Trump To Allow Pollution Of America's Watershed

Trump is still trying to erase all the good things President Obama did for the United States.

This time, it's Obama's effort to make sure Americans have clean and safe water.

Trump has moved to allow his corporate cronies in the fossil fuel, agriculture, and chemical industries to have an easier time dumping their poisons in the country's watershed. For him, another few dollars of corporate profit is more important that assuring Americans have safe water.

Here is part of how Coral Davenport describes Trump's scandalous move in The New York Times:

From Day 1 of his administration, President Trump vowed to repeal President Barack Obama’s “Waters of the United States” regulation, which had frustrated rural landowners. His new rule, which will be implemented in about 60 days, is the latest step in the Trump administration’s push to repeal or weaken nearly 100 environmental rules and laws, loosening or eliminating rules on climate change, clean air, chemical pollution, coal mining, oil drilling and endangered species protections.

Although Mr. Trump frequently speaks of his desire for the United States to have “crystal-clean water,” he has called his predecessor’s signature clean-water regulation “horrible,” “destructive” and “one of the worst examples of federal” overreach.

Although Mr. Trump frequently speaks of his desire for the United States to have “crystal-clean water,” he has called his predecessor’s signature clean-water regulation “horrible,” “destructive” and “one of the worst examples of federal” overreach.

Mr. Trump’s replacement, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” finishes the process. It not only rolls back key portions of the 2015 rule that had guaranteed protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act to certain wetlands and streams that run intermittently or run temporarily underground, but also relieves landowners of the need to seek permits that the Environmental Protection Agency had considered on a case-by-case basis before the Obama rule. . . .

The new water rule for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into hundreds of thousands of waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects.

“This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen,” said Blan Holman, a lawyer specializing in federal water policy at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “This puts drinking water for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution. This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the ’70s and ’80s that Americans have relied on for their health.”. . .

The Obama rule protected about 60 percent of the nation’s waterways, including large bodies of water such as the Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi River and Puget Sound, and smaller headwaters, wetlands, seasonal streams and streams that run temporarily underground. It limited the discharge of pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides and industrial chemicals into those waters.

The new rule, written by the E.P.A. and the Army Corps of Engineers, will retain federal protections of large bodies of water, as well as larger rivers and streams that flow into them and wetlands that lie adjacent to them. But it removes protections for many other waters, including wetlands that are not adjacent to large bodies of water, some seasonal streams that flow for only a portion of the year, “ephemeral” streams that only flow after rainstorms, and groundwater.

Legal experts say that Mr. Trump’s replacement rule would go further than simply repealing and replacing the 2015 Obama rule — it would also eliminate protections to smaller headwaters that have been implemented for decades under the 1972 Clean Water Act.

“This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it’s ever been before,” said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School. “Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act.”

That could open millions of acres of pristine wetlands to pollution or destruction, and allow chemicals and other pollutants to be discharged into smaller headland waters that eventually drain into larger water bodies, experts in water management said. Wetlands play key roles in filtering surface water and protecting against floods, while also providing wildlife habitat. . . .

The E.P.A.’s Scientific Advisory Board, a panel of 41 scientists responsible for evaluating the scientific integrity of the agency’s regulations, concluded that the new Trump water rule ignores science by “failing to acknowledge watershed systems.” They found “no scientific justification” for excluding certain bodies of water from protection under the new regulations, concluding that pollutants from those smaller and seasonal bodies of water can still have a significant impact on the health of larger water systems.

After Years Of Getting Better, Air Pollution Is Getting Worse

A new study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives us some bad news. It shows fine particulate air pollution is getting worse. Between 2010 and 2016, this pollution had decreased, thanks to regulations put in place by the Obama administration.

But in 2017 and 2018, that air pollution got worse -- 5.5% worse in 2018 than it had been in 2016.

What is different in 2017 and 2018? A new Republican administration that has made it a point to put lobbyists in charge of the environment and deregulated what corporations must do to protect the environment. These Republicans seem to believe that we can have deregulated corporations and a clean environment. They are living in a dream world.

Corporations are not created to be good citizens and protect the environment. They have only one purpose -- to make as much money as possible. If a corporation can make a bigger profit by dumping more pollution in our air (and water), then that is what they are going to do.

How much longer will we put up with a Republican president and Congress members that don't care about the environment? How much dirtier do we want our air and water?

Government Actions At The Border Are Inhumane & Immoral

I think any decent American should be shocked and embarrassed at what our government officials are doing at the border -- at the direction of the Trump administration. You probably already know about the detention of people trying to ask for asylum at the border (which is not illegal), the separation of parents and children at the border, the current detention of about 15,000 children, and the gassing of immigrants seeking to apply for asylum.

Those actions are reprehensible, inhumane, and immoral. But it doesn't stop there. Border patrol agents are pouring out containers of water left for immigrants trying to cross the desert in our Southwest. This action undoubtably results in the deaths of human beings. Denying water to people in a desert is, in my opinion, a crime against humanity. It turns entering this country without documentation into a capital crime -- worthy of a death penalty.

We can debate about how restrictive our immigration policy should be, but I don't understand how any human can support denying water to people that need it in a desert (which too often results in death). Are we really such a vicious country that we would deny water to people without approved documents?

The following thought-provoking op-ed is by Justin Orlovsky-Schnitzler (a staff member of No More Deaths/No Mas Muertes) in The New York Times:

The desert borderlands of the Southwest are a death trap for migrants. In the summer, the temperature can rise past 115 degrees, and in the winter it can drop below freezing. Water is scarce; shade is almost nonexistent.

Some 8,000 people attempting to enter the United States have died in this region since the 1990s. Their shoes, empty water jugs and abandoned rosaries litter the landscape.

Volunteers from our organization, No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, hike year-round along remote trails in the Arizona section of the Sonoran Desert, which spans Arizona, California and northwestern Mexico. We leave water, food, blankets and other basic necessities along the desert’s migration corridors.

But the federal government is trying to make our humanitarian aid criminal.

Eleven months ago, a longtime volunteer with us, Scott Warren, was arrested in the small border town of Ajo, Ariz., for having provided food, water and shelter to two undocumented people. He was charged with two federal counts of harboring and one count of conspiracy to harbor. If convicted at his trial, which begins next month in Federal District Court in Tucson, he will face up to 20 years in prison.

The harboring charge against Mr. Warren is part of a long-term government strategy to send a dangerous message: Humanitarian aid to migrants is a crime. The government has tried all sorts of maneuvers to prosecute good Samaritans in the desert — from charging our volunteers with harboring and transporting to issuing misdemeanors for “abandoning personal property” in a wildlife refuge (by leaving gallons of water for migrants) and using restricted roads without a permit.

These legal actions against our volunteers are just one component of a wider movement against undocumented people in the United States. The deployment of active-duty troops to the border, widespread family separations and increasingly violent rhetoric from the Trump administration are all churning wheels in an apparatus of policies intended to make crossing the border a death sentence.

In the past decade, migrant deaths have risen even as attempted crossings have decreased, because the militarized border pushes people into the desert’s most remote regions. It is impossible to carry enough water to survive even a two- or three-day trek through the barren reaches of the Sonoran. Without help, migrants die painful, cruel deaths — often alone, delirious with fatigue, hunger and thirst. . . .

Opponents of immigration contend that providing water and aid encourages migrants to make dangerous border crossings (a claim without evidence), but we know that people will continue to risk their lives to come to the United States so long as they feel unsafe in their home countries. Humanitarians give water to people who are dehydrated and food to people who are starving, regardless of their background or paperwork. . . .

Documents are not a prerequisite for human kindness. Everyone has a right to food, water and safe passage.

General Public's Worry About Pollution Is Increasing

Donald Trump doesn't seem to be worried at all about the environment and keeping it clean for everyone. He has put an EPA-hater  in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency, and proposed cutting funding for the agency by around 25%.

This flies in the face of the general public's view on the environment and pollution. About 63% of the public say they worry a great deal about pollution of drinking water -- and 57% say they worry a great deal about the pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Those are significant majorities.

In fact, those who worry a great deal has increased each of the last three years regarding all aspects of the environment -- 8 points for pollution of drinking water, 10 points for pollution of rivers & lakes & reservoirs, 9 points for air pollution, 13 points for global climate change, 11 points for loss of tropical rain forests, and 8 points for extinction of animals/plants.

Once again, Trump is following a policy that goes against the wishes of most Americans.

The chart above is from three years of questioning by the Gallup Poll -- the most recent being done between March 1st and 5th of a random national sample of 1,018 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Standing Rock Demonstrators Are Victorious (For Now)

What a difference a day makes! Yesterday, I reported that Donald Trump was supporting the Dakota Access pipeline, and that North Dakota's governor was ordering all the demonstrators to disperse or be removed this week. Things looked dark for the thousands of Native Americans who had gathered at Standing Rock to protect their sacred ground and their water (and for the thousands of friends who had joined them, including 2,000 U.S. veterans). It was looking like a showdown was looming with the 76 law enforcement agencies at the site.

All of that has now changed. On Sunday, the Army Corps of Engineers notified the demonstrators that no easement would be granted to the Dakota Access pipeline to pass through or near the Standing Rock reservation. They said they would be studying other routes for that pipeline.

The demonstrators are celebrating, and they should. Without help from the media, the courts, or the government, they stood their ground for months against the greed of Big Oil -- and they won. It's not only a victory for Native American rights, but for the free speech rights of all Americans.

We can only hope that this victory is final. The Big Oil interests might go to court to overturn the Army Corps decision -- or they may just wait for Trump to be sworn in and let him overturn it. The CEO of the company building the pipeline has said he is "100 percent sure that the pipeline will be approved by a Trump administration" regardless of what the Army Corps decides. And that might be true (since Trump has a financial interest in Phillips 66, and that company would benefit from the pipeline completion).

A great victory has been achieved at Standing Rock, but I fear the fight is not yet over.

Trump Sides With Big Oil To Support Dakota Access Pipeline

For many weeks now, the Native Americans at Standing Rock (and many of their friends) have been trying to stop the building of the Dakota Access pipeline. That pipeline will disturb the graves of their ancestors, and put their water supply in serious jeopardy (the very reason it was changed from a route that did not go through their territory).

They have been opposed by the forces of Big Oil, who have marshaled at least 76 policing agencies from 10 states to stop the demonstrations. The peaceful demonstrators have been abused by those agencies, and the governor of North Dakota has ordered them to be removed from the private property they are camping on (claiming their living structures are not safe for the winter weather).

Now they have even worse news. The incoming president, Donald Trump, has made it clear that he is siding with the interests of Big Oil, and against the Standing Rock demonstrators. They will get no help from the federal government.

This is one more action showing that Trump is going to be a corporate-friendly and ate-free speech president. And he is going to act to improve his own financial situation, regardless of how that affects ordinary Americans.

While Trump has divested his interests in the company building the pipeline (worth between $500,000 and $1 million), he does have between $100,000 and $250,000 invested in Phillips 66, which will get 25% of the oil from the pipeline when it is finished.

Trump's corrupt policies have begun, and he hasn't even been sworn in yet.

The Effects Of Lead Poisoning On Its Victims

(This caricature of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is by DonkeyHotey.)

By now you've probably heard about the water disaster in Flint, Michigan. After the state took over the financially-strapped city, Governor Rick Snyder mandated cutting costs -- and one of the cost-cutting matters his administration undertook was to change the source of Flint's water supply (from safe Lake Huron drinking water purchased from Detroit to using water from the Flint River).

The state knew (or at least should have known) that the Flint River water was contaminated by industrial dumping. That didn't seem to matter to Snyder and his cohorts -- who considered saving money more important than making sure Flint residents had safe water. And it turned out that water was not safe. One of the Flint River contaminants affected the city's water pipes -- causing those pipes to leach lead into the drinking water. Depending on the area of the city, the lead contamination varied from 5 times the safe level of lead to hundreds of times the safe level.

The fact is that the GOP cost-cutting without thinking of the consequences has poisoned the residents of Flint -- and sadly,  there is no medical cure for lead poisoning. This poisoning will have both immediate and long-term effects for Flint's residents. What are those effects? Here is how Think Progress describes them:

Here are some of the other long-lasting effects that lead exposure may have on Flint residents:

Harm to Children’s Development

Four percent of the children in Flint have greater than five micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (ug/dL) in their bloodstreams, which is considered unsafe under current guidelines. 

Infants and children exposed to lead may suffer in various ways, including delayed puberty, speech impairment, high blood pressure, hearing loss, decreased muscle and bone growth, kidney damage, and a weakened immune system. Breastfed infants are also at risk if there is lead in their mother’s bloodstreams. 

Equally important, lead also affects children’s brains and nervous systems. Those exposed to lead at a young age may suffer from a coma, convulsions, or even death. Children who survive serious lead poisoning may be left with mental retardation and changes in behavior, like a shortened attention span or increased antisocial behavior.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), lead exposure contributes to about 600,000 new cases of children with intellectual disabilities every year. A recent study of children aged six to 17 also found that lead exposure increases symptoms in some people with ADHD. Even low exposure to lead as a child could cause lower IQ well into adulthood — and this may be irreversible. One study of the relationship between children’s blood lead concentration and their test performance found that for every 1 ug/dL increase in blood lead concentration, there was a 0.7 point decrease in mean arithmetic scores, an approximately one point decrease in mean reading scores, a 0.5 point decrease in mean nonverbal reasoning scores, and a 0.5 point decrease in mean short-term scores.

Reproductive Problems

For women, greater lead exposure may lead to a higher likelihood of miscarriage and stillbirth. The body stores lead in the teeth and bones over time, and when a woman is pregnant, that lead may be released into her bloodstream, putting fetuses at risk. Washington, D.C. had a similar water crisis from 2000 to 2004, and stillbirths in the city peaked in 2001, when lead levels in the water were at their highest. 

Men exposed to lead, meanwhile, may have lower sperm counts, increased abnormal sperm, and erectile dysfunction.

Greater Risk Of Developing Cancer

While the link between lead exposure and cancer still needs to be further analyzed, there have been some studies showing a correlation between the two. In particular, those exposed to lead may be at higher risk for lung and stomach cancers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have all determined that lead probably causes cancer.

Digestive & Cardiovascular Issues

Lead exposure can have a variety of short-term digestive effects, like loss of appetite, nausea, constipation, diarrhea, indigestion, and stomach cramps. Adults and children exposed to lead may also be at risk of more serious long-term problems, like high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease.

Compromised Nervous Systems

Exposure to lead can affect the nervous system of both adults and children, interrupting how the brain interacts with the rest of the body. Those affected may suffer from muscle weakness, loss of sensation, lack of coordination, and pain, tingling and numbness in the limbs. Lead exposure may also reduce nervous system performance, and it may cause weakness in fingers, wrists, and ankles.

Kidney Damage

Lead exposure can cause long-term kidney damage in both adults and children. Inflammation of the kidneys and abnormal kidney function have occurred after short-term exposure in adults with blood lead levels of 40 ug/dL or more. Adults and children with blood lead levels of 60 ug/dL may also suffer from long-term kidney damage severe enough to cause death.

Republicans Poison Flint Citizens To Save Money

This is the level of lead in Detroit water -- the water Flint was buying before Michigan's governor intervened.

This is the level at which lead becomes a concern according to health officials.

This is the level of lead found in 90% of the homes in Flint now.

The other 10% of Flint homes have a much higher level, some as much as displayed above.


Flint (Michigan) used to be a booming city. But the city depended largely on the automotive industry -- and when the auto industry moved out (many times to plants in other countries), Flint began to suffer. Unemployment skyrocketed, and that affected many of the city's businesses. By 2011, the city was in deep financial trouble. The state of Michigan took over, and the Republican governor ordered cuts in city expenses.

But it soon became obvious that the Republicans doing the cutting didn't bother to take the safety of Flint citizens into account. They decided that the purchase of clean Lake Huron water from Detroit was too expensive -- and the city should start getting its water from the Flint River.

The problem was that the water in that river was filled with toxic waste (after years of industry dumping waste into it). And to make matters worse, some of those chemicals in the river water caused lead to be leached from the city pipes into the water going to citizen homes. That means the city's water consumers were being poisoned by the lead in their water -- receiving between five times the level considered dangerous to hundreds of times that amount.

This lead poisoning affects everyone, but is even more acute for children -- causing sickness, stunting intellectual growth, and causing behavioral problems. And there is no cure. This lead poisoning will affect the city of Flint far into the future.

It could and should have been prevented. The governor and his GOP cohorts are claiming they didn't know this would happen. But they should have known. The city's citizens knew the water wasn't fit to drink, which is why they were buying water from Detroit. And state officials could have known if they had just spent a few hundred dollars testing the water. But they didn't, and it took them months to realize it, even though city consumers complained very quickly after the change.

Making matters even worse, the citizens are being charged exorbitant prices for the tainted water (with water bills easily topping a hundred dollars a month).

Government is supposed to protect the people it serves, regardless of the cost of doing so. But Republicans want to run government like a business -- cutting costs even when it endangers the people they serve (like happened in Flint). This is common for Republicans, who consider money more important than people. It's inexcusable, and probably should be considered criminal.

Flint is just the most obvious example of this GOP indifference to the safety of citizens. Republicans are cutting costs across the nation (and in Washington) with no regard being given to the people they are hurting. It's just one more reason why they must be voted out of office in the next election.

EPA Finally Admits "Fracking" Pollutes Drinking Water

It looks like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally coming to realize something that most people with half a brain already knew -- that the gas production method called "fracking" does pollute ground drinking water sources.

Here is the conclusion reached by the EPA study:

Through this national-level assessment, we have identified potential mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing could affect drinking water resources. Above ground mechanisms can affect surface and ground water resources and include water withdrawals at times or in locations of low water availability, spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and chemicals or produced water, and inadequate treatment and discharge of hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Below ground mechanisms include movement of liquids and gases via the production well into underground drinking water resources and movement of liquids and gases from the fracture zone to these resources via pathways in subsurface rock formations.

24. We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more of these mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The cases occurred during both routine activities and accidents and have resulted in impacts to surface or ground water. Spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and produced water in certain cases have reached drinking water resources, both surface and ground water. Discharge of treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater has increased contaminant concentrations in receiving surface waters. Below ground movement of fluids, including gas, most likely via the production well, have contaminated drinking water resources. In some cases, hydraulic fracturing fluids have also been directly injected into drinking water resources, as defined in this assessment, to produce oil or gas that co-exists in those formations. 

(NOTE -- The image above is from green-4-u.com.)

There's much more, and although the EPA tries to downplay the effects somewhat (probably to placate the giant oil and gas companies, and their GOP lackeys in Congress), it's a really scary assessment. Fracking DOES affect our drinking water, and the more it happens, the more water will be affected.

Why Does Water-Poor Texas Allow "Fracking" ?

There may be many states in this country that do not have to worry about water -- but Texas is not one of them. Many parts of the state are still in the throes of a severe drought, but that is not the main cause of Texas' water problems -- that has only added to those problems. Those water problems existed before the drought, and they will continue to exist after the drought has ended.

The sad fact is that Texas cannot sustain its current population with clean water far into the future -- and since Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, population growth makes the problem worse each year. A conservative estimate says that by 2060 Texas will be short by 1.1 trillion gallons of water of what would be needed to sustain its population. A more realistic estimate is that Texas will be 2.7 trillion gallons short.

The legislature threw a few million dollars at the problem in the last legislative session, but no one thinks it was anywhere near enough to solve the growing water problems. Even the State Comptroller, Republican Susan Combs, admits we are not doing enough to solve the problem -- and she calls for more spending on all fronts -- conservation, desalinization, water projects, and the development of new technology to extract and clean more water.

To me, this brings up a question. With the water problems being faced by this state, why is it not doing more to protect the ground water we currently have? Specifically, why do we continue to allow the gas companies to engage in fracking (the pumping of water and poisonous chemicals into the ground to force hard-to-get natural gas to the surface)? While all tracking operations may not poison or pollute ground water reserves, we know for a fact that many tracking operations do damage ground water (sometimes polluting them so much that the water can produce a flame when lit with a match).

The gas companies have engaged in a huge campaign and lobbying effort to disguise what they are doing with their fracking operations -- getting laws passed to hide what chemicals are being used and denying that those chemicals can possibly get into the ground water. But common sense and past pollution due to fracking tells us otherwise. Why then is Texas, a state with widely recognized water shortage problems, continuing to allow the giant gas companies to engage in fracking -- putting our precious reserves of ground water in danger of pollution?

The question, of course, is a rhetorical one. Anyone with even a passing familiarization with Texas politics knows the answer. Texas government has long depended on money from gas and oil production, and too many Texas politicians, especially the Republicans (who control the state government), get huge campaign donations from the companies doing the fracking.

Those politicians know Texas has serious water problems, and they know that fracking endangers the ground water in Texas -- but they have made the greedy and stupid decision to support the giant corporations instead of protecting the ground water resources we currently have. They have put their own desire for campaign dollars over what is in the best interests of the citizens of Texas.

This will not change as long as the Republicans control the state government. They never met a corporation they wouldn't support -- even those who pollute the air, soil, and precious water of Texas. We need to fix this in November -- by voting the GOP out of power.

(NOTE - The image above was found at the website texasceomagazine.com.)

People Have No Right To Water ?

This is what corporations think of poor people -- that they should have no right to water. This CEO actually came out and said what many CEOs believe -- that a resource that is necessary for life should be denied to those who cannot afford to pay for it. He believes that water is just a commodity to be bought and sold. How long are we going to put up with this corporate attitude? Is it even human to deny poor people a basic necessity of life because they don't have the money to buy it?

The King Of The Pollution Protecters

Rep. "Smokey Joe" Barton (R-Texas) earned his nickname. He never met a polluter that he didn't love, especially the ones that pour huge dollars into his campaign chest. And he's always been willing to fight for the right of those campaign donors to foul the air that Americans must breathe. We can always count on Smokey Joe to scream first and scream loudest anytime the EPA tries to make polluters clean up their act.

And its not just the air that Smokey Joe is willing to let polluters foul. When BP poured millions (billions?) of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and President Obama pressured that oil company to set up a $20 billion account to pay for the damage they were causing through their negligent actions, Smokey Joe was horrified. How dare the president make that nice oil company pay for the damage they caused! Smokey Joe was so outraged that he offered a public apology to BP (which even embarrassed his Republican colleagues).

Now we learn that it's not just the air and open water that Smokey Joe is willing to let industry pollute. He is also perfectly willing to let corporate criminals pollute the water underground water that communities across the country depend on for their drinking water. Recent reports from the EPA and others have conclusively shown that the procedure known as "fracking" is contributing to the poisoning of underground water sources -- and once these sources are polluted with toxic chemicals, they cannot be cleaned up.

Organic Water ?

There's a word in this society that has been misused so much that it has lost any real meaning. That word is "organic". This word has been applied to foods, medicines and other kinds of products, and is generally taken by people to be the mark of something that is good for you. In fact, every day many people pay more for a product labeled as "organic" than they would pay for a product without that label.

I just read a post by Allison Aubrey and Jessica Goldstein over at the NPR health blog. They recently ran across a bottled water labeled as "organic" (and had to suppress their giggling at the ridiculousness of the claim).

There are a couple of definitions of organic. One is something containing carbon. Another is something (usually a foodstuff) grown without the use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides. It is impossible for water to meet either one of those definitions. It contains no carbon (since it is made of two hydrogen atoms combined with a single oxygen atom). And it is not grown (being a non-living thing). In fact, the Department of Agriculture specifically excludes both water and salt (although I'll bet you can but salt labeled as organic) as being "organic".

Of course this is a ridiculous example of something being labeled as "organic" just to fool people into buying it. But I think it is probably indicative of many other products and their use of the word. We need to be more discriminating buyers and understand that just because something is labeled as organic doesn't necessarily mean it is good or healthy for humans. It may or may not be.

After all, deadly nightshade, poison mushrooms and cow manure all meet the definition of "organic", but it wouldn't be a good idea to ingest any of them. Years ago, the health food industry latched on to the word as a way to let people know something about the food they were buying. But as the water example above shows, the word is being misused by so many people that it has lost much of its meaning.

The business of "health" supplements has also done its part to make the word meaningless. They label many products as "organic" -- products that do nothing to really improve a person's health (and some of them could actually do harm if misused), even though they may actually be "organic".

The word "organic" is not magic and by itself makes nothing better. It's become just a word used by advertisers to sell more of a product -- a word like "new" or "improved". It would be well for us to remember that just because a claim is made, doesn't mean that claim is true. Advertisers and manufacturers have been known to lie, stretch the truth, or use a word they know consumers like. That's just part of living in a free society with a free market system. Buyer Beware!

Worst Drought In Over 100 Years In Texas

Water is a problem in Texas in a good year, and with it's fast-growing population the state was already looking for new sources of water. Without new sources of water it is doubtful that Texas can sustain it's population growth (certainly not at the current growth rate).

Texas has never been a water-rich state, and has only one natural lake (Caddo Lake) -- and half of that lake is in Louisiana. All of the other lakes in the state are man-made. That should be a clue to those who think the state has no water problems. But this year is much worse than normal.

Currently 97% of Texas is experiencing drought conditions. Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon says it is the worst drought since 1895 (the year records began to be kept in the state). These dry conditions have seen more than 13,000 wildfires in the state since November, that have burned over 3.3 million acres. And we may not have seen the worst yet, since July is usually worse than the months preceding it.

The state's dry conditions are even affecting this holiday. Many cities across the state have outlawed fireworks this year, and many of them (including Amarillo, DeSoto, Lubbock, Austin, San Antonio, etc.) have even cancelled city fireworks displays for this year. And that's just a precursor of things to come. Much of the state will soon be under some degree of water use restrictions.

Of course, this is affecting the state's agriculture. The Agriculture Department has declared 213 of Texas' 254 counties as disaster areas because of the drought conditions. This would normally let the victims of the drought receive government aid, but with the Republicans slashing programs and not even wanting to help tornado victims there may not be any help to be had.

And our idiot governor thinks he's done his part. A few weeks ago, Gov. Perry tried to pray away the drought (and we can see how well that worked). Now he is too busy with trying to collect campaign funds in other states so he can run for president to bother with the drought.

It's going to be a tough summer for the state, and the only real hope for a break before Fall is that there might be a busy hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico. Personally, I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen.

Hopefully though, there may be one silver lining in this disastrous (and rainless) cloud. With a bit of luck it might get Texans to start paying attention to the water problems the state has -- even in good years. Too many Texans, especially politicians, want to hide their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. Maybe the drought will force them to address the problem.

Panhandle Water Theft Is Averted

Back in 2008 I posted about a plan by billionaire mogul T. Boone Pickens to steal the water underneath the Texas Panhandle for his own financial gain. Pickens (pictured) had bought a lot of land in Roberts County, and Texas law gave him the right to use of the water beneath his own land. The law was originally meant to allow farmers and ranchers to drill water wells and use the water they needed to make their farms or ranches viable. But Pickens intended to misuse that law.

The land that Pickens had purchased sits on top of one of the largest natural aquifers in the United States -- the Ogallala Aquifer. This aquifer supplies much of the water needs for the Panhandle and a large part of West Texas, and it also provides water for parts of seven other states. While the aquifer is a good source of an enormous amount of fresh water, it has a drawback that makes it more sensitive to misuse than most other aquifers. Most aquifers are replenished by rainwater filtering down through the soil, but the Ogallala is covered by a type of clay soil that prevents most of that rainwater from filtering down to replenish it.

Because of this inability to adequately replenish itself, the Ogallala Aquifer has already lost about 10% of its water -- mainly due to irrigation for farming and ranching since the 1950s. This has made it necessary for regional water authorities to plan the Panhandle water use to try and protect the aquifer for future generations.

Pickens wanted to change that. He had decided to build a pipeline 9 feet in diameter to pump water from his land (water from the Ogallala) to sell in other parts of Texas. He company, Mesa Water, had engaged in discussions with cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and the San Antonio area, where he hoped to sell enormous quantities of the water. And there is no doubt that his huge pipeline could eventually turn much of the Panhandle and West Texas into just more desert land (something the state already has too much of).

That's because although Pickens would only be pumping the water beneath his land, the enormous amount of water being pumped would have affected the entire aquifer, eventually emptying it. Pickens would have gotten much richer, but for people in Texas and seven other states it would have been a disaster.

Last year State Senator Kel Seliger was able to push a law through the state legislature that said Panhandle water couldn't be shipped by pipeline for more than 75 miles. This law meant that Pickens couldn't sell water from the Ogallala Aquifer to other parts of Texas. Pickens filed suit in an Austin court claiming that the new law violated settled Texas law by denying him the right to do as he pleased with the water underneath his land. That lawsuit is still pending, and its anyone's guess who would win it.

Fortunately, it now looks like Pickens' planned sale of the Ogallala Aquifer has now been averted. A few days ago Mesa Water and the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) announced that had reached a tentative agreement for the CRMWA to purchse thousands of acres of land in Roberts County from Mesa Water (Pickens). If the sale goes through, and there's no reason to think it won't, then this would end Picken's plan to ship the Ogallala's water to other parts of the state.

This should be a cause for celebration here in the Panhandle and other places that depend on water from the aquifer. It's been a long fight, but it looks like it's finally over and an equitable solution has been reached -- a solution that will provide badly needed water for many generations to come (as long as some reasonable conservation measures are followed).

This is just one example of how corporate greed could have caused a disaster for people in eight states. Fortunately, at least for now, that disaster has been averted. But we must remain vigilant in this country and realize that corporations care only about profits -- not people and their well-being.

Disasters Waiting To Happen

It has become obvious with all the budget cutting the Republicans, both on the federal and state levels, have been doing that they have no intention of budgeting any money to improve this country's infrastructure. They ignored our crumbling infrastructure throughout the Bush presidency (cutting taxes for the rich was far more important). Now they are killing projects such as high-speed rail and a stimulus program to rebuild our roads and bridges.

Those projects would have provided badly needed jobs and helped American businesses by improving transportation -- both worthy goals. But the Republicans are not in a mood to rebuild the country or provide for jobs. But there is another type of infrastructure that also needs some attention -- dams.

According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, this country has more than 85,000 dams. Over 4,400 of those dams are in need of repair. And a failure to do these repairs in a timely fashion will not just impede business and job growth -- it could put lives in dangers and cause the destruction of millions of dollars worth of property, including some whole cities.

Ignoring dams is not the same as watching a pothole grow larger in a road. We learned that in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. The dams there that were not properly maintained wound up costing that city far too many lives and far too much damage. Now it looks like the Republicans, in their budget-cutting zeal, want to repeat that mistake in other areas of this country.

While cutting the budget may be a laudable goal, it is not nearly as important as creating jobs and maintaining our important and necessary infrastructure. Cutting the budget won't create jobs or save lives and property, but rebuilding and maintaining our infrastructure will save lives and create jobs -- and those new jobs will help pay down the deficit (and doing away with the Bush tax cuts will pay it down even faster).

As usual, the Republicans are going at things the wrong way.

Republicans Hate Clean Air And Water

It has become obvious in the last few weeks to anyone with half a brain that the Republicans in Congress have abandoned ordinary Americans to insure that the rich and the corporations can continue hogging the wealth and income of this country. While giving massive tax breaks to the rich and protecting enormous subsidies for corporations, these Republicans have proposed cuts to programs that help ordinary Americans -- the poor, the elderly, the children, the sick and disabled, the unemployed, and even the struggling middle class.

They have made a decision that corporate profits and fat bank accounts for the richest Americans are far more important than government programs that help ordinary Americans in need. But this is not the only area in which the Republicans have ignored the well-being of most Americans to protect their rich buddies. They also oppose any efforts to make corporations and other businesses stop polluting the environment and poisoning the air and water. They choose to fatten corporate profits instead of protecting the health and safety of American citizens.

It is bad enough that they have fought any efforts to stop global climate change, which is already beginning to have serious effects worldwide. But these Republicans want to go even further. They want to destroy the very organization created to protect the environment and assure that all Americans have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink -- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Republicans have fought the efforts of the EPA to protect ordinary Americans for many years. During the Bush administration, they cut funding for the agency and restricted the reach of its function (like refusing to allow it to make rules regarding greenhouse gases). Now they want to go even further.

We are now starting to see just how far they will go to protect corporations while throwing ordinary American under the bus. Recently, Republican presidential candidate came out in favor of completely abolishing the EPA, and several members of the House Republican caucus have voiced their support for this idea.

Some of you might find it hard to believe most congressional Republicans would support such a radical idea. But all you have to do is look at a vote taken in the House yesterday. At least 250 House members (almost exclusively Republicans) passed an amendment to the government funding bill that would ban the EPA from regulating toxic air emissions of industry.

Let me make that clear. They voted to ban the EPA from performing one of its most important functions -- one of the reasons it was founded -- to regulate toxic emissions and assure that Americans have clean air to breathe. And the reason they did that was to protect corporate profits, to keep these businesses from having to clean up the poisons they are dumping into the air we all must breathe.

The EPA is the last line of defense in the battle for clean air and water. States cannot be counted on to perform this vital function. Take my own state of Texas for instance. Republican leadership in that state has allowed it to be the largest polluter of any state in the Union. In fact, only six countries in the world produce more air pollution than Texas does, and oil & natural gas production is poisoning much of the state's groundwater.

It is only the EPA, not state agencies, that is demanding the state clean up its act. Without the EPA, Texas would foul not only its own air and water (it has placed a radioactive waste dump over an aquifer that feeds 8 states), but also that of many other states.

Republicans are using the excuse of cutting the budget to justify this unwarranted and inexcusable attack on the EPA. But as we have already seen, this is not true. If they truly wanted to cut the deficit, they would not be giving massive tax breaks to the rich and subsidies to the corporations, and they would be slashing the bloated budget of the Defense Department. Since they aren't, it becomes obvious they are attacking the EPA just to fatten corporate coffers.

But they are not fooling the American public. While a large majority of Americans want the deficit to be reduced, they don't want it done at the expense of hurting the EPA's ability to mandate clean air and water. This is shown in a survey done for the American Lung Association, which was conducted February 7th through 14th. Note the following from the survey:

ARE YOU CONSERVATIVE, MODERATE, OR LIBERAL?
liberal...............18%
moderate...............37%
conservative...............41%
don't know/refused...............3%

DO YOU THINK CONGRESS SHOULD STOP THE EPA FROM UPDATING AIR POLLUTION STANDARDS?
no...............68%
yes...............28%
don't know...............4%

DO YOU THINK CONGRESS SHOULD STOP THE EPA FROM UPDATING CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION STANDARDS?
no...............64%
yes...............30%
don't know...............5%

SHOULD THE EPA IMPOSE STRICTER LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF MERCURY THAT POWER PLANTS AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES CAN RELEASE?
yes...............79%
no...............18%
don't know...............3%

SHOULD THE EPA IMPOSE STRICTER LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF SMOG THAT POWER PLANTS, OIL REFINERIES, AND OTHER INDUSTRIES CAN RELEASE?
yes...............77%
no...............21%
don't know...............2%

Cutting funds for the EPA, or abolishing it (which is what the Republicans really want), might help corporate America to increase their already record-breaking profits, but it will seriously damage the health of most Americans by poisoning the air and the water. The people know this, and so does the Congress. The only logical conclusion is that the Republicans just don't care about clean air and water.

Ogallala Aquifer Gets Outside Help

The Ogallala Aquifer is one of the largest fresh-water aquifers in the world.   It is believed the aquifer contains nearly as much water as Lake Erie and Lake Huron put together, and covers about 111 million acres under parts of eight different states in the High Plains area in the middle of the United States.   The eight states that draw water from the aquifer are Texas, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas.

The aquifer is especially important to the High Plains area of Texas.   This is a very productive area for farming and ranching and much of the water needed to sustain these agricultural industries comes from the Ogallala Aquifer.   This is especially true in drought years, when irrigation from the aquifer almost completely sustains the areas agriculture.   Many High Plains cities (such as Amarillo, population about 200,000) get at least part of their water supply from the aquifer.

But there is a problem with the aquifer.   It cannot replenish itself quickly.   Most aquifers are easily replenished by rainwater trickling down through the earth.   But much of the Ogallala Aquifer is covered by a clay-like soil that makes replenishment a much slower process.   Currently, the aquifer is not being replenished as fast as it is being used.   In 2009 alone, the water in the aquifer dropped about 1.5 feet, and since the 1930s the water level in the aquifer has dropped over 100 feet.

Something must be done about this, since the continuing drop in the water level will eventually drain the aquifer.   If this happens, it would be a disaster here in the Texas Panhandle.   Many cities would be unable to sustain their current populations, let alone projected growth.   Farming would be unsustainable and ranching would not be able to produce anywhere near the current levels of beef production.

Fortunately, it looks like the Ogallala Aquifer will be getting some help from an unlikely source -- Michigan State University (MSU).   Although the state of Michigan is nowhere near the Ogallala Aquifer and gets no water from it, MSU has received a $1.2 million four-year grant from the National Science Foundation to study the aquifer and try to determine the best way to improve the management of and conservation of the aquifer's water.

MSU hydrogeologist David Hyndman will lead a multidisciplinary team of scientists, in conjunction with the Kansas Geological Survey, to "study the interactions between the region's landscape, atmosphere and socio-economic systems."   By producing forecasts and projections of a variety of solutions to the problem, they hope to come up with the best way to adjust land management and water use policies to insure the future viability of the aquifer.

I hope they succeed in coming up with some answers that will solve the problem.   The future of the High Plains may well depend on it.

Water: Necessity Or Salable Commodity ?

A vote took place in the United Nations a few days ago that could eventually have far-reaching effects for everyone on this planet. The vote was on a resolution introduced by the Bolivian representative to the U.N. which extended basic human rights. The resolution officially made access to clean water and sanitation a basic fundamental human right.

This just makes sense. After all, water is not a luxury but an absolute necessity for human life. It has been known for hundreds of centuries that humans cannot live with water. This puts water in a special category with food and shelter. These items are more important than any other resources because they are a must for sustaining human life. So how could anyone oppose this resolution?

Actually there were no votes against the resolution. It was approved 122 to 0. One might think that was a unanimous victory for human rights, but that would not be completely true. Although no nation voted against the resolution, about 40 nations abstained from voting on the resolution. And, interestingly enough, most of those nations abstaining are the very countries that preach the loudest about human rights.

Among the nations refusing to vote for access to clean water and sanitation as a basic human right were the United States, Canada, Australia and many European countries -- the so-called industrialized and "civilized" first-world nations. Why would they not vote for the right of every human to have access to clean water?

That's simple. Voting for access to clean water as a fundamental human right would expose their own hypocrisy. You see, these countries don't see water as something everyone should have a right to. They see water as simply another commodity to be bought and sold, and those who cannot afford to buy it have no right to it. This may sound harsh, but it is true.

The United States has never recognized the right of humans to have access to water. In this country, we give lip service to providing access to clean water for everyone, but the fact is that access is granted only to those who are willing and able to pay for that access. If you don't think this is true, just try not paying your water bill for a while. You will find your water cut off. Your access to water will be denied by the very government that proudly claims to provide that access. They actually don't provide something you have a right to. They are simply selling you a commodity.

I have always thought this was wrong. No one should be denied access to clean water just because they cannot afford to buy it. No one should be reduced to having to steal this basic resource just to sustain their lives. Clean water should be provided by the government (as it is in most places in the United States), but it should not be sold -- it should be paid for through taxes and provided free of charge to all citizens.

Now I know that some of you are thinking that if water is provided for free then some people will waste this precious resource. That is true -- some people will waste the water, and there should be a punishment (probably monetary) for that. Anyone who uses more than a reasonable amount of this precious resource should be fined severely, but no one should be completely denied access to a reasonable amount of water (and that reasonable amount can be determined by the community-at-large).

Frankly, much water is already being wasted. Here in Texas we already know that our water resources will not meet our future and growing demand for it. And yet we continue to waste water. In fact, many communities actually encourage that waste. As example, does it really make sense to keep planting and watering lawns (a requirement in many communities and subdivisions) in a state where water becomes more scarce every year?

And the waste is even more egregious in the richer communities, where one family lives on a large estate and to water many acres of lawns will use more water than that necessary to sustain hundreds of families with clean water. But Americans are in love with their lawns and, even in a state with scarce water resources, are currently unwilling to give them up and stop wasting that valuable resource -- and the future be damned.

But such wasteful use of water may not be possible in the future. Especially in light of global climate change (and that change is happening whether you believe it is caused by humans or not), water is becoming scarcer all over the world. There are those who believe (including myself) that future wars will be fought over water rather than oil or other capitalist commodities.

The resolution introduced by Bolivia and passed by 122 nations was nothing less than a gauntlet being thrown down. The developing nations and their allies are telling the industrialized world that water is not a commodity to be sold only to those who can afford it. It is a scarce resource that must be shared by all of humanity.

Like it or not, the industrialized world must reconsider and change it's wasteful use of this scarce resource, and they must no longer view it as a commodity to make the rich even richer -- a commodity that can be denied to the poor. The industrialized world, especially the United States, loves to preach equality and human rights. It is now time for them to start practicing what they preach. The future of humanity demands it.

(The map above shows areas in the United States in danger of a serious water shortage by 2050. Many other places in the world are in much worse shape.)