Latest news with #SB271
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Montana colleges could directly pay student-athletes under NIL bills
The University of Montana campus is pictured. (Jordan Hansen / Daily Montanan) Two bills regulating student-athlete compensation at colleges across the state are headed to the governor's desk after passage through the Montana Legislature on Friday. Senate Bill 482 requires written contracts for student-athlete usage of their name, image and likeness, while Senate Bill 271 removes an existing prohibition on schools directly paying student-athletes. Sen. Ellie Boldman, D-Missoula introduced both bills, which she said will allow Montana's largest schools to be competitive in the Big Sky Conference. She also brought the state's original NIL legislation in 2021. 'If folks do care about the nuance, it actually puts more side rails on NIL for student athletes,' Boldman said in a committee hearing on both bills on April 7. 'The university themselves will have a little bit more control over making sure that student athletes understand their contractual agreements and make sure that they're not taken advantage of in the private sector.' On SB 482, Boldman said, 'We just want to make sure if you're going to offer our student athletes a deal, it's got to be in writing.' The new law rolls back previous laws that specifically prohibited Montana universities and colleges from paying their student-athletes. As an example, some colleges have begun to place student-athletes names on the back of jerseys sold to fans — the players then get a cut of that revenue. Institutions are already allowed to act as agents or add name, image and likeness agreements to scholarship agreements. The legislation does not change outside endorsement deals, though does formalize those agreements in writing, meaning a verbal agreement does not constitute a legally binding contract. 'This is about fairness, opportunity, and keeping Montana competitive,' Boldman said in a press release. Montana has three schools that compete in the NCAA: The University of Montana, Montana State University and Montana State University-Billings. Similar discussions have occurred at the federal level, and a federal court is expected to soon rule on a $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA which, if found against the athletics organizations, could allow student-athletes to have revenue sharing agreements and provide backpay. Boldman said her bills will allow Montana student athletes to take part in the settlement. 'We want our student athletes to be able to opt into that settlement, which will then entitle them to some additional compensation,' Boldman said. Representatives from Montana and Montana State both testified in support of the bill during its hearing. 'We have the compliance and support staff here to navigate this constantly changing landscape, and this change gives us the certainty we need to act within the bounds of state law,' UM spokesperson Dave Kuntz said during the hearing for SB 271. 'With other legislative bodies around the region making similar changes, this bill will help ensure campus policies remain in line with our regional competitors as well.' Beyond the NCAA schools in the state, the six Montana schools whose athletic teams belong to the Frontier Conference in the NAIA could also be impacted. In 2020, the NAIA passed name, image and likeness rules for its member schools. It allowed athletes to be paid, but, Montana Tech men's basketball head coach Adam Hiatt said, 'the NAIA legislation did not intend to allow schools to pay student-athletes directly for NIL purposes.' He added some Tech student-athletes have been able to take advantage of agreements for their name, image and likeness. He said there's no plan to pay players through the school until the NAIA changes its policies. Montana Tech athletic director Matt Stepan said the university is reviewing the legislation to see how it will impact them. 'While the new legislation may not have an immediate or direct effect on our recruiting efforts, changes of this nature often create ripple effects throughout college athletics,' Stepan said. 'We'll be monitoring the situation closely to determine any indirect implications for NAIA institutions and student-athletes.' The Frontier Conference includes Treasure State schools Montana Tech, University of Montana Western, Carroll College, University of Providence, Montana State University-Northern and Rocky Mountain College.
Yahoo
02-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers introduce controversial bills to regulate harmful chemicals leaked by factories: 'Taxpayers .. will largely shoulder the burden'
Two Oklahoma bills aim to protect people and farmland from dangerous chemicals that have been polluting our water and soil for decades. According to Oklahoma Voice, these bills target PFAS, synthetic chemicals that don't break down in nature. Manufacturers first created them 80 years ago, and despite knowing about potential health risks by 1961, they kept making them anyway. Scientists now link PFAS to health problems like cancer, liver damage, and reduced fertility. Oklahoma plans to tackle this through Senate Bills 268 and 271. SB 268 would stop farmers from using sewage-based fertilizer on cropland, a common practice that spreads PFAS into our food supply — over 80% of Oklahoma's wastewater ends up on farm fields. Meanwhile, SB 271 would protect farmers who unknowingly used contaminated fertilizer from getting sued. Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home? Majorly Sometimes Not really I don't know enough about them Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. The proposed laws could save money and protect health. Clean drinking water helps prevent medical issues, while protecting farmland preserves food safety. However, cleaning up PFAS costs money — the EPA has estimated that $1.5 billion is needed yearly just to improve water systems. Some worry these bills don't address the root cause: industrial facilities releasing PFAS into waterways. Others point out potential gaps in farmer support. It's not clear if farmers will receive income replacement if their production drops or if there will be funding to monitor affected farms and families. Water bills might rise as local governments pay for cleanup. This would hit low-income households hardest through higher costs and increased exposure to contaminated water. "States and taxpayers didn't cause the contamination, but they will largely shoulder the burden of testing and monitoring, delivering clean water to communities, cleaning up contaminated sites, and covering health care costs," noted the Oklahoma Voice's Mike Altshuler. But action beats inaction. Oklahoma joins 11 other states that passed PFAS restrictions in 2024, showing growing momentum to protect Americans' health and resources. These bills could help create cleaner water and safer food for Oklahoma families with proper funding and implementation. The effects of PFAS might be invisible now, but communities can't afford to wait. By supporting smart regulations today, we're investing in healthier soil, cleaner water, and better health for future generations. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
What can we do about 'forever chemicals' in Oklahoma's drinking water?
For over 80 years, chemical makers have made and profited off the sale of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl synthetic chemicals, better known as PFAS. Industry documents released through litigation show that manufacturers had sufficient information to know of dangers as early as 1961, but continued to make products containing them for decades. Because the chemicals are essentially indestructible and do not fully degrade, they are referred to as toxic 'forever chemicals.' A growing body of scientific research has found links between PFAS exposure and a wide range of health problems, including a weaker immune system, cancer, increased cholesterol levels, pregnancy-induced hypertension, liver damage, reduced fertility in men and women, and increased risk of thyroid disease. Although the Environmental Protection Agency has taken some preliminary steps to limit PFAS in drinking water, the contamination crisis continues to grow partly due to the toxins' staying power in the environment and the inadequacy of U.S. chemical regulations. When one PFAS came under scrutiny, companies created new ones that they claimed were safer, but were still chemically similar. We now have thousands of PFAS that need investigation, but the American regulatory system treats chemicals as innocent until proven guilty. As a result, thousands of chemicals that haven't even been tested for toxicity have entered the market. In 2024 at least 11 states enacted laws to restrict the use of PFAS in everyday consumer goods, professional firefighting foams, and biosolids utilized as fertilizer on farmland. In the upcoming 2025 Oklahoma legislative session, two Senate bills — 268 and 271 — have been filed to address PFAS contamination. Senate Bill 268 seeks to ban the application of biosolids as fertilizer on farmland. For decades, farmers across America have been encouraged by the federal government and state officials to spread municipal sewage on millions of acres of farmland as fertilizer. But sludge isn't a green plant food. It harbors a mishmash of all kinds of dangerous substances that leach into soil, plants, water, and even the food we eat. Most concerning, sludge is a huge conveyor of PFAS. More: Other countries are ahead of us in restricting harmful food additives | Opinion Oklahoma has one of the most extensive biosolid fertilizer programs in the nation, as more than 80% of the state's wastewater sludge ends up on crop fields. SB 271 aims to shield 'passive recipients' of PFAS from any legal liability. This would include farmers who unwittingly used sewage sludge as a fertilizer. Unfortunately, neither bill speaks to eliminating PFAS chemicals from their upstream sources. The effluent from industrial facilities that use PFAS in their manufacturing processes is discharged to wastewater treatment plants and then those PFAS toxins are released into the environment. Removing PFAS from wastewater can be extremely expensive, with costs ranging from millions to billions of dollars depending on the volume of wastewater and the specific technology used. Neither bill considers what might be exorbitant future costs for treatment and remediation. After application of biosolids on agricultural land has been banned, PFAS will still have to be removed from wastewater and then be disposed of, destroyed or stored. Beyond the cost of removal, Senate Bill 268 ignores other emerging costs, such as funding for state regulators to research and identify potentially impacted farms or food products and financial assistance and medical monitoring for impacted farm families. Will there be money available for farmers to receive income replacement if their farm production is impacted, and if there are even land acquisitions in some cases? The EPA estimates the compliance cost just for water system monitoring or capital improvements to reduce PFAS in drinking water to be approximately $1.5 billion annually. Then you have the economic impact on local governments,'passive receivers' of substances containing PFAS that are ubiquitous in the water supply, wastewater treatment process, stormwater, biosolids management, and solid waste streams, if they become responsible for cleaning up the environmental contamination and for mitigation. If local governments are forced to bear the brunt of the financial burden, an increase in water rates in communities across the nation is a near certainty. These will be most harshly felt by low-income households and disadvantaged communities who will not only be disproportionately impacted by increased costs for their water bills but risk exposure to emerging contaminants. States and taxpayers didn't cause the contamination, but they will largely shoulder the burden of testing and monitoring, delivering clean water to communities, cleaning up contaminated sites, and covering health care costs. PFAS may be an invisible part of your environment now, but soon its environmental and health effects will be apparent to all. Mike Altshuler is a retired educator and environmental activist who lives in Edmond. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Chemical pollution a danger to Oklahomans' health | Opinion
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
We're finally paying attention to PFAS, but Oklahomans are already feeling the impact
(Getty Images) For over 80 years, chemical makers have made and profited off the sale of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl synthetic chemicals, better known as PFAS. Industry documents released through litigation show that manufacturers had sufficient information to know of dangers as early as 1961, but continued to make products containing them for decades. Because the chemicals are essentially indestructible and do not fully degrade, they are referred to as toxic 'forever chemicals.' A growing body of scientific research has found links between PFAS exposure and a wide range of health problems, including a weaker immune system, cancer, increased cholesterol levels, pregnancy-induced hypertension, liver damage, reduced fertility in men and women, and increased risk of thyroid disease. Although the EPA has taken some preliminary steps to limit PFAS in drinking water, the contamination crisis continues to grow partly due to the toxins' staying power in the environment and the inadequacy of U.S. chemical regulations. When one PFAS came under scrutiny, companies created new ones that they claimed were safer, but were still chemically similar. We now have thousands of PFAS that need investigation, but the American regulatory system treats chemicals as innocent until proven guilty. As a result, thousands of chemicals that haven't even been tested for toxicity have entered the market. In 2024 at least 11 states enacted laws to restrict the use of PFAS in everyday consumer goods, professional firefighting foams, and biosolids utilized as fertilizer on farmland. In the upcoming 2025 Oklahoma legislative session, two Senate bills — 268 and 271 — have been filed to address PFAS contamination. Senate Bill 268 seeks to ban the application of biosolids as fertilizer on farmland. For decades, farmers across America have been encouraged by the federal government and state officials to spread municipal sewage on millions of acres of farmland as fertilizer. But sludge isn't a green plant food. It harbors a mishmash of all kinds of dangerous substances that leach into soil, plants, water, and even the food we eat. Most concerning, sludge is a huge conveyor of PFAS. Oklahoma has one of the most extensive biosolid fertilizer programs in the nation, as more than 80% of the state's wastewater sludge ends up on crop fields. SB 271 aims to shield 'passive recipients' of PFAS from any legal liability. This would include farmers who unwittingly used sewage sludge as a fertilizer. Unfortunately, neither bill speaks to eliminating PFAS chemicals from their upstream sources. The effluent from industrial facilities that use PFAS in their manufacturing processes is discharged to wastewater treatment plants and then those PFAS toxins are released into the environment. Removing PFAS from wastewater can be extremely expensive, with costs ranging from millions to billions of dollars depending on the volume of wastewater and the specific technology used. Neither bill considers what might be exorbitant future costs for treatment and remediation. After application of biosolids on agricultural land has been banned, PFAS will still have to be removed from wastewater and then be disposed of, destroyed or stored. Beyond the cost of removal, Senate Bill 268 ignores other emerging costs, such as funding for state regulators to research and identify potentially impacted farms or food products and financial assistance and medical monitoring for impacted farm families. Will there be money available for farmers to receive income replacement if their farm production is impacted, and if there are even land acquisitions in some cases? The EPA estimates the compliance cost just for water system monitoring or capital improvements to reduce PFAS in drinking water to be approximately $1.5 billion annually. Then you have the economic impact on local governments,'passive receivers' of substances containing PFAS that are ubiquitous in the water supply, wastewater treatment process, stormwater, biosolids management, and solid waste streams, if they become responsible for cleaning up the environmental contamination and for mitigation. If local governments are forced to bear the brunt of the financial burden, an increase in water rates in communities across the nation is a near certainty. These will be most harshly felt by low-income households and disadvantaged communities who will not only be disproportionately impacted by increased costs for their water bills but risk exposure to emerging contaminants. States and taxpayers didn't cause the contamination, but they will largely shoulder the burden of testing and monitoring, delivering clean water to communities, cleaning up contaminated sites, and covering health care costs. PFAS may be an invisible part of your environment now, but soon its environmental and health effects will be apparent to all. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
