CT officials issue urgent plea for help stopping ‘a plague' in state waterways. Here's why and how.
That message was loud and clear as Connecticut heads into Memorial Day weekend, both a time to honor the nation's fallen and the traditional beginning of the summer season, which includes many boats in the state's waters. Boats must be cleared of the plant to stop its spread, officials said.
Boats can spread hydrilla, the aquatic invasive species from Asia called the 'most noxious, invasive' plant ever, and it is well-known for its ability to quickly propagate and take over aquatic ecosystems. Officials fear it will damage the state's $5.5 billion recreational economy.
The plant significantly reduces water quality where it lives and spreads. By blocking sunlight, it encourages the growth of harmful algae, which can further reduce oxygen levels and produce toxins harmful to fish, wildlife, and even humans. It has caused massive damage to parts of the Connecticut River already and has been seen in other waterways.
The plant also is one of Connecticut's most costly and destructive invasive plants, and is projected to continue its spread across the Connecticut River, with the loss of federal funding to combat the highly invasive plant, officials said.
'It's an ugly and hideous looking plant,' U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Friday at Riverside Park in Hartford. 'This is probably the most invasive aquatic plant in the world and it has invaded Connecticut. It is a plague on the Connecticut River but also on our lakes, streams, coves, and tidal basins. It can survive and thrive almost anywhere because it multiplies hideously fast.'
For nearly a decade, state and federal scientists have studied the aquatic weed, looking for its vulnerabilities and why it has spread so successfully across 200 miles of the river and its tributaries in Connecticut. Hydrilla was first spotted in Connecticut in 2016 in Glastonbury, officials said.
Last year, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began limited spraying of a herbicide that showed enormous potential for rooting out the invasive plant. Several areas of the Connecticut River that have been choked for years with hydrilla were cleared within days, according to officials.
But efforts to continue clearing out the river of hydrilla are now in jeopardy, officials said. Nearly $5 million in federal funds that were allocated for ongoing hydrilla removal in the Connecticut River this year have been cut by Congress, according to Blumenthal's office.
Based on last summer's successful herbicide application trials, the Army Corps planned to expand testing and increase the number of herbicide applications to about 16 locations in coming months, officials said. But the funding was removed by a continuing congressional budget resolution earlier this spring and much of what remained is impounded by the White House budget office, according to previous reporting.
'The problem is that this year for the first time the Army Corps of Engineers budget is down 44%,' Blumenthal said. 'But the good news is, I believe, we have bipartisan support for a $5.5 million dollar fund in 2026 to combat hydrilla. Because it is such a threat to not just the Connecticut River, but to all the lakes and streams where boaters may go.'
Blumenthal was flanked by several state officials at Friday, including Michael Zaleski, president and CEO of Riverfront Recapture; Rhea Drozdenko, River Steward, Connecticut River Conservancy; Dr. Jason White, director of the Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station; Margot Burns, Senior Environmental Planner at RiverCOG; and Justin Davis, Acting Deputy Director of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
'We're at the start of Memorial Day weekend and that also starts the unofficial beginning of boating season in Connecticut,' Davis said. 'We here at CT DEEP encourage anyone fortunate enough to have a boat, to get out and have fun this summer, on the beautiful waterways of Connecticut. But to also do so in a safe and responsible manner and part of that is making sure you're not contributing to the spread of invasive species like hydrilla.'
Davis said that boaters should follow state protocols and always inspect their boats for any vegetation before entering the water. Upon leaving the water, boaters should drain all the water out of their boat and let it fully dry. DEEP officials said they recommend letting a boat dry for five days before re-entering a body of water.
'This is a hugely important issue as there is a major economic impact,' Davis said.
'We have a $5.5 billion dollar recreation economy in Connecticut and fishing and boating is the biggest part of that economy. Hydrilla is a major threat to our waterways and Connecticut's recreation economy.'
Scientists for years have studied hydrilla; until very recently believed to be confined to southern states, where it has clogged ponds and blocked rivers for decades. In 2016, amateur botanists found what they considered an odd weed growing in a river spur called Keeney Cove in Glastonbury.
Not only was the weed found to be hydrilla, but DNA testing revealed it to be a genetically unique strain not known elsewhere. In the years since, hydrilla has spread explosively to cover more than 1,000 acres of river and tributaries and jump, carried by the boats and trailers of anglers, to many of the state's lakes and ponds.
Edmund H. Mahony contributed to this story. Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@courant.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Watch out for this new invasive tick. It could saddle you with a little-known, debilitating infection
An invasive tick species is creeping its way into more parts of the country, as warming temperatures help it spread a little-known infection that can leave people with debilitating symptoms, and in rare cases, dead. In May, scientists at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven discovered for the first time that the longhorned tick had become a carrier for the bacteria that causes the Ehrlichiosis infection. With cases already on the rise, that was a big cause of concern. 'I am afraid to say that it is a storm brewing,' said Goudarz Molaei, the director of the lab's tick-testing program. 'Climate change eventually will almost eliminate winter in our region. And this tick, like other tick species, will be active year round.' Warming temperatures, which have already translated into shorter winters, allow the longhorned tick and other tick species to wake up early from hibernation, increasing the risk of getting bitten. The longhorned tick, which is native to East Asia, first invaded places like Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. It has now been detected in at least 21 states in the U.S. with Michigan reporting its first sighting at the end of June. Researchers aren't sure how the tick made it to the U.S., but it's likely it arrived on the backs of imported livestock or other animals. In 2017, scientists identified the country's first longhorned tick in New Jersey, though it's likely the species has been in the U.S. since at least 2010. 'The fact it was here for so long without us actually knowing about it was really a wakeup call,' said Dana Price, an associate research professor in the department of entomology at Rutgers University. Modeling indicates areas from southern Canada throughout the continental U.S. are environmentally suitable to the longhorned tick. That means the threat is two-fold: The longhorned's geographic range is expanding and so is the time that they're active and able to transmit disease, scientists said. Ehrlichiosis is becoming so prevalent that there is a region of the country unofficially named after it: The 'Ehrlichiosis Belt' stretches from as far north as Connecticut and New York to as far west as Arkansas. The lone star and blacklegged ticks have long carried Ehrlichia chaffeensis, the bacteria that causes Ehrlichiosis. The infection sends about 60% of patients to the hospital and claims the lives of about 1 in 100 patients, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Infected individuals will typically experience fever, chills, muscle aches, headaches and fatigue one to two weeks after being bitten. But if people aren't treated quickly, the infection can sometimes lead to brain and nervous system damage, respiratory failure, uncontrolled bleeding and organ failure. The number of Ehrlichiosis cases has risen steadily since 2000 when the CDC reported 200 cases of Ehrlichiosis compared with 2,093 in 2019. Studies suggest that the number of annual Ehrlichiosis cases are grossly underreported with one study from Rutgers University researchers saying 99% of cases go undetected. The CDC reported earlier this month that there have been more emergency room visits in July for tick bites than the past eight Julys. In early July, officials closed Pleasure Beach, a popular swim spot in Bridgeport, Connecticut, for the summer after discovering an infestation of several tick species including the longhorned tick. Manisha Juthani, the commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Health, said that as climate change makes 'tick season' less predictable, Connecticut residents should take precautions like wearing long pants, tucking them into their socks and conducting tick checks on family members and pets after being outdoors for extended periods of time. 'The reality is that with the changes we're seeing in climate, we have to be more prepared and more aware of the infections and the pathogens that we can be exposed to by being outside and potentially being aware of the things that can really cause the most harm to people,' Juthani said. While longhorned ticks often prefer the blood of livestock to humans, entomologists say their unique biology makes them a formidable public health hazard. They can establish populations of thousands from a single female because, like bees, they have the ability to reproduce without a mate. They can also ingest and become carriers for pathogens typically carried by other tick species if they happen to feed on the same host. The process, known as co-feeding transmission, is common among most tick species. Molaei said his recent discovery of the Ehrlichiosis-causing bacteria in the longhorned tick raises concerns about what other pathogens the tick may be able to contract and transmit to humans. The longhorned tick and the lone star tick, one of the original carriers of ehrlichia, both feed on similar hosts, like white-tailed deer. 'We live in this part of the world with several important tick species, and we have to learn how to live with this many ticks,' Molaei said. 'And the key is to protect ourselves.' The World Health Organization reports that more than 17% of infectious diseases globally are transmitted through vectors, intermediary animals that ferry viruses, bacteria and other pathogens from one animal to the next. Tick-borne diseases in the U.S. accounted for 77% of vector-borne disease reports from 2004 to 2016, with cases more than doubling in the last 13 years, according to data collected by the CDC. Jennifer Platt was bitten by a tick during that time. She contracted Ehrlichiosis from a tick bite in North Carolina in the summer of 2011. When she couldn't pick up and carry her 2-year-old son, her friend, who is a nurse, suggested she go to the hospital immediately. The friend suspected Platt might have a tick-borne infection. Platt was sick and on antibiotics for months after her diagnosis. Her shoulder locked due to the infection — a rare but contractable chronic symptom of tick-borne disease — leading to months of physical therapy and putting her out of work for three months. It took her more than a year to fully recover from the lasting impacts of the infection. 'The best way I'd describe it,' she said, 'is I felt like death.' A few years after she started feeling better, she was diagnosed with Lyme and Babesiosis diseases — which she attributes to the same tick bite. Platt, who co-founded the advocacy nonprofit Tick-Borne Conditions United, said she hopes the recent discovery of the Ehrlichia bacteria in the longhorned tick will help raise awareness among doctors and the general public about the threat of tick-borne diseases, especially little-known ones like Ehrlichiosis. 'My mission in life is to support people in being who they are,' Platt said. 'And if you're sick from a tick-borne disease, you can't be who you are.' This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
Atlantic
19 hours ago
- Atlantic
How States Could Save University Science
Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump's assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation's citizens. But under President Trump—who has already targeted more than $3 billion in research funding for termination and hopes to cut much more, while at the same time increasing the tax on endowments and threatening the ability of universities to enroll international students —the federal government has become an unreliable and brutally coercive partner. The question for universities is, what now? It will take time for research universities to find a new long-term financial model that allows science and medicine to continue advancing—a model much less dependent on the federal government. But right now universities don't have time. The problem with recklessly cutting billions in funds the way the Trump administration has done—not just at elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia but also at public research universities across the country—is that 'stop-start' simply doesn't work in science. If a grant is snatched away today, researchers are let go, graduate students are turned away, and clinical trials are halted with potentially devastating consequences for patients. Unused equipment gathers dust, samples spoil, lab animals are euthanized. Top scientists move their laboratories to other countries, which are happy to welcome this talent, much as the United States welcomed German scientists in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the best students around the world enroll elsewhere, where good science is still being done and their legal status is not up in the air. The result, ultimately, is that the U.S. leaves it to other nations to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, or to make fusion energy practicable. No easy substitute exists for federal support of academic R&D—the scale of the investment is just too large. In fiscal year 2023, federal funding for university research amounted to about $60 billion nationwide. University-endowment spending, as reported by the '2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments,' is just half that—$30 billion, with much of the money earmarked for financial aid. Universities by themselves cannot save American science, engineering, and medicine. However, there is also no easy substitute within the American economy for university-based research—universities are the only major institutions that do what they do. The kind of curiosity-driven rather than profit-driven research pursued by universities is too risky for private corporations. By and large, industry conducts research to achieve milestones along a well-considered road map. It is up to universities to find the new roads and educate the experts who know how to travel them. Those roads are where the real potential for growth lies. After all, the internet and the artificial neural networks that enable generative AI arose out of basic research at U.S. universities. So did the most fundamental discoveries in molecular biology, which are now enabling astonishing one-time treatments that are potential cures for painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell. University research is particularly important in states where technology-intensive industries have grown up around the talent and ideas that universities generate—states such as Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although the Trump administration may characterize federal research grants as wasteful spending, they are really an investment, one with higher returns than federal investment in infrastructure or private investment in R&D. There is a way forward—a way to bridge the huge gap in funding. It starts with the assumption that a bridge will be needed for several years, until some measure of sanity and federal support returns. It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending. These states have the power to act unilaterally. They can set up emergency funds to replace canceled federal grants, allowing universities to keep their labs open until a shaky present gives way to a sturdier future. These states can also create incentives for corporations, investors, philanthropists, and of course universities themselves to step up in extraordinary ways at a time of emergency. This is not merely wishful thinking. Massachusetts has already made moves in this direction. At the end of July, Governor Maura Healey introduced legislation that would put $400 million of state funds into university-based research and research partnerships. Half would go to public colleges and universities, and half to other institutions, including private research universities and academic hospitals. Obviously, with $2.6 billion of multiyear research grants threatened at Harvard alone, action by the state will cover only part of the funding deficit, but it will help. It makes perfect sense for Massachusetts to be the first state to try to stanch the bleeding. With just 2 percent of the nation's workforce, Massachusetts is home to more than 11 percent of all R&D jobs in the country. It has the highest per capita funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S. Every federal dollar invested in academic science in Massachusetts generates about $2 in economic return for the state. And that's before taking into account the economic impact of any discoveries. In particular, Massachusetts has a powerful biomedical-research ecosystem to protect. But each state has its own strategic imperatives, and many ways to structure such emergency funds exist. Because the grants canceled by the Trump administration have already undergone the federal peer-review process, states don't need to force themselves into the challenging business of judging the worthiness of individual research proposals. They could make a large difference simply by refilling the vessels that have been abruptly emptied, possibly with grants that allow the universities to prioritize the most important projects. States could require that, in exchange for state help, universities must raise matching funds from their donors. In addition, states could launch their own philanthropic funds, as Massachusetts is also doing. Philanthropy—which already contributes an estimated $13 billion a year to university research through foundations, individual gifts, and the income on gifts to university endowments—is particularly important at this moment. As federal-grant awards become scarcer, it is a fair bet that federal-funding agencies will become more risk averse. Philanthropists have always played an important role in encouraging unconventional thinking because they are willing to fund the very earliest stages of discovery. For example, the philanthropists Ted and Vada Stanley funded a center at MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute specifically to explore the biological basis of psychiatric disorders. In a landmark 2016 study, researchers there found strong evidence of a molecular mechanism underlying schizophrenia, establishing the first distinct connection in the disorder between gene variants and a biological process. Foundations can also launch sweeping projects that bring together communities of scientists from different organizations to advance a field, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has mapped a third of the night sky, or the Sloan Deep Carbon Observatory, which studied the carbon cycle beneath the surface of the Earth. States could also incentivize their business communities to be part of the rescue operation, perhaps by offering to match industry contributions to academic R&D. Some sectors, such as the biopharmaceutical industry, are particularly reliant on university discoveries. NIH-funded research contributed to more than 99 percent of all new drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. But China is now catching up to the U.S. in drug innovation. American biopharmaceutical companies are already dependent on China for raw materials. If they don't want to become completely reliant on China for breakthrough drugs as well—and able to access only those drugs that China is willing to share—they should do what they can to help save what has long been the world's greatest system for biomedical research. The same is true for science-based technology companies in fields that include quantum computing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. Academic breakthroughs underlie the products and services they sell. If they want to remain ahead of their global competition, they should help support the next generation of breakthroughs and the next generation of students who will contribute to those breakthroughs. Among those who would benefit from keeping U.S. university labs open are the venture capitalists and other investors who profit from the commercialization of university ideas. From 1996 to 2020, academic research generated 141,000 U.S. patents, spun out 18,000 companies, supported 6.5 million jobs, and contributed $1 trillion to the GDP. One of those spinouts was named Google. In our current state of emergency, investment firms should be considering ways to provide a lifeline to the university-based science that supports a high-tech economy. Governors and other leaders in states with major research universities will need to work quickly and decisively, bringing various parties together in order to stave off disaster. But what is the alternative? If states, corporations, donors, and other stakeholders do nothing, there will be fewer American ideas to invest in, fewer American therapies to benefit from, and fewer advanced manufacturing industries making things in the U.S. No contributions from elsewhere can completely replace broad-based federal support for university R&D. But until that returns, states with a lot on the line economically offer the best hope of limiting the losses and salvaging U.S. science.
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.
