logo
White House rescinds $20m for clean water in pesticide-contaminated rural California

White House rescinds $20m for clean water in pesticide-contaminated rural California

The Guardian5 days ago
For decades, thousands of residents in California's agricultural heartland couldn't use their wells because the water was too contaminated with pesticides. In December, the Biden administration stepped in with a long-awaited $20m grant to provide clean water, improve municipal sources and relieve the region's financial and health burden.
The Trump administration just took the money away.
Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeled the grant a 'wasteful DEI program', though advocates say the move is an act of cruelty. Drinking water in some parts of the Monterey county region, which largely produces strawberries, has not been safe for decades because it is contaminated with staggering levels of highly toxic pesticide ingredients that threaten the health of agricultural workers and others.
The decision to yank the money was 'unjust', said Maraid Jimenez, a spokesperson for the Community Water Center, which was helping manage the grant's implementation.
'People agree that everyone needs safe drinking water, so to have a grant help fix that for a rural community rescinded – it doesn't make any sense to us,' Jimenez said. 'The drinking water crisis here only gets worse, and, beyond our shock, we're trying to mobilize to find a solution.'
The funding, along with California state money, would have improved drinking water quality for about 5,500 people, either through improvements to municipal infrastructure or by connecting contaminated wells to municipal lines.
The aquifer in the rural, majority-Spanish-speaking communities in Monterey county, which sits about 50 miles (80km) south of the San Jose, is widely contaminated with 1,2,3-TCP, a pesticide ingredient and carcinogen banned in 40 countries that persists for decades in the soil and groundwater. In many cases, the 1,2,3-TCP levels in wells have been found to far exceed state limits and EPA health guidelines for drinking water. 1,2,3-TCP can also evaporate and create toxic fumes in the shower, and it is linked to liver, kidney and reproductive damage.
The wells also often contain high levels of arsenic, hexavalent chromium and nitrates. Each are carcinogens and the latter can cause 'blue baby syndrome', a condition in young children that causes their skin to turn blue when the toxin gets into their bloodstream and restricts oxygen flow.
Residents have either had to buy jugs of water or use state assistance to purchase them over the last 30 years. Among them is Marcela, a mother of three who has lived in the region for about 10 years. She and her husband are strawberry pickers, and she declined to provide her last name for fear of retaliation from the federal government.
Marcela said the family, which lives near Moss Landing, spends about $450 every three weeks on 5-gallon jugs of water. The well on the property that she rents is broken. She and her landlords, an elderly couple who live at the house and whom she takes care of, don't have enough money to fix it. Even if they could, the water from the well would in all likelihood be too contaminated to use.
They learned in late 2024 of the plan to connect their property to a nearby water district within three years, which would have alleviated a major stress and financial burden. Then they learned that the Trump administration had rescinded the funding.
'It is devastating news for us,' Marcela said via a translator. 'We urgently need water.'
Marcela's family is protected by the bottled water, but some in the region 'didn't know that they couldn't drink or cook with the tap water, so they would use it', said Mayra Hernandez, community advocacy manager with Community Water Center. What that has meant for their health is unclear.
Educating residents about the risks has involved Community Water Center staff knocking on doors. The challenges in getting out the word in the region, where there are a large number of workers who don't speak English and who live in isolation from information sources, highlights how essential it is to hook up properties to clean water.
The EPA grant, along with state funding, would have connected more than 1,000 residents with unsafe wells to municipal lines. It also would have provided financial support to municipal systems needed to expand water provision and provide improvements.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
In an emailed statement, the EPA said: 'Maybe the Biden-Harris Administration shouldn't have forced their radical agenda of wasteful DEI programs and 'environmental justice' preferencing on the EPA's core mission of protecting human health and the environment.'
The cuts are part of the Trump administration's broader attack aimed at killing approximately $2bn for environmental and climate justice initiatives made available through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that would reduce pollution and improve communities' resilience to the effects of climate change.
Hundreds of projects across the nation have lost funding, and though lawsuits have sought to restore it, Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' eliminated all IRA money that was not yet disbursed.
The decision to rescind the funding came at almost the same time that the EPA announced $30m in funding for rural water improvements – a drop in the bucket compared with what was available under the Biden administration. None of the new funding is going to the region around Marcea's home.
Jimenez said the EPA's actions 'don't fall in line with their messaging'.
'Drinking water is a human right and it shouldn't be a political topic that's contested,' she said.
The Community Water Center is now looking for other sources of funding through the state, but Jimenez added that advocates are determined even if the situation for now remains unclear.
'Just because a grant is being canceled doesn't mean the problem is going away,' Jimenez 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​

time3 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.'

Higher US tariffs part of the price Europe was willing to pay for its security and arms for Ukraine
Higher US tariffs part of the price Europe was willing to pay for its security and arms for Ukraine

The Independent

time3 hours ago

  • The Independent

Higher US tariffs part of the price Europe was willing to pay for its security and arms for Ukraine

France's prime minister described it as a 'dark day' for the European Union, a 'submission' to U.S. tariff demands. Commentators said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen's handshake with President Donald Trump amounted to capitulation. The trouble is, Europe depends mightily on the United States, and not just for trade. Mirroring Trump, Von der Leyen gushed that the arrangement she endorsed over the weekend to set U.S. tariff levels on most European exports to 15%, which is 10% higher than currently, was 'huge.' Her staff texted reporters insisting that the pact, which starts to enter force on Friday, is the 'biggest trade deal ever.' A month after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte ingratiated himself with Trump by referring to him as 'daddy,' the Europeans had again conceded that swallowing the costs and praising an unpredictable president is more palatable than losing America. 'It's not only about the trade. It's about security. It's about Ukraine. It's about current geopolitical volatility. I cannot go into all the details,' EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told reporters Monday. 'I can assure you it was not only about the trade,' he insisted, a day after 'the deal' was sealed in an hour-long meeting once Trump finished playing a round of golf with his son at the course he owns in Scotland. The state of Europe's security dependency Indeed, Europe depends on the U.S. for its security and that security is anything but a game, especially since Russia invaded Ukraine. U.S. allies are convinced that, should he win, President Vladimir Putin is likely to take aim at one of them next. So high are these fears that European countries are buying U.S. weapons to help Ukraine to defend itself. Some are prepared to send their own air defense systems and replace them with U.S. equipment, once it can be delivered. 'We're going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they'll be doing what they want, but I guess it's for the most part working with Ukraine,' Trump said Sunday, sounding ambivalent about America's role in the alliance. The Europeans also are wary about a U.S. troop drawdown, which the Pentagon is expected to announce by October. Around 84,000 U.S. personnel are based in Europe, and they guarantee NATO's deterrent effect against an adversary like Russia. At the same time, Trump is slapping duties on America's own NATO partners, ostensibly due to concerns about U.S. security interests, using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, a logic that seems absurd from across the Atlantic. Weaning Europe off foreign suppliers 'The EU is in a difficult situation because we're very dependent on the U.S. for security,' said Niclas Poitiers at the Bruegel research institution in Brussels. 'Ukraine is a very big part of that, but also generally our defense is underwritten by NATO.' 'I think there was not a big willingness to pick a major fight, which is the one (the EU) might have needed with the U.S.' to better position itself on trade, Poitiers told The Associated Press about key reasons for von der Leyen to accept the tariff demands. Part of the agreement involves a commitment to buy American oil and gas. Over the course of the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its fourth year, most of the EU has slashed its dependence on unreliable energy supplies from Russia, but Hungary and Slovakia still have not. 'Purchases of U.S. energy products will diversify our sources of supply and contribute to Europe's energy security. We will replace Russian gas and oil with significant purchases of U.S. LNG, oil and nuclear fuels,' von der Leyen said in Scotland on Sunday. In essence, as Europe slowly weans itself off Russian energy it is also struggling to end its reliance on the United States for its security. The Trump administration has warned its priorities now lie elsewhere, in Asia, the Middle East and on its own borders. That was why European allies agreed at NATO's summit last month to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on defense over the next decade. Primarily for their own security, but also to keep America among their ranks. The diplomacy involved was not always elegant. 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' Rutte wrote in a private text message to Trump, which the U.S. leader promptly posted on social media. Rutte brushed off questions about potential embarrassment or concern that Trump had aired it, saying: 'I have absolutely no trouble or problem with that because there's nothing in it which had to stay secret.' A price Europe feels it must pay Von der Leyen did not appear obsequious in her meeting with Trump. She often stared at the floor or smiled politely. She did not rebut Trump when he said that only America is sending aid to Gaza. The EU is world's biggest supplier of aid to the Palestinians. With Trump's threat of 30% tariffs hanging over European exports — whether real or brinksmanship is hard to say — and facing the prospect of a full-blown trade dispute while Europe's biggest war in decades rages, 15% may have been a cheap price to pay. 'In terms of the economic impact on the EU economy itself, it will be negative,' Poitiers said. 'But it's not something that is on a comparable magnitude like the energy crisis after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or even COVID.' 'This is a negative shock for our economy, but it is something that's very manageable,' he said. It remains an open question as to how long this entente will last. ___

Starmer's charm is lost on Britain, but he has won Trump's heart
Starmer's charm is lost on Britain, but he has won Trump's heart

Telegraph

time3 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Starmer's charm is lost on Britain, but he has won Trump's heart

You couldn't help but get the impression that Trump found opening a new golf course at least as important as running a country. I can't actually recall any past president combining the launch of his own private business venture with the office of the presidency in this fashion but there we are. It's a new world order. He did make the point in his celebratory speech that stopping a war was, after all, rather more valuable an achievement than creating a golf course so perhaps that's reassuring. What had become clear once again on this visit – which had been described as a private holiday but was, in fact, the scene of some major diplomatic developments – was that our own dear Prime Minister was far and away the US president's favourite foreign leader. We must, of course, be grateful for this fact even if we do find it totally mystifying. Sir Keir's charm may be lost on the home audience but he is the undoubted favourite of the Trump White House and this is not solely because he is the messenger for our Royal family whom the president obviously adores. No, it is the Starmer personality itself which appears to have won Trump's heart. Why? My own guess, borrowing on my recollection of American responses to various brands of foreign behaviour is that Starmer's personality represents what Americans tend to regard as quintessential Britishness: a preternatural calmness in the face of difficulties (which is to say, a face that remains expressionless at all times) and a sycophantic courtesy which somehow manages to remain dignified. We got a hint of this when Trump referred to Sir Keir's 'beautiful accent'. Perhaps the contrast with the Macron vanity and arrogance has helped too, but whatever it is, we must acknowledge that the Starmer magic has pulled off a pretty favourable result. And ironically enough, it is precisely our separateness from the European Union – which Sir Keir is trying to undo – that made this favoured position possible. Rather less happily for the Starmer government, the president offered some advice on how to pull the UK out of its spiral of decline. Stop the boats and cut taxes was the magic formula, Mr Trump suggested presumably in a spirit of helpfulness. The problem with this counsel is that both those things are almost impossible to achieve at the moment and they are, as it happens, precisely what the most threatening Opposition parties are urging. That was rather tactless and it suggests that this alliance with Trump's Right-wing Republicanism is not going to be an easy ride. But whatever it was in Starmer's approach that did it, he is currently able to influence the Trump White House at a time when global affairs are dangerously inflamed. That may or may not be an enviable position to be in. On the Middle East and Ukraine, as well as the economic future of the West, the moral responsibility of being the 'Trump whisperer' is going to be daunting.

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