water. pollution
Craig Pittman: Challenges ahead for Trump's move to restart offshore drilling near Florida
Donald Trump has signed an executive order reversing restrictions on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but legal barriers, military concerns and industry hesitation may stand in his way.
In short:
- Trump’s order rescinds Biden-era protections and pushes for rapid approval of new drilling leases off Florida’s coast.
- The U.S. Air Force, which uses a vast section of the Gulf of Mexico for weapons testing, has long opposed oil development in the area.
- Trump himself extended a drilling moratorium in 2020, creating legal contradictions that could slow down his new push.
Key quote:
“Trump does not have the authority to take this action.”
— Hunter Miller, environmental group Oceana
Why this matters:
Offshore drilling poses serious risks to Florida’s environment and economy, as seen in the massive 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill. The military and courts may block Trump’s plan, but oil industry disinterest could be the biggest obstacle.
Read more: Trump seeks to prioritize fossil fuels while rolling back renewable energy efforts
Three companies set new goals to address their environmental impact
Three global firms, GSK, Holcim, and Kering, are the first to adopt science-based targets for nature, aiming to curb water use and protect biodiversity.
Oliver Balch reports for Ethical Corporation Magazine, a part of Thomson Reuters.
In short:
- GSK is partnering on water stewardship projects in India and plans to reduce water use by 20% by 2030.
- Holcim targets a 39% reduction in freshwater withdrawals in Mexico and is addressing supplier traceability challenges.
- Kering will cut water use by 21% and its land footprint by 3% by 2030, focusing on Tuscany’s leather tanning region.
Key quote:
“We need the comparability and measurability (of more brands joining the fray) in order to know that companies are doing enough to fulfil their part.”
— Erin Billman, executive director of Science Based Targets Network
Why this matters:
Corporate commitments to science-based targets for nature help companies learn about how to reduce their environmental footprint and thereby tackle biodiversity loss and water stress. Addressing these issues helps ensure sustainable supply chains and mitigate future environmental crises, but many companies remain reticent about participating.
Relevant EHN coverage: LISTEN: Revisiting our conversation with Jennifer Roberts discussing nature as medicine
New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.
Wildfire retardants, the hot-pink mix of water and chemicals sprayed from airplanes by the U.S Forest service to combat wildfires, are under scrutiny after a recent study found they’re a serious source of heavy metal pollution in the U.S.
The research, conducted by a team from the University of Southern California and published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, found that between 2009 and 2021, wildfire retardant application in the U.S. released at least 380,000 kg (more than 400 tons) of at least four toxic metals into the environment. Toxic metals — like cadmium, chromium and vanadium — accumulate in ecosystems and organisms and are linked to organ damage, cancer and neurological disorders.
“The heavy metals report from [the University of Southern California] has been a catalyst. It has created internal discussions about using these retardants,” Andy Stahl, the executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), who was not involved with the study, told EHN.
Wildfire retardant is composed of about 85% water, 10% fertilizers and a mix of other undisclosed ingredients that sticks to plants and depletes the fire of oxygen. This study cracks open the “chemical black box” of the proprietary, undisclosed ingredients in wildfire retardants, according to Stahl.
Between 2009 and 2021, over 440 million gallons of fire retardant were sprayed from airplanes onto federal, state and private land, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Most of it was applied in the western U.S., where the area burned by wildfires has increased by eight-fold over the past four decades.
The new research comes as the Forest Service stretches its capacity to put out multiple fires in the Los Angeles area, two of them ranked among the most destructive and deadly blazes in California’s history. Since January 7, the fires have destroyed at least 15,000 structures and killed 28 people. On Wednesday, January 22, a new fire broke out near Castaic, north of Los Angeles.
Firefighters have argued that retardants are an important tool for protecting communities and slowing down fire. “Without aerially applied fire retardant to slow the growth of more isolated fires, potential exists for some of these fires to grow larger before firefighters can safely fight the fires,” a Forest Service report from 2011 reads.
Application of long-term fire retardants to the western United States between 2000 and 2011 (A) and 2012 and 2019 (B).From the study, "Metals in Wildfire Suppressants"
However, a series of lawsuits brought by FSEEE that date back to 2004 have called into question the chemicals’ potential impacts on wildlife and water pollution. In 2008, a federal judge ordered the Forest Service to conduct a study of wildfire retardants’ environmental impacts. In 2011 the study was published, finding that aerial retardant posed a risk to amphibians, rodents, insects and species whose habitat is limited to small geographic areas. As a result, the Forest Service enacted "exclusion zones" where retardant would not be used and established a 300-foot buffer when applying retardant around surface water by plane.
“That fiction lasted until they realized they missed a lot of times,” Stahl said.
The Forest Service data shows the agency has violated its own restrictions 457 times on National Forest System lands since 2012. Of those, 213 intrusions have landed partially in water, either “to protect human life or public safety” (23 intrusions) or by accident (190 intrusions). These intrusions, the FSEEE argued in a 2022 lawsuit, violated the Clean Water Act.
A year later, a US District judge partially agreed with the employees, ordering the Forest Service to apply for a permit from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the spraying. The permitting process might take years, so the judge also ordered the Forest Service to report back every six months about the state of the permit. “They’re one-sentence reports, ‘we have asked the EPA for a permit.’ That’s the report,” Stahl said.
In fire-devastated areas, damaged pipes can suck in smoke, and plastic pipes can melt and release harmful chemicals into water, causing spikes in concentrations of harmful chemicals like benzene and other carcinogens. The evidence of heavy metals’ presence in wildfire retardants, Stahl argued, adds to the burden these chemicals might be posing to water treatment systems.
Heavy metals precipitate to the bottom of the cleaning ponds of these systems, concentrating in a sludge that is often sold to farmers across the country to spray on farmland. Other harmful chemicals, like PFAS or “forever chemicals”, which have been associated with birth defects, cancer and developmental delays, have also been found in sewage sludge. “Now [we realize] it may have heavy metals at superfund levels,” Stahl said.
“The challenge for the Forest Service is they’ve done such a good job marketing this magic red elixir, that it's hard for them to back away from it and say, ‘oh, it turns out that the stuff we've been pouring all over your forests and your backyards and your residential areas is actually poisonous,’” Stahl said.
Water supplies strained for 30 million Americans, report finds
Nearly 30 million Americans live in regions with stressed water supplies, with socially vulnerable groups and certain ecosystems at higher risk, according to a new USGS report.
In short:
- The USGS found 27 million people face "high local water stress," with socially vulnerable communities disproportionately affected.
- Polluted waterways, primarily in the Midwest and High Plains, threaten human health with contaminants like arsenic and nitrates.
- Climate change is altering the water cycle, exacerbating drought, flooding, and supply-demand imbalances that harm ecosystems and communities.
Key quote:
“Water availability is an issue everywhere in our country and beyond. It raises the question – do we have enough water to sustain our nation’s economy, ecosystems and drinking water supplies?”
— Lori Sprague, USGS national program manager
Why this matters:
Water is the foundation of life, yet for millions across the United States, access to clean and sufficient supplies is becoming an increasingly precarious reality. Pollution from industrial runoff, agricultural practices and aging infrastructure continues to contaminate vital water sources. Overuse of water resources — whether for irrigation, urban development, or energy production — further strains the delicate balance.
Related EHN coverage: US drinking water pollution could cause 100,000 cancer cases
Supreme Court to address environmental and regulatory cases in 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide key cases in 2025 that could reshape environmental regulation, agency power and federal permitting processes.
In short:
- The Supreme Court will weigh limiting the scope of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, potentially restricting climate considerations for federally approved projects.
- Justices will revisit the non delegation doctrine, which could restrict Congress from granting broad authority to agencies like the EPA.
- Upcoming cases include disputes over Clean Water Act permitting, nuclear waste storage licensing and challenges to California’s emissions waiver under the Clean Air Act.
Key quote:
“The public needs to understand that these are not cases principally about climate change. They are about the separation of powers and the proper division of authority between the federal and state governments.”
— Donald Kochan, law professor at George Mason University
Why this matters:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has increasingly taken a skeptical stance on the scope of federal agencies, raising concerns about the future of environmental regulation in the United States. Recent decisions suggest a willingness to curtail the authority of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, potentially limiting their ability to address issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and toxic air contaminants.
Related: Supreme Court ruling could impact environmental policies
Trump’s EPA pick faces Senate grilling over climate rollback plans
Lee Zeldin, a Trump ally with limited environmental experience, is poised to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, where he’s expected to champion aggressive deregulation of climate protections.
In short:
- Former Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York, nominated to lead the EPA, faces scrutiny over his qualifications and alignment with Trump’s plans to weaken climate regulations.
- Despite touting support for clean air and water, Zeldin has a record of opposing key environmental legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act and air and water protections.
- Critics, including Senator Edward Markey, question whether Zeldin prioritizes safeguarding public health and the environment over political loyalty to Trump.
Key quote:
“My questions go to what the EPA priorities would be under his leadership.”
— Senator Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat
Why this matters:
For Trump, Zeldin seems to be the perfect ally to turbocharge the rollback of climate rules and possibly even shrink the EPA’s scope altogether. If confirmed, Zeldin’s tenure could mark a pivotal moment for the EPA — one where public health and climate priorities are left hanging in the balance. Will Zeldin’s loyalty lie with the environment or his political benefactor?
Read more: Donald Trump wins US presidency. What that could mean for the environment
Toxic pollution persists after Los Angeles wildfires devastate communities
As Los Angeles residents return to neighborhoods scarred by recent wildfires, experts warn that toxic ash and chemical residues from burned homes, vehicles and infrastructure pose ongoing health and environmental risks.
Amudalat Ajasa and Ruby Mellen report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- Wildfires in Los Angeles have burned more than 40,000 acres, releasing pollutants from materials like lead pipes and fireproofing into the air and soil.
- Hazardous particles such as soot and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can infiltrate homes, affecting indoor air quality and increasing the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular issues.
- Contamination from ash and damaged infrastructure could affect water systems, with experts urging residents to avoid drinking untreated water due to potential chemical exposure.
Key quote:
“The ash itself contains a lot more toxic chemicals than if it was just a forest burning.”
— Rima Habre, professor of environmental health and spatial sciences at the University of Southern California
Why this matters:
Urban wildfires destroy more than vegetation — they burn buildings, vehicles and household items, releasing harmful toxins that can linger in air, soil and water. Long-term exposure to these pollutants poses serious health concerns, especially for vulnerable groups and raises questions about disaster preparedness in urban sprawl areas.
Related: