CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- House Bill 2506 - nicknamed the "Cancer Creek Bill" by its critics - passed the West Virginia House of Delegates last week, but not before a public outcry pushed several delegates to oppose it.

The bill would permit more pollution in surface waters by changing how the state measures baseline stream flows. While it passed the House on a largely party-line final vote, several GOP lawmakers said they voted against it because of public input.

Delegate Jill Upson, a Republican from Jefferson County, said the feedback made her take a closer look at the potential impact on drinking water sources. She said that led to questions she didn't get good answers for.

"I was hearing from people not only back home, but from people around the state. I needed assurances that that additional discharge wouldn't add additional pollutants into the water,” Upson said. “And I just don't believe that I ever received enough assurance."

The bill is now under discussion in the state Senate. Supporters, including the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, argued it would be good for employment and provide regulatory relief for companies with waste to dispose of.

But the bill's opponents challenged its supporters to show where it would create a single new job. A lobbyist for the manufacturers confirmed that he could not, and Upson said the lack of specifics also affected her vote.

"If the manufacturers were wanting to see that legislation succeed, I believe, you know, it would be incumbent on them to put the information out there, so that the legislators could have all the data they needed to make an informed decision,” she said.

At the public hearing for House Bill 2506, Upson said she noted that "the overwhelming majority" of people who testified opposed the bill. Other Republican delegates have also said that the public objections pushed them to vote against the legislation.


get more stories like this via email

A delegation of New Mexico lawmakers is asking the federal government to quickly resolve long-standing litigation affecting water users in the Rio Grande Basin.

In a 2013 lawsuit, Texas alleged New Mexico farmers were using groundwater previously allocated to Texas. Then in 2022, the two states reached an out-of-court agreement. But the federal government objected and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling said government consent was needed first.

Andrew Mergen, visiting assistant clinical professor of environmental law at Harvard University, said a lot has changed since the original water compact was signed in 1939.

"This is, in some ways, about growth in New Mexico that has accelerated groundwater pumping in the Rio Grande," Mergen pointed out. "How are you going to manage that groundwater pumping in a way that the compact terms are met?"

New Mexico's U.S. Senators and Representatives have sent a letter to the Departments of Interior and Justice asking for resolution by year's end. Bergen believes it is unlikely but without it, the states and federal government must argue their case at a trial in federal court.

Mergen noted decades-old water allocations in the West were based on what was known at the time. Parties could only guess about population growth and could not anticipate the advent of more oil and gas drilling, increased groundwater crop irrigation and sustained periods of drought, all amid climate change.

"That's what makes this profoundly difficult," Mergen observed. "That's what the rub of this case is, that the compact was negotiated a long time ago. Things change. How do you account for change?"

The Rio Grande Basin is critical to agriculture, industry and the environment, providing irrigation water for nearly 2 million acres of crop and pasture land, supporting the outdoor recreation economy and providing habitat for fish and wildlife.


get more stories like this via email

Despite some progress, Pennsylvania and other states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are unlikely to meet their 2025 pollution commitments to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution. An assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program reveals that more than two-thirds of the Bay and its tidal rivers did not meet clean-water standards between 2020 and 2022.

Harry Campbell, science policy and advocacy director with Pennsylvania office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said pollution levels vary based on land use, local economies and population, and stresses that a stronger workforce is essential for Pennsylvania to meet its goals.

"There simply are not enough scientists, engineers and planners, even in some cases, construction crews and equipment to meet the demands for conservation assistance that landowners, that farmers and communities are asking for and have resources dedicated for the implementation of those practices," he said.

Campbell noted that Gov. Josh Shapiro reaffirmed Pennsylvania's commitment to bay restoration in June. The $220 million Pennsylvania Clean Streams Fund addresses major river and stream impairments and includes a program to help farmers adopt sustainable practices. This year's state budget also allocates an additional $50 million to the fund, ensuring ongoing support for programs like the farmer-focused cost-share initiative.

Campbell said an updated Bay agreement would unify efforts toward healthy rivers, streams and a vibrant Chesapeake Bay by focusing on the performance and cumulative impact of conservation practices. New technologies help identify specific locations for these practices, optimizing their effectiveness in restoring and protecting the ecosystem.

"One of the things is something like the emerging tools that allow us to actually identify on an individual landscape where to put a conservation practice literally down to the foot, instead of five feet over there. In another place, you put that practice in this location, and it has more effectiveness," he continued.

Campbell added that governors and other leaders from the Chesapeake Bay region, will meet on December 10th. The foundation urges in-person attendance from all members, including the governor, to discuss and commit to updating the Chesapeake Watershed agreement by the end of 2025. This update is designed to address new challenges and incorporate the latest science.

New data show lead levels in Syracuse's drinking water are higher than those in Flint, Michigan, and Newark, New Jersey.

The city's tests show lead levels are at 70 parts per billion with more than 14,000 homes containing lead pipes.

Erik D. Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted along with corrosive lead pipes, other factors make it a precarious situation.

"When cities have not been doing the kind of upkeep that they need to do and pulling out these lead pipes when they come across them, or having an affirmative program to remove them, which some of the cities that are sort of looking forward have been doing for years, what we have is these situations where we are one mistake away from a public health crisis," Olson contended.

To remedy it, Olson feels the city must better inform residents, noting public officials downplaying the severity of this can lead to long-term health impacts. He believes Syracuse should provide residents with certified water filters to remove lead and premixed baby formula so families are not making it with lead-contaminated water.

Another way the city can reduce lead levels is by re-evaluating how it treats water so lead is caught quickly. If there are legal impediments or the city cannot access a home, Olson said Syracuse has to do what places like Newark did in the same situation.

"Adopt a local ordinance that said that any adult occupant of the home can give permission to replace the lead pipe," Olson urged.

He added the city must ensure the water utility picks up the tab since billing homeowners could be an environmental justice issue. Replacing every lead pipe in Syracuse could cost as much as $98 million but the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $15 billion for lead pipe replacement.