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 the Arrival of an Endangered Bird Indicates What’s Possible for the L.A. River

News Feed
Tuesday, November 19, 2024

Along a gentle bend of the Los Angeles River, in a stretch of land called Taylor Yard, a sound like a high-pitched record scratch can just be heard above the cacophony of city life. This is the call of the least Bell’s vireo, an olive-gray songbird that is only five inches from tip to tail. The riparian species native to Southern California has lived an endangered existence for more than 40 years. Now, the small bird’s return here symbolizes a new future for one of the country’s most maligned waterways. Before the concrete tide of urbanization washed over the Los Angeles River Basin, the river-fed wetland that was here represented the perfect habitat for this rare species. But for the past century, this area was one of the largest rail yards in the region, and as an expanding city grew right up to the river’s now concrete-laden banks, the vireo all but disappeared. Until, suddenly, it returned. The 2007 creation of Rio de Los Angeles State Park, which is itself part of the sprawling rail yard, set the stage. In the early 2010s someone reported hearing the vireo’s memorable call. A few years later, a photo captured a vireo mid-song, and in 2022 a nesting pair took refuge in a tree. This year, the news was even better. “We actually saw fledglings,” says Evelyn Serrano, the director of the Audubon Center at Debs Park in Los Angeles. “We saw the nest and we saw the babies, so we were very excited. It’s tough to survive in an urban environment when you’re a little bird like that, but it’s definitely possible.” A least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) sings at Taylor Yard on March 22. California placed this songbird on its endangered species list in 1980, but this rare vireo has recently returned to central L.A. thanks to habitat restoration and the return of the natural riparian ecosystem along a section of the Los Angeles River. Alecia Smith / Audubon California Serrano is part of the local Audubon Center’s long, ongoing effort to rewild Taylor Yard, especially within the existing state park. Over the years the center has planted 1,000 endemic plants including 200 native trees as well as mule fat and mugwort for nest protection, and black sage and golden currant for food sources. But the nearby river—one of the few naturalized, soft-bottom sections of what is otherwise a concrete channel—is what really allows the vireo to thrive. “[The vireo] needs to be near water, and that specific part of the river that’s soft-bodied has more water than other parts,” Serrano says. “This bird also lives in a very specific elevation, and it just so happens that all of those things … are all in one place.” The return of the least Bell’s vireo shows what’s possible along a more natural Los Angeles River, and Taylor Yard represents the city’s largest opportunity to create vital habitat for many of its vulnerable endemic species. For years, a partnership of government groups and nonprofits has pushed to make the remaining 100 acres of the abandoned rail yard the “crown jewel” of L.A.’s river restoration project. The resulting collective, known as the 100 Acre Partnership, hopes to complete the restoration by 2028, which is just in time for the L.A. Olympic Games. The project is just the latest effort to create a new vision of Los Angeles that’s been in the works for nearly a century. What was lost Long before its starring role as an entertainment mecca, the basin that makes up Los Angeles was known for its river. Fifty-one miles of free-flowing waters formed the beating heart of an 871-square-mile watershed transporting rainwater and snowpack from the nearby Santa Monica, Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains. Fed by various washes and tributaries, the river formed rich wetlands throughout the San Fernando Valley in the north all the way to the lower delta. At most times a trickle and at others a flood, the L.A. River meandered all over the region, either emptying into San Pedro Bay or even veering west toward Santa Monica Bay. Because of the river and the region’s separation from the rest of California by mountains to the north, this alluvial floodplain became one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, filled with stunning amounts of endemic flora and fauna. Eventually, a native tribe known as the Tongva—also called Gabrieleño or Kizh—settled throughout the river basin, which included around 5,000 people spread across some 100 villages. They built their largest village, named Yaanga, in hills along the river near where Los Angeles City Hall stands today. Although many picture L.A. with its vast sandy beaches to the west, the old Pueblo de Los Angeles actually formed further inland, as the river provided the necessary water for the entire settlement. This is why Candice Dickens-Russell, the CEO of the nonprofit Friends of the L.A. River, describes the river as the city’s “origin story.” “We’re one of the only ‘coastal’ cities that’s not on a coast,” Dickens-Russell says. “We’re an inland downtown because of the river.” For centuries, the river provided the water needed to grow crops, irrigate orchards and sustain a growing population. However, ignoring the Tongva practice of building slightly uphill from the river in recognition of its meandering course, the expanding city built up right along its banks. And as that city grew, its tolerance for the river’s floods diminished. After a devastating flood in 1914, calls for flood control efforts grew louder, and the city formed the Los Angeles County Flood Control District a year later. In the following decades, the city began channelization and levee efforts and even built a few dams, but nothing substantial enough to fully prevent floods. Then, the river met its first major crossroads. In 1930, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., the son of the famous Central Park landscape architect, devised a sprawling plan to build parks and public spaces along the river with green flood prevention measures, saying at the time that “continued prosperity in Los Angeles will depend on providing needed parks.” The timing of the proposal couldn't have been worse. While L.A. already had a long history of privileging private real estate over public spaces, the stock market crash only months earlier soured any remaining appetite for Olmsted’s vision. After two more destructive floods in 1934 and 1938, the Army Corps of Engineers slowly began encasing the L.A. River in concrete—one mile at a time—until its completion in 1960. Located in South Gate, Lynwood and Downey at the confluence of the Los Angeles River and the Rio Hondo tributary (right), this area is one concrete-laden section of the river where Frank Gehry Partners has proposed building a platform park. Darren Orf “Olmsted’s vision is what L.A. could have been,” says Ben Harris, a senior staff attorney at Los Angeles Waterkeeper, an environmental watchdog for the region’s coastal and inland waters. “It was bad circumstances, but the right vision.” The right vision As the river receded from the landscape, it also faded from the minds of many Angelenos who lived within its basin. Dickens-Russell, who grew up in Cerritos just east of the river, says she was totally unaware of its existence when she was younger. “[The river] was not in my consciousness at all,” Dickens-Russell says. “It wasn’t until I went away for college, came home and started working in the environmental world in L.A. that I started to hear about the river and Friends of the L.A. River.” The first major nonprofit group to start restoration along the river’s 51 miles, Friends of the L.A. River wouldn’t have been possible without the trailblazing work of Lewis MacAdams. A journalist, political activist and poet, MacAdams founded the nonprofit in 1986 as an act of civil disobedience. He envisioned a city with a restored river where animals and Angelenos could seek refuge, so that year he cut through a wire fence separating the river from the city and declared the channel a public space. In his poetry, he describes his organization’s role as the river’s emissary. … we address ourselves to the river. / We ask if we can / speak on its behalf / in the human realm. / We can’t hear the river saying no / so we get to work. And for 40 years, MacAdams was the river’s relentless advocate. In the mid-1990s, when the Army Corps of Engineers began scraping vegetation away from the soft-bottomed section of the river, MacAdams placed himself in front of the bulldozers. Meanwhile, he tirelessly fought for the waterway to be recognized as a natural river. “He’d show up at meetings with the Army Corps and the Department of Public Works,” says Jon Christensen, an environmental journalist and historian with the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at the University of California, Los Angeles, “and they’d talk about the ‘flood control channel’ and he’d just say ‘river.’” In keeping with this activist spirit, kayakers in 2008 proved that the L.A. River was a navigable waterway by traversing its entire 51 miles. Two years later, the Environmental Protection Agency agreed and granted the river certain protections under the U.S. Clean Water Act, which strengthened the ability of local, state and federal agencies to fight against pollution and other forms of environmental degradation. Though just one element of a bigger plan, Harris points out, Taylor Yard is a really good opportunity to examine the challenges of restoring the river—for both animals and the estimated one million people that live along the waterway’s path Transforming Taylor Yard In 1911, Southern Pacific Railroad bought land owned by Taylor Milling Company and adopted the name for its eventual 243-acre rail yard. After the rail yard shut down in the mid-1980s, parts of it were parceled off, with the least toxic areas being sold first. Some parcels became schools, apartments and even Rio de Los Angeles State Park itself. Then in 2017, after four years of negotiations, the City of L.A. purchased a long sought-after parcel from Union Pacific, a 42-acre stretch of land sandwiched between the current park and the river. Today, the 100 Acre Partnership, a joint effort by the City of L.A., Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, is overseeing the creation of the Paseo del Rio, the name of the planned park that encompasses that parcel and one bow-tie-shaped parcel that connects to the north. The final design, approved in 2023, contains walking paths along the river, a community pavilion, a sloped meadow incorporating the rail yard’s old turntable and a wetland habitat fed by stormwater from the surrounding community. Along the northern section of the planned park, the Nature Conservancy is developing an area that will showcase how stormwater can be cleaned using natural systems. Crucially, the Paseo del Rio at Taylor Yard also reconnects the surrounding community with the L.A. River and provides even more vital habitat for riparian birds like the vireo, but also osprey, and many other native species including side-blotched lizards, pacific chorus frogs, big brown bats and arroyo chub fish. The one thing that stands between the present and this bright, green future is the land’s industrial past. After decades spent as a rail yard, part of the land is simply too toxic for biking, running and lounging. Lead and petroleum hydrocarbons at the site lie in shallow soil, meaning they’re easier to remove. But volatile organic compounds sink lower into the ground, and this creates complicated layers of pollution, which makes cleanup difficult and expensive. Brian Baldauf, chief of watershed planning for the MRCA, says the partnership is still working with the U.S. Department of Toxic Substances Control to get a cleaning plan approved. “This was the active working heart of the rail yard,” Baldauf says. “When the city purchased it, one of the requirements of Union Pacific was that the city would be responsible for cleaning it up.” He adds that the 100 Acre Partnership and the Department of Toxic Substances Control need to come up with a strategy for creating a safe site that can have new habitat over it. Once that strategy is in place, things can move quickly, according to Baldauf. If all goes according to plan, Taylor Yard will be a moving display for what the L.A. River could be—and just in time for the 2028 Games. “The Olympics in Los Angeles is an important consideration for a lot of public work,” Baldauf says. “The city is going to be a showcase, and we want to have this project ready.” A divided future Today the L.A. River forms in Canoga Park in the San Fernando Valley and cuts around the eastern side of Griffith Park, before heading south through the soft-bottomed Glendale Narrows. Eventually, it makes its way through the Gateway Cities region before reaching Long Beach. In its course, the river passes through 17 cities, each with its own history and relationship to the river. While environmental groups argue for a more natural river—one that can play host to humans and habitats alike—the river’s engineered role of moving massive amounts of water as quickly and safely as possible hasn’t changed, and that dichotomy has led to disagreement. “We’ve inherited in the American West these hybrid systems—they are engineered and natural, and there is no rewinding the tape of history,” Christensen says. “What do we want out of these hybrid systems?” Over the decades, various master plans—at the local and federal levels—have offered suggestions for addressing challenges found within these river communities. Some address green gentrification, which occurs when newly developed natural space brings in investment that eventually displaces the local community. A key example of this phenomenon, according to Christensen, is New York City’s High Line, an abandoned industrial train track renovated into an elevated park that sent nearby home prices skyrocketing. Other plans suggest searching for ways to introduce green space into park-poor areas, create arts and culture opportunities, and improve river access. Taylor Yard is a rarity of sorts. Its 100 acres is unlike any other opportunity along the river basin—as most planned parks are well under 30 acres. And because Taylor Yard is designed to be an example of how to rehabilitate contaminated sites along the L.A. River, the project doesn’t feature some of the more controversial river restoration ideas that have percolated in recent years. The most divisive example is the L.A. River Master Plan, originally commissioned by L.A. County, which outlines possible investments along the river. In 2015, the Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation asked famous architect and longtime L.A. resident Frank Gehry to take the design reins for reimagining the L.A. River as part of the master plan. Some were excited by the idea of Gehry turning his attention to the river, but others worried the architect wasn’t a good fit. “I would remind them that the last time there was a single idea for the entire river it involved 17,000 people pouring three million barrels of concrete,” MacAdams said back in 2016. In 2022, environmental groups, including Friends of the L.A. River, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, the Nature Conservancy in California and Los Angeles Waterkeeper, pulled support for the L.A. River Master Plan, with the latter saying it “failed to treat the L.A. River as a natural and living river.” A part of the dispute centered around the idea of “platform parks,” proposed by Frank Gehry Partners, that would effectively cap the river to provide green space. In other words, these parks create a concrete channel for water to pass under while the park on top remains undisturbed. The plan also includes new buildings, like the Southeast Los Angeles Cultural Center, to be constructed right along the river’s floodplain, and environmental groups argue that the plan doesn’t take out enough existing concrete. Los Angeles Waterkeeper and the Center for Biological Diversity swiftly sued Los Angeles County over its approved master plan. Tensho Takemori, a partner at Frank Gehry Partners, acknowledges that a concrete-free river is the river everyone wants but says that when the firm looked at taking out all that concrete, they determined it just wasn’t possible if they wanted to also maintain the river’s flood management role. “If you take out the concrete and put in grass or trees, it’s adding a significant amount of resistance … the water slows down, and it floods,” Takemori says. “To be honest, if we could have figured it out—and if that was scientifically possible—we would have proposed that.” However, Harris and other activists believe that many ways remain to create a river that’s more natural than what’s currently proposed, including improved river management techniques upstream and expanded stormwater capture technologies. For years, L.A. has also invested millions transforming into a “sponge city” by replacing concrete with more permeable surfaces. During a particularly rainy stretch in early February this year, the city captured 8.6 billion gallons of water, which is enough to sustain 100,000 homes for a year. “Now is the time to be ambitious and work toward those goals,” says Kelly Shannon McNeill, associate director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper. “We have unprecedented federal funding to invest in green resilient infrastructure, something we haven’t seen since the New Deal.” Although conversations around the river’s fate are much more centered on revitalization than in the past, the debate about its future remains a contentious one. A river runs through it Standing on the Taylor Yard Bridge, completed in 2022, Baldauf looks at the slowly meandering L.A. River as it passes by what could become the crown jewel of the city’s restoration efforts. With the smoldering midafternoon sun overhead, egrets, cormorants and herons mingle in the river below as the swaying reeds are barely heard over passing traffic. With a swoop of its wings, a heron takes flight. “This is why so many people fight for it. They’re inspired by it. They come here to contemplate,” Baldauf says. “The fact that there’s nature in the city and that we’re watching a great blue heron fly right over us.” A naturalized section of the Los Angeles River just south of Taylor Yard Darren Orf While the shape of the river’s future continues to be argued in the courts—of both law and public opinion—plans are not on hold. Major ecology efforts like the Los Angeles River Fish Passage and Habitat Structures Design Project are creating spaces to aid in the return of the steelhead trout. And thousands of volunteers every year participate in Friends of the L.A. River’s Great L.A. River Cleanup, the largest urban river cleanup event in the nation. And while Taylor Yard remains the river’s largest restoration opportunity, other areas are becoming more and more wild. The Dominguez Gap Wetlands in Long Beach sustain local plant and animal habitat; a 30-acre passive park in South Gate called Urban Orchard has fruit trees growing at the river’s edge; the Tujunga Wash Greenway and Stream Restoration Project recharges the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin; and vegetated ditches called bioswales in Caballero Creek Park filter stormwater pollution. Each improvement is a valuable opportunity for the river’s endemic residents, including the small-yet-resilient vireo, to return to the City of Angels. “We are nature, and we live in nature—even the nature we’ve created for ourselves,” Serrano says. “We must be making some kind of change that is making it easier for all of our wildlife neighbors to be present in the spaces we’ve created.” Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Could the waterway that the city was built around make a comeback?

Along a gentle bend of the Los Angeles River, in a stretch of land called Taylor Yard, a sound like a high-pitched record scratch can just be heard above the cacophony of city life. This is the call of the least Bell’s vireo, an olive-gray songbird that is only five inches from tip to tail. The riparian species native to Southern California has lived an endangered existence for more than 40 years. Now, the small bird’s return here symbolizes a new future for one of the country’s most maligned waterways.

Before the concrete tide of urbanization washed over the Los Angeles River Basin, the river-fed wetland that was here represented the perfect habitat for this rare species. But for the past century, this area was one of the largest rail yards in the region, and as an expanding city grew right up to the river’s now concrete-laden banks, the vireo all but disappeared.

Until, suddenly, it returned. The 2007 creation of Rio de Los Angeles State Park, which is itself part of the sprawling rail yard, set the stage. In the early 2010s someone reported hearing the vireo’s memorable call. A few years later, a photo captured a vireo mid-song, and in 2022 a nesting pair took refuge in a tree. This year, the news was even better.

“We actually saw fledglings,” says Evelyn Serrano, the director of the Audubon Center at Debs Park in Los Angeles. “We saw the nest and we saw the babies, so we were very excited. It’s tough to survive in an urban environment when you’re a little bird like that, but it’s definitely possible.”

Least Bell’s Vireo
A least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) sings at Taylor Yard on March 22. California placed this songbird on its endangered species list in 1980, but this rare vireo has recently returned to central L.A. thanks to habitat restoration and the return of the natural riparian ecosystem along a section of the Los Angeles River. Alecia Smith / Audubon California

Serrano is part of the local Audubon Center’s long, ongoing effort to rewild Taylor Yard, especially within the existing state park. Over the years the center has planted 1,000 endemic plants including 200 native trees as well as mule fat and mugwort for nest protection, and black sage and golden currant for food sources. But the nearby river—one of the few naturalized, soft-bottom sections of what is otherwise a concrete channel—is what really allows the vireo to thrive.

“[The vireo] needs to be near water, and that specific part of the river that’s soft-bodied has more water than other parts,” Serrano says. “This bird also lives in a very specific elevation, and it just so happens that all of those things … are all in one place.”

The return of the least Bell’s vireo shows what’s possible along a more natural Los Angeles River, and Taylor Yard represents the city’s largest opportunity to create vital habitat for many of its vulnerable endemic species. For years, a partnership of government groups and nonprofits has pushed to make the remaining 100 acres of the abandoned rail yard the “crown jewel” of L.A.’s river restoration project. The resulting collective, known as the 100 Acre Partnership, hopes to complete the restoration by 2028, which is just in time for the L.A. Olympic Games. The project is just the latest effort to create a new vision of Los Angeles that’s been in the works for nearly a century.

What was lost

Long before its starring role as an entertainment mecca, the basin that makes up Los Angeles was known for its river.

Fifty-one miles of free-flowing waters formed the beating heart of an 871-square-mile watershed transporting rainwater and snowpack from the nearby Santa Monica, Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains. Fed by various washes and tributaries, the river formed rich wetlands throughout the San Fernando Valley in the north all the way to the lower delta. At most times a trickle and at others a flood, the L.A. River meandered all over the region, either emptying into San Pedro Bay or even veering west toward Santa Monica Bay.

Because of the river and the region’s separation from the rest of California by mountains to the north, this alluvial floodplain became one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, filled with stunning amounts of endemic flora and fauna. Eventually, a native tribe known as the Tongva—also called Gabrieleño or Kizh—settled throughout the river basin, which included around 5,000 people spread across some 100 villages. They built their largest village, named Yaanga, in hills along the river near where Los Angeles City Hall stands today.

Although many picture L.A. with its vast sandy beaches to the west, the old Pueblo de Los Angeles actually formed further inland, as the river provided the necessary water for the entire settlement. This is why Candice Dickens-Russell, the CEO of the nonprofit Friends of the L.A. River, describes the river as the city’s “origin story.”

“We’re one of the only ‘coastal’ cities that’s not on a coast,” Dickens-Russell says. “We’re an inland downtown because of the river.”

For centuries, the river provided the water needed to grow crops, irrigate orchards and sustain a growing population. However, ignoring the Tongva practice of building slightly uphill from the river in recognition of its meandering course, the expanding city built up right along its banks. And as that city grew, its tolerance for the river’s floods diminished.

After a devastating flood in 1914, calls for flood control efforts grew louder, and the city formed the Los Angeles County Flood Control District a year later. In the following decades, the city began channelization and levee efforts and even built a few dams, but nothing substantial enough to fully prevent floods. Then, the river met its first major crossroads.

In 1930, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., the son of the famous Central Park landscape architect, devised a sprawling plan to build parks and public spaces along the river with green flood prevention measures, saying at the time that “continued prosperity in Los Angeles will depend on providing needed parks.” The timing of the proposal couldn't have been worse. While L.A. already had a long history of privileging private real estate over public spaces, the stock market crash only months earlier soured any remaining appetite for Olmsted’s vision.

After two more destructive floods in 1934 and 1938, the Army Corps of Engineers slowly began encasing the L.A. River in concrete—one mile at a time—until its completion in 1960.

Los Angeles River and Rio Hondo
Located in South Gate, Lynwood and Downey at the confluence of the Los Angeles River and the Rio Hondo tributary (right), this area is one concrete-laden section of the river where Frank Gehry Partners has proposed building a platform park. Darren Orf

“Olmsted’s vision is what L.A. could have been,” says Ben Harris, a senior staff attorney at Los Angeles Waterkeeper, an environmental watchdog for the region’s coastal and inland waters. “It was bad circumstances, but the right vision.”

The right vision

As the river receded from the landscape, it also faded from the minds of many Angelenos who lived within its basin. Dickens-Russell, who grew up in Cerritos just east of the river, says she was totally unaware of its existence when she was younger.

“[The river] was not in my consciousness at all,” Dickens-Russell says. “It wasn’t until I went away for college, came home and started working in the environmental world in L.A. that I started to hear about the river and Friends of the L.A. River.”

The first major nonprofit group to start restoration along the river’s 51 miles, Friends of the L.A. River wouldn’t have been possible without the trailblazing work of Lewis MacAdams. A journalist, political activist and poet, MacAdams founded the nonprofit in 1986 as an act of civil disobedience. He envisioned a city with a restored river where animals and Angelenos could seek refuge, so that year he cut through a wire fence separating the river from the city and declared the channel a public space. In his poetry, he describes his organization’s role as the river’s emissary.

… we address ourselves to the river. / We ask if we can / speak on its behalf / in the human realm. / We can’t hear the river saying no / so we get to work.

And for 40 years, MacAdams was the river’s relentless advocate. In the mid-1990s, when the Army Corps of Engineers began scraping vegetation away from the soft-bottomed section of the river, MacAdams placed himself in front of the bulldozers. Meanwhile, he tirelessly fought for the waterway to be recognized as a natural river.

“He’d show up at meetings with the Army Corps and the Department of Public Works,” says Jon Christensen, an environmental journalist and historian with the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at the University of California, Los Angeles, “and they’d talk about the ‘flood control channel’ and he’d just say ‘river.’”

In keeping with this activist spirit, kayakers in 2008 proved that the L.A. River was a navigable waterway by traversing its entire 51 miles. Two years later, the Environmental Protection Agency agreed and granted the river certain protections under the U.S. Clean Water Act, which strengthened the ability of local, state and federal agencies to fight against pollution and other forms of environmental degradation.

Though just one element of a bigger plan, Harris points out, Taylor Yard is a really good opportunity to examine the challenges of restoring the river—for both animals and the estimated one million people that live along the waterway’s path

Transforming Taylor Yard

In 1911, Southern Pacific Railroad bought land owned by Taylor Milling Company and adopted the name for its eventual 243-acre rail yard. After the rail yard shut down in the mid-1980s, parts of it were parceled off, with the least toxic areas being sold first. Some parcels became schools, apartments and even Rio de Los Angeles State Park itself. Then in 2017, after four years of negotiations, the City of L.A. purchased a long sought-after parcel from Union Pacific, a 42-acre stretch of land sandwiched between the current park and the river.

Today, the 100 Acre Partnership, a joint effort by the City of L.A., Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, is overseeing the creation of the Paseo del Rio, the name of the planned park that encompasses that parcel and one bow-tie-shaped parcel that connects to the north. The final design, approved in 2023, contains walking paths along the river, a community pavilion, a sloped meadow incorporating the rail yard’s old turntable and a wetland habitat fed by stormwater from the surrounding community. Along the northern section of the planned park, the Nature Conservancy is developing an area that will showcase how stormwater can be cleaned using natural systems.

Crucially, the Paseo del Rio at Taylor Yard also reconnects the surrounding community with the L.A. River and provides even more vital habitat for riparian birds like the vireo, but also osprey, and many other native species including side-blotched lizards, pacific chorus frogs, big brown bats and arroyo chub fish.

The one thing that stands between the present and this bright, green future is the land’s industrial past. After decades spent as a rail yard, part of the land is simply too toxic for biking, running and lounging. Lead and petroleum hydrocarbons at the site lie in shallow soil, meaning they’re easier to remove. But volatile organic compounds sink lower into the ground, and this creates complicated layers of pollution, which makes cleanup difficult and expensive. Brian Baldauf, chief of watershed planning for the MRCA, says the partnership is still working with the U.S. Department of Toxic Substances Control to get a cleaning plan approved.

“This was the active working heart of the rail yard,” Baldauf says. “When the city purchased it, one of the requirements of Union Pacific was that the city would be responsible for cleaning it up.”

He adds that the 100 Acre Partnership and the Department of Toxic Substances Control need to come up with a strategy for creating a safe site that can have new habitat over it. Once that strategy is in place, things can move quickly, according to Baldauf. If all goes according to plan, Taylor Yard will be a moving display for what the L.A. River could be—and just in time for the 2028 Games.

“The Olympics in Los Angeles is an important consideration for a lot of public work,” Baldauf says. “The city is going to be a showcase, and we want to have this project ready.”

A divided future

Today the L.A. River forms in Canoga Park in the San Fernando Valley and cuts around the eastern side of Griffith Park, before heading south through the soft-bottomed Glendale Narrows. Eventually, it makes its way through the Gateway Cities region before reaching Long Beach. In its course, the river passes through 17 cities, each with its own history and relationship to the river.

While environmental groups argue for a more natural river—one that can play host to humans and habitats alike—the river’s engineered role of moving massive amounts of water as quickly and safely as possible hasn’t changed, and that dichotomy has led to disagreement.

“We’ve inherited in the American West these hybrid systems—they are engineered and natural, and there is no rewinding the tape of history,” Christensen says. “What do we want out of these hybrid systems?”

Over the decades, various master plans—at the local and federal levels—have offered suggestions for addressing challenges found within these river communities. Some address green gentrification, which occurs when newly developed natural space brings in investment that eventually displaces the local community. A key example of this phenomenon, according to Christensen, is New York City’s High Line, an abandoned industrial train track renovated into an elevated park that sent nearby home prices skyrocketing. Other plans suggest searching for ways to introduce green space into park-poor areas, create arts and culture opportunities, and improve river access.

Taylor Yard is a rarity of sorts. Its 100 acres is unlike any other opportunity along the river basin—as most planned parks are well under 30 acres. And because Taylor Yard is designed to be an example of how to rehabilitate contaminated sites along the L.A. River, the project doesn’t feature some of the more controversial river restoration ideas that have percolated in recent years.

The most divisive example is the L.A. River Master Plan, originally commissioned by L.A. County, which outlines possible investments along the river. In 2015, the Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation asked famous architect and longtime L.A. resident Frank Gehry to take the design reins for reimagining the L.A. River as part of the master plan. Some were excited by the idea of Gehry turning his attention to the river, but others worried the architect wasn’t a good fit.

“I would remind them that the last time there was a single idea for the entire river it involved 17,000 people pouring three million barrels of concrete,” MacAdams said back in 2016.

In 2022, environmental groups, including Friends of the L.A. River, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, the Nature Conservancy in California and Los Angeles Waterkeeper, pulled support for the L.A. River Master Plan, with the latter saying it “failed to treat the L.A. River as a natural and living river.”

A part of the dispute centered around the idea of “platform parks,” proposed by Frank Gehry Partners, that would effectively cap the river to provide green space. In other words, these parks create a concrete channel for water to pass under while the park on top remains undisturbed. The plan also includes new buildings, like the Southeast Los Angeles Cultural Center, to be constructed right along the river’s floodplain, and environmental groups argue that the plan doesn’t take out enough existing concrete. Los Angeles Waterkeeper and the Center for Biological Diversity swiftly sued Los Angeles County over its approved master plan.

Tensho Takemori, a partner at Frank Gehry Partners, acknowledges that a concrete-free river is the river everyone wants but says that when the firm looked at taking out all that concrete, they determined it just wasn’t possible if they wanted to also maintain the river’s flood management role.

“If you take out the concrete and put in grass or trees, it’s adding a significant amount of resistance … the water slows down, and it floods,” Takemori says. “To be honest, if we could have figured it out—and if that was scientifically possible—we would have proposed that.”

However, Harris and other activists believe that many ways remain to create a river that’s more natural than what’s currently proposed, including improved river management techniques upstream and expanded stormwater capture technologies. For years, L.A. has also invested millions transforming into a “sponge city” by replacing concrete with more permeable surfaces. During a particularly rainy stretch in early February this year, the city captured 8.6 billion gallons of water, which is enough to sustain 100,000 homes for a year.

“Now is the time to be ambitious and work toward those goals,” says Kelly Shannon McNeill, associate director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper. “We have unprecedented federal funding to invest in green resilient infrastructure, something we haven’t seen since the New Deal.”

Although conversations around the river’s fate are much more centered on revitalization than in the past, the debate about its future remains a contentious one.

A river runs through it

Standing on the Taylor Yard Bridge, completed in 2022, Baldauf looks at the slowly meandering L.A. River as it passes by what could become the crown jewel of the city’s restoration efforts. With the smoldering midafternoon sun overhead, egrets, cormorants and herons mingle in the river below as the swaying reeds are barely heard over passing traffic. With a swoop of its wings, a heron takes flight.

“This is why so many people fight for it. They’re inspired by it. They come here to contemplate,” Baldauf says. “The fact that there’s nature in the city and that we’re watching a great blue heron fly right over us.”

Naturalized Section of Los Angeles River
A naturalized section of the Los Angeles River just south of Taylor Yard Darren Orf

While the shape of the river’s future continues to be argued in the courts—of both law and public opinion—plans are not on hold. Major ecology efforts like the Los Angeles River Fish Passage and Habitat Structures Design Project are creating spaces to aid in the return of the steelhead trout. And thousands of volunteers every year participate in Friends of the L.A. River’s Great L.A. River Cleanup, the largest urban river cleanup event in the nation.

And while Taylor Yard remains the river’s largest restoration opportunity, other areas are becoming more and more wild. The Dominguez Gap Wetlands in Long Beach sustain local plant and animal habitat; a 30-acre passive park in South Gate called Urban Orchard has fruit trees growing at the river’s edge; the Tujunga Wash Greenway and Stream Restoration Project recharges the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin; and vegetated ditches called bioswales in Caballero Creek Park filter stormwater pollution.

Each improvement is a valuable opportunity for the river’s endemic residents, including the small-yet-resilient vireo, to return to the City of Angels.

“We are nature, and we live in nature—even the nature we’ve created for ourselves,” Serrano says. “We must be making some kind of change that is making it easier for all of our wildlife neighbors to be present in the spaces we’ve created.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Some big water agencies in farming areas get water for free. Critics say that needs to end

The federal government is providing water to some large agricultural districts for free. In a new study, researchers urge the Trump administration to start charging more for water.

The water that flows down irrigation canals to some of the West’s biggest expanses of farmland comes courtesy of the federal government for a very low price — even, in some cases, for free.In a new study, researchers analyzed wholesale prices charged by the federal government in California, Arizona and Nevada, and found that large agricultural water agencies pay only a fraction of what cities pay, if anything at all. They said these “dirt-cheap” prices cost taxpayers, add to the strains on scarce water, and discourage conservation — even as the Colorado River’s depleted reservoirs continue to decline.“Federal taxpayers have been subsidizing effectively free water for a very, very long time,” said Noah Garrison, a researcher at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. “We can’t address the growing water scarcity in the West while we continue to give that water away for free or close to it.”The report, released this week by UCLA and the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, examines water that local agencies get from the Colorado River as well as rivers in California’s Central Valley, and concludes that the federal government delivers them water at much lower prices than state water systems or other suppliers.The researchers recommend the Trump administration start charging a “water reliability and security surcharge” on all Colorado River water as well as water from the canals of the Central Valley Project in California. That would encourage agencies and growers to conserve, they said, while generating hundreds of millions of dollars to repair aging and damaged canals and pay for projects such as new water recycling plants.“The need for the price of water to reflect its scarcity is urgent in light of the growing Colorado River Basin crisis,” the researchers wrote. The study analyzed only wholesale prices paid by water agencies, not the prices paid by individual farmers or city residents. It found that agencies serving farming areas pay about $30 per acre-foot of water on average, whereas city water utilities pay $512 per acre-foot. In California, Arizona and Nevada, the federal government supplies more than 7 million acre-feet of water, about 14 times the total water usage of Los Angeles, for less than $1 per acre-foot. And more than half of that — nearly one-fourth of all the water the researchers analyzed — is delivered for free by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to five water agencies in farming areas: the Imperial Irrigation District, Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District, as well as the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Nevada and the Unit B Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona. Along the Colorado River, about three-fourths of the water is used for agriculture.Farmers in California’s Imperial Valley receive the largest share of Colorado River water, growing hay for cattle, lettuce, spinach, broccoli and other crops on more than 450,000 acres of irrigated lands. The Imperial Irrigation District charges farmers the same rate for water that it has for years: $20 per acre-foot. Tina Shields, IID’s water department manager, said the district opposes any surcharge on water. Comparing agricultural and urban water costs, as the researchers did, she said, “is like comparing a grape to a watermelon,” given major differences in how water is distributed and treated.Shields pointed out that IID and local farmers are already conserving, and this year the savings will equal about 23% of the district’s total water allotment. “Imperial Valley growers provide the nation with a safe, reliable food supply on the thinnest of margins for many growers,” she said in an email.She acknowledged IID does not pay any fee to the government for water, but said it does pay for operating, maintaining and repairing both federal water infrastructure and the district’s own system. “I see no correlation between the cost of Colorado River water and shortages, and disagree with these inflammatory statements,” Shields said, adding that there “seems to be an intent to drive a wedge between agricultural and urban water users at a time when collaborative partnerships are more critical than ever.”The Colorado River provides water for seven states, 30 Native tribes and northern Mexico, but it’s in decline. Its reservoirs have fallen during a quarter-century of severe drought intensified by climate change. Its two largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are now less than one-third full.Negotiations among the seven states on how to deal with shortages have deadlocked.Mark Gold, a co-author, said the government’s current water prices are so low that they don’t cover the costs of operating, maintaining and repairing aging aqueducts and other infrastructure. Even an increase to $50 per acre-foot of water, he said, would help modernize water systems and incentivize conservation. A spokesperson for the U.S. Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of Reclamation, declined to comment on the proposal.The Colorado River was originally divided among the states under a 1922 agreement that overpromised what the river could provide. That century-old pact and the ingrained system of water rights, combined with water that costs next to nothing, Gold said, lead to “this slow-motion train wreck that is the Colorado right now.” Research has shown that the last 25 years were likely the driest quarter-century in the American West in at least 1,200 years, and that global warming is contributing to this megadrought.The Colorado River’s flow has decreased about 20% so far this century, and scientists have found that roughly half the decline is due to rising temperatures, driven largely by fossil fuels.In a separate report this month, scientists Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall said the latest science suggests that climate change will probably “exert a stronger influence, and this will mean a higher likelihood of continued lower precipitation in the headwaters of the Colorado River into the future.” Experts have urged the Trump administration to impose substantial water cuts throughout the Colorado River Basin, saying permanent reductions are necessary. Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter, researchers at Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy, have suggested the federal government set up a voluntary program to buy and retire water-intensive farmlands, or to pay landowners who “agree to permanent restrictions on water use.”Over the last few years, California and other states have negotiated short-term deals and as part of that, some farmers in California and Arizona are temporarily leaving hay fields parched and fallow in exchange for federal payments.The UCLA researchers criticized these deals, saying water agencies “obtain water from the federal government at low or no cost, and the government then buys that water back from the districts at enormous cost to taxpayers.”Isabel Friedman, a coauthor and NRDC researcher, said adopting a surcharge would be a powerful conservation tool. “We need a long-term strategy that recognizes water as a limited resource and prices it as such,” she wrote in an article about the proposal.

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.

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.