Arizona advocacy groups said a new federal standard proposed for soot pollution is a step in the right direction, but are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to make it tougher.

The EPA is taking public comments on a proposal to lower limits for fine particulate matter from 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to between nine and 10.

Hazel Chandler, Arizona field organizer for the group Moms Clean Air Force, said eight micrograms would be better. The Arizona mom, grandma and great-grandmother lives with multiple health complications including, asthma and cancer. She argued air pollutants like soot are threatening to cut her life short.

"When I get an episode of several days with bad air, it triggers an event that sometimes lasts for months," Chandler explained. "I get chronic coughs that just won't stop. No amount of medication or treatment even touches it."

Chandler noted every time pollution levels go up, she experiences a spike in symptoms. She added she does not need an air quality alert to tell her when levels are bad; she feels it.

According to the American Lung Association, Phoenix and Mesa rank among the top 10 worst U.S. cities for year-round particle pollution.

Patrick Drupp, director of climate policy for the Sierra Club, pointed out no level of particle pollution is safe, which is why they are pushing for stricter limits on soot. Drupp said the EPA could save thousands more lives per year if the agency were to adopt a more stringent standard.

"The environmental justice community has been calling for those standards to be strengthened to no higher than eight for the annual standard and no higher than 25 for the 24-hour standard," Drupp outlined. "The Scientific Advisory Committee for EPA recommended those values as well."

Drupp emphasized the health burdens from soot disproportionately affect people who live near industrial facilities, coal-fired power plants and near high-traffic roads and highways. He argued the science calls for stricter protections, and hopes the EPA will listen. The agency's public comment period ends March 28.

As the Environmental Protection Agency scales back enforcement because of staff shortages and new federal rollbacks, concerns are growing in Michigan and across the country about who will hold polluters accountable.

Michigan, with more than 11,000 inland lakes and access to four Great Lakes holding 90% of the nation's freshwater, faces challenges as EPA budget cuts reduce enforcement by nearly 20% and eliminate more than 200 staff.

Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, said in a recent webinar that his organization commissions polling and focus groups every two years on clean-water issues in the Great Lakes.

"And it's an 85% issue. It's almost as if, when you push people and you say, 'How much should we do to protect the Great Lakes and restore them?' he asked, "It's like, whatever it costs, you do it."

Supporters of EPA cuts, especially in energy, manufacturing and agriculture, contend strict environmental rules are too costly for businesses. In late 2024, more than 100 industry groups urged then-President-elect Donald Trump to roll back regulations they said were "strangling" the economy.

Partisanship continues to shape the debate over environmental laws, with lawmakers often split along party lines when it comes to regulations.

David Uhlmann, a former EPA official and environmental law attorney, stressed in the webinar the need to take politics out of environmental protection.

"The environmental laws require EPA working with the state to promote clean air, healthy rivers and streams, to make sure that we're living in communities free of toxic waste," he said. "Those laws apply regardless of who the president is."

In Fiscal Year 2024, the EPA's enacted budget was more than $9 billion, with a workforce of more than 15,000 employees.


get more stories like this via email

Washington lawmakers have created a new Prescribed Burn Liability Fund to help make controlled burns less risky on public, private and tribal lands across the state.

Advocates said low-intensity fires, which clear dead vegetation and small trees, are among the best tools to reduce wildfire severity but fears of runaway fires have limited their use.

Cody Desautel, executive director of the Colville Tribes, helped write the bill to create the fund. He said although there is risk, data from the Forest Service and other agencies show controlled burns are very safe.

"They pull off 99.84% of their burns within prescription within the planned footprint," Desautel pointed out. "The risk of it is really low but for the rare occurrences you see it, the cost can be fairly high."

Desautel noted a century of fire suppression has increased burnable materials in forests, causing more intense wildfires.

Indigenous people have practiced controlled burns for millennia, Desautel added, to both prevent fires and promote plant growth. To reduce wildfire damage, he argued the state needs a new approach.

"We're going to have to shift our perspective, how we deal with fire, how we create fire resilience," Desautel urged. "It has to be suppression in combination with fuels and forest health treatments that makes fires easier to manage."

Rep. Adam Bernbaum, D-Port Angeles, sponsored the bill to create the liability fund. He said when fires are bigger and harder to control, along with loss of life and property, it can also make things more expensive for communities living close to forest land.

"The rising property insurance rates there make it challenging for low-income, middle-income people across the state," Bernbaum observed.

Bernbaum hopes the new policy will help bring down insurance rates for homeowners and encourage more people to get certified to implement prescribed burns. He added the fund should be up and running by the beginning of 2026.


get more stories like this via email

The sale of public lands along with a rollback of protections for national monuments is back on the table now that Republicans control both houses of Congress.

During his first term, President Donald Trump unsuccessfully tried to reduce the size of national monuments in Utah and Nevada. The Washington Post set off alarm bells last month after it reported that New Mexico's Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks is among the six national monuments the Trump administration is considering for energy development.

Mark Allison, executive director of New Mexico Wild, said it is a complicated issue.

"We see attempts through the courts, the House rules process, through budget reconciliation and even federal legislation where they're trying to either turn what are public lands over to states or actually directly privatize them and sell them off to the highest bidder," he explained.

That came to pass last week when the House Natural Resources Committee passed legislation to sell or transfer 460,000 acres of federal lands in Nevada and Utah to local governments or private entities.

In the 2025 State of the Rockies survey, 72% of residents polled in eight Western states said they would prefer their member of Congress emphasize protecting clean air, water and wildlife habitat while boosting outdoor recreation over maximizing the amount of public land used for oil and gas drilling.

That was a 2% increase from the year before. But Allison fears public sentiment consistently expressed in the annual Colorado College poll could be ignored.

"If this comes, we want to be ready to have just an overwhelming and immediate response to tell the administration that we stand by our monuments in New Mexico and don't want to see them harmed," he added.

In the final days of his administration, President Joe Biden designated more than 600,000 acres of desert east of California's Coachella Valley as the Chuckwalla National Monument. But a Texas-based group has filed a lawsuit to stop the designation, arguing the president overstepped his authority.


get more stories like this via email