Journalists can help rural communities by reporting on local drinking water data and quality

The EPA maintains the Safe Drinking Water Information System. Users can click on states or use search tools.

Rural communities need journalists who investigate and report on local and more regional drinking water issues, from tainted wells to water that runs brown and few people would voluntarily drink.

The Safe Drinking Water Information System is online, searchable and a place to start exploring area-specific data. SDWIS data is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, writes Joseph A. Davis for the Society of Professional Journalists. Access SDWIS here.

The act requires more "public disclosure than almost any other environmental law. The data is all there (mostly), although SDWIS is not that easy to use," Davis explains. "It really helps if you know the official name of the drinking water system you are interested in."

U.S. water systems come in all sizes, and some regional water services have surprising regulations. Davis writes, "A Girl Scout summer camp’s well system may not even operate year-round. But it’s still a 'community water system' that must meet the act’s requirements."

For communities with more than 10,000 residents, the Consumer Confidence Report contains vital data. "It tells people whether the water meets standards (or doesn’t), and what the contaminants of concern are," Davis writes. Reporters may want to remind readers that not all contaminants are regulated.

Other tips include looking into lead and bacterial levels. Davis adds, "Groundtruth everything you can. Talk to water users and system operators instead of relying merely on data. Go to utility board meetings. Taste the water. Visit the source."

American agricultural industry successfully prevents MAHA strategy plan from bashing key pesticides

MAHA's initial report and strategy are found on
the White House website. 

The first report issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" commission alarmed America's "Big Ag" leaders; however, the agricultural industry's intensely focused response appears to have reduced some of the commission's concerns over pesticides, report Amudalat Ajasa and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Released in May, the first MAHA report was Kennedy's initial attempt to define the reasons for chronic illness in American children. It didn't completely bash all pesticide use in American farming, but instead it "raised questions about the health effects of two commonly used pesticides, glyphosate and atrazine," the Post reports. "The report’s rhetoric frustrated powerful agriculture groups," such as CropLife America, a trade group for pesticide companies, and the American Soybean Association.

In an effort to influence the commission, the agricultural industry launched lobbying "blitzes" and "coordinated social media campaigns," Ajasa and Roubein explain. "Their efforts seemingly paid off. The Trump administration’s MAHA strategy document, released last month, did not call for restrictions on pesticides."

While big agriculture companies may be relieved at MAHA's softer stance on pesticides, some of Kennedy’s allies "believe it went too far in bowing to the agriculture industry," Ajasa and Roubein write. But supporters of the strategy claim that MAHA's focus on innovative solutions and technology can benefit American health and farmers.

Meanwhile, Kennedy is still tasked with rooting out the causes of chronic childhood diseases. MAHA's strategy report "notably avoids proposing restrictions on commonly used products such as glyphosate and atrazine," the Post reports. "The report pledges that the EPA will work with the food and agriculture industries to ensure the public has 'awareness and confidence' in the agency’s 'robust review procedures.'"

Some MAHA activists remain frustrated by the report's failure to call out pesticide use and the Trump administration's appointments to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Local journalists who cover community planning can use EPA's 'Walkability Index' to help with stories

Visitors to wine and water tourist-haven Door County, Wis., might be surprised that the county has few sidewalks, which leaves the area with below-average walkability scores (in yellow and orange). Click to enlarge.

When local officials include walkability in their community plans, it benefits the environment, local businesses and residents. It's also an important factor for journalists to understand and explore.

To help measure walkability, the Environmental Protection Agency offers a National Walkability Index for "zoning boards, planners and public works departments [and] the reporters who cover them," reports Joseph A. Davis for the Society of Environmental Journalists. Access the index here.

The EPA's tool uses high-quality data, and "It’s mapped," Davis adds. "There’s an intuitive, searchable, zoomable online map product with an easy-to-use, fast interface."

Walkability ratings include things such as "sidewalks, crossings, transit stops, etc. Ultimately, these things are drawn from the EPA’s Smart Location Mapping database," Davis writes. "The EPA sorts places into rural, suburban, urban and downtown."

This database can help journalists report on what planners refer to as the "built environment," Davis reports. "Walkability requires good local government decisions and adequate local resources. That means money. . . . A lot of local government decisions and resources go into walkability."

Uncovering your community's walkability data is just the beginning of a story. "You still have to talk to people on the street, … er, sidewalk," Davis adds. "As always, check and groundtruth everything you can."

Green 'hackers' rescue, repost environmental research data tools for public use

A screenshot of a rescued EPA data mapping tool.  
(PEDA website image via SEJ Toolbox)

Green geeks deploy their techy-search-and-rescue powers to help environmental science research get back online.

"As environmental data goes missing, these are times when hackers can be heroes to journalists. Meet Public Environmental Data Partners," writes Joseph A. Davis of SEJ Toolbox. "It’s a loose coalition of programmers and developers who are reversing the Trump administration’s removal of politically inconvenient data from the internet. . . . Once the data is rescued, they put it into usable form — searchable, visible, map-formatted and downloadable."

Where did the data come from? The content was originally on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website, but a few months ago, it disappeared. That helpful EJScreen data tool? Gone. "Well, gone from the website of the but not from the web," Davis adds. "A group called the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, better known as EDGI, preserved the data before it vanished, and Public Environmental Data Partners set up the interface for using it. Toolbox applauds."

Public Environmental Data Partners has worked on several data rescue missions. Their growing list is here. Davis writes, "The list includes lots of Energy Department data: the Energy Justice Dashboard, the Wind Energy Community Benefits Database, etc. It includes pipeline data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. . . . And more. Not all are gone yet and not all are back online yet, but they are working on it."

Groups contributing to the Public Environmental Data Partners include:
The CAFE Research Coordinating Center at Harvard and Boston University
The Catalyst Cooperative
Earth Hacks
The End of Term Web Archive
Environmental Policy Innovation Center
Fulton Ring
Internet Archive (Wayback Machine)
Open Environmental Data Project
Rooted Futures Lab

"A lot of things containing the word climate are disappearing," Davis writes. "But they do not sleep silently with the fishes. Data wants to be free."

EPA cuts may leave rural towns with even fewer resources to combat extreme weather

Hills Creek Valley in Oakridge, Ore. EPA funds were
earmarked for wildfire smoke management. (Adobe Stock photo)

The Environmental Protection Agency cut $1.5 billion in DEI and Environmental Justice grants intended to help rural western communities combat ongoing extreme weather such as flooding, smog, drought and melting permafrost. Joshua Partlow and Amudalat Ajasa of The Washington Post report, "Residents and local organizations in these communities say the funding cuts undermine what little defense there is against growing climate threats."

The EPA initiated the cuts after President Trump "issued an executive order calling for federal grants to be terminated if they provide funding for programs that 'promote or take part in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives' or 'environmental justice initiatives,'" Partlow and Ajasa explain. "The recipients include nonprofit organizations, Native American tribes, cities, counties and universities across the country."

Each community planned to use the funds to address a unique set of environmental challenges. Some Alaskan villages sought funding to deal with ongoing coastal flooding brought on by melting permafrost, while Native American tribes needed dollars to address pollution, and mountain towns in the Pacific Northwest looked to use the money to assist with wildfire smoke problems. The lost support means all of these regions will have fewer resources to plan for and work through climate events.

Sarah Altemus-Pope, executive director of South Willamette Solutions, a nonprofit that helps communities with forest management, told the Post, "These were dollars that were going to really make a difference to people who are financially without the means to do this work to protect their health."

South Willamette Solutions held part of a $1 million EPA grant that would have helped seal homes against wildfire smoke in tiny Oakridge, Oregon, but the grant money was terminated. The Post reports, "The money, stemming from the Inflation Reduction Act, was intended for work on about 30 homes. The work included installing grates on attic vents to keep embers out and sealing doors and windows to keep out smoke."

For the first time in decades, the EPA issued an emergency action to move weedkiller off the market

Farm workers can be unaware of Dactha's
use on fields. (Adobe Stock photo)

The popular weedkiller, Dactha, has been removed from U.S. sales floors by the Environmental Protection Agency, which issued an "emergency suspension of DCPA, citing a serious risk to pregnant women and their unborn babies," reports CNN News. Dactha is mostly used as an herbicide to tame weeds in crops such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale and onions.

Exposure to DCPA (Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate) can cause fetal thyroid hormone disruption, which can permanently harm an unborn baby's normal development. The National Archives Federal Register reports, "The downstream effects of such hormone [disruptions] in the fetus may include low birth weight and irreversible and life-long impacts to children exposed in-utero, such as impaired brain development and motor skills."

Dactha's maker, AMVAC Chemical Corporation, worked to address the EPA's concerns; however, the "EPA has determined that there is no combination of practicable mitigations under which DCPA use can continue without presenting an imminent hazard," the Federal Register reports. According to CNN, the EPA noted that DCPA may be considered unsafe for 25 days or more after application.

This is the first time in almost 40 years the EPA has taken this type of emergency action. Michal Freedhoff, the assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, noted that "pregnant women who may never even know they were exposed could give birth to babies that experience irreversible lifelong health problems."

A new EPA rule means polluters, not taxpayers, will have to pay for some 'forever chemicals' cleanup

PFAS have been used in the U.S. since 1938.
(Adobe Stock photo)

The presence of PFAS, or "forever chemicals," in U.S. drinking water led the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its first drinking water standards earlier this month. Tagging onto that action, "The Biden administration is designating two 'forever chemicals,' as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, shifting responsibility for their cleanup to polluters from taxpayers," reports Coral Davenport of The New York Times. "The new rule empowers the government to force the many companies that manufacture or use perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) to monitor any releases into the environment and be responsible for cleaning them up."

Davenport explains, "PFOA and PFOS are no longer manufactured in the United States but can be imported in the form of consumer goods such as carpet, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging as well as in coatings, rubber and plastics; the agency said. . . . Industries that use the chemicals have said that the designation is too expensive and would lead to litigation that could impose new costs on businesses and communities and slow the cleanup of chemicals."

The fact remains that all PFAS are harmful to humans. The compounds "degrade very slowly and can accumulate in the body and the environment. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with metabolic disorders, decreased fertility in women, developmental delays in children and increased risk of some prostate, kidney and testicular cancers, according to the EPA," Davenport writes. "Under the new rule, companies are required to immediately report releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed one pound within a 24-hour period to the National Response Center, and also to state, tribal, and local emergency responders."

As far as cleaning up PFAS -- it isn't simple or cheap. Even after PFAS are removed from water, there is no easy way to dispose of the products produced by the removal process. "Studies have shown that PFAS can be broken down with energy-intensive technologies," reports Fast Company. "But this comes with steep costs. Incinerators must reach over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 Celsius) to destroy PFAS, and the possibility of creating potentially harmful byproducts is not yet well understood."

Click here to review a study and map of PFAS in U.S. tap water.

EPA issues drinking water standards for toxic 'forever chemicals;' for cities and towns, an unknown price awaits

Removing PFAS from drinking water is
costly. (Photo by Samara Doole, Unsplash)

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued its first drinking water standards for "forever chemicals," which are long-lasting and human-made chemicals found in many commercial and industrial products, including nonstick pans, food packaging and common pesticides.  The slowly degrading chemicals have ended up in U.S. drinking water supplies, reports Elizabeth Daigneau of Route Fifty. "The EPA says the new rule will reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses."

The harmfulness of forever chemicals was well documented even as companies continued to use them. Amanda Hoover of Wired reports, "High levels of exposure can cause fertility issues, developmental delays in children, and reduced immune responses, according to the EPA. They can also elevate the risk of several cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancer."

A striking example of how deadly exposure to these chemicals can be was 20-year-old Amara Strande, who died of cancer about a year ago. Strande "became an activist in her short life after being diagnosed with a rare form of liver cancer five years earlier," Daigneau reports. "The cancer, which eventually spread to her throat and lungs, was attributed to her exposure to a group of toxic chemicals known as PFAS."

While many communities know their water is tainted by forever chemicals, addressing the problem was strangulated by cost. "City and county water districts agree that something must be done, [but] they are worried the new rule will cost them billions of dollars," Daigneau writes. "To allay these concerns, the Biden administration announced nearly $1 billion in newly available funding through the infrastructure law to help states implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems." Some industry estimates indicate that $1 billion in funding won't be near enough.

Read Daigneau's full article to learn more about water clean-up and cost concerns. Click here for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies fact sheet on PFAS myths and clean-up price estimates.

Roundup (glyphosate) can still be used, despite the EPA withdrawing the weedkiller's interim approval

Glyphosate, the main ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup, can still be used likely through 2026, despite the Friday withdrawal of the Environmental Protection Agency's interim approval of the herbicide — which is the subject of hundreds of lawsuits alleging that the chemical causes cancer, reports Chuck Abbott for Successful Farming.

Applying Roundup. (Photo by Jen Russell, Farm Journal)

The withdrawal comes after a June decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the EPA didn't have enough facts when the agency ruled in 2020 that the weedkiller likely did not cause cancer. In that decision, the court gave the EPA an Oct. 1 deadline to develop a new ecological risk assessment for the chemical. However, the EPA said in a court filing that it could not meet that deadline and would focus instead "on completing the periodic review of glyphosate required by law, most likely in 2026," Abbott reported.

Although the EPA's withdrawal of its interim approval of the chemical "that does not automatically mean that EPA’s underlying scientific findings regarding glyphosate — including its finding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans — are either incorrect or cannot be used as support for a future decision following reconsideration in accordance with the court’s decision," the agency said.

The EPA said it “intends to revisit and better explain its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate and to consider whether to do so for other aspects of its human health analysis.” Plus, Abbott reported that the agency would also study the effects of the chemical on endangered species.

“What EPA should do instead is cancel glyphosate products until and unless it re-assesses its risks and assures its safety in a lawful way,” attorney Amy Van Saun of the Center for Food Safety, one of the environmental groups that challenged the EPA in court, told Abbott.

Laura Campbell, the senior conservation and regulatory relations specialist for Michigan Farm Bureau told Jim Wiesemeyer of Farm Journal that it's "important for farmers to know that label restrictions for glyphosate are not changing right now.”

Quick hits: Honeybees have feelings, too; $50 million in venture capital raised to bring more doctors to rural America

Here's a roundup of stories with rural resonance; if you do or see similar work that should be shared on The Rural Blog, email us at heather.chapman@uky.edu.

The U.S. must embrace climate-smart agriculture, but some provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act meant to encourage such practices are off the mark, write an environmental studies professor and a Harvard Law School policy fellow. Read more here.

A company has raised $70 million in venture capital to bring more doctors to rural America. Read more here.

Aging farmers and ranchers are much more likely to die by suicide than their younger counterparts, a new study shows. A big part of that may be because they're less likely to talk about mental-health struggles. Read more here.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department have announced a new pilot program to help 11 underserved rural communities get proper wastewater sanitation. EPA and USDA will partner with state and tribal governments to help communities identify and pursue federal funding opportunities. The communities are in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, West Virginia, and on tribal lands. Read more here.

The Department of Health and Human Services will distribute more than $15 million in grants to help rural communities combat drug abuse and overdose deaths related to psychostimulants such as methamphetamines and cocaine. The rate of overdose deaths associated with psychostimulants is generally higher in rural areas. Read more here.

Scientific experiments indicate that bees are surprisingly intelligent and appear to have basic emotions, according to a new book. Read more here.

Speaking of: the critter commonly known as the Asian giant hornet or murder hornet (which eats honeybees) is getting a gentler name: the Northern giant hornet. The name change proposal to the Entomological Society of America cited the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes during the pandemic, and posited that "connecting a scary insect, already associated with murder and attempted eradication, to Asia, might stoke more anti-Asian sentiment," Oliver Whang reports for The New York Times.

EPA is putting new restrictions on prestcides malathion, diazinon and chlorpryifos to protect endangered species

The Environmental Protection Agency is putting new restrictions on three widely used pesticides, citing the need to protect threatened and endangered species in critical habitats. The new label changes to malathion, chlorpyrifos and diazinon follow a final opinion issued last week from the National Marine Fisheries Service as part of an Endangered Species Act review, Todd Neeley reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. Few of the restrictions will apply to users in the Corn Belt; the new rules are mostly for those on the coasts and in the Northeast.

"Though the agency already has banned ag uses of chlorpyrifos, the EPA announcement could be emblematic of the future of ag chemicals as ESA reviews continue," Neeley reports. "EPA now has 60 days to request from registrants of the insecticides to submit amended labels to the EPA. According to a news release from EPA, the registrants will then have 60 days to submit new labels."

Marc Heller reports for the Energy & Environment Network: "Among the new limits, diazinon can no longer be applied from the air, and chlorpyrifos can’t be applied over wide areas for the control of ants, for instance. Other conservation measures are aimed at keeping pesticides out of water, and reducing the overall load of the chemicals at any time." Neeley has a more detailed run-down of restrictions on each of the three pesticides.

Supreme Court lets stand verdict against Bayer for failing to warn users about the cancer risks of Roundup

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand a multimillion-dollar verdict against the manufacturer of the popular weedkiller Roundup for failing to warn of cancer risks," Ann Marimow reports for The Washington Post. "The decision by the justices not to intervene clears the way for thousands of similar lawsuits against the company Bayer. The Biden administration had urged the court to deny the company’s request, a departure from the Trump administration’s position."

The plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, sued Bayer after he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, saying that habitual use of Roundup caused his cancer, and that the company had failed to warn users of the cancer risks associated with key ingredient glyphosate, Marimow reports.

Chuck Abbott reports for the Food & Agriculture Reporting Network that the ruling won’t be "the final word in the company’s attempts to shield itself from lawsuits alleging its weedkiller causes cancer. Another Bayer appeal was pending before the Supreme Court and the company suggested a case being heard by an appeals court in Atlanta could be the third."

The ruling is another blow to Bayer; last week a U.S. appeals court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency didn't have enough evidence in 2020 to rule that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer. EPA "has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans," Marimow reports. "California’s labeling laws are more stringent. After an international research group classified glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' in 2015, the state required a warning label for glyphosate-based herbicides. The classification prompted a spate of lawsuits against the manufacturer of the nation’s most widely used weedkiller."

Appeals court: EPA didn't have enough proof to conclude Roundup doesn't cause cancer, needs new risk assessment

The Environmental Protection Agency didn't have enough facts in 2020 to rule that glyphosate, the key ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup, doesn't cause cancer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled last week. "The three-judge panel also said the EPA violated federal law by failing to consult with wildlife agencies on how to limit the impact of the herbicide on threatened and endangered species," Chuck Abbott reports for the Food & Environment Reporting Network.

In the decision, Judge Michelle Friedland ordered the EPA to review its conclusion that glyphosate doesn't pose "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment" and issue a new ecological risk assessment by Oct. 1. The opinion said EPA's conclusion was inconsistent with previous agency analyses: "EPA could not reasonably treat its inability to reach a conclusion about NHL (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) risk as consistent with a conclusion that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer within the meanings of its Cancer Guidelines." Roundup manufacturer Bayer AG announced in 2020 that it would pay more than $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits about the product, many of which claimed it caused cancer.

Meanwhile, Bayer "has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a $25 million award to Edwin Hardeman, diagnosed with cancer after using Roundup on his San Francisco Bay area property for years. It says the EPA label for containers of glyphosate, which doesn’t mention of cancer, pre-empted claims that it should have warned purchasers of the risk. The Supreme Court could decide as soon as this week whether to hear the case," Abbott reports. "The appeal to the Supreme Court was part of Bayer’s five-point plan, announced in May 2021, to resolve thousands of lawsuits against Roundup. Bayer has set aside $4.5 billion for litigation and settlement expenses for more than 30,000 cases. The plan also calls for ending sale of glyphosate for lawn and garden use, beginning in 2023."

Amy van Saun of the Center for Food Safety said in a statement that the ruling was "a major victory for farmworkers and others exposed to glyphosate ... Imperiled wildlife also won today, as the court agreed that EPA needed to ensure the safety of endangered species before greenlighting glyphosate." CFS led a coalition of groups in filing the lawsuit in May 2020. Several studies have found that glyphosate can hurt endangered species and habitats. Another study linked fetal glyphosate exposure to shorter pregnancies, which is strongly correlated with lifelong adverse health effects.

EPA says PFAS, 'forever chemicals,' riskier than first thought and it will offer $1 billion to help address the problem

The Environmental Protection Agency warned Wednesday that widely used "forever chemicals" in drinking water are more dangerous than previously thought, and advised local governments to install water filters or at least warn residents of contamination, Dino Grandoni reports for The Washington Post. The advisories are non-binding, since the federal government doesn't currently regulate polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. However, EPA plans to propose mandatory standards for the two most common types of PFAS this fall. 

"Once finalized, water utilities will face penalties if they neglect to meet them. The advisories will remain in place until the rule comes out," Grandoni reports. "EPA also said Wednesday that it is offering $1 billion in grants to states and tribes through the bipartisan infrastructure law to address drinking-water contamination."

PFAs were invented in the 1940s and are used for nonstick cookware, flame-retardant equipment, water-repellent fabrics, fast-food wrappers and more. The chemicals have been linked to health risks for some time, but recent studies about the most common PFAS show that "lifetime exposure at staggeringly low levels of 0.004 and 0.02 parts per trillion, respectively, can compromise the immune and cardiovascular systems and are linked to decreased birth weights," Grandoni reports.

2/3 of U.S. drinking water systems have uranium; search new database to see how your county's water stacks up

Public water systems by uranium, concentration 2000-2011 (Columbia University map; click the image to enlarge it)

Uranium is present in two-thirds of the nation's community water systems, which may put many Americans at a higher risk of health problems such as cancer, heart disease, and kidney problems. That's according to an analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data from 2000-2011 published this month in The Lancet Planetary Health. Though only 2.1 percent of water systems had annual uranium levels that exceed EPA maximums, there has been little research about the health effects of chronic uranium exposure.

Semi-urban Hispanic communities had the highest average levels of uranium and other toxic metals such as arsenic, barium, chromium, and selenium, according to the researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Because Hispanic communities tended to have those elevated levels regardless of location or region, the study's authors said a failure of regulatory policy and/or water-treatment infrastructure may be to blame rather than natural occurrence of the heavy metals in the groundwater.

Moreover, an interactive map and searchable database show that counties across the nation — many rural — have contaminated water too. How pure is the water in your county?

Biden greenlights E15 summer sales, releases funding guide for local governments in rural infrastructure tour

Senior officials with the Biden administration will visit 30 rural communities this month to tout billions of dollars in funding for rural broadband, water, jobs, roads, and more as part of a "rural infrastructure tour" launched Monday. That includes $14.6 billion in rural-specific programs in the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, which was bipartisan, along with billions more in regional and state funding that will be spent on roads, bridges and waterways in rural areas, Chuck Abbott reports for the Food & Environment Reporting Network.

President Biden is kicking off the tour today with a visit to an ethanol plant in Menlo, Iowa, where he will announce that E15 gasoline will be sold this summer to help drivers save at the pump, Chris Clayton reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

Normally E15, which has 15 percent ethanol, can't be sold from June 1 to Sept. 15 because it generates more air pollution in hot weather. And the Supreme Court ruled in January that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't have the authority to permanently greenlight E15 sales. But EPA is only issuing an emergency waiver here. A White House spokesperson said EPA "is considering other actions to further spur the use of E15 year-round, including continued talks with states that have already sent requests to EPA about year-round E15," Clayton reports.

The administration published a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Rural Playbook to help rural governments identify funding opportunities. "It provides information on the 'what, when, where, and how to apply' for funding under the law, according to the White House, and identifies more than 100 programs funded," Alex Gangitano reports for The Hill. "The playbook builds on the guidebook the administration released in January to help state and local governments access funding from the law."

The administration will announce $2 billion in new rural funding this month as part of the tour, White House infrastructure coordinator Mitch Landrieu said. That includes $1 billion for an America the Beautiful Challenge "to combine federal and private funding for locally-led land and water conservation work," Abbott reports. "The government committed $440 million over five years for grants administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation." Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced the funding in Colorado while touring a wildfire-control site.

Supreme Court reinstates, for now, Trump-era rule limiting states' authority over projects that could pollute water

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers," Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post. "The fight is over a rule put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency during the Trump administration. It limited objecting states’ ability to stop pipeline and other projects that could pollute navigable waters regulated by the Clean Water Act, reacting to complaints that some states and Native American tribes were abusing their discretion."

In the decision, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the use of the court's emergency docket for what she argued was not an emergency case, a maneuver many call the court's "shadow docket." "The applicants have given us no good reason to think that in the remaining time needed to decide the appeal, they will suffer irreparable harm," Kagan wrote. "By nonetheless granting relief, the court goes astray." Instead, she argued, the case should have had the chance for full briefings and arguments so the court could make a more informed decision.

"Democratic members of Congress have been increasingly critical of the court’s use of the emergency docket, which has expanded since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court to provide a more consistent conservative majority," Barnes reports. "Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who has documented the court’s use of the shadow docket, said Wednesday’s order was significant for what it says about the chief justice’s role on the court."

"This is the ninth time that Chief Justice Roberts has publicly been on the short side of a 5-4 ruling since Justice Barrett’s confirmation," Vladeck told Barnes. "Seven of the nine have been from shadow docket rulings. This is the first time, though, that he’s endorsed criticism of the shadow docket itself."

"The high court’s action does not interfere with the Biden administration’s plan to rewrite the rule," Jessica Gresko reports for The Associated Press. "Work on a revision has begun, but the administration has said a final rule is not expected until the spring of 2023. The Trump-era rule will remain in effect in the meantime."

USDA and EPA officials tour Black Belt county to see chronic sewage problems, a disproportionately rural issue

Department of Agriculture Undersecretary for Rural Development Xochitl Torres Small, EPA Administrator Michael Regan and activist Catherine Coleman Flowers toured a mobile home park in Lowndes County, Alabama, with standing pools of raw sewage in the yards. (AL.com photo by Dennis Pillion)

"On the eve of the Selma Jubilee, commemorating the 'Bloody Sunday' march that helped catalyze support for the Voting Rights Act 57 years ago, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toured Alabama’s Black Belt to witness a different kind of struggle: the battle for clean water and basic sanitation," Dennis Pillion reports for AL.com. EPA Administrator Michael Regan, Agriculture Undersecretary for Rural Development Xochitl Torres Small and other EPA and USDA officials "went to three different properties in Lowndes County Saturday, seeing homes where malfunctioning septic systems discharged untreated sewage into backyards and in between mobile homes, and where some residents had nowhere to go to address their sewage issues."

The group was led by author and activist Catherine Coleman Flowers, the founder of the Center for Rural Enterprise and Environmental Justice, who won a MacArthur Foundation "Genius Grant" in 2020 for bringing attention to the issue in her native county and other rural areas, Pillion reports.

More than 2 million Americans lack access to clean water, according to a 2019 report by clean-water advocacy non-profits DigDeep and the U.S. Water Alliance. It's a problem that disproportionately affects rural residents and those in substandard housing. Because rural Black, Latino and Native American residents are more likely to live in substandard housing, they're more likely to be affected.

A key to the problem is that rural populations are often too spread out to make traditional utility lines cost-effective, and sewers are the most expensive basic utility. Cash-strapped local or tribal governments are increasingly on the hook to pay for water system improvements, according to the DigDeep report. The 2021 infrastructure package earmarked $29.3 billion in grants over five years for counties to upgrade their water systems. But rural counties may miss out on much of that money, since they often lack the manpower and know-how to compete for or spend such grants.

Regan said the situation was "unacceptable" and clean water and safe sewage systems were a "basic right" that every American deserves, Pillion reports. Regan continued: "Straight piping into lagoons, failing septic systems, waste and raw sewage backing up into yards into homes, seeing children have to walk around delicately so that they don’t sink or get bogged down into their own front yards. This is not the America that we all know it should be."

EPA chlorpyrifos ban goes into effect; glyphosate may be in short supply because of manufacturing problem

The Environmental Protection Agency's ban on using the insecticide chlorpyrifos on food crops went into effect Monday.

"The EPA in August decided to ban nearly all uses of the pesticide, which has been widely used to grow crops like fruits, vegetables, nuts, corn and wheat, but was also linked to neurological problems in children. The August order set the pesticide on track to be phased out from usage on food crops after six months, making Feb. 28 the official cutoff date," Ximena Bustillo reports for Politico's Weekly Agriculture. "Worker advocates and environmental groups, who have been calling for a ban for over a decade, hailed the move. But numerous agriculture industry groups ultimately sued the EPA over the restrictions — the objections that the agency just denied."

Meanwhile, "Agrichemical giant Bayer is alerting retail partners the company may not be able to fill some glyphosate contracts this spring, due to a supplier's manufacturing problem," Emily Unglesbee reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. "According to letters sent from the company that DTN has obtained, Bayer is declaring this a 'force majeure' event, a term used to describe an uncontrollable event that prevents a party from fulfilling a contract. The situation could leave some farmers who are awaiting glyphosate deliveries on shaky ground."

High court reconsiders 'significant nexus' ruling on wetlands

Here's the latest development in a longstanding debate over how much power the government has to regulate water on private land: The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Michael and Chantell Sackett can build a house on their northern Idaho property that has a disputed connection to wetlands. In considering the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used the proper test to determine whether wetlands are 'waters of the United States'," and thus subject to federal regulation, Chuck Abbott reports for the Food & Environment Reporting Network.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Sacketts, "said the case would give the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit a 2006 ruling that said that if a wetland has a 'significant nexus' with navigable waters, it is covered by the Clean Water Act. There have been repeated arguments over how to identify that connection," Abbott reports. Pacific Legal attorney Damien Schiff said the Sacketts' property lacks a surface water connection to any body of water and shouldn't be subject to federal regulation.

This isn't the Sacketts' first trip to the Supreme Court over the 0.5-acre plot near Priest Lake. When they bought the property in 2004, they were told it had wetlands so they would need federal permits before building on it. "The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2012 that the Sacketts had the right as landowners to challenge the EPA’s wetlands determinations. The Pacific Legal Foundation represented them in that case, too," Abbott reports.