm salmon and other
aquatic life.
Under a lopsided deal reached in early January, Ecology agreed to
allow Clark County to retain inadequate stormwater standards for new
development in exchange for a promise to implement county-funded
stormwater mitigation projects.
However, Clark County is already required to implement these
projects under federal law. Additionally, the agreement allows Clark
County to mitigate new development anywhere in the county, up to three
years after the development occurs.
"Clark County's approach to stormwater is a bad deal for clean water
and species like salmon because developers will continue to use
outdated and inadequate building standards," said Dvija Michael Bertish
of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association, one of the appellant groups.
"It's also a bad deal for taxpayers because it transfers the burden of
mitigating stormwater from developers to the public."
"From subsistence to recreational fishing, so many people in our
area rely on fish from local streams and rivers," explained Brett
VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. "Given the
direct harm of stormwater toxics on salmon, we need our state and Clark
County to comply with the law to protect the salmon and the people who
rely on them."
Federal law required Clark County to adopt new rules governing
runoff from development by August of 2008. Rather than comply with
Clean Water Act requirements, the county knowingly adopted a
significantly weak flow control standard for new development. While
Ecology initially sought to bring an enforcement action against the
county, it later agreed to let Clark County retain the insufficient
standards.
"Clark County is allowing development that does not change the rate
of stormwater flow even though this flow continues to damage creeks and
rivers," said Dennis Dykes, an expert hydrogeologist who has reviewed
the Clark County's proposal. "The stormwater ordinance and the proposed
flow control program are not protective of water quality and endangered
species like salmon. There is simply no scientific basis for allowing
continued degradation of one watershed in exchange for a plan to do
something beneficial somewhere else."
The appealing groups include Rosemere Neighborhood Association,
Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.
They are represented by attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer of
Earthjustice.
About the Pollution Control Hearings Board
The Pollution Control Hearings Board acts like a court for appeals
of state environmental regulations. The three board members hear
appeals from orders and decisions made by the Department of Ecology and
other agencies as provided by law. The Board's function is to provide
litigants a full and complete administrative hearing, as promptly as
possible, followed by a fair and impartial written decision based on
the facts and law. The Board is not affiliated with the Department of
Ecology or any other state agency. The Board consists of three members,
who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate for
staggered six-year terms.
Read a copy of the EPA's toxics report for the Columbia
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”