EPA lifts 2016 emergency order on drinking water in Flint
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Monday it was lifting an emergency order on Flint's drinking water that was implemented nine years ago.
The agency issued the order in January 2016 in response to the city's water crisis. On Monday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the city completed all requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
"Lifting this emergency order is a cause for great celebration for residents of Flint who worked so hard and sacrifice so much to get to this point," said Zeldin, who visited Flint shortly after he was named administrator. "Even though the emergency order is lifted, all levels of government must continue to stay in contact and work closely to be a continued resource for the Flint community and ensure their water remains pristine."
The lift comes more than 10 years after the city experienced lead-contaminated drinking water, which affected thousands of residents. The EPA says that after issuing the order, the city of Flint and the State of Michigan worked with the federal agency to meet all of the requirements. Part of the order included regular water testing.
In 2024, the city agreed to an administrative consent order with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy to ensure compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule and SDWA. Some requirements included increasing staff and constructing a backup pipeline from the Genesee County Drain Commission to the Flint public water system. That same year, the city unveiled an upgraded water facility to the public.
The city says it has replaced over 97% of the lead pipes.
Flint Mayor Sheldon Neeley said the lift is a "powerful testament to the strength and advocacy of Flint residents."
"For nearly a decade, we have worked tirelessly to restore trust and integrity to our water system, as well as meeting rigorous standards. While this milestone marks progress, our commitment to clean, safe drinking water remains unwavering," Neeley said in a news release. "We will continue to advance infrastructure, strengthen safeguards, and ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. Flint families deserve nothing less."
NOTE: The video above previously aired on April 25, 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs face threat at Supreme Court — over rulings that blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) — A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania Where the Wild Children's Museums Are The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' —With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
$8 million PFAS water project moves forward in Morganfield
MORGANFIELD, Ky. (WEHT) — City officials in Morganfield have a large task ahead of them — removing PFAS from the water. They say there is currently a plan in action which involves a project that will cost over $8 million dollars. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS are long lasting chemicals that break down slowly over time and can be found all across the country in fish, soil, air and water. 'They're part of our everyday life,' said David Tapp, the water treatment plant supervisor in Morganfield. 'They're in our car seats– anything you can buy that is stain resistant, water resistant or nonstick labels is generally coated in more of these chemicals. And they have a strong chemical bond. And they last forever in the environment.' Tapp says the levels of PFAS in the city are still considered 'safe,' but the city is ready to prevent it from reaching dangerous levels. 'You have a laundry list of everything from kidney cancer to birth defects to high cholesterol that it causes when it's ingested,' said Tapp. 'It's stuff that's been around for a while and we didn't realize how dangerous it was.' The project in motion involves constructing a new building — located right next to the plant that will have 'Granular-Activated Carbon' filters. We're told these filters will help remove the chemicals from the water. 'When you look at it under a microscope, it looks like lava rocks we use in a gas room.,' said Tapp. 'And you have these big metal tanks that's full of sand-looking stuff. It's real porous. And you pump water through it and the contaminants get stuck inside the pores. It's just a secondary filtering process.' Although the cost of the project is high, Tapp says the city is committed to putting residents first. 'We've secured funding for $7 million of that and we've applied for more grant funding through a couple different agencies to try to make up the difference to lessen the load on our customers and residents,' said Tapp. The building that will house the GAC filters is set to be completed in July 2027. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Delaware City Refinery continues toxic chemical release. Here's what we know
The Delaware City Refinery has been continuously releasing more than permitted amounts of toxic sulfur dioxide into the air for a week now, yet there are still more questions than answers. Here's what we know. The Delaware City Refinery is located on 5,000 acres just north of Delaware City, along the Delaware River, with a New Castle address. It's owned by PBF Energy, "one of the largest independent petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products in the United States," according to the company's website. The Delaware City Refinery is "one of the largest and most complex refineries on the East Coast," the website says, and can process up to 180,000 barrels of oil per day. Historically, the Delaware City Refinery has been the state's biggest polluter, frequently cited for air pollution violations. In October 2024, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control found that the refinery had deviated from its permit standards nine times between September 2022 and August 2023 and fined the refinery $75,000. More than 86,000 people live within a 5-mile radius of the refinery, over half of whom are people of color and 20% of whom are lower-income, according to EPA data. Due to concerns with diversity, equity and inclusion, earlier this year, the EPA canceled a $500,000 grant that would have allowed the nonprofit Clean Air Council to monitor air pollution in the area of the refinery. Sulfur dioxide is a gas composed of sulfur and oxygen. It forms when fuel such as oil, like at the Delaware City Refinery, is burned. Background: Air monitor shows pollutant from Delaware City Refinery in acceptable range: DNREC Sulfur dioxide can make it hard to breathe and harm the human respiratory system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It can also harm animals and plants. Delaware Environmental Release Notification System, which reports on the Delaware City Refinery releases, says sulfur dioxide "may cause death or permanent injury after very short exposure to small quantities." Signs of acute sulfur dioxide exposure include symptoms such as coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing, fatigue, chest discomfort, nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and cyanosis, the reports say. People with asthma, subnormal pulmonary functions or cardiovascular disease are at a greater risk than others. The fossil fuel industry is the largest contributor of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, according to the EPA. Refineries like the Delaware City Refinery are typically allowed to emit certain amounts of pollutants into the air and water through state and federal permits. The release of sulfur dioxide is ongoing and will continue "until the repairs are made," a May 31 Delaware Environmental Release Notification System report says. The refinery's air quality permit doesn't appear to be available online, so how much sulfur dioxide the company is normally permitted to release is unknown. According to reports publicly posted on the Delaware Environmental Release Notification System website, the following amounts of sulfur dioxide were released by the Delaware City Refinery since May 25. 11:30 p.m., May 25: "over 100 pounds" 12:01 a.m., May 26: "greater than 500 pounds" 9:55 a.m., May 28: 500 pounds per hour 11:16 a.m., May 29: 1,450 pounds per hour 10:05 a.m., May 30: 1,450 pounds per hour 9 p.m., May 31: "greater than 500 pounds" The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control issued a news release related to these incidents on May 31. It noted information from an air monitoring station east of the refinery on Route 9, but didn't state the direction in which the wind was blowing at the time the information was recorded. Related: Delaware City Refinery 'deviated' from its permit 7 times in 2024 with no violations The "health standard" for sulfur dioxide, according to the news release, is 75 parts per billion. The highest hourly measurement during "this incident" was 25 parts per billion for 6 a.m. on May 31, the release said. The highest-recorded daily average sulfur dioxide level was 2.5 parts per billion on May 26. When the news release was issued on May 31, the average was 7.33 parts per billion. Since the news release was issued, more data has become available on the department's Air Quality Monitoring Network website. It shows a new highest hourly measurement of 29 parts per billion at midnight on June 1. Some DERNS reports cite "a boiler failure." DNREC and PBF representatives did not immediately respond to questions. DERNS sends out notifications of chemical releases, but only to people who have signed up. DNREC spokesman Michael Globetti said concerning a past chemical release that DERNS is "not intended to be an emergency notification system, but rather a system to allow citizens to stay informed." The Department of Emergency Management Agency has sent out notifications of past chemical releases, but Director A.J. Schall said they haven't sent out any releases related to the current refinery incident. It's unknown. DNREC and PDF representatives did not immediately respond to questions. Molly McVety contributed to this story. Shannon Marvel McNaught reports on southern Delaware and beyond. Reach her at smcnaught@ or on Facebook. This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal: Delaware City Refinery continues to release toxic chemical into air
