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.

How Magnet Fishers Catch Underwater Garbage, Guns and Sometimes Treasure

News Feed
Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Magnet fisher James Kane cradles a shiny, four-pound magnetic disk: a stainless-steel shell housing an alloy of iron, neodymium and boron. He hucks it into a lake in a public park in New York City, then tugs it slowly toward shore with a sturdy synthetic rope. As the powerful magnet bump bump bumps along the bottom, it kicks up a line of bubbles—and then suddenly there’s a heavy drag, as if the lake bed has turned to taffy. The magnet is stuck to something. Filmed by his partner Barbi Agostini, Kane hoists their dripping catch: a thick iron rod called a sash weight, a counterbalance used to open heavy windows a century ago.Over the next few hours on this October afternoon, Kane and Agostini also pull in a 20-year-old flip phone, a signpost, fishing hooks and lures, pliers, bottle caps, batteries and an iPhone 6. They give the smartphone to a girl who’s nearby with her friends, fishing for bluegills. “If it works, I’m going to be so happy!” she says. Then she sniffs the phone and wrinkles her nose. “It smells.”To magnet fish is to plumb unseen depths for sunken treasure, but it also means getting acquainted with the stinky, the scummy and the bizarre. Agostini’s magnet once clanked onto the lid of a mason jar, inside which floated a dead tarantula in purple liquid. A particularly exciting catch can bring headlines—or the police. The American zeal for guns has sown firearms below the waterline, and magnet fishers harvest them with regularity. Agostini and Kane have found pistols, shotgun parts, Revolutionary War–era grapeshot and modern ammo clips. The two magnet fishers call the police whenever they find a gun, and they do so often enough that some officers recognize them. Last year Kane pulled an inert hand grenade out of New York City’s East River, summoning the police department’s bomb squad to a posh waterfront block in Queens. But the pair’s most notable catch—and probably the most famous thing ever found by U.S. magnet fishers, which Kane says has earned them a mention in an upcoming volume of Ripley’s Believe It or Not!—was a safe containing stacks of waterlogged cash, pulled from a river this past May.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The $100 bills were so degraded that Agostini and Kane don’t yet know precisely how much they found, but based on the stacks’ thickness, they estimate the total was $50,000 to $80,000. As soon as they could do so after the catch, they took a Megabus to Washington, D.C., to hand deliver the money to the Mutilated Currency Division at the federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. There it will be counted and eventually paid out to the pair, though processing might take a few years—Kane says they’re in line behind people who had bills blackened by last year’s deadly wildfires in Hawaii.Agostini and Kane, both age 40, didn’t get into this pastime expecting to get rich; mostly they wanted something to do outside during the COVID pandemic. Magnet fishing, alongside baking sourdough bread and solving jigsaw puzzles, took off in the early months of 2020. “Magnet fishing was so COVID-friendly. You were forced to distance yourself” even if you bumped into a fellow hobbyist outdoors, says Pittsburgh-based archeologist Ben Demchak, who sells specialized magnets through his company, Kratos Magnetics. Magnet fishers, he explains, need to give each other a wide berth in the field; their powerful lures tend toward mutual attraction.Non-working revolvers found by James Kane and Barbi Agostini atop an old safe.James Kane and Barbi AgostiniSocial media algorithms boosted the hobby, too. Reddit has a magnet fishing forum with nearly 220,000 members. On YouTube, channels such as Kane and Agostini’s Let’s Get Magnetic emphasize the thrills, editing out hours of dragging and dipping for the moment a precious or peculiar item is yanked out of dark water. But magnet fishers say that what has lasting appeal, and makes up the bulk of their time, is taking trash out of the environment. “It’s a good thing to do. You’re cleaning up the water. It’s an amazing feeling,” says Colt Busch, a magnet fisher in Maine, who recently discovered an antique Coca-Cola bottle, intact but empty, embedded in a clump of metal scraps.Magnet fishers don’t always get a warm reception. Walking near the lakeside after their latest catch, Kane and Agostini are approached by a member of a nonprofit group that partners with the city to help maintain the park. She tells them magnet fishing isn’t permitted here. She adds that she hasn’t called the police—at least, not this time.Neodymium’s Mighty PullNo one would be able to fish with neodymium magnets at all if it weren’t for metallurgist John Croat and engineer Masato Sagawa. In the early 1980s Croat, then at the General Motors Research Laboratories, and Sagawa, then at the Sumitomo Special Metals Corporation, were both searching for alternatives to cobalt and samarium magnets, which are powerful but expensive. Independently and almost simultaneously, Sagawa and Croat identified the same intermetallic compound, which is a substance with a fixed ratio of elements: in this case, two atoms of the rare earth element neodymium to 14 iron atoms to one boron atom. “That didn’t exist yet,” Croat says. “The discovery of that intermetallic compound is the invention.” You can’t trip over a rock with the chemical composition Nd2Fe14B. Such magnets must be created artificially, through sintering or bonding. In what Croat describes as a “shock,” each happened to announce their discovery at the same conference in Pittsburgh in November 1983. Then they changed the world.Neodymium magnets weren’t simply more affordable. They were strong enough to enable miniaturized computer hard drives and tinier, mightier electric motors. Wind turbine cores have neodymium magnets to efficiently turn kinetic energy into electricity. They are also key components of headphones and speakers, and they remain the most popular rare-earth magnets sold commercially. “I don’t think they will ever come up with a better magnet,” Croat says.Neodymium magnets, despite their name, are mostly iron. Such magnets contain regions “where all the electrons are lined up like soldiers on parade, all facing in the same direction,” says Andrea Sella, a professor of chemistry at University College London. In neodymium magnets and other permanent magnets—which don’t require electric currents or other external help to stay magnetic—multiple layers of these aligned electrons stack up. The result can be imagined as a pattern like three-dimensional wallpaper. Sella likens the structure to a series of unending nightmares. “Every time you move a certain distance, oh, my God, you’re back where you started,” he says. The neodymium, even in a relatively tiny amount, helps pin the iron atoms in place in this repetitive crystalline lattice.“Magnetism is really a reflection at a macroscopic scale of the quantum phenomenon called spin,” Sella says. This property is often described in terms of an atom’s nucleus or its particles spinning about an axis. But that’s a fairly crude mental picture, he says. The reality is that spin “represents something about the fundamental nature of the particle.”As a quantum phenomenon, magnetism might seem ethereal. But it can quickly become much less so when handling actual neodymium magnets: Agostini says she once found herself stuck to a subway seat, held fast by a magnet in her backpack. If two neodymium magnets get too close, they can slam together, crushing a wayward finger in a painful metallic sandwich. When two of them accidentally bump each other, Kane strains to separate them, like he’s breaking apart the world’s most frustrating KitKat bar.Stores like Demchak’s sell neodymium magnets according to their shape and pull force, measured in the thousands of pounds. A “360,” for instance, is a solid magnet housed in a metal cylinder. To comply with the regulations for shipping these objects by air, Demchak nests them in boxes of foam to buffer the magnetic fields. Shipping magnets in the U.S. by ground doesn’t have such restrictions, he says, although he now packs those parcels carefully, too. He learned his lesson after selling his first 360—which never made it to the customer. It probably got stuck somewhere in a mail processing plant, he says. Or maybe it’s still out there, clamped to the belly of a delivery truck.Deep Cleaning?Once the Bureau of Engraving and Printing sends them the funds from the mutilated cash, Agostini and Kane say they want to use the money toward a down payment to move out of New York City. Agostini would like to buy a place with enough space to raise chickens, dogs and goats. She loves animals, she says, and considers magnet fishing to be an extension of this because it helps clear pollution from their habitat.“If you really talk to magnet fishers, you can tell they have a sense of pride about it—they’re cleaning up the waterways,” Demchak says. For example, he notes that magnet fishers recently helped pull hundreds of electric scooters out of a river that runs through the campus at Michigan State University. Busch says he has caught more than 140 bicycles since he began magnet fishing. And there’s plenty more trash to collect. “As much as I clean up the water,” Busch says, “I feel like there’s three times as much junk left to pull up.”If there have been comprehensive scientific reports on the environmental impact of magnet fishing, they aren’t in any mainstream databases. Only a handful of studies even reference the hobby, such as a 2024 analysis in the journal Hydrobiologia of Hungarian magnet fishers’ social media posts that evaluated how much discarded fishing gear had been recovered since 2016. Photographs and videos posted online showed that magnet fishers pulled in more than 2,000 pieces of gear, including rods, reels, hooks and other items, from Hungary’s waterways.It’s helpful when magnet fishers remove sharp bits of metal, which can be physical hazards to swimmers and wildlife, points out Timothy Hoellein, an aquatic ecologist at Loyola University Chicago, who studies trash in freshwater environments. Electronic devices and batteries also contain heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury, plus other chemicals that are potentially toxic to “microorganisms, or invertebrates, or fish or people,” he says. Dull iron is not a particular danger to anything, though, he says; soils already contain natural iron and rust.Various objects found by magnet fishers including jewelry, coins and an old beer can.James Kane and Barbi AgostiniBut lake beds can host things worse than rust. Toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, can stick to charged particles in sediments. Fine silts and clays also retain pollutants such as microplastics and particles from nuclear fallout, as well as nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous, which can harm ecosystems if concentrations are too high. Releasing these trapped materials presents a possible downside to magnet fishing. “Any practice that could disturb the sediment at the bottom of a lake, especially an urban or periurban lake, has the potential to resuspend this sediment—and any associated pollutant—back into the water column,” says Phil Owens, an environmental sciences professor at the University of Northern British Columbia. Whether magnet fishing has a “net positive or net negative effect on lakes and ponds” could depend on the individual body of water, its surroundings and the intensity of magnet fishing activity. Hoellein hypothesizes that such disturbances are minor relative to magnet fishing’s potential benefits. “There could be some sediments with industrial chemicals or other pollutants that are released back into the water through magnet fishing, but I don’t know if it would be that different than a major storm coming through” and agitating a lake floor, he says.Plus, magnet fishing dredges up an additional perk: it gets people outdoors, where they can enjoy often-overlooked waterways. A few urban bodies of water are shunned for a good reason, though—the Environmental Protection Agency says New York City’s sludgy Gowanus Canal is one of the most contaminated water bodies in the U.S. (Kane would love to magnet fish there but says he hasn’t because the canal water is “very bad for your health if you get it in your facial area.”) But many other aquatic areas in cities are unfairly dismissed as too dangerous or unpleasant to be around, Hoellein says. Or they’re treated as junkyards. That’s a counterproductive attitude, he says, “especially in places where we also drink from that same water.” He welcomes anyone who wants to contribute, in their own style and with the time they have, to fixing the problem of environmental trash. “For some people, that’s magnet fishing,” Hoellein adds.Know before You ThrowAt the shore, the magnet fishers and the nonprofit staffer reach a détente; the discussion turns to a mutual appreciation for local history. Later, privately, Kane insists he has played by the book: he has a fishing license and a metal-detecting license, and this lake is in a public park.Magnet fishing is permitted in publicly accessible places in the U.S. But it might also be subject to local rules and regulations. Although magnet fishing is not specifically mentioned by the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation in its publicly listed regulations, “using magnets to retrieve sunken metal objects can have negative impacts on local wildlife and is against [Parks] rules in any bodies of water under Parks jurisdiction,” wrote a spokesperson for the department in an e-mail to Scientific American. The spokesperson added that the applicable rule is Section 1-04(b)(1)(iii), which prohibits disturbing vegetation.Demchak’s rule of thumb is that “if you could fish with a fishing pole, for the most part, you can magnet fish.” Certain historic sites, however, can be off-limits to magnet fishers. In fact, fearing the destruction of delicate submerged artifacts, South Carolina has outlawed magnet fishing under the state’s Underwater Antiquities Act. It’s the only U.S. state to have made the hobby illegal in public areas.If you ever decide to toss a magnet into a lake (where legal), Kane and Agostini offer a few pointers: Be up-to-date on your tetanus shots. Bring a first aid kit for scrapes and pokes and a large bucket for the garbage you will inevitably find. Dispose of that junk properly or sell it to a scrapyard. Wear thick, protective gloves and clothes you don’t mind getting muddy. And look out for the click—the haptic sensation that travels up a rope when a magnet has stuck to something hard and hollow, such as a safe. It’ll probably be trash, but then again, you won’t know until you pull it out of the water. “We still get excited,” Agostini says, “because it’s a mystery every time.”

With the help of a powerful rare-earth alloy, magnet fishers pull garbage out of polluted waterways

Magnet fisher James Kane cradles a shiny, four-pound magnetic disk: a stainless-steel shell housing an alloy of iron, neodymium and boron. He hucks it into a lake in a public park in New York City, then tugs it slowly toward shore with a sturdy synthetic rope. As the powerful magnet bump bump bumps along the bottom, it kicks up a line of bubbles—and then suddenly there’s a heavy drag, as if the lake bed has turned to taffy. The magnet is stuck to something. Filmed by his partner Barbi Agostini, Kane hoists their dripping catch: a thick iron rod called a sash weight, a counterbalance used to open heavy windows a century ago.

Over the next few hours on this October afternoon, Kane and Agostini also pull in a 20-year-old flip phone, a signpost, fishing hooks and lures, pliers, bottle caps, batteries and an iPhone 6. They give the smartphone to a girl who’s nearby with her friends, fishing for bluegills. “If it works, I’m going to be so happy!” she says. Then she sniffs the phone and wrinkles her nose. “It smells.”

To magnet fish is to plumb unseen depths for sunken treasure, but it also means getting acquainted with the stinky, the scummy and the bizarre. Agostini’s magnet once clanked onto the lid of a mason jar, inside which floated a dead tarantula in purple liquid. A particularly exciting catch can bring headlines—or the police. The American zeal for guns has sown firearms below the waterline, and magnet fishers harvest them with regularity. Agostini and Kane have found pistols, shotgun parts, Revolutionary War–era grapeshot and modern ammo clips. The two magnet fishers call the police whenever they find a gun, and they do so often enough that some officers recognize them. Last year Kane pulled an inert hand grenade out of New York City’s East River, summoning the police department’s bomb squad to a posh waterfront block in Queens. But the pair’s most notable catch—and probably the most famous thing ever found by U.S. magnet fishers, which Kane says has earned them a mention in an upcoming volume of Ripley’s Believe It or Not!—was a safe containing stacks of waterlogged cash, pulled from a river this past May.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The $100 bills were so degraded that Agostini and Kane don’t yet know precisely how much they found, but based on the stacks’ thickness, they estimate the total was $50,000 to $80,000. As soon as they could do so after the catch, they took a Megabus to Washington, D.C., to hand deliver the money to the Mutilated Currency Division at the federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. There it will be counted and eventually paid out to the pair, though processing might take a few years—Kane says they’re in line behind people who had bills blackened by last year’s deadly wildfires in Hawaii.

Agostini and Kane, both age 40, didn’t get into this pastime expecting to get rich; mostly they wanted something to do outside during the COVID pandemic. Magnet fishing, alongside baking sourdough bread and solving jigsaw puzzles, took off in the early months of 2020. “Magnet fishing was so COVID-friendly. You were forced to distance yourself” even if you bumped into a fellow hobbyist outdoors, says Pittsburgh-based archeologist Ben Demchak, who sells specialized magnets through his company, Kratos Magnetics. Magnet fishers, he explains, need to give each other a wide berth in the field; their powerful lures tend toward mutual attraction.

Rusted, non-working revolvers found while magnet fishing, sitting on top of a safe

Non-working revolvers found by James Kane and Barbi Agostini atop an old safe.

James Kane and Barbi Agostini

Social media algorithms boosted the hobby, too. Reddit has a magnet fishing forum with nearly 220,000 members. On YouTube, channels such as Kane and Agostini’s Let’s Get Magnetic emphasize the thrills, editing out hours of dragging and dipping for the moment a precious or peculiar item is yanked out of dark water. But magnet fishers say that what has lasting appeal, and makes up the bulk of their time, is taking trash out of the environment. “It’s a good thing to do. You’re cleaning up the water. It’s an amazing feeling,” says Colt Busch, a magnet fisher in Maine, who recently discovered an antique Coca-Cola bottle, intact but empty, embedded in a clump of metal scraps.

Magnet fishers don’t always get a warm reception. Walking near the lakeside after their latest catch, Kane and Agostini are approached by a member of a nonprofit group that partners with the city to help maintain the park. She tells them magnet fishing isn’t permitted here. She adds that she hasn’t called the police—at least, not this time.

Neodymium’s Mighty Pull

No one would be able to fish with neodymium magnets at all if it weren’t for metallurgist John Croat and engineer Masato Sagawa. In the early 1980s Croat, then at the General Motors Research Laboratories, and Sagawa, then at the Sumitomo Special Metals Corporation, were both searching for alternatives to cobalt and samarium magnets, which are powerful but expensive. Independently and almost simultaneously, Sagawa and Croat identified the same intermetallic compound, which is a substance with a fixed ratio of elements: in this case, two atoms of the rare earth element neodymium to 14 iron atoms to one boron atom. “That didn’t exist yet,” Croat says. “The discovery of that intermetallic compound is the invention.” You can’t trip over a rock with the chemical composition Nd2Fe14B. Such magnets must be created artificially, through sintering or bonding. In what Croat describes as a “shock,” each happened to announce their discovery at the same conference in Pittsburgh in November 1983. Then they changed the world.

Neodymium magnets weren’t simply more affordable. They were strong enough to enable miniaturized computer hard drives and tinier, mightier electric motors. Wind turbine cores have neodymium magnets to efficiently turn kinetic energy into electricity. They are also key components of headphones and speakers, and they remain the most popular rare-earth magnets sold commercially. “I don’t think they will ever come up with a better magnet,” Croat says.

Neodymium magnets, despite their name, are mostly iron. Such magnets contain regions “where all the electrons are lined up like soldiers on parade, all facing in the same direction,” says Andrea Sella, a professor of chemistry at University College London. In neodymium magnets and other permanent magnets—which don’t require electric currents or other external help to stay magnetic—multiple layers of these aligned electrons stack up. The result can be imagined as a pattern like three-dimensional wallpaper. Sella likens the structure to a series of unending nightmares. “Every time you move a certain distance, oh, my God, you’re back where you started,” he says. The neodymium, even in a relatively tiny amount, helps pin the iron atoms in place in this repetitive crystalline lattice.

“Magnetism is really a reflection at a macroscopic scale of the quantum phenomenon called spin,” Sella says. This property is often described in terms of an atom’s nucleus or its particles spinning about an axis. But that’s a fairly crude mental picture, he says. The reality is that spin “represents something about the fundamental nature of the particle.”

As a quantum phenomenon, magnetism might seem ethereal. But it can quickly become much less so when handling actual neodymium magnets: Agostini says she once found herself stuck to a subway seat, held fast by a magnet in her backpack. If two neodymium magnets get too close, they can slam together, crushing a wayward finger in a painful metallic sandwich. When two of them accidentally bump each other, Kane strains to separate them, like he’s breaking apart the world’s most frustrating KitKat bar.

Stores like Demchak’s sell neodymium magnets according to their shape and pull force, measured in the thousands of pounds. A “360,” for instance, is a solid magnet housed in a metal cylinder. To comply with the regulations for shipping these objects by air, Demchak nests them in boxes of foam to buffer the magnetic fields. Shipping magnets in the U.S. by ground doesn’t have such restrictions, he says, although he now packs those parcels carefully, too. He learned his lesson after selling his first 360—which never made it to the customer. It probably got stuck somewhere in a mail processing plant, he says. Or maybe it’s still out there, clamped to the belly of a delivery truck.

Deep Cleaning?

Once the Bureau of Engraving and Printing sends them the funds from the mutilated cash, Agostini and Kane say they want to use the money toward a down payment to move out of New York City. Agostini would like to buy a place with enough space to raise chickens, dogs and goats. She loves animals, she says, and considers magnet fishing to be an extension of this because it helps clear pollution from their habitat.

“If you really talk to magnet fishers, you can tell they have a sense of pride about it—they’re cleaning up the waterways,” Demchak says. For example, he notes that magnet fishers recently helped pull hundreds of electric scooters out of a river that runs through the campus at Michigan State University. Busch says he has caught more than 140 bicycles since he began magnet fishing. And there’s plenty more trash to collect. “As much as I clean up the water,” Busch says, “I feel like there’s three times as much junk left to pull up.”

If there have been comprehensive scientific reports on the environmental impact of magnet fishing, they aren’t in any mainstream databases. Only a handful of studies even reference the hobby, such as a 2024 analysis in the journal Hydrobiologia of Hungarian magnet fishers’ social media posts that evaluated how much discarded fishing gear had been recovered since 2016. Photographs and videos posted online showed that magnet fishers pulled in more than 2,000 pieces of gear, including rods, reels, hooks and other items, from Hungary’s waterways.

It’s helpful when magnet fishers remove sharp bits of metal, which can be physical hazards to swimmers and wildlife, points out Timothy Hoellein, an aquatic ecologist at Loyola University Chicago, who studies trash in freshwater environments. Electronic devices and batteries also contain heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury, plus other chemicals that are potentially toxic to “microorganisms, or invertebrates, or fish or people,” he says. Dull iron is not a particular danger to anything, though, he says; soils already contain natural iron and rust.

Various objects found by magnet fishers including jewelry, lighters, and a beer can

Various objects found by magnet fishers including jewelry, coins and an old beer can.

James Kane and Barbi Agostini

But lake beds can host things worse than rust. Toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, can stick to charged particles in sediments. Fine silts and clays also retain pollutants such as microplastics and particles from nuclear fallout, as well as nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous, which can harm ecosystems if concentrations are too high. Releasing these trapped materials presents a possible downside to magnet fishing. “Any practice that could disturb the sediment at the bottom of a lake, especially an urban or periurban lake, has the potential to resuspend this sediment—and any associated pollutant—back into the water column,” says Phil Owens, an environmental sciences professor at the University of Northern British Columbia. Whether magnet fishing has a “net positive or net negative effect on lakes and ponds” could depend on the individual body of water, its surroundings and the intensity of magnet fishing activity. 

Hoellein hypothesizes that such disturbances are minor relative to magnet fishing’s potential benefits. “There could be some sediments with industrial chemicals or other pollutants that are released back into the water through magnet fishing, but I don’t know if it would be that different than a major storm coming through” and agitating a lake floor, he says.

Plus, magnet fishing dredges up an additional perk: it gets people outdoors, where they can enjoy often-overlooked waterways. A few urban bodies of water are shunned for a good reason, though—the Environmental Protection Agency says New York City’s sludgy Gowanus Canal is one of the most contaminated water bodies in the U.S. (Kane would love to magnet fish there but says he hasn’t because the canal water is “very bad for your health if you get it in your facial area.”) But many other aquatic areas in cities are unfairly dismissed as too dangerous or unpleasant to be around, Hoellein says. Or they’re treated as junkyards. That’s a counterproductive attitude, he says, “especially in places where we also drink from that same water.” He welcomes anyone who wants to contribute, in their own style and with the time they have, to fixing the problem of environmental trash. “For some people, that’s magnet fishing,” Hoellein adds.

Know before You Throw

At the shore, the magnet fishers and the nonprofit staffer reach a détente; the discussion turns to a mutual appreciation for local history. Later, privately, Kane insists he has played by the book: he has a fishing license and a metal-detecting license, and this lake is in a public park.

Magnet fishing is permitted in publicly accessible places in the U.S. But it might also be subject to local rules and regulations. Although magnet fishing is not specifically mentioned by the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation in its publicly listed regulations, “using magnets to retrieve sunken metal objects can have negative impacts on local wildlife and is against [Parks] rules in any bodies of water under Parks jurisdiction,” wrote a spokesperson for the department in an e-mail to Scientific American. The spokesperson added that the applicable rule is Section 1-04(b)(1)(iii), which prohibits disturbing vegetation.

Demchak’s rule of thumb is that “if you could fish with a fishing pole, for the most part, you can magnet fish.” Certain historic sites, however, can be off-limits to magnet fishers. In fact, fearing the destruction of delicate submerged artifacts, South Carolina has outlawed magnet fishing under the state’s Underwater Antiquities Act. It’s the only U.S. state to have made the hobby illegal in public areas.

If you ever decide to toss a magnet into a lake (where legal), Kane and Agostini offer a few pointers: Be up-to-date on your tetanus shots. Bring a first aid kit for scrapes and pokes and a large bucket for the garbage you will inevitably find. Dispose of that junk properly or sell it to a scrapyard. Wear thick, protective gloves and clothes you don’t mind getting muddy. And look out for the click—the haptic sensation that travels up a rope when a magnet has stuck to something hard and hollow, such as a safe. It’ll probably be trash, but then again, you won’t know until you pull it out of the water. “We still get excited,” Agostini says, “because it’s a mystery every time.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

California cities pay a lot for water; some agricultural districts get it for free

Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.

In summary Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada. California cities pay far more for water on average than districts that supply farms — with some urban water agencies shelling out more than $2,500 per acre-foot of surface water, and some irrigation districts paying nothing, according to new research.  A report published today by researchers with the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and advocates with the Natural Resources Defense Council shines a light on vast disparities in the price of water across California, Arizona and Nevada.  The true price of water is often hidden from consumers. A household bill may reflect suppliers’ costs to build conduits and pump water from reservoirs and rivers to farms and cities. A local district may obtain water from multiple sources at different costs. Even experts have trouble deciphering how much water suppliers pay for the water itself. The research team spent a year scouring state and federal contracts, financial reports and agency records to assemble a dataset of water purchases, transfers and contracts to acquire water from rivers and reservoirs. They compared vastly different water suppliers with different needs and geographies, purchasing water from delivery systems built at different times and paid for under different contracts. Their overarching conclusion: One of the West’s most valuable resources has no consistent valuation – and sometimes costs nothing at all.  Cities pay the highest prices for water. Look up what cities or irrigation districts in California, Nevada and Arizona pay for surface water in our interactive database at calmatters.org “It costs money to move water around,” the report says, “but there is no cost, and no price signal, for the actual water.” That’s a problem, the authors argue, as California and six other states in the Colorado River basin hash out how to distribute the river’s dwindling flows — pressed by federal ultimatums, and dire conditions in the river’s two major reservoirs. The study sounds the alarm that the price of water doesn’t reflect its growing scarcity and disincentivizes conservation. “We’re dealing with a river system and water supply source that is in absolute crisis and is facing massive shortfalls … and yet we’re still treating this as if it’s an abundant, limitless resource that should be free,” said Noah Garrison, environmental science practicum director at UCLA and lead author on the study.  Jeffrey Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, applauded the research effort. Though he had not yet reviewed the report, he said complications abound, built into California’s water infrastructure itself and amplified by climate change. Moving, storing and treating water can drive up costs, and are only sometimes captured in the price.  “We’ve got to be careful about pointing our fingers and saying farmers are getting a free ride,” Mount said. Still, he agreed that water is undervalued: “We do not pay the full costs of water — the full social, full economic and the full environmental costs of water.”  Coastal cities pay the most The research team investigated how much suppliers above a certain purchase threshold spend on water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.  They found that California water suppliers pay more than double on average than what Nevada districts pay for water, and seven times more than suppliers in Arizona.  The highest costs span the coast between San Francisco and San Diego, which the researchers attributed to the cost of delivery to these regions and water transfers that drive up the price every time water changes hands.  “In some of those cases it’s almost a geographic penalty for California, that there are larger conveyance or transport and infrastructure needs, depending on where the districts are located,” Garrison said.  Agricultural water districts pay the least In California, according to the authors, cities pay on average 20 times more than water suppliers for farms — about $722 per acre foot, compared to $36.  One acre foot can supply roughly 11 Californians for a year, according to the state’s Department of Water Resources.  Five major agricultural suppliers paid nothing to the federal government for nearly 4 million acre-feet of water, including three in California that receive Colorado River water: the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Palo Verde Irrigation District.  Tina Anderholt Shields, water manager for the Imperial Irrigation District, which receives the single largest share of Colorado River water, said the district’s contract with the U.S. government does not require any payment for the water.  Cities, by contrast, received less than 40,000 acre-feet of water for $0. The report notes, however, that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a major urban water importer, spends only 25 cents an acre-foot for around 850,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River.  Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River resources at Metropolitan, said that the true cost of this water isn’t reflected in the 25-cent fee, because the expense comes from moving it. By the time the Colorado River water gets to the district, he said it costs several hundred dollars. Plus, he added, the district pays for hydropower, which helps cover the costs of the dams storing the water supply. “That enables us to only pay 25 cents an acre foot to the feds on the water side, because we’re paying Hoover Dam costs on the power side.” Federal supplies are the cheapest; transfers drive up costs Much of the difference among water prices across three states comes down to source: those whose supplies come from federally managed rivers, reservoirs, aqueducts and pumps pay far less on average than those receiving water from state managed distribution systems or via water transfers.  Garrison and his team proposed adding a $50 surcharge per acre-foot of cheap federal supplies to help shore up the infrastructure against leaks and losses or pay for large-scale conservation efforts without tapping into taxpayer dollars.  But growers say that would devastate farming in California.  “It’s important to note that the ‘value’ of water is priceless,” said Allison Febbo, General Manager of Westlands Water District, which supplies San Joaquin Valley farms. The report calculates that the district pays less than $40 per acre foot for water from the federal Central Valley Project, though the Westlands rate structure notes another $14 fee to a restoration fund. “The consequences of unaffordable water can be seen throughout our District: fallowed fields, unemployment, decline in food production…” The Imperial Irrigation District’s Shields said that a surcharge would be inconsistent with their contract, difficult to implement, and unworkable for growers.  “It’s not like farmers can just pass it on to their buyers and then have that roll down to the consumer level where it might be ‘manageable,’” Shields said. The most expensive water in California is more than $2,800 an acre-foot The most expensive water in California, Arizona or Nevada flows from the rivers of Northern California, down California’s state-managed system of aqueducts and pumps, to the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency in Riverside County. Total cost, according to the report: $2,870.21 per acre foot.  Lance Eckhart, the agency’s general manager, said he hadn’t spoken to the study’s authors but that the number sounded plausible. The price tag would make sense, he said, if it included contributing to the costs for building and maintaining the 705-mile long water delivery system, as well as for the electricity needed to pump water over mountains.  Eckhart compared the water conveyance to a railroad, and his water agency to a distant, distant stop. “We’re at the end, so we have the most railroad track to pay for, and also the most energy costs to get it down here,” he said.  Because it took decades for construction of the water delivery system to reach San Gorgonio Pass, the water agency built some of those costs into local property taxes before the water even arrived, rather than into the water bills for the cities and towns they supply. As a result, its mostly municipal customers pay only $399 per acre foot, Eckhart said.  “You can’t build it into rates if you’re not going to see your first gallon for 40 years,” Ekhart said.  The study didn’t interrogate how the wholesale price of imported water translates to residential bills. Water managers point out that cheap supplies like groundwater can help dilute the costs of pricey imported water.  The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, for instance, purchases water imported from the Colorado River and Northern California to fill gaps left by local groundwater stores, supplies from the Owens Valley, and other locally managed sources, said Marty Adams, the utility’s former general manager. (The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was unable to provide an interview.) Because the amount of water needed can vary from year to year, it’s added as an additional charge on top of the base rate, Adams said. “If you have to pay for purchased water somewhere, when you add all the numbers up, it comes out in that total,” he said.  “The purchased water becomes the wildcard all the time.”

Scientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the Water

Parkinson’s disease has environmental toxic factors, not just genetic.

Skip to main contentScientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the WaterNew ideas about chronic illness could revolutionize treatment, if we take the research seriously.Photograph: Rachel JessenThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers.Start your free trial to access The Big Story and all premium newsletters.—cancel anytime.START FREE TRIALAlready a subscriber? Sign InThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers. START FREE TRIALword word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word wordmmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1

Drinking water contaminated with Pfas probably increases risk of infant mortality, study finds

Study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire shows residents’ reproductive outcomes near contaminated sitesDrinking water contaminated with Pfas chemicals probably increases the risk of infant mortality and other harm to newborns, a new peer-reviewed study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire finds.The first-of-its-kind University of Arizona research found drinking well water down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%, pre-term birth of 20%, and low-weight birth of 43%. Continue reading...

Drinking water contaminated with Pfas chemicals probably increases the risk of infant mortality and other harm to newborns, a new peer-reviewed study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire finds.The first-of-its-kind University of Arizona research found drinking well water down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%, pre-term birth of 20%, and low-weight birth of 43%.It was also tied to an increase in extremely premature birth and extremely low-weight birth by 168% and 180%, respectively.The findings caught authors by surprise, said Derek Lemoine, a study co-author and economics professor at the University of Arizona who focuses on environmental policymaking and pricing climate risks.“I don’t know if we expected to find effects this big and this detectable, especially given that there isn’t that much infant mortality, and there aren’t that many extremely low weight or pre-term births,” Lemoine said. “But it was there in the data.”The study also weighed the cost of societal harms in drinking contaminated water against up-front cleanup costs, and found it to be much cheaper to address Pfas water pollution.Extrapolating the findings to the entire US population, the authors estimate a nearly $8bn negative annual economic impact just in increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. The cost of complying with current regulations for removing Pfas in drinking water is estimated at about $3.8bn.“We are trying to put numbers on this and that’s important because when you want to clean up and regulate Pfas, there’s a real cost to it,” Lemoine said.Pfas are a class of at least 16,000 compounds often used to help products resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate in the environment, and they are linked to serious health problems such as cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders and birth defects.Pfas are widely used across the economy, and industrial sites that utilize them in high volume often pollute groundwater. Military bases and airports are among major sources of Pfas pollution because the chemicals are used in firefighting foam. The federal government estimated that about 95 million people across the country drink contaminated water from public or private wells.Previous research has raised concern about the impact of Pfas exposure on fetuses and newborns.Among those are toxicological studies in which researchers examine the chemicals’ impact on lab animals, but that leaves some question about whether humans experience the same harms, Lemoine said.Other studies are correlative and look at the levels of Pfas in umbilical cord blood or in newborns in relation to levels of disease. Lemoine said those findings are not always conclusive, in part because many variables can contribute to reproductive harm.The new natural study is unique because it gets close to “isolating the effect of the Pfas itself, and not anything around it”, Lemoine said.Researchers achieved this by identifying 41 New Hampshire sites contaminated with Pfoa and Pfos, two common Pfas compounds, then using topography data to determine groundwater flow direction. The authors then examined reproductive outcomes among residents down gradient from the sites.Researchers chose New Hampshire because it is the only state where Pfas and reproductive data is available, Lemoine said. Well locations are confidential, so mothers were unaware of whether their water source was down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site. That created a randomization that allows for causal inference, the authors noted.The study’s methodology is rigorous and unique, and underscores “that Pfas is no joke, and is toxic at very low concentrations”, said Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst with the Environmental Working Group non-profit. The group studies Pfas exposures and advocates for tighter regulations.The study is in part effective because mothers did not know whether they were exposed, which created the randomization, Evans said, but she noted that the state has the information. The findings raise questions about whether the state should be doing a similar analysis and alerting mothers who are at risk, Evans said.Lemoine said the study had some limitations, including that authors don’t know the mothers’ exact exposure levels to Pfas, nor does the research account for other contaminants that may be in the water. But he added that the findings still give a strong picture of the chemicals’ effects.Granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis systems can be used by water treatment plants and consumers at home to remove many kinds of Pfas, and those systems also remove other contaminants.The Biden administration last year put in place limits in drinking water for six types of Pfas, and gave water utilities several years to install systems.The Trump administration is moving to undo the limits for some compounds. That would probably cost the public more in the long run. Utility customers pay the cost of removing Pfas, but the public “also pays the cost of drinking contaminated water, which is bigger”, Lemoine said.

Meet the weird, wonderful creatures that live in Australia’s desert water holes. They might not be there much longer

From water fleas to seed shrimp, Australia’s desert rock holes shelter unique animals found nowhere else. But as the climate warms, their homes are at risk.

The Conversation , CC BY-NDYou might think of Australia’s arid centre as a dry desert landscape devoid of aquatic life. But it’s actually dotted with thousands of rock holes – natural rainwater reservoirs that act as little oases for tiny freshwater animals and plants when they hold water. They aren’t teeming with fish, but are home to all sorts of weird and wonderful invertebrates, important to both First Nations peoples and desert animals. Predatory damselflies patrol the water in search of prey, while alien-like water fleas and seed shrimp float about feeding on algae. Often overlooked in favour of more photogenic creatures, invertebrates make up more than 97% of all animal species, and are immensely important to the environment. Our new research reveals 60 unique species live in Australia’s arid rock holes. We will need more knowledge to protect them in a warming climate. Arid land rock holes play host to a surprisingly diverse range of invertebrates. Author provided, CC BY-ND Overlooked, but extraordinary Invertebrates are animals without backbones. They include many different and beautiful organisms, such as butterflies, beetles, worms and spiders (though perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder!). These creatures provide many benefits to Australian ecosystems (and people): pollinating plants, recycling nutrients in the soil, and acting as a food source for other animals. Yet despite their significance, invertebrates are usually forgotten in public discussions about climate change. Freshwater invertebrates in arid Australia are rarely the focus of research, let alone media coverage. This is due to a combination of taxonomic bias, where better-known “charismatic” species are over-represented in scientific studies, and the commonly held misconception that dry deserts are less affected by climate change. Invertebrates in desert oases include insects and crustaceans, often smaller than 5 cm in length. Invertebrates in this picture include three seed shrimp, one pea shrimp, a water flea, a water boatman and a non-biting midge larvae. Author provided, CC BY-ND Oases of life Arid rock-holes are small depressions that have been eroded into rock over time. They completely dry out during certain times of year, making them difficult environments to live in. But when rain fills them up, many animals rely on them for water. When it is hot, water presence is brief, sometimes for only a few days. But during cooler months, they can remain wet for a few months. Eggs that have been lying dormant in the sediments hatch. Other invertebrates (particularly those with wings) seek them out, sometimes across very long distances. In the past, this variability has made ecological research extremely difficult. Our new research explored the biodiversity in seven freshwater rock holes in South Australia’s Gawler Ranges. For the first time, we used environmental DNA techniques on water samples from these pools. Similar to forensic DNA, environmental DNA refers to the traces of DNA left behind by animals in the environment. By sweeping an area for eDNA, we minimise disturbance to species, avoid having to collect the animals themselves, and get a clear snapshot of what is – or was – in an ecosystem. We assume that the capture window for eDNA goes back roughly two weeks. These samples showed that not only were these isolated rock holes full of invertebrate life, but each individual rock hole had a unique combination of animals in it. These include tiny animals such as seed shrimp, water fleas, water boatman and midge larvae. Due to how dry the surrounding landscape is, these oases are often the only habitats where creatures like these can be seen. Culturally significant These arid rock holes are of great cultural significance to several Australian First Nations groups, including the Barngarla, Kokatha and Wirangu peoples. These are the three people and language groups in the Gawler Ranges Aboriginal Corporation, who hold native title in the region and actively manage the rock holes using traditional practices. As reliable sources of freshwater in otherwise very dry landscapes, these locations provided valuable drinking water and resting places to many cultural groups. Some of the managed rock holes hold up to 500 litres of water, but elsewhere they are even deeper. Diverse practices were traditionally developed to actively manage rock holes and reliably locate them. Some of these practices — such as regular cleaning and limiting access by animals — are still maintained today. Freshwater granite rock-holes are still managed using traditional practices in the Gawler Ranges region. Author provided, CC BY-ND Threatened by climate change Last year, Earth reached 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels for the first time. Australia has seen the dramatic consequences of global climate change firsthand: increasingly deadly, costly and devastating bushfires, heatwaves, droughts and floods. Climate change means less frequent and more unpredictable rainfall for Australia. There has been considerable discussion of what this means for Australia’s rivers, lakes and people. But smaller water sources, including rock holes in Australia’s deserts, don’t get much attention. Australia is already seeing a shift: winter rainfall is becoming less reliable, and summer storms are more unpredictable. Water dries out quickly in the summer heat, so wildlife adapted to using rock holes will increasingly have to go without. Storm clouds roll in over the South Australian desert. Author provided, CC BY-ND Drying out? Climate change threatens the precious diversity supported by rock holes. Less rainfall and higher temperatures in southern and central Australia mean we expect they will fill less, dry more quickly, and might be empty during months when they were historically full. This compounds the ongoing environmental change throughout arid Australia. Compared with iconic invasive species such as feral horses in Kosciuszko National Park, invasive species in arid Australia are overlooked. These include feral goats, camels and agricultural animal species that affect water quality. Foreign plants can invade freshwater systems. Deeper understanding Many gaps in our knowledge remain, despite the clear need to protect these unique invertebrates as their homes get drier. Without a deeper understanding of rock-hole biodiversity, governments and land managers are left without the right information to prevent further species loss. Studies like this one are an important first step because they establish a baseline on freshwater biodiversity in desert rock holes. With a greater understanding of the unique animals that live in these remote habitats, we will be better equipped to conserve them. The freshwater damselfly visit granite rock-holes after rain and lay their eggs directly into the water. Author provided, CC BY-ND Brock A. Hedges received funding from Nature Foundation, The Ecological Society of Australia and the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment. Brock A. Hedges currently receives funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.James B. Dorey receives funding from the University of Wollongong. Perry G. Beasley-Hall receives funding from the Australian Biological Resources Study.

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.