Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Could a ban on sea farms save Canada’s salmon?

News Feed
Thursday, October 3, 2024

On a clear August morning, Skookum John manoeuvres his fishing boat, Sweet Marie, out of the Tofino harbour and into the deep blue waters of Clayoquot Sound on Canada’s west coast.On shore, the late summer sun shines on visitors from all over the world who have flocked to the bustling fishing town on Vancouver Island, where they wander in and out of surf shops, art galleries and restaurants and pile into small boats in the hope of glimpsing orca, humpback and grey whales.“You’ll never find this anywhere in the world,” John says, gesturing through the Sweet Marie’s window at the mosaic of islands and mountains, cloaked in thick green rainforests, that form part of the Clayoquot Sound Unesco biosphere reserve.The Sweet Marie motors deeper into Clayoquot Sound, past a web of inviting channels and inlets, and cruises past a raft of sea otters resting in the gentle swells. Hunted nearly to extinction, sea otters are one of the celebrated species found in the reserve, along with sea lions, seals, wild salmon and bald eagles.Dan Lewis, co-founder of Clayoquot Action, with a map of the fish farms in Clayoquot Sound. Photograph: Jeremy MathieuJohn, a member of Ahousaht First Nation, makes his living on the water, where he helps train coast guard members in marine rescue, ferries passengers to islands and hot springs and takes visitors on whale watching tours. Today, he is taking members of Clayoquot Action, a conservation group focused on protecting wild salmon, to the site of one of the area’s more controversial industries: open-net pen salmon farms.Dan Lewis, the co-founder and executive director of Clayoquot Action, is incredulous that industrial salmon farming is allowed to take place in a globally recognised protected area. “Why are we doing this here?” he says, gesturing at the rich waters, home to a colourful array of sea life that includes giant rock scallops, tufted anemones in green, pink and white, dark green kelp forests, red sea urchins and purple-tinged Dungeness crabs.Clayoquot Sound is also home to some of the last 60 salmon farms left on North America’s west coast. For decades, as many as 100 farms in Canadian waters have raised mostly non-native Atlantic salmon in pens in the Pacific Ocean.A farm uses a semi-closed containment system, which reduces the exposure of wild fish to sea lice. Photograph: Jeremy MathieuBut now the salmon farming industry, blamed for contributing to the collapse of wild salmon stocks, faces an uncertain future. In June, the Canadian government announced a ban on open-net pen salmon farming from coastal waters in July 2029, as part of a commitment “to protecting wild salmon and promoting more sustainable aquaculture practices”.Concerns about the industry’s impact on wild salmon played a leading role in the closure of about three dozen farms in British Columbia over the past seven years, after Clayoquot Action and other groups documented sea lice outbreaks and other diseases in farmed fish, including at farms along migration routes for wild salmon.The decision to ban all remaining British Columbia farms, lauded by conservation groups and wild salmon advocates, has been soundly criticised by Canada’s salmon farming industry, which largely consists of multinational corporations that farm salmon around the world, including in the UK. The industry says moving salmon farming to closed containment systems on land or in the water, as the government suggests, is not logistically feasible and would be prohibitively expensive.A coho salmon smolt infected with sea lice. Photograph: Fernando Lessa/AlamyFor John, who has been campaigning against salmon farms since 2015, the Canadian government’s new 2029 deadline may just be an empty promise, after its earlier, unfulfilled commitment to remove open-net pen salmon farms by 2025. “I won’t believe anything that the government says until I see it happen,” he says, as the Sweet Marie slowly circles a floating salmon farm in a small bay, barely a stone’s throw from the seaweed-strewn shore.John’s scepticism is shared by Hasheukumiss, hereditary chief of the Ahousaht Nation and president of the Maaqutusiis Hahoulthee Stewardship Society, which manages economic development for the nation. But the two men have very different perspectives on the salmon farming industry, mirroring broader divisions about whether open-net pen farms should be allowed to operate in Canadian waters.Hasheukumiss, Richard George, says sea lice and the pathogens are his main concerns. Photograph: The Canadian Press/AlamyIn 2010, the Ahousaht Nation signed an agreement allowing Cermaq Global, a Mitsubishi subsidiary that also farms salmon and trout in Norway and Chile, to operate in its territorial waters. The agreement was subsequently renewed with changes, according to Hasheukumiss, also known as Richard George.“One of the things that I wanted to address was the environmental concerns because we are the true stewards of our back yard,” he says. “It was the sea lice and the pathogens that were the biggest concerns we had.”According to Hasheukumiss, Cermaq was responsive and worked with the nation to address that concern.Hasheukumiss’ assessment of the Canadian government’s handling of fish farms is less rosy. Since he inherited his title in 2020, he says he has discussed the issue with three different cabinet ministers, yet has seen little in the way of consultation with his nation.A five-year transition away from open-net pen farms is not a realistic timeframe for the industry, he says. “In five years, there is no way this industry – or any industry – can go to fully contained systems.”As the Sweet Marie noses slowly towards a rectangle of floating walkways bordered by black net fencing, John stands and slips the engine into neutral. He calls out to one of the salmon-farm workers, jokingly asking why he’s pretending to be busy. It’s his nephew, who recently started working at the Cermaq farm, one of 13 facilities in Clayoquot Sound that employ about 20 Ahousaht members.The two chat while Lewis stands at the Sweet Marie’s bow, peering through the nets to get a view into the pens, as part of the group’s regular monitoring of the industry’s operations.Sweet Marie approaches Cermaq’s fish farm and delousing boat, Aqua Service. Photograph: Jeremy MathieuAt an unstocked salmon farm nearby, the Cermaq’s delousing boat, Aqua Service, towers over the Sweet Marie from its berth. The vessel has a large rear deck fitted with a patented delousing system, which pulls fish from the pens and uses seawater to flush off the lice. The treatment process takes just two tenths of a second, aiming to reduce stress and fish deaths.In Ahousaht territory, Cermaq has been experimenting with technology to reduce the industry’s impact on wild salmon. A semi-closed containment system – consisting of a semi-permeable bag that stretches 25 metres below the water – is used to raise young salmon smolts while reducing their exposure to sea lice. The bag draws water from deep in the water column where sea lice can’t survive.Fewer sea lice on the farmed smolts make it less likely wild salmon swimming past the farms will pick up the parasites. After a year, the young salmon are moved to open-net pens to grow to marketable size.The semi-closed containment system Cermaq is trialling is expensive – costing C$20,000 (£11,000) a month in diesel alone. Brian Kingzett, executive director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association, representing Cermaq and other companies, says there is little appetite to make big investments and navigate the time-consuming licensing process for new technology, especially with the future of the industry in question.In 2022, conservationists highlighted the risks of salmon farms to wildlife after sea lions broke into a Cermaq farm off the coast of British Colombia. Photograph: Jeremy Mathieu/Clayoquot Action“There are lots of reasons why farmers want to go to closed containment for that first year; Cermaq has been trying to do it,” he says. “It took them six years to get a licence. We only have a five-year window.”Kingzett says the industry was “completely gobsmacked” by the Canadian government’s decision to remove open-net pen salmon farms by 2029, calling closed containment “an unfeasible option”.Setting up a medium-sized land-based salmon farm, capable of producing 5,000 tonnes of fish a year, could cost C$1.8bn (£1bn), according to a 2022 report commissioned by the British Columbia government. The report’s authors said it was difficult to estimate the costs of setting up large-scale farms because there are no land-based salmon farms in the world that are reliably producing large amounts of fish.BC’s first land-based salmon farm, Kuterra, is now raising steelhead trout, after achieving barely one-third of its production target, according to the BC government report. Another land-based venture, West Creek, has stopped farming salmon altogether. And on the other side of the country on the Atlantic coast, a land-based salmon farm, Sustainable Blue, suffered a mass die-off, reportedly because of an equipment malfunction, and is now in receivership.But Lewis says closed containment systems on land are the only option if the Canadian government is serious about protecting wild salmon stocks.“To our understanding, there is nothing that can actually have zero discharge that’s in the water,” Lewis says. “What we want to see in the next five years is all the farms come out of the water. We don’t believe there are any in-water solutions.”Kingzett says closing down open-net pen salmon farms will harm small coastal communities. Any land-based containment systems will need to be close to plentiful power and water supplies, not to mention customers, he says.Skookum John has campaigned against salmon farms in Ahousaht territory for almost a decade. Photograph: Jeremy MathieuIf BC’s salmon farms disappear, Kingzett is confident farmed salmon will still be sold in the country’s supermarkets – but it will come from places such as Chile and Norway.Inside the Sweet Marie’s cabin, John has placed a sticker with the hashtag #FishFarmsOut near the helm. He is eager for the industry to leave Ahousaht territory, even if it means losing the money fish farming has brought to the community.“Wealth isn’t money,” he says. “What we have in our territory, what we have in the ocean, what we have in the air, that’s wealth.”

A row over sea life, lice and livelihoods is dividing communities as the government plans to end open-net pen farming in British Columbian watersOn a clear August morning, Skookum John manoeuvres his fishing boat, Sweet Marie, out of the Tofino harbour and into the deep blue waters of Clayoquot Sound on Canada’s west coast.On shore, the late summer sun shines on visitors from all over the world who have flocked to the bustling fishing town on Vancouver Island, where they wander in and out of surf shops, art galleries and restaurants and pile into small boats in the hope of glimpsing orca, humpback and grey whales. Continue reading...

On a clear August morning, Skookum John manoeuvres his fishing boat, Sweet Marie, out of the Tofino harbour and into the deep blue waters of Clayoquot Sound on Canada’s west coast.

On shore, the late summer sun shines on visitors from all over the world who have flocked to the bustling fishing town on Vancouver Island, where they wander in and out of surf shops, art galleries and restaurants and pile into small boats in the hope of glimpsing orca, humpback and grey whales.

“You’ll never find this anywhere in the world,” John says, gesturing through the Sweet Marie’s window at the mosaic of islands and mountains, cloaked in thick green rainforests, that form part of the Clayoquot Sound Unesco biosphere reserve.

The Sweet Marie motors deeper into Clayoquot Sound, past a web of inviting channels and inlets, and cruises past a raft of sea otters resting in the gentle swells. Hunted nearly to extinction, sea otters are one of the celebrated species found in the reserve, along with sea lions, seals, wild salmon and bald eagles.

Dan Lewis, co-founder of Clayoquot Action, with a map of the fish farms in Clayoquot Sound. Photograph: Jeremy Mathieu

John, a member of Ahousaht First Nation, makes his living on the water, where he helps train coast guard members in marine rescue, ferries passengers to islands and hot springs and takes visitors on whale watching tours. Today, he is taking members of Clayoquot Action, a conservation group focused on protecting wild salmon, to the site of one of the area’s more controversial industries: open-net pen salmon farms.

Dan Lewis, the co-founder and executive director of Clayoquot Action, is incredulous that industrial salmon farming is allowed to take place in a globally recognised protected area. “Why are we doing this here?” he says, gesturing at the rich waters, home to a colourful array of sea life that includes giant rock scallops, tufted anemones in green, pink and white, dark green kelp forests, red sea urchins and purple-tinged Dungeness crabs.

Clayoquot Sound is also home to some of the last 60 salmon farms left on North America’s west coast. For decades, as many as 100 farms in Canadian waters have raised mostly non-native Atlantic salmon in pens in the Pacific Ocean.

A farm uses a semi-closed containment system, which reduces the exposure of wild fish to sea lice. Photograph: Jeremy Mathieu

But now the salmon farming industry, blamed for contributing to the collapse of wild salmon stocks, faces an uncertain future. In June, the Canadian government announced a ban on open-net pen salmon farming from coastal waters in July 2029, as part of a commitment “to protecting wild salmon and promoting more sustainable aquaculture practices”.

Concerns about the industry’s impact on wild salmon played a leading role in the closure of about three dozen farms in British Columbia over the past seven years, after Clayoquot Action and other groups documented sea lice outbreaks and other diseases in farmed fish, including at farms along migration routes for wild salmon.


The decision to ban all remaining British Columbia farms, lauded by conservation groups and wild salmon advocates, has been soundly criticised by Canada’s salmon farming industry, which largely consists of multinational corporations that farm salmon around the world, including in the UK. The industry says moving salmon farming to closed containment systems on land or in the water, as the government suggests, is not logistically feasible and would be prohibitively expensive.

A coho salmon smolt infected with sea lice. Photograph: Fernando Lessa/Alamy

For John, who has been campaigning against salmon farms since 2015, the Canadian government’s new 2029 deadline may just be an empty promise, after its earlier, unfulfilled commitment to remove open-net pen salmon farms by 2025. “I won’t believe anything that the government says until I see it happen,” he says, as the Sweet Marie slowly circles a floating salmon farm in a small bay, barely a stone’s throw from the seaweed-strewn shore.

John’s scepticism is shared by Hasheukumiss, hereditary chief of the Ahousaht Nation and president of the Maaqutusiis Hahoulthee Stewardship Society, which manages economic development for the nation. But the two men have very different perspectives on the salmon farming industry, mirroring broader divisions about whether open-net pen farms should be allowed to operate in Canadian waters.

Hasheukumiss, Richard George, says sea lice and the pathogens are his main concerns. Photograph: The Canadian Press/Alamy

In 2010, the Ahousaht Nation signed an agreement allowing Cermaq Global, a Mitsubishi subsidiary that also farms salmon and trout in Norway and Chile, to operate in its territorial waters. The agreement was subsequently renewed with changes, according to Hasheukumiss, also known as Richard George.

“One of the things that I wanted to address was the environmental concerns because we are the true stewards of our back yard,” he says. “It was the sea lice and the pathogens that were the biggest concerns we had.”

According to Hasheukumiss, Cermaq was responsive and worked with the nation to address that concern.

Hasheukumiss’ assessment of the Canadian government’s handling of fish farms is less rosy. Since he inherited his title in 2020, he says he has discussed the issue with three different cabinet ministers, yet has seen little in the way of consultation with his nation.

A five-year transition away from open-net pen farms is not a realistic timeframe for the industry, he says. “In five years, there is no way this industry – or any industry – can go to fully contained systems.”


As the Sweet Marie noses slowly towards a rectangle of floating walkways bordered by black net fencing, John stands and slips the engine into neutral. He calls out to one of the salmon-farm workers, jokingly asking why he’s pretending to be busy. It’s his nephew, who recently started working at the Cermaq farm, one of 13 facilities in Clayoquot Sound that employ about 20 Ahousaht members.

The two chat while Lewis stands at the Sweet Marie’s bow, peering through the nets to get a view into the pens, as part of the group’s regular monitoring of the industry’s operations.

Sweet Marie approaches Cermaq’s fish farm and delousing boat, Aqua Service. Photograph: Jeremy Mathieu

At an unstocked salmon farm nearby, the Cermaq’s delousing boat, Aqua Service, towers over the Sweet Marie from its berth. The vessel has a large rear deck fitted with a patented delousing system, which pulls fish from the pens and uses seawater to flush off the lice. The treatment process takes just two tenths of a second, aiming to reduce stress and fish deaths.

In Ahousaht territory, Cermaq has been experimenting with technology to reduce the industry’s impact on wild salmon. A semi-closed containment system – consisting of a semi-permeable bag that stretches 25 metres below the water – is used to raise young salmon smolts while reducing their exposure to sea lice. The bag draws water from deep in the water column where sea lice can’t survive.

Fewer sea lice on the farmed smolts make it less likely wild salmon swimming past the farms will pick up the parasites. After a year, the young salmon are moved to open-net pens to grow to marketable size.

The semi-closed containment system Cermaq is trialling is expensive – costing C$20,000 (£11,000) a month in diesel alone. Brian Kingzett, executive director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association, representing Cermaq and other companies, says there is little appetite to make big investments and navigate the time-consuming licensing process for new technology, especially with the future of the industry in question.

In 2022, conservationists highlighted the risks of salmon farms to wildlife after sea lions broke into a Cermaq farm off the coast of British Colombia. Photograph: Jeremy Mathieu/Clayoquot Action

“There are lots of reasons why farmers want to go to closed containment for that first year; Cermaq has been trying to do it,” he says. “It took them six years to get a licence. We only have a five-year window.”

Kingzett says the industry was “completely gobsmacked” by the Canadian government’s decision to remove open-net pen salmon farms by 2029, calling closed containment “an unfeasible option”.

Setting up a medium-sized land-based salmon farm, capable of producing 5,000 tonnes of fish a year, could cost C$1.8bn (£1bn), according to a 2022 report commissioned by the British Columbia government. The report’s authors said it was difficult to estimate the costs of setting up large-scale farms because there are no land-based salmon farms in the world that are reliably producing large amounts of fish.

BC’s first land-based salmon farm, Kuterra, is now raising steelhead trout, after achieving barely one-third of its production target, according to the BC government report. Another land-based venture, West Creek, has stopped farming salmon altogether. And on the other side of the country on the Atlantic coast, a land-based salmon farm, Sustainable Blue, suffered a mass die-off, reportedly because of an equipment malfunction, and is now in receivership.

But Lewis says closed containment systems on land are the only option if the Canadian government is serious about protecting wild salmon stocks.

“To our understanding, there is nothing that can actually have zero discharge that’s in the water,” Lewis says. “What we want to see in the next five years is all the farms come out of the water. We don’t believe there are any in-water solutions.”

Kingzett says closing down open-net pen salmon farms will harm small coastal communities. Any land-based containment systems will need to be close to plentiful power and water supplies, not to mention customers, he says.

Skookum John has campaigned against salmon farms in Ahousaht territory for almost a decade. Photograph: Jeremy Mathieu

If BC’s salmon farms disappear, Kingzett is confident farmed salmon will still be sold in the country’s supermarkets – but it will come from places such as Chile and Norway.

Inside the Sweet Marie’s cabin, John has placed a sticker with the hashtag #FishFarmsOut near the helm. He is eager for the industry to leave Ahousaht territory, even if it means losing the money fish farming has brought to the community.

“Wealth isn’t money,” he says. “What we have in our territory, what we have in the ocean, what we have in the air, that’s wealth.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Roads can become more dangerous on hot days – especially for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists

We tend to adapt quickly to rain. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat.

Munbaik Cycling Clothing/UnsplashDuring heatwaves, everyday life tends to feel more difficult than on an average day. Travel and daily movement are no exception. But while most of us know rain, fog and storms can make driving conditions challenging, not many people realise heat also changes transport risk. In particular, research evidence consistently suggests roads, trips and daily commutes can become more dangerous on very hot days compared with an average day. The key questions are how much more dangerous, who is most affected, whether the risk is short-lived or lingers and how this information can be used to better manage road safety during extreme heat. Who is most at risk? The clearest picture comes from a recent multi-city study in tropical and subtropical Taiwan. Using injury data across six large cities, researchers examined how road injury risk changes as temperatures rise, and how this differs by mode of travel. The results show what researchers call a sharp, non-linear increase in risk on very hot days. It’s non-linear because road injury risk rises much more steeply once temperatures move into the 30–40°C range. It is also within this range that different travel modes begin to clearly separate in terms of their susceptibility to heat-related risk. This Taiwan study found injury risk for pedestrians more than doubled during extreme heat. Cyclist injuries soared by around 80%, and motorcyclist injuries by about 50%. In contrast, the increase for car drivers is much smaller. The pattern is clear: the more exposed the road user, the bigger the heat-related risk. The pattern is also not exclusive to a single geographical region and has been observed in other countries too. A long-running national study from Spain drew on two decades of crash data covering nearly 2 million incidents and showed crash risk increases steadily as temperatures rise. At very high temperatures, overall crash risk is about 15% higher than on cool days. Importantly, the increase is even larger for crashes linked to driver fatigue, distraction or illness. A nationwide study in the United States found a 3.4% increase in fatal traffic crashes on heatwave days versus non-heatwave days. The increase is not evenly distributed. Fatal crash risk rises more strongly: on rural roads among middle-aged and older drivers, and on hot, dry days with high UV radiation. This shows extreme heat does not just increase crash likelihood, but also the chance that crashes result in death. That’s particularly true in settings with higher speeds and less forgiving road environments. Taken together, the international evidence base is consistent: the likelihood of crashes, injury risk and fatal outcomes all increase during hot days. Why heat increases road risk, and why the effects can linger Across the three studies, the evidence points to a combination of exposure and human performance effects. The Taiwan study shows that risk increases most sharply for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. These are groups that are physically exposed to ambient heat and, in some cases, exertion. In contrast, occupants of enclosed vehicles show smaller increases in risk. This suggests that direct exposure to heat plays a role in shaping who is most affected. The Spanish study suggests that the largest heat-related increases occur in crashes involving driver fatigue, distraction, sleepiness or illness. This indicates that heat affects road safety not only through environmental conditions, but through changes in human performance that make errors more likely. Importantly, the Spanish data also show that these effects are not always confined to the hottest day itself. They can persist for several days following extreme heat, consistent with cumulative impacts such as sleep disruption and prolonged fatigue. High solar radiation refers to days with intense, direct sunlight and little cloud cover. In the US study, heat-related increases in fatal crashes were strongest under these conditions. Although visibility was not directly examined, these are also conditions associated with greater glare, which may make things even less safe. How can the extra risk be managed? The empirical evidence does not point to a single solution, but it does indicate where risk is elevated and where things become less safe. That knowledge alone can be used to manage risk. First, reducing exposure matters. Fewer trips mean less risk, and flexible work arrangements during heatwaves can indirectly reduce road exposure altogether. Second, risk awareness matters. Simply recognising that heatwaves are higher-risk travel days can help us be more cautious, especially for those travelling without the protection of an enclosed vehicle. We tend to adapt quickly to rain. As soon as the first drops hit the windscreen, we reduce speed almost subconsciously and increase distance to other vehicles. This, in fact, is a key reason traffic jams often start to develop shortly after roads become wet. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat. Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian government (the Office of Road Safety).Zahra Shahhoseini does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

West Virginia Program That Helped Communities Tackle Abandoned Buildings Is Running Out of Money

A West Virginia program that helped communities demolish abandoned buildings is running out of money, and state lawmakers haven't proposed any new solutions

From their home on Charleston’s, West Virginia's West Side, Tina and Matt Glaspey watched the house on the corner of First Avenue and Fitzgerald Street go downhill fast. A family with a young daughter left because they didn’t feel safe. The next owner died. After that, the police were responding regularly as people broke into the vacant home. The Glaspeys say that in just two years, the small brick house went from occupied to condemned, left without power or water, repeatedly entered by squatters. “One day, we noticed a bright orange sticker on the door saying the building was not safe for habitation,” Tina said. “It shows how quickly things can turn, in just two years, when nothing is done to deal with these properties.” City officials say the house is following the same path as hundreds of other vacant properties across Charleston, which slowly deteriorate until they become unsafe and are added to the city’s priority demolition list, typically including about 30 buildings at a time. Until this year, a state program helped communities tear these buildings down, preventing them from becoming safety hazards for neighborhoods and harming property values. But that money is now depleted. There is no statewide demolition program left, no replacement funding, and no legislation to keep it running, leaving municipalities on their own to absorb the costs or leave vacant buildings standing. Across West Virginia, vacant properties increase while a state program designed to help runs out of money The state’s Demolition Landfill Assistance Program was established in 2021 and was funded a year later with federal COVID-19 recovery funds. Administered through the Department of Environmental Protection, the fund reimbursed local governments for the demolition of abandoned buildings that they couldn’t afford on their own. The state survey was the first step in the program to determine the scope of the need and assess local government capacity to address it. It was distributed to all 55 counties and more than 180 municipalities. However, the need is far greater. Carrie Staton, director of the West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center, has worked with communities on abandoned buildings for about 14 years. She said most counties don’t have the resources, funding or staffing to manage dilapidated housing on their own. “We’re just so rural and so universally rural. Other states have at least a couple of major metro areas that can support this work,” she said. “We don’t. It just takes longer to do everything.” Charleston has spent millions demolishing hundreds of vacant buildings As the state’s largest city, Charleston has more tools than most local governments, including access to federal funds that smaller communities don’t have. That has allowed the city to spend more than $12 million over the past seven years demolishing over 700 unsafe and dilapidated structures.But John Butterworth, a planner for the city, said Charleston still relied on state demolition funding to help cover those costs, which averaged about $10,000 per property, including any environmental cleanup. “It’s a real cost,” he said. “It’s a necessary one to keep neighbors safe, but it is very expensive.”He said the city received $500,000 from the state program during its last round of funding to help tear down properties that drew repeated complaints from neighbors. “I think people are really relieved when we can say that the house that’s been boarded up for a year or more is coming down,” he said. “Where the concern often comes from neighbors is, what comes next?”One vacant home on Grant Street had fallen into disrepair before being demolished in May of last year. Cracks filled the walls. Dirt and moldy debris were caked on the floors. Broken glass and boarded-up windows littered the property as plants overtook the roof and yard. Eventually, the city was able to get the owner to donate the property, which was then given to Habitat for Humanity as part of its home-building program. Now, the property is being rebuilt from scratch. Construction crews have already built the foundation, porch and frame, and it is expected to be finished within the year after its groundbreaking last October. Andrew Blackwood, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Kanawha and Putnam counties, said the property stood for at least five years, deteriorating. The home had signs of vandalism and water damage and was completely unsalvageable. He said that of the 190 homes the organization has built in both counties, nearly 90% of them have been complete rebuilds after the previous structure was demolished. A statewide problem without a statewide plan Lawmakers have said they recognize the scale of the problem, but none have proposed other ways for tearing down dangerous structures. Fayette County used state demolition money as it was intended, which was to tear down unsafe buildings that had become public safety hazards to nearby residents. With help from the state program, the county tore down 75 dilapidated structures, officials said, removing some of the most dangerous properties while continuing to track the progress of others through a countywide system. County leaders hoped to expand their demolition efforts on their own this year, but those plans have been put on hold. The county had to take over operations of a local humane society after it faced closure and will need to fundraise, said John Breneman, president of the Fayette County Commission. Former Sen. Chandler Swope, R-Mercer, said that kind of budget pressure is exactly why he pushed for state involvement in demolition funding. Swope, who helped create the state fund for the demolition of dilapidated buildings in 2021, said the idea grew from what he saw in places where population loss left empty homes, which local governments had no way to tear down.“They didn’t have any money to tear down the dilapidated properties, so I decided that that should be a state obligation because the state has more flexibility and more access to funding,” he said.Swope said he’d always viewed the need as ongoing, even as state budgets shift from year to year.“I visualized it as a permanent need. I didn’t think you would ever get to the point where it was done,” he said. “I felt like the success of the program would carry its own priority.” But four years later, that funding is gone, and lawmakers haven’t found a replacement. Other states, meanwhile, have created long-term funding for demolition and redevelopment.Ohio, for example, operates a statewide program that provides counties with annual demolition funding. Funds are appropriated from the state budget by lawmakers. Staton said West Virginia’s lack of a plan leaves communities stuck.“Abandoned buildings are in every community, and every legislator has constituents who are dealing with this,” she said. “They know it’s just a matter of finding the funding.”And back on the West Side, the Glaspeys are left staring at boarded windows and an overgrown yard across the street. Matt said, “Sometimes you think, what’s the point of fixing up your own place if everything around you is collapsing?” This story was originally published by Mountain State Spotlight and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Webinar: Cell Tower Risks 101 - What You Need To Know To Protect Your Community

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Funding bill excludes controversial pesticide provision hated by MAHA

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental...

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Known as Section 453 for its position in a House bill released earlier this year, it has drawn significant ire from MAHA-aligned activists. Opponents of the provision argue that it can be a liability shield for major chemical corporations, preventing them from facing failure-to-warn lawsuits by not disclosing health effects of their products. MAHA figures celebrated the provision’s exclusion from the legislation. “MAHA WE DID IT! Section 453 granting pesticide companies immunity from harm has been removed from the upcoming House spending bill!” MAHA Action, a political action committee affiliated with the movement, wrote on X. The issue is one that has divided Republicans, a party that has traditionally allied itself with big business.  “The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said earlier this year.  However, the growing MAHA movement has been critical of the chemical industry. The legislation is part of a bicameral deal reached to fund the departments of the Interior, Justice, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the EPA. And while the provision’s exclusion represents a win for the MAHA movement for the moment, the issue is far from settled. Alexandra Muñoz, a toxicologist and activist who is working with the MAHA movement said she’s “happy to see” that the provision was not included in the funding bill. However, she said, “we still have fronts that we’re fighting on because it’s still potentially going to be added in the Farm Bill.” She also noted that similar fights are ongoing at the Supreme Court and state level. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to take up a case about whether federal law preempts state pesticide labeling requirements and failure-to-warn lawsuits. The Trump administration said the court should side with the chemical industry. Meanwhile, a similar measure also appeared in a 2024 version of the Farm Bill. —Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.