
‘Another broken promise': California environmental groups reel from EPA grant cancellations
After weeks of speculation, the news came down with chilling formality:
'Dear EPA Grant Recipient,' read the official government email. 'Attached is your Termination of Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.'
That's how hundreds of organizations found out they had officially lost EPA grant funding as part of the many cutbacks to environmental programs demanded by the Trump administration.
Among them was the Community Water Center, a nonprofit that works to provide safe, clean drinking water to rural communities in California. Their $20-million award had been earmarked for a major project to consolidate water systems in the low-income Central Coast communities of Pajaro, Sunny Mesa and Springfield, which have long been reliant on domestic wells and small water systems that are riddled with contaminants above legal limits.
The project was more than five years in the making, and now sits in limbo as President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin slash funding for more than 780 grants geared toward environmental justice that were awarded under President Biden.
'It's a huge disappointment — this grant would be funding an infrastructure project to deliver safe drinking water, and I think that everyone would agree that residents across the United States need to have safe drinking water,' said Susana De Anda, Community Water Center's executive director. 'Safe water is not political.'
The notice arrived on May 1, nearly two months after the EPA and the president's unofficial Department of Government Efficiency first announced that they would terminate more than 400 environmental grants totaling $1.7 billion in what Zeldin described as an effort to 'rein in wasteful federal spending.' A leaked list reviewed by The Times revealed at least 62 California grants were on the chopping block.
However, court documents filed last week indicate that the actual number of environmental grant cancellations in the U.S. is closer to 800. The finding is part of a lawsuit from nonprofit groups challenging the administration's efforts to freeze funds awarded awarded under Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as first reported by the Washington Post. A legal declaration filed by the EPA says 377 grantees have already received formal notices of termination, and approximately 404 more will be noticed soon.
It is not immediately clear how many California organizations will lose federal funding. EPA officials declined to provide a list of affected groups and said the agency does not comment on pending legislation.
But a handful of groups in the state have confirmed they are on the list of cuts. Among them is the Los Angeles Neighborhood Trust, which said it lost a $500,000 grant intended to help plan equitable development projects along the L.A. River, and the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano, which said it lost a $155,000 grant for a project to provide food to communities in need in Vallejo.
Cade Cannedy, director of programs with the Palo Alto-based nonprofit Climate Resilient Communities, said the group lost a $500,000 grant that would have provided air purifiers to children with asthma and seniors with disabilities in East Palo Alto. The community suffers from high rates of respiratory issues as a result of decades of redlining, segregation and zoning practices that have concentrated polluting activities in the area, including hazardous waste processing facilities and vehicle emissions from nearby highways, Cannedy said.
'It's a huge loss for our communities, but I think the other thing that's really almost sadder is that for these communities, this is just another broken promise in a decades-long string of broken promises,' he said.
The termination email was the first communication the group has received from the EPA since Trump took office, he said. It represents a significant blow for the small nonprofit, which had already hired two new employees to help implement the project and deliver air purifiers to about 400 families and potentially some schools and senior centers.
'At small community-based organizations like ours, we never have excellent cash flow — it's not like we're sitting on half a million dollars at any point in time,' Cannedy said. 'We're dependent on these grants and the reimbursement process to make things work.'
The grant cancellations are the latest in a string of actions from the Trump administration that advocates say are harmful to the environment, including loosening air and water quality regulations; laying off scientists and researchers; ramping up coal production; opening national forests for industrial logging; narrowing protections for endangered species and dismissing hundreds of scientists working a major national climate report, among many others.
Democratic lawmakers, including California Sen. Adam Schiff and Sen. Alex Padilla, have condemned the administration's grant cancellations, which they say is an illegal clawing back of congressionally appropriated funds.
'EPA's unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious terminations of [environmental justice] grant programs eliminate commonsense, nonpartisan federal programs that clean the air and water and protect Americans from natural disasters,' the senators wrote in a March letter to Zeldin, along with seven other Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The EPA is potentially facing tighter purse strings. Trump's proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year would slash $5 billion from the agency tasked with protecting the nation's health and environment — by far the largest cut in the EPA's history, representing approximately 55% of its 2025 budget.
Meeting the reduction will require mass layoffs and would effectively cripple the EPA's core functions, according to the nonprofit Environmental Protection Network, a D.C.-based watchdog group composed of more than 600 former EPA workers.
'This is a reckless and short-sighted proposal that will lead to higher levels of toxic pollution in the air we breathe and water we drink across the nation,' read a statement from Michelle Roos, the EPN's executive director. 'This is a wrecking-ball approach that would gut America's front-line defense for protecting people's health and environment.'
Indeed, the loss of grant funding will have lasting real-world effects, according to José Franco García, executive director of the San Diego County-based nonprofit the Environmental Health Coalition. The group lost a $500,000 grant intended for a number of initiatives in the Barrio Logan neighborhood, a predominantly low-income community that suffers from pollution, poor air quality and other environmental problems due to its proximity to the port, industrial facilities and an interstate highway, he said.
The projects included the creation of a long-awaited park along Boston Avenue, a green shuttle bus system, and efforts to improve area homes with electrification, solar power and lead abatement, García said. He said the grant was also going to fund air filters in homes of children with asthma.
'These are the exact things that EPA money should be going to,' García said. 'And what the current version of the EPA is doing is not what it was meant to do, what it was meant to be able to protect, and what it was meant to be able to serve.'
García noted that the grant cancellations are also costing nonprofits time and potentially jobs as they scramble keep up with rapidly changing conditions. The grant was approved last summer and the group had spent months preparing to start the work.
'Just as we are expected to meet the terms of any contract, we thought that the federal government would be as well,' he said.
De Anda, of the Community Water Center, was similarly concerned about the public health implications of the grant terminations.
The Monterey County communities Pajaro, Sunny Mesa and Springfield have struggled with water quality issues for years, with 81% of domestic wells there testing positive for one or more dangerous contaminants including nitrate, 123-TCP, arsenic and chromium 6, she said. The chemicals can contribute to serious adverse health effects such as reproductive issues, infant blood conditions and cancer, according to the EPA.
The Community Water Center's $20-million grant would have funded the first phase of critical infrastructure work, including constructing pipelines to physically consolidate the communities into a single water system owned and operated by Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District, which would serve about 5,500 people and an elementary school.
Community Water Center is exploring all avenues to keep the work moving forward, De Anda said, and she hopes state officials will step in to fill the void left by the EPA.
'Our community deserves to have reliable infrastructure that delivers safe drinking water,' she said. 'Stopping the project is not an option.'
One of the area's residents, 49-year-old Maria Angelica Rodriguez, said she currently has to rely on bottled water for drinking, cooking and other basic needs. Every Thursday, a regional bottled water program delivers 5 gallons for each of the three members of her household, which include Rodriguez, her mother and her sister.
But she also worries about her 7-month-old grandson whom she babysits throughout the week, whom she fears could get sick from the area's tainted water.
Speaking through an interpreter, Rodriguez said she would like Trump to stop and think about the children and also farm workers in the area who need to drink the water.
The project brought hope to the community, she said, and its cancellation has made her very sad.
'El agua es vida,' she said. 'Water is life.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Trump pressed to take hard line with Iran after Israel strikes
A group of pro-Israel members of Congress is urging President Trump to ensure "zero enrichment, zero pathway to a nuclear weapon" in negotiations with Iran, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The lawmakers — including a Republican, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) — said Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and other military targets has created a "renewed sense of urgency" on the issue. "This decisive action comes after two months of unsuccessful diplomatic attempts and represents a critical chance to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon," they wrote in a letter to Trump first obtained by Axios. The White House did not immediately respond to Axios' Saturday afternoon request for comment on the letter. Driving the news: The letter is led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a staunchly pro- Israel centrist Democrat, and signed by seven other House Democrats, in addition to Bacon. The nine lawmakers noted that the two-month deadline which Trump set in March for reaching a nuclear deal arrived on Thursday — the day Israel launched its strike. They urged him to add "crushing diplomatic pressure ... to Israel's military pressure" by working with European countries to impose "Snapback" sanctions on Iran for being out of compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. What they're saying: Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid on Friday that he believes Israel's strike improved the chance of reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. "I couldn't get them to a deal in 60 days. They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen," he said. But Iran's foreign minister said that nuclear talks planned for Sunday have been cancelled, and Trump said Saturday that the war between Israel and Iran "should end."
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's What 18 People Think About What Trump Said About Possibly Pardoning Diddy
As you probably know by now, Sean 'Diddy' Combs was indicted in 2024 on federal charges including sex trafficking and racketeering. Recently, HuffPost and BuzzFeed wrote about how Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked the president if he would consider pardoning Diddy. Trump told Doocy, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics, that relationship busted up, from what I read." "I don't know, he didn't tell me that. But I'd read some … nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden." Trump, who once ran in the same wealthy social circles as Diddy, continued, "You know, it's different. You become a much different person when you run for politics, and you do what's right. I could do other things, and I'm sure he'd like me, and I'm sure other people would like me, but it wouldn't be as good for our country." In other words, Trump didn't give a definitive answer on whether he would pardon Diddy. People in the comments had a lot to say on the topic. Here are some of the best replies: 1."If Diddy is found guilty, he should not be pardoned. Stop pardoning people who were found or plead guilty." —cole Melton 2."When considering whether to pardon someone, Trump couldn't care less about whether a person is guilty. As long as the person has some kind words for Trump and/or helped Trump get even richer, the person has a good chance of getting a pardon." "Ask Trump voters if they voted for this corruption of the pardon system." —Carl Hayman 3."The fact that Trump commented on pardoning Diddy during an active, ongoing trial…I am just speechless. It completely undermines the entire justice system." —hampster Related: 40 Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Creepy Wikipedia Pages 4."Always follow the money. Trump is using the power to pardon as an ATM. He only cares about the next money making opportunity, not law and order, justice, the Constitution, or keeping the guilty in jail. And most assuredly not you and me." —d icard 5."Even MAGA people on Fox and Breitbart are exploding over this. They hate this idea. Democrats need to keep the topic of Trump possibly pardoning Diddy front and center. Talk about it whenever they can. Keep it in the headlines." —TACO Trump 6."He says, 'I would certainly look at the facts.' And then what? Ignore them like he did with the results of the 2020 election? It used to be that if you wanted to win a high political office, you had to have character. Now all it takes (at least if you're a Republican) is to be a character." —Carl Olson 7."'You are the company you keep' has never been more true than as it relates to these two." —kylemcgee Related: 23 Cute, Happy, And Wholesome Posts I Saw On The Internet This Week That You Absolutely Need To See 8."There is no justice system if anyone can simply prove love to their president and get a pardon." —Cory Crete "Pardons are now for sale." —James Gettings 9."Well, being liked is obviously the most important factor in any pardon." —Les Vogt 10."This isn't just grotesque; it's the rot made visible. Trump floating a pardon for a man indicted for sex trafficking, while reminiscing about party invitations and wounded egos, is less a statement of justice than a confession of moral bankruptcy. It's not about innocence or guilt — it's about whether someone 'used to really like' him." "In Trump's world, the law isn't sacred; it's a velvet rope outside a nightclub, waved aside with the casual shrug of a man picking names from a guest list." —Miles West 11."If our Republic is still standing in a few years, a different Congress must amend the Constitution to limit presidential pardons." —Pedro Antonio Pastrano 12."No more presidential pardons. I would let them commute death sentences, but nothing more. Enough of this abuse. These people had their day in court and have had chances to appeal. I don't trust anyone with that power anymore. Get rid of it." —Charles James 13."It's so weird (but so typical) that Trump has to tell everyone that Diddy 'used to like me a lot,' as if that's the most relevant thing about the issue. What a terrible thing it must be to live a life actually believing inside that you're incapable of being loved. That's the overriding reality that has made Trump who he is — an immensely insecure, flawed man." —David Hardy 14."'When you're president you do what's right.' I can't believe he said that because he certainly doesn't abide by that whatsoever." —Jenny Tayla 15."Whenever he talks about anyone — and I mean anyone — he always comments on if that person likes him or not. Narcissistic dictator." —whatever19 16."I pray that Trump does not pardon Diddy. He's just as bad as Jeffrey Epstein and R. Kelly." —smileyzombie492 17."Trump is sans empathy. He is a woman-hating dumpster fire." —jamesnylan finally, "At least he didn't say he would. I was relieved to not read even that. The bar is low. 😭" —goldenovercoat28 The article people commented on originally appeared on HuffPost. Some replies have been edited for length and clarity. Also in Internet Finds: Lawyers Are Sharing Their Juiciest "Can You Believe It?!" Stories From The Courtroom, And They're As Surprising As You'd Expect Also in Internet Finds: People Are Sharing "The Most Believable Conspiracy Theories," And Now I'm Questioning Everything I Thought I Knew Also in Internet Finds: 51 People Who Quickly Discovered Why Their Hilariously Clueless Partner Was Single Before Meeting Them


The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans' stunning flip flops on ‘national emergencies'
In February, President Trump issued executive orders raising tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. In April, he slapped a 50 percent tariff on countries that the U.S. has a trade deficit with and a minimum 10 percent tariff on all others. The administration claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997 gives the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take immediate action to protect the country. Illicit trafficking in fentanyl along with threats to border security allegedly justified the tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico. America's large trade deficit was the justification for the 'Liberation Day' tariffs imposed on countries throughout the world. Trump's actions marked the first time the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been used to increase tariffs. Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court on International Trade (comprised of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees) declared that Trump had overstepped his authority. The tariffs, the judges noted, were not relevant to reducing fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration. And since the U.S. has had a trade deficit for each of the last 47 years, it is difficult to argue that it constitutes a national emergency. A few days later, an appeals court allowed the administration to continue to collect tariffs while litigation moves through the courts. In the meantime, the silence from Republican members of Congress — the body which, according to Article I of the Constitution, alone has the authority to raise and spend revenue — is deafening. It is worth noting that before Jan. 20, 2025, many of congressional Republicans endorsed a proposal limiting the president's power to act unilaterally by declaring national emergencies. In 2019, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the 'Article One Act.' The bill would have terminated all national emergency declarations after 30 days unless both houses of Congress voted to extend them. Calling for 'real action, as opposed to symbolic show votes that don't address the root of the problem,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) signed on as a cosponsor. Fifteen senators, including nine Republicans, signed a bipartisan letter urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to have the full Senate consider the Article One Act. The aim of the legislation, the letter indicated, 'is simple but fundamental: Congress cannot continue to cede its powers to another branch, regardless of who is president, and which party holds a majority.' Members of Congress 'who are troubled by emergency declarations,' Lee emphasized, 'only have themselves to blame.' Nothing happened. In 2023, Lee reintroduced the Article One Act. 'Law-making by proclamation,' he asserted, 'runs directly counter to the vision of our Founders and undermines the safeguards protecting our freedom. It is high time that Congress reclaimed the legislative power and restored constitutional balance to our system.' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), as he endorsed the Article One Act in the House, reminded his colleagues that 'the presidency was never meant to have monarchical power over the American people.' The legislation did not get a floor vote in either chamber. Executive orders and national emergency declarations — used all too frequently by Obama, Trump and Biden to bypass Congress — pose a clear and present danger to the system of checks and balances that has served this country well for over 200 years. And the problem of executive overreach is getting worse. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump has issued executive orders and declared national emergencies at a faster pace than any president in modern history. But Republicans in Congress no longer seem troubled by executive orders based on emergency declarations. In March, Lee introduced a bill that differed dramatically in substance and tone from the Article One Act. The 'Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025' mandated that a three-judge panel review all lower court injunctions against the president and grants of declaratory relief, followed by an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. 'American government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our commander-in-chief can be overruled at the whim of a single district judge,' Lee declared. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused to permit a floor vote to repeal Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs.' Every president, 'no matter the party,' Johnson opined, has 'a broad degree of latitude' over trade. The Senate rejected a similar measure with a 49-49 vote; neither Lee, Grassley nor any other Republican who signed onto the 2019 Article One Act letter supported the legislation. Justice Anthony Kennedy warned in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the case declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional, that the separation of powers is violated and liberty is threatened when spending is 'determined by the executive alone' and the president has the power 'to reward one group and punish another, help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, favor one State and ignore another.' Clearly, many congressional Republicans agree. But if they continue to choose partisan self-interest over principle, voters will have good reason to blame them — and the Trump administration — for the weakening of our democratic institutions. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.