logo
US wetlands ‘restored' using treated sewage tainted with forever chemicals

US wetlands ‘restored' using treated sewage tainted with forever chemicals

The Guardian19-07-2025
Many of the nation's wetlands are being filled with toxic Pfas 'forever chemicals' as wastewater treatment plant effluent tainted with the compounds is increasingly used to restore swampland and other waters. The practice threatens wildlife, food and drinking water sources, environmental advocates warn.
Effluent is the liquid discharged by wastewater treatment plants after it 'disinfects' sewage in the nation's sewer system. The treatment process largely kills pathogens and the water is high in nutrients that help plants grow, so on one level it is beneficial to struggling ecosystems.
But the treatment process does not address any of the hundreds of thousands of chemicals potentially discharged into sewers, including Pfas. Testing has found effluent virtually always contains Pfas at concerning levels, but the practice of using it for wetland restoration is still presented as an environmentally friendly measure.
'There's a huge dark side to this whole business of municipalities using effluent that's carrying loads of Pfas and other toxic materials and calling it 'wetland restoration',' said James Aronson, a restoration ecologist and president of Ecological Health Network non-profit. 'It's truly the worst kind of lying to the public.'
Pfas are a class of about 15,000 compounds that are dubbed 'forever chemicals' because they do not naturally break down, and accumulate in the human body and environment. The chemicals are linked to a range of serious health problems such as cancer, liver disease, kidney issues, high cholesterol, birth defects and decreased immunity.
The volume of wastewater that plants treat each day makes it virtually impossible to efficiently remove chemicals. Still, effluent has been used to recharge hundreds of wetlands across the country, as well as some rivers and aquifers, when they dry up or are otherwise degraded by human activity.
Among the largest projects are in Louisiana, which has increased its use of effluent to restore the bayou and protect against coastal erosion that is in part driven by the installation of levee systems. Florida has in place similar programs aimed at regenerating the Everglades and shorelines.
Meanwhile, some rivers in the south-west, like the Trinity River near Dallas, are 'almost entirely' effluent, while in California the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and other rivers are 'effluent dominated'.
Orange county, California, now uses effluent to recharge its aquifer that provides drinking water for 2.5 million people. At the same time, the country's water districts are spending an estimated $1.8bn to install technology that will remove Pfas and other pollutants from the water they pull from the aquifer. The levels of Pfas in effluent at 200 California wastewater treatment plants were almost all thousands of times above the level that the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for some compounds, recent research found.
The practice is often billed as 'recycling water' and 'green', but advocates say the terms are misleading because toxic waste is literally being pumped unchecked into the environment. It's not just Pfas – microplastics, heavy metals and other toxins have been found at high levels in effluent.
Few regulations around chemicals exist, and though the wastewater industry knows the scale of the problem. It's a 'don't ask, don't tell' issue, said Laura Orlando, a civil engineer with Just Zero non-profit who has worked on waste management design.
'There's lots of hype about recycling and such, but nothing about public health, because they're following the rules – which are not protective of public or ecosystem health,' Orlando said.
Though little research into how the levels of Pfas in effluent used to restore wetlands affects wildlife exists, the chemicals can have consequences for animals. For example, in North Carolina, where Pfas discharged from industrial sources polluted wetlands, the chemicals were thought to be behind health problems similar to lupus in alligators and immune impacts on pelicans.
'We're talking about ecosystem health,' Aronson said. 'It's the food web, and soil, animal, and water interactions – everything gets degraded and poisoned, and it's the opposite of restoration.'
There is some potential to use some types of wetlands to treat effluent that can then be released as truly clean water. 'Constructed wetlands' are filled with effluent and the inflow and outflow of water is controlled. Those can be filled with plants that take up Pfas and other contaminants. The plants would have to be disposed of in hazardous waste facilities.
While there are some efforts to explore how this could work on a broad scale, the chemicals and toxins are a problem that few in the wastewater industry are thinking about, Orlando said.
'Unless you acknowledge the problem you can't fix the problem and we have to examine these words like 'clean' and 'safe',' she said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

EXCLUSIVE New mom details shocking cost of giving birth in America
EXCLUSIVE New mom details shocking cost of giving birth in America

Daily Mail​

time4 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

EXCLUSIVE New mom details shocking cost of giving birth in America

A new mom has shared the shockingly high cost of giving birth in America - and it's well over six figures. Emily Fisher, 36, from Columbus, Ohio, welcomed twin girls last month and was left stunned when she saw an insurance claim come through for her delivery that was over $10,000. Completely shocked by the immense figure, she decided to go back and total up all the bills she had received over the course of her pregnancy to determine just how much having a baby in the US really costs. And after adding everything up, Emily found that having her baby girls would have cost her a whopping $120,527.51 had she not had insurance. She shared her findings in a video shared to TikTok earlier this month and it quickly went viral, leaving thousands across the globe just as surprised as she was. 'So I am five weeks postpartum with twin girls and I've been seeing a lot of headlines recently about how the birth rate in America is declining and how concerning that is,' Emily began in the video. 'I thought to myself, I could think of a lot of reasons why the birth rate might be declining. First and foremost, cost. 'So I decided to take it upon myself and look at every bill that I received over the course of my pregnancy and total what it costs to deliver twins in America.' Emily explained that she is considered 'advanced maternal age' and was pregnant with 'dichorionic diamniotic twins' which made her pregnancy 'high risk.' In addition, about halfway through the pregnancy her doctor raised concerns about potential 'fetal growth restriction,' so from about 22 weeks on she had to have two appointments every week with her OBGYN and a maternal fetal medicine specialist to make sure the babies were healthy. 'So what was the total cost of that? From the start of my pregnancy through delivery and me walking out of those hospital doors, the total bill for my care was $120,527.51,' she said in the video. 'Now I am very fortunate great insurance and I have a low deductible so over the course of my pregnancy out of pocket I paid $2,038.70. 'I know that is relatively good but still, $2,000 for something that is considered necessary and vital to the future of America is pretty significant.' Emily added that on top of that, her newborns both received bills for their delivery. 'It's kind of funny, they're not even able to blink yet and they've already been billed more than the total cost of my student loans,' she continued. 'Baby A received a bill for $15,124.55 and Baby B was billed $14,875.55, I guess there was some sort of sibling discount. She added, 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' The bills are seen above 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' She then broke down what some of the highest costs were during the pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, the delivery itself and the hospital stay afterwards was the most costly expense. Emily explained that she had a scheduled C-section at 37 weeks and spent four days in the hospital post delivery, and the total cost of her care before insurance was $65,665.50. The second highest cost during the pregnancy was an appointment she had about seven months in, during which she complained to her doctor that she was having headaches. She said they took her blood pressure and it was slightly elevated, so they monitored the heart rate of the babies for 20 minutes to 'make sure they were okay.' She was then given 'two extra strength Tylenol' and they 'did some blood work.' 'The cost that was billed to my insurance for that visit was $9,115,' shared the new mom. 'All things considered, I'm very grateful for the experience that I had and very grateful to have great insurance, but I know that for a lot of people who live in America that is simply not possible,' she concluded. 'And if I did not have insurance delivery my two baby girls, I would not be able to afford it. 'In fact, I probably would have had to file bankruptcy had I not had insurance. So when people act confused why the birth rates are down, maybe it's not necessarily all attributed to lifestyle choices, maybe it's not because people aren't feeling the vibe of having kids, maybe it's because the cost of having a baby in America is over six figures.' While chatting with the Daily Mail about it, Emily, who used to work on the healthcare space, said she believes the insurance system in America 'needs a complete overhaul.' 'Given that the US is the one of (if not the only) developed nation in the world without some sort of universal healthcare, we're falling behind,' she said. 'People are spending too much on basic and necessary care. Medical debt is one of the number one reasons for bankruptcy in the US, and it shouldn't be that way. 'If we invested in a system that put the health its people first, everyone would be better off. 'And given the decline in birth rates, if our politicians are genuinely concerned about falling birth rates, they would be incentivizing people to have children. You shouldn't have to pay to give birth.' She added that while she was 'shocked' by the high number that her insurance was billed, she was 'not surprised at the same time.' 'The first thing that came to mind when I saw the total was, "How do people without insurance afford this?"' she shared. 'But I've always known that healthcare in America is a business. Ultimately, like most necessities in the US, privatized insurance is designed to make money.' She said she certainly wasn't expecting her video, which was viewed more than one million times, to get as much attention as it did, but she's so glad that it has sparked a conversation. 'I hope my video makes people think twice about having kids in America. Because until the system is redesigned to truly support the people, we shouldn't be buying into it,' she concluded. 'I'm fortunate to have good health coverage. I'm not on the hook for much as far as the cost of my pregnancy, but that is only the beginning for my family and what we'll pay to raise my kids. 'Now we have to think about things like paying for their health coverage, daycare, food, housing and college. 'All of these things are only getting more and more expensive and almost unreachable for people.'

Sarepta shares rebound after shipments of gene therapy Elevidys resume in US
Sarepta shares rebound after shipments of gene therapy Elevidys resume in US

Reuters

time5 hours ago

  • Reuters

Sarepta shares rebound after shipments of gene therapy Elevidys resume in US

July 29 (Reuters) - Sarepta Therapeutics (SRPT.O), opens new tab shares surged more than 30% before the bell on Tuesday, as analysts said the resumption of U.S. shipments for its muscular gene therapy partially removes financial headwinds and decreases the risk of market withdrawal. The company said on Monday it would resume shipments of Elevidys — approved in the U.S. to treat a rare condition called Duchenne muscular dystrophy — to patients who can walk. U.S. shipments to patients who cannot walk independently are still halted, following the death of two teenage boys earlier this year. These incidents brought heightened regulatory scrutiny to Sarepta in recent weeks, while the pause of shipments raised concerns about the future of Elevidys — the company's largest revenue generator. Sarepta's announcement followed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recommendation that the voluntary hold on shipments be removed after a probe showed the death of an 8-year-old boy in Brazil was not related to Elevidys. Wall Street analysts said the resumption of shipments would allow Sarepta to fulfill its near-term payments to partner Arrowhead (ARWR.O), opens new tab and maintain access to its debt facilities. "The FDA's recommendation and the resumption of commercial treatment in the U.S. virtually eliminate the risk of Elevidys being formally withdrawn from the market," said William Blair analyst Sami Corwin. While the decision allows some patients to regain access to the treatment, analysts warned that patients and doctors could show hesitancy in light of the recent hit to reputation. "It remains to be seen how the news headlines regarding the patient deaths will affect commercial interest in the near term," Corwin said. Sarepta's partner Roche (ROG.S), opens new tab had also stopped Elevidys shipments in certain countries outside the U.S. Shares of Sarepta surged 36% to $18.85 in premarket trading. They have fallen more than 80% since the first Elevidys-related death was reported in March.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store