With passage of two bills, Maine poised to expand testing of private wells for PFAS
Lawmakers passed two bills to expand testing for contaminants in private wells in the state.
On Thursday, the Maine Senate passed LD 493, which will require landlords of residential buildings who have private wells to test the water for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS, every five years and share those results with the tenants. The bill does not require them to treat the water if contaminants are found.
Support from the upper chamber came after the House of Representatives voted 78-69 on Wednesday to pass it.
Beyond more robust testing for renters' wells, the Legislature also passed LD 500 this week to add PFAS to the list of contaminants the Department of Health and Human Services recommends testing for in private wells. The proposal would also provide free well water testing for low-income residents.
The House of Representatives passed the bill with a 79-66 vote.
Both bills still need enactment votes from each chamber. But before heading to Gov. Janet Mills for final approval, they will likely end up on the special appropriations table. LD 500 has a fiscal note of about $150,000 a year, while LD 493 is projected to cost between $110,000 and $125,000 annually.
More than half of Mainers get their drinking water from private drinking wells, which aren't regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Landlords are already required to test for arsenic in wells that provide drinking water and share the test results with tenants within 10 days of being notified of the results. The new legislation builds upon that by requiring landlords to also test the water for PFAS, and other potentially harmful contaminants including lead and uranium.
PFAS have been linked to health concerns including cancer, liver damage, pregnancy complications, increased cholesterol levels and more. PFAS contamination in water is a concern in Maine not only from the historic practice of spreading chemical-laden sludge on farmland, but also from spills of toxic firefighting foam like the one in Brunswick last summer as well as landfill leachate.
'There is enormous mental stress associated in wondering whether your drinking water is making you sick,' said Rep. Laurie Osher (D-Orono), who sponsored LD 493, during discussion on the House floor.
Some House Republicans opposed LD 493, arguing that landlords may have to raise rents to cover the cost of testing, which goes against affordable housing priorities.
When discussing LD 500, Rep. Michele Meyer (D-Eliot), who co-chairs the Legislature's Health and Human Services Committee, argued that 'paying for these tests is much more affordable than the health care costs associated with PFAS.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Harrison: As Texas and California talk redistricting, there's no fight in Mississippi
Don't look for Mississippi to get involved in what appears to be an escalating redistricting war where states redraw their U.S. House districts to aid Republicans or Democrats ahead of a hotly contested 2026 national election. Mississippi most likely will not engage in the redistricting battle because Republicans already have been helped about as much as possible in the Magnolia State. Here, there are three safe Republican U.S. House districts and one safe Democratic district. In theory, the Mississippi Legislature could draw the congressional districts in such a manner as to make all four districts favor Republicans. But to do so, Black voters, who generally are more prone to vote Democratic, would have to be diluted to such an extent that the redraw would conflict with long-held federal court rulings. From a legal standpoint and even from an ethical and moral standpoint, it would be difficult to justify no Black-majority districts in Mississippi, where the non-white population is nearing 40%. Unsurprisingly, Texas fired the first shot in what is shaping up as a nationwide redistricting battle. The Texas Legislature, at the behest of President Donald Trump, who fears his Republican Party will lose the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm election, is trying to redraw the Longhorn State's 38 congressional districts to give the Republicans five more seats. They currently have 25. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening to retaliate by creating more Democratic districts. California currently has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There have been rumblings of blue New York and red Florida also going back to the redistricting drawing board to create more seats to help their respective party. Normally, redistricting is conducted every 10 years after the release of the U.S. Census. The last redistricting occurred after the 2020 U.S. Census. But it should be no surprise that Trump, fearing that Republicans will lose the House in 2026, asked Texas to eschew the norms and conduct a mid-decade redistricting. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of gerrymandering or of drawing districts to benefit their political party. The courts, generally, have said that is OK. But the courts — at least in the past — have also said their minority populations must be given opportunities to elect candidates of their choice. While the courts have said gerrymandering is allowed, a recent Economist/YouGov poll found an overwhelming 69% oppose the partisan drawing of districts, compared to only 9% who support it and 22% of respondents who are unsure. A plurality of 35% support states retaliating if another state draws districts to support one particular party. The retaliation is opposed by 30%, while 36% of respondents are unsure. A plurality also opposes Trump's call for the FBI to hunt down Texas Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state to prevent the Legislature from having the quorum needed to draw new congressional districts. For what it's worth, a study by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project found 15 states with failing grades in terms of non-partisan redistricting. Nine of those states failed because of their strong Republican tilt, while five failed because of strong Democratic leanings. Two — Tennessee and Louisiana — failed because of racial unfairness. Through court rulings, a new Black-majority district has been created in Louisiana since the Princeton study was conducted. Texas and Florida were among the states receiving failing grades. New York and California were not. Another large Democratic stronghold, Illinois, did get a failing grade. Mississippi is unique because of its racial makeup and voting patterns. Most white Mississippians vote Republican, but the large Black minority — the largest percentage of Black voters in the nation — tends to vote Democratic. While Republicans have won all statewide elections since 2016, the elections often are relatively close. In the latest redistricting, Democrats argued that because of the strong pro-Democratic minority population, one of the three heavily Republican congressional districts should be drawn in a manner to make it more competitive. But the majority-Republican Legislature rejected that argument. Hence, there is no need for the Republicans in the Mississippi Legislature to undertake redistricting now. This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
Supporters claim a bill introduced by Democratic state lawmakers last month banning ICE agents and police from wearing masks during raids will ensure safety and prevent authoritarianism. One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in. Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety. It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.' In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.' The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering. Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement. Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans. If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations. ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua. Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent. They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media. While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones. Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them. Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year. The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents. Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic. Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic. Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority. The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally. Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras. Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement. Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so. New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers. Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy. The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation. The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters. This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe. The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters. New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work. Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner makes blunt prediction about Zohran Mamdani, top Dems in NYC mayoral race: ‘It's inevitable'
Top New York Democrats will swallow hard and eventually endorse lefty socialist Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani for mayor, ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner predicts. Weiner, the convicted perv whose own career crashed amid sexting scandals, said it was 'inevitable' that the nation's leading Democrats in Congress — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — would eventually back Mamdani. 'At the end of the day, people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, they are going to have to endorse the nominee of their party [Mamdani],' Weiner said Sunday on 'The Cats Roundtable' radio program on WABC 770 AM. 6 Ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner predicts New York Democrats will eventually endorse Zohran Mamdani for mayor. AP 6 'At the end of the day, people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, they are going to have to endorse the nominee of their party [Mamdani],' Weiner said on 'The Cats Roundtable' radio program. Getty Images 'I think it's inevitable,' he told host John Catsimatidis of the two lawmakers from Brooklyn. Some moderate Democrats who detest Mamdani's views will not endorse him — but Schumer and Jeffries as party leaders can't avoid the spotlight, he said. 'Some people can stay on the sidelines, and I think you're going to see a lot of people do that. but the leaders of the party, which Chuck and Hakeem are, are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea,' he said. 6 'They don't want to harm their moderate candidates all around the country, which are the ones they need to take back the House and Senate,' Weiner said about why Schumer and Jeffries have not endorsed the democratic socialist yet. REUTERS 'They've got the Democratic Party, who's now chosen their nominee,' Weiner said. Top Dems like Schumer and Jeffries have been dragging their feet on endorsing Mamdani to avoid harming moderate members of their party in the 2026 midterms, Weiner opined. 'The reason Chuck and Hakeem have been so slow to endorse Zohran is because they don't want to harm their moderate candidates all around the country, which are the ones they need to take back the House and Senate,' he said. 'That's a political question for them.' 6 According to Weiner, 'unfortunately, or fortunately … I think we're going to have Zohran Mamdani as the mayor in New York City.' James Keivom Republicans are already trying to link their Democratic rivals to Mamdani in this year's municipal elections across the Empire state. Weiner also predicted that Mamdani, as the Democratic nominee, will win the mayoralty. 'Unfortunately, or fortunately … I think we're going to have Zohran Mamdani as the mayor in New York City,' he said. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Catsimatidis noted that two other Democrats are running as independent candidates in the November election — incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who didn't run in the June Democratic primary, and ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who lost badly to Mamdani in that race. But Weiner dismissed their chances at winning while running on independent ballot lines in the general contest. Weiner attempted his second comeback, running for a City Council seat in District 2 on Manhattan's East Side in June, but lost badly to Assemblyman Harvey Epstein. 6 Weiner, whose career crashed amid sexting scandals, attempted his second comeback by running for a City Council seat in District 2 on Manhattan's East Side in June, but lost. Paul Martinka Weiner's downfall began in 2011, when he resigned from Congress after admitting he'd sent salacious selfies to at least six women. He then saw his comeback campaign for mayor in 2013 go down in flames when it was revealed he resumed the pervy activity using the pseudonym 'Carlos Danger.' Weiner later developed a months-long online relationship with a 15-year-old girl, whom he asked to dress up in school uniforms and be part of 'rape fantasies,' prosecutors charged. He pleaded guilty to sexting with a minor and did some prison time. His scandal-scarred baggage and criminal conviction may make him unelectable — but Weiner suggested his more moderate brand of politics played a role. 6 Weiner had previously resigned from Congress after admitting he'd sent salacious selfies to women. Angelina Katsanis/AP 'Right now, the Democratic Party in a lot of parts of New York … is very, very left to the point of falling off the edge of the cliff,' he told Catsimatidis. Many mainstream or moderate Democratic lawmakers are 'looking over their shoulders wondering if the next AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] or Zohran Mamdani is going to be coming out of the woodwork to win in a primary,' Weiner said. While leftist or Democratic socialist candidates have won some races, they haven't shown yet that they can govern effectively, he said. 'The one thing that the left hasn't shown that they can do – if you look at Chicago and San Francisco – they haven't shown that they can govern yet,' Weiner said. 'The bigger problem is what outcomes are we going to get as citizens and taxpayers if these candidates are successful? Unfortunately, it looks like we're going to find out in New York City.'
