SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
lead
Stop the GOP Budget From Dirtying Your Drinking Water
At risk in the imminent spending battle are billions of dollars essential to keeping our water safe and clean, funding everything from replacing toxic lead pipes to upgrading treatment technology to remove PFAS.
Aug 20, 2025
When US Congress went on summer break for all of August, they left on the table a major piece of legislation that will have profound consequences for the safety of our water: the annual spending, or appropriations, bill.
This legislation funds federal programs, departments, and agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the fiscal year, which runs through September 30.
When they return in September, Congress will have less than a month to hammer out a deal to keep the lights on—or many parts of the federal government will shut down on the first of October.
At risk in this imminent spending battle are billions of dollars essential to keeping our water safe and clean, funding everything from replacing toxic lead pipes to upgrading treatment technology to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Congress members have already made proposals for the spending bill attacking those funds, putting clean water for many in jeopardy.
At the same time, US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are turning to a new sneaky backdoor partisan tactic called rescission to slash funding and go back on their own deals. This is not only a threat to clean water support, but to the funding of any government program. Congress must block any spending bill that leaves the door open for rescissions.
Rescissions: A Sneaky Backdoor Way to Eliminate Support for Clean Water
Under the regular procedure, the House approves a spending bill and sends it to the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to end the filibuster. This generally ensures a more bipartisan process in the Senate. When Congress hasn’t been able to pass regular spending bills, it has passed continuing resolutions to extend current levels of funding. These still require a 60-vote majority in the Senate.
But the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are turning to a special tool to upend this bipartisan system. That tool—rescissions—allows them to slash spending they already agreed to, without any say from Democrats.
At a time when the price of basic necessities continues to grow, we cannot eliminate federal support for safe, affordable water.
With rescissions, Trump can send a list of programs that he wants to cut in a special request to Congress. Crucially, the vote to eliminate those funds requires only a simple majority in the Senate. It is not subject to the filibuster.
These backdoor recissions are the same partisan scheme that Trump and congressional Republicans used to eliminate support for PBS and NPR. Now, some Republicans have signalled that if Congress passes a continuing resolution, they’ll work with Trump to roll back funding in that bill through rescissions.
This threatens funding for everything from safe food to education to housing. Funding for safe drinking water is also at risk—the EPA, the leading federal agency for protecting our water, has already been a major target of the Trump administration. Rescissions’ threat to safe water looms large.
Congressional Republicans Attack Vital Clean Water Funding
In proposals for this year’s spending bill, Trump and congressional Republicans have directly attacked the EPA’s vital work to protect our water. By gutting its funding and attacking its workforce, they’re undermining the main federal agency responsible for safe drinking water. Among its crucial responsibilities, the EPA sets limits on contaminants in water, develops methods to test for and remove toxic substances, and establishes regulations that prevent water pollution in the first place.
Trump and Congress have also proposed slashing hundreds of millions of EPA dollars dedicated to local and state water safety projects. (About half of the EPA’s entire budget goes directly to states through State and Tribal Assistance Grants.)
That includes massive cuts to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The SRFs are the primary source of federal funding for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in the country.
For decades, these funds have provided billions of dollars to build and improve wastewater treatment systems and help communities comply with water safety regulations. Without them, we would have more contaminated, less affordable water.
Here are the main defunding proposals:
- House Republicans want to eliminate $662 million from the SRFs. The House spending bill (H.R.4754) would cut the SRFs by nearly 25%, from $2.8 billion to $2.1 billion. This would be the lowest level since 2008.
- The Senate proposed to eliminate $250 million from the SRFs for replacing toxic lead service lines. The Senate appropriations bill (S.2431) cuts and transfers dedicated funding for lead pipe replacements that had already been appropriated and provided through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021. These funds were set to go out the door. This is the last year of funding provided by the infrastructure bill, and communities must get every cent.
- Trump wants to cut 100% of the $2.8 billion in SRF funds.Trump wants to virtually eliminate the SRFs with a nearly 90% cut this year. He’s also announced a goal to outright eliminate this water funding in the future. He could achieve this goal and bypass the traditional bipartisan congressional spending process by sending his cronies in Congress a rescissions proposal with a list of programs to defund and eliminate.
What We’ll Lose If We Lose Clean Water Funding
These proposals strike a dangerous tone for Republican leadership. The State Revolving Funds (SRFs) have traditionally enjoyed broad bipartisan support because they fund basic water safety projects that provide immense public health benefits to communities.
These projects are managed by states, which pass SRF funds to local water and sewer utilities. New York State alone has $9.5 billion-worth of drinking water projects and $6 billion of wastewater and stormwater projects seeking support from its SRFs.
They include:
- Updates to technology at treatment plants to remove PFAS and other toxic contaminants. PFAS are toxic, lab-made “forever chemicals” that pollute the water of more than 165 million people in the United States. PFAS accumulate in the body and are associated with many serious health harms, including cancer and reproductive harm. SRF dollars help remove dangerous PFAS from drinking water. In New York, Nyack Village has requested $4.7 million, and Kent Water District has requested $1 million to that end.
- Replacement of toxic lead service lines. There is no safe level of lead in drinking water, and it’s especially dangerous for children. Yet millions of families in the United States are still exposed to lead in their drinking water every single day. SRF dollars help communities replace lead service lines, which are the main source of lead contamination of drinking water. New York City alone seeks SRF support for $90 million-worth of lead line replacements.
- Repair and upgrade wastewater infrastructure to protect waterways and help keep our waters safe. Aging sewer pipes, broken equipment, outdated treatment plants, and failing systems overwhelmed by climate change-fueled storms can cause raw sewage to spill into our neighborhoods. That sewage pollutes the waters that we rely on for our drinking water, fishing, and swimming. SRF funds help address these problems. In New York, for example, Rockland County Sewer District is seeking funding for more than half a dozen projects to help protect the Hudson River.
Projects like these are not only happening in New York—they’re planned and underway in every single state. And they are all under fire from Trump and Congress.
Slashing Federal Dollars Will Make Water More Expensive
The proposed massive cuts come at a time when the needs of our nation’s water and wastewater systems are growing. The EPA estimates that upgrading our water and wastewater infrastructure will cost $1.3 trillion over the next two decades—just to comply with existing federal law.
Federal funding for water infrastructure, however, has plummeted 77% in real terms since its peak in the late 1970s. Meanwhile, the cost paid by localities has more than tripled after accounting for inflation. Local water utilities pay for these costs by hiking water bills for local businesses and households.
Senate Democrats have an opportunity to defend safe water and stop Republicans’ rescission scheme right now.
SRF cuts would lead to higher water rates for many people who already struggle to pay their bills. Already, as many as 1 in 3 households struggles to afford their water bill.
When households receive unaffordable water bills, they may cut back on medicine, groceries, or other essentials; or they don’t pay for their water service. More people will fall into water debt, lose service to shutoffs, and even lose their homes because of unpaid water bills. At a time when the price of basic necessities continues to grow, we cannot eliminate federal support for safe, affordable water.
Instead of cutting water infrastructure funding, we need to expand it. Beyond this year’s spending battle, Congress must pass the WATER Act (HR 3376, S 1730) to safeguard federal water funding from more reckless spending cuts.
Congress Must Guarantee Support for Safe Water
Senate Democrats have an opportunity to defend safe water and stop Republicans’ rescission scheme right now. This year’s spending bill needs support from seven Senate Democrats to pass. They must leverage this power to pass a bill that (1) fully funds safe water and (2) guarantees that funding by preventing future unilateral rescissions by Trump and congressional Republicans.
Our communities need lasting federal support to help ensure safe, affordable water and sewer service for all. Safe water is nonnegotiable. Our elected leaders must stand up for us and oppose any spending bill that slashes federal support for clean water, and any spending bill that leaves the door open for Trump’s partisan rescissions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beware the Toxic Chemicals at Dollar Stores
The nation’s largest dollar stores continually fail to meaningfully strengthen their chemical policies and intervene in their supply chains to keep their shoppers safe.
Dec 03, 2024
When shopping for the holidays, most people reasonably assume that products sold in major American retail stores are free of toxic chemicals. After all, harmful substances like lead and mercury have no place in the shopping cart, and regulations must prevent this kind of dangerous exposure, right?
Unfortunately, this is not the case. A recent study revealed that over half of the items tested on dollar stores’ shelves contained toxic chemicals. This includes lead found in tablecloths, jewelry, and baby toys with known links to brain development harm; phthalates in school supplies, silly straws, and bath toys with links to early puberty in girls, birth defects in the male reproductive system, obesity, and diabetes; BPA in receipts, cookware, and can linings that can affect the brain and prostate gland of fetuses, infants, and children; and PFAS—long-lasting synthetic chemicals—found in popcorn bags that can affect the immune system and liver function.
Just last month Toxic Free Future released their latest Retailer Report Card, which graded Dollar General with a D+ and Dollar Tree/Family Dollar with a D for safety, based on hazardous chemicals in their products, company commitment to transparency, a willingness to change, and how easily customers can tell what substances are on store items.
With the incoming presidential administration promising to slash health and safety rules, customers and communities will have even fewer protections.
But for many families, shopping elsewhere isn’t an option. Dollar stores are often the only retailers selling essential household goods, including food, in many rural towns and urban neighborhoods, leaving customers with nowhere else to go. Dollar stores are frequently located in communities that already face multiple health and environmental risk factors, such as industrial pollution from factories or deteriorated drinking water. This means a family’s exposure to chemicals via items purchased at dollar stores is part of accumulated exposures.
Dollar stores’ leadership has been aware for over a decade that their products contain lead, BPA, phthalates, and PFAS, jeopardizing customer health. During this time, environmental justice and public health groups nationwide have advocated for safer products. Investors in these companies have raised concerns directly with management and through shareholder resolutions. Yet, the problem persists. Even this year Dollar Tree knowingly kept lead-contaminated apple sauce on its shelves, putting children in harm’s way. The stores have taken only minimal actions to address a handful of chemicals in some product categories.
To say federal agencies tasked with regulating these products fall short would be an understatement. Many take a “graveyard approach,” acting only after someone has suffered a physical toll. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act is so weak that only a handful of chemicals have ever been restricted, while tens of thousands have been exempted or fast-tracked for approval. With the incoming presidential administration promising to slash health and safety rules, customers and communities will have even fewer protections.
With this lack of protective action on the part of state and federal regulators, we urge dollar stores to do the right thing. In 2023, Dollar General's net sales were over $38 billion, and Dollar Tree’s revenues were over $30 billion. They can afford to stop buying products from suppliers that use toxic chemicals and switch to readily available safer alternatives. Mike Creedon, interim chief executive officer for Dollar Tree, claims, “Safety First, Safety Always is the guiding mantra for our store.” But these are only words when there is no action.
Instead, the nation’s largest dollar stores continually fail to meaningfully strengthen their chemical policies and intervene in their supply chains to keep their shoppers safe. Dollar General failed to expand its list of 19 restricted substances. The list does not include PFAS, most phthalates, and many other chemicals known to cause harm. It also applies only to private-label products. Similarly, Dollar Tree has not publicly documented progress on reducing chemicals or plastics of high concern in the last four years and has made no indication of support for the development or sale of safer products.
Competitors, including Walmart, have already made this change. In 2022, the company disclosed that it removed 37 million pounds of phthalates from products in response to consumer demand, with publicly available corporate policies. Similarly, Apple recently received praise for removing harmful chemicals and plastics from its products and even committed to a Full Material Disclosure program which promises manufacturers full transparency on products’ material compositions. These transitions are increasingly mainstream, and dollar stores are falling further and further behind.
Every family has the right to feel safe while shopping, and with the holidays around the corner, this issue is even more important. Dollar stores should transparently report on their progress and work with their suppliers to prevent all known dangerous chemicals from being used to make products sold in stores. Until this happens, dollar stores are putting already vulnerable communities at risk. Safe alternatives exist, and the transition to non-toxic products is both feasible and cost-effective in the long run. Dollar stores must stop prioritizing profit over families. We refuse to be sacrificed for the bottom line.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lead Ammo Harms Wildlife and Undermines the Mission of Our National Parks
Banning lead from our national parks would be one of the single biggest conservation advances in a generation.
Aug 27, 2024
Earlier this month, a California condor, the first of its kind to hatch and take flight in Zion National Park, died of lead poisoning just shy of its fifth birthday. Shockingly, one of this condor’s siblings was earlier found to have the highest recorded lead value ever documented in a live bird over the entire 28-year history of the condor release program.
Lead poisoning remains the leading cause of diagnosed death among California condors. About 90% of condors trapped and tested during this past year had blood lead levels indicating lead exposure. As scavengers, condors ingest lead shot from carcasses of animals killed with lead-based ammunition.
But condors are not the only victims. Lead is a leading threat to all national park birdlife, especially bald eagles, hawks, and other raptors. Lead fragments from spent shells contaminate the entire wildlife food chain.
It’s time for decisive action to protect the wildlife that our national parks were created to preserve.
While most parks by law do not permit hunting, a significant number do. Of the 429 national parks, 76 allow various types of hunting—recreational, subsistence, or tribal hunting. These parks (the largest of which are in Alaska) cover more than 60% of land within the entire national park system. In addition, more than 85% of parks with fish (213 in all) are open for fishing with lead tackle.
The impact is devastating. More than 130 park wildlife species are exposed to or killed by ingesting lead or prey contaminated with lead.
These wildlife deaths are preventable. Since November of 2022, Interior Secretary Deborah Haaland, the cabinet officer overseeing the National Park Service, has had a proposed rule sitting on her desk that would end the use of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle in all park units. Despite this, no action has been taken on this rule-making petition.
In contrast to the Park Service’s total inaction, its sister agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (FWS) has declared that “lead ammunition and tackle have negative impacts on both wildlife and human health.” The FWS has taken the first tentative steps to reduce or eliminate the use of lead ammunition by:
- Imposing partial bans on lead ammunition in certain refuges where new hunting opportunities have opened up;
- Phasing out of lead ammunition on three refuges newly opened to hunting; and
- Developing a pilot program to reimburse hunters for using lead-free ammunition.
Though these steps do not constitute a complete ban on lead ammunition, they represent a significant step forward, especially considering that nearly 80% of wildlife refuges and other management districts offer hunting and fishing access.
Unfortunately, wildlife protection does not appear to be a high priority for National Park Service Director Chuck Sams and his leadership team. Earlier this year, he approved questionable hunting practices, such as killing bear cubs and wolf pups in their dens, using dogs and artificial lights to hunt black bears, and shooting swimming caribou from motorboats across more than 22 million acres of Park Service administered lands in Alaska.
These are not the actions of a conservation-focused agency.
Banning lead from our national parks would be one of the single biggest conservation advances in a generation. Such a move would place the Park Service alongside 26 states and countries that have already banned lead ammunition.
The ecological stakes are profound. It’s time for decisive action to protect the wildlife that our national parks were created to preserve.
Keep ReadingShow Less
4 Ways Biden Can Protect Food, Water, and Climate From a Second Trump Term
Biden has made important progress; now, he needs to continue this progress and finalize vital rules in the next several months.
Mar 03, 2024
The clock is ticking on President Joe Biden’s first term. The administration has made progress on several regulations that would defend our health, economic well-being, and environment. But these regulations would be right in the crosshairs of a second Trump administration, in the dire event he returns to the White House in 2025.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can more easily overturn regulations passed by the president in the previous 60 legislative days. It would just need presidential approval. That means, with former President Donald Trump in charge, we could see swift rollbacks of anything Biden finalizes after May of this year.
Ahead of November’s elections, we need to prepare for any outcome.
These next few months must be a sprint for his administration. Despite setbacks and missteps, Biden has taken massive strides to protect our food, water, and climate. To fortify this progress, the administration needs to move fast. These four things should be at the top of its to-do list.
1. Stem the Flood of Toxic PFAS Forever Chemicals
PFAS, a class of toxic chemicals, pose one of the most widespread public health threats of today. For decades, corporations made and sold PFAS while knowing the harms, with hardly a slap on the wrist.
So far, Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed several measures to address this crisis. It proposed enforceable drinking water limits for two of the oldest and most common PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, as well as four other forms of PFAS.
It also proposed designating PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund program. This would allow the EPA to direct polluters to clean up their messes and pay for it—insulating everyday people from picking up the tab. Companies must be held accountable, and these rules, when finalized, would be an important first step.
2. Protect Communities from Dirty Infrastructure Projects
One of our bedrock environmental laws is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This law directs agencies to consider environmental impacts and frontline community voices when deciding whether to permit a new project.
In 2020, Trump gutted NEPA. His rules sidelined community participation and removed important factors, like climate, in agency assessments.
Thankfully, Biden began working to roll back Trump’s changes in 2021. Notably, the first new rule includes provisions that restore the act’s definition of “indirect” and “cumulative” impacts, allowing agencies to examine the full consequences of proposed projects. The second, currently under review, cements environmental justice as a key consideration for agency assessments.
In order to lift up community voices, defend environmental justice, and protect the climate, Biden needs to finalize this rule.
3. Rein in Corporate Abuses Against Farmers and Growers
In our meat industry, just a handful of processing companies reign supreme. Because of this, many farmers have no choice but to sell to Big Meat. That has allowed these companies to dictate prices, labor conditions, supply chains, and more—and they’ll do almost anything to cut costs, even at the expense of families, farmers, and workers.
The Packers & Stockyards Act was passed more than 100 years ago to prevent this, but weak rules and enforcement have enabled Big Meat’s abuses to grow.
The Biden administration announced in 2021 that it would release new rules to strengthen the act and rein in the meat giants. However, it has finalized only one rule so far, requiring basic transparency from poultry giants to the farmers contracted to grow their chickens. Three more rules are at various stages, and each is critical to restoring competition and protecting farmers.
4. Get The Lead Out of Our Drinking Water
Last fall, the Biden administration announced groundbreaking rules that finally start to address our country’s lead-in-water crisis. For decades, communities across the country have been plagued by lead pipes that leach the toxic heavy metal into their drinking water.
Biden’s new rules set a deadline for most cities to replace lead service lines in the next 10 years. They also ban most partial lead service line replacements, which can actually increase lead levels in drinking water.
To protect our water and our health, Biden must finalize these rules ASAP and go further. He needs to pair them with funding to make sure low-income families don’t bear the cost of these replacements and include measures that ensure lead pipes aren’t replaced by PVC plastic, another toxic material.
Biden Needs to Act Fast to Keep His Promises
Biden has made important progress in protecting our food, water, and climate. Now, he needs to continue this progress and finalize vital rules in the next several months.
Ahead of November’s elections, we need to prepare for any outcome. And we know that Trump is terrible on our issues. In his last term, he plowed through our regulatory system, gutting protections for our families and our planet. Currently, his allies and advisers are scheming toward even more rollbacks and cuts in a prospective second term.
To prevent this from happening again, we need every defense possible. And that means Biden must keep his promises and finish what he started.
Keep ReadingShow Less
10-Year EPA Plan to Swap All US Lead Pipes 'Still Not Enough'
While welcoming the "long-overdue meaningful action" on drinking water safety, one campaigner argued that "much more must be done—much faster—at no cost to impacted households."
Nov 30, 2023
The Biden administration's proposal to better protect drinking water nationwide was met with sweeping applause on Thursday, but at least one consumer advocacy group stressed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy is "still not enough."
With its proposed changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, the administration aims to replace all lead water service lines in the United States within a decade, according to the EPA. There are also provisions intended to locate legacy lead pipes, improve tap sampling, lower the lead action level, and strengthen protections to reduce exposure.
Food & Water Watch Public Water for All director Mary Grant said that "the federal government has already waited far too long to require the elimination of these toxic lead water pipes, which poisoned the water in communities across the country," from Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi to Newark, New Jersey and Washington, D.C.
"The Biden administration has proposed long-overdue meaningful action toward the goal of eliminating lead from drinking water, but to ensure that every community has safe, lead-free water, much more must be done—much faster—at no cost to impacted households," she asserted.
Grant praised "agitators who emerged from... water contamination fights" and called on Congress to "step up to provide funding to replace the entire service line at no cost to impacted households, prioritizing low-income and environmental justice communities."
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by President Joe Biden two years ago, "provided a $15 billion downpayment on this overhaul, but the total cost could exceed $60 billion," she pointed out, urging Congress to pass the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability (WATER) Act.
"In a moment when many of us feel overwhelmed by bad news, the EPA's lead rule provides a ray of hope."
While additional steps are clearly needed, impacted communities and other campaigners still welcomed the progress on Thursday.
"Communities like ours... have grappled with the repercussions of lead contamination for too long," said Deborah Brown, a steering committee member of Newburgh Clean Water Project in New York. "The proposed improvements, especially the replacement of all lead service lines, signify a significant stride to safe and clean drinking water for our families and future generations. It's a step in the right direction."
Earthjustice attorney Suzanne Novak—whose legal group has represented the Newburgh Clean Water Project—said that "the EPA's proposed improvements to the Lead and Copper Rule are a much-needed response to a dire public health crisis that's been ongoing for more than a century."
"The administration's proposal takes important steps towards fulfilling the Safe Drinking Water Act's purpose of protecting human health to the extent feasible," Novak continued. "EPA has recognized that quick removal of all lead service lines is imperative, and that swift action is needed when a community has persistent high levels of lead in its water."
"Because the public health burden of lead exposure falls disproportionately on environmental justice communities," she emphasized, "we need to make sure that the final rule is equitable in how it achieves reduction of lead in drinking water across the country."
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted "apparent weaknesses" of the proposal, including that "water systems are not required to pay for the lead service line replacement," utilities could get extensions beyond the 10-year deadline, and the action level reduction from 15 parts per billion to 10 ppb "is less strict than the 5 ppb standards recommended by health experts and the governments in Canada and Europe."
Still, Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health at NRDC, said that "in a moment when many of us feel overwhelmed by bad news, the EPA's lead rule provides a ray of hope that we are approaching the day when every family can trust that the water from their kitchen tap is safe, regardless of how much money they have or their ZIP code."
Environmental Working Group senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber also praised the progress, saying that "once again, President Biden's EPA is putting our families first and honoring his commitments to the American people."
The campaigner also highlighted the need to better protect communities whose drinking water is contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), chemicals used in various products that persist in the environment and human body and are connected to health problems including cancers.
Biden's EPA proposed the first-ever national drinking water standard for PFAS in March. Faber said Thursday that "we're confident he will also make good on his commitment to finalize a drinking water standard for the toxic 'forever chemicals.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'More of This!' Merkley Leads Senate Demand for Separate Vote on Manchin Deal
"Thank you to these senators for their solidarity with frontline communities against more fossil fuel pollution!" said one activist.
Oct 12, 2022
Environmental justice campaigners on Thursday welcomed a letter from eight senators demanding separate votes on a government funding resolution and Sen. Joe Manchin's fossil fuel-friendly federal permitting bill.
The letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—who made a backroom deal with Manchin (D-W.Va.) on permitting reform to pass the Inflation Reduction Act—echoed a message that dozens of Democrats sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week.
The new call, spearheaded by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), came a day after Manchin unveiled the full text of his Energy Independence and Security Act, which would restrict frontline communities' input on fossil fuel projects and endorse the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP). According to the People vs. Fossils coalition:
"We need more of this! Thank you to everyone who has signed below!"
Adrien Salazar of the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance similarly said, "Thank you to these senators for their solidarity with frontline communities against more fossil fuel pollution!"
"Such important issues should be examined through detailed committee consideration and a robust floor debate separate from the urgent need to see that the government stays open."
The other signatories are Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Another woman in the area was being treated
"I fight for environmental justice, not fast-tracking fossil fuels," Markey said Thursday. "Don't make us choose between keeping the government open and keeping communities' rights."
Earlier this week, nearly 80 organizations had pressured Booker, Duckworth, and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)—the founding members of the Senate Environmental Justice Caucus—to reject Manchin's "pernicious" bill.
Some of the senators' constituents on Thursday thanked them for signing on to Merkley's letter while residents of other states called on their elected officials to join the fight against the "dirty deal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Protect Flint's Children, Get Them Out of There
Public health expert argues for temporary resettlement to protect children from further risk of poisoning
Feb 18, 2016
As the Rust Belt city's water crisis continues, one public health expert is stressing that "the children of Flint remain in harm's way"--and suggests that the best response at the moment may be to consider temporary resettlement of the families affected.
Irwin Redlener, president and co-founder of Children's Health Fund, a professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness makes the argument in an op-ed published Wednesday at the Washington Post.
He acknowledges the task would be "unprecedented and complex" but states that doing so "needs to be on the table," as "some 9,000 young children may have been exposed to contaminated water" already. And because "lead is still leaching into the drinking water from corroded pipes, and we can't be certain that the widely distributed hardware store water filters, which need to be installed properly and replaced on schedule, will reliably keep the water safe," parents have no certainty that their children will be spared exposure to the poison.
Redlener suggests two things happen to make the community safe for children. Securing sufficient emergency funding to repair the damaged infrastructure swiftly is necessary, he writes. In addition, providing comprehensive health, education, and other support services for "every family with a potentially lead-affected child" is needed because "nobody can be certain that continued exposure to lead will not be a problem until all of the damaged pipes are replaced."
Until those things happen, "every additional day in a home with lead-contaminated water puts a young child at further risk," he writes.
Among those who is able to leave town is Flint native Ariana Hawk and her family. Hawk's three-year-old son became the face of the water crisis when he appeared on the cover of TIME magazine in January.
"I'm just getting impatient with using bottled water and stuff," she told the Detroit Free Press. "It's just frustrating. ... I can't do it."
Redlener's call for resettlement comes as liberal groups arrive in Lansing to deliver nearly one million signatures calling on Gov. Rick Snyder to resign over his role in the water crisis and as he and Flint Mayor Karen Weaver spar over the approach and speed to replacing the city's lead pipes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Colorado Spill Hits New Mexico, Alarm Sounds Over Abandoned Mines
Toxic waste spill last Wednesday continues to spread, turning attention to issue of abandoned mines in U.S.
Aug 09, 2015
Just days after workers with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accidentally spilled a million gallons of toxic mine waste into a Colorado waterway, the free-flowing sludge that turned portions of the state's Animas River orange reached New Mexico, where health and wildlife officials say they were not alerted to any impending contamination.
As the cities of Aztec and Bloomfield scrambled to cut off the river's access to water treatment plants, they criticized the EPA for their lackluster effort in providing warnings or answers about the spill. The contaminants seeping into the river--at a rate of 548 gallons per minute--include arsenic, copper, zinc, lead, aluminum, and cadmium.
The Animas flows into the San Juan River in New Mexico, which joins the Colorado River in Utah's Lake Powell.
Workers unleashed the waste while using heavy machinery to investigate toxic materials at Colorado's non-functioning Gold King Mine. The EPA admitted that the accident was "unexpected," but it reminds us that defunct mines are still heavily contaminated throughout the West.
The Associated Press writes:
Until the late 1970s there were no regulations on mining in most of the region, meaning anyone could dig a hole where they liked and search for gold, silver, copper or zinc. Abandoned mines fill up with groundwater and snowmelt that becomes tainted with acids and heavy metals from mining veins which can trickle into the region's waterways. Experts estimate there are 55,000 such abandoned mines from Colorado to Idaho to California, and federal and state authorities have struggled to clean them for decades. The federal government says 40 percent of the headwaters of Western waterways have been contaminated from mine runoff.
There are several factors which contribute to the abandonment of such sites. One is cost, as cleaning up toxic materials can be expensive. However, the legal liability involved is more complex. According to the Clean Water Act, anyone who "[d]ischarges a pollutant from a point source into a water of the United States" without a permit can be prosecuted for a federal crime, even if they were trying to clean up pollution. That has prevented green groups from engaging in those cleanup efforts, particularly as an ongoing push for a "Good Samaritan" exception to the law has been ignored by the federal government, AP writes.
"There's still a whole generation of abandoned mines that need to be dealt with," Steve Kandell of Trout Unlimited, one of the organizations backing the "Good Samaritan" bill, told the AP.
Yet that ongoing issue is exactly what the EPA crew had been attempting to address last week and why it won't accept help. The Denver Post reports:
Silverton and San Juan County officials have resisted efforts to launch a full-scale federal "Superfund" cleanup to address this problem due to fears of a stigma that could hurt the tourism they count on for business.
"These are historic abandoned mines that have had acid drainage for decades. That is the very reason why we were up there," EPA regional chief McGrath said. "We were trying to reach that drainage coming off the Gold King Mine. They were trying to put in a treatment system.
"We have been in conversations with the town of Silverton ... and the state of Colorado about listing this area under Superfund. And if it is listed then, of course, removal (of waste) is part of Superfund that would allow us to take action up there. ... We have not been able to move this area to a listing under the Superfund."
In the meantime, cities have closed river access to recreational and agricultural users while health and wildlife officials conduct additional tests to determine the potential impacts of the spill. Long-term exposure to arsenic and lead can be fatal to humans.
Recent heavy rains have also raised the prospect that some of the waste that washed up onshore as it flowed down the Animas last week would rinse back into the river, causing additional damage.
"It's hard to know what is going to happen as more river flows join it," EPA's on-scene coordinator Craig Myers, in Durango, told the Post. "It is diluting. (The sludge of contaminants) is going to be settling out in places."
La Plata county director of emergency management Butch Knowlton was more direct in his assessment. "The population that lives along this river is at the mercy of the EPA," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy