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.

Industrial pollution is killing America’s Southern Deltas. Can they be saved?

News Feed
Friday, March 22, 2024

The Mississippi River Delta and its smaller kin to the east, the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, are the largest systems of their kind in North America. Their floodplains, rivers, streams, and swamps stretch across the southeastern United States and support thousands of animal and plant species.  Collectively known as the Southern Deltas, they are among the most biodiverse places on earth.However, they are also critical economic centers that support the vast oil, gas, and chemical industries. A dizzying array of ships of all sizes can be seen traversing the busy waters of the lower Mississippi River, the end of what is essentially a superhighway between Minneapolis and the Gulf of Mexico. The Mobile-Tensaw delta, while smaller, is also a major regional hub of industry, allowing Mobile, Alabama’s port to become one of the fastest growing in the country.The delta’s industrial roles, which support hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, are often at odds with those who want to protect their waters and the rich ecosystem they support.Can they co-exist? And what can be done to improve the health of the deltas?On World Water Day, Reckon spoke with Dr. Alex Kolker, a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans. He specializes in understanding how coastal systems of the Mississippi River Delta and along the Gulf Coast are impacted by climate change and human-caused pollution.Reckon: In this era of hyper-awareness about the environment and climate change, I was curious about the health of our two major delta systems. How are they doing?Dr. Kolker: Many deltas worldwide are retreating and losing land because of a vast array of human impacts, like climate change, sea level rise, and natural processes. The Mississippi River Delta in Louisiana is a prime example of that. Coastal Louisiana has lost about 2,000 square miles, or about 5,000 square kilometers worth of land, over the last 100 years. The ground under the Mississippi River Delta is sinking because so many canals were cut for oil and gas. It also doesn’t receive much restorative sediment from the Mississippi River because it’s behind levees, which is another big problem. Climate change is causing water levels to rise, preventing the protective wetlands in the deltas from doing their job.Can you explain the Mississippi Delta and why it has so much activity in its waters?[The Mississippi Delta] is an area where there were huge plantations, and a lot of people who live there today are descendants. Then there’s the Mississippi River Delta, which is the part that hits the Gulf of Mexico. When people like me talk about the Mississippi River Delta, they talk about the lower part of that system. Industrial facilities are in that general area, supporting oil and gas facilities south of Baton Rouge. You’ll see heavy shipping because that’s where the most intense parts of the petrochemical corridor are. About half of what moves up and down the lower Mississippi River is related to energy, oil, coal, gas, and heavy chemicals.As you mentioned, the Mississippi River Delta has a huge amount of industrial activity. At the same time, the Mobile Delta is surrounded by sources of pollution, from port activity to chemical plants upriver and a giant coal ash pond that feeds toxic chemicals into the groundwater. What’s the effect of pollution on people, our water and the precious ecosystems of the Southern Deltas?There are a lot of effects of chemical pollution in the Mississippi River Delta, in terms of chemistry in the water, but also the bigger impact on people’s health. These facilities produce a lot of air toxins–nitrogen oxide, volatile organic carbon, sulfur dioxide and other things that are harmful to people. They are respiratory hazards and carcinogens. That is a big concern for a lot of people in South Louisiana. That’s the stretch that people call “Cancer Alley.In terms of the water’s chemistry, there’s a large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico that has lost much of its dissolved oxygen because of the nitrogen fertilizer that flows from farms upriver.It’s hard for fish and shellfish to breathe. Coal terminals are also along the lower Mississippi River, raising concerns that dust from those coal facilities could get into wetlands. They’re also building huge liquefied natural gas plants near wetlands in Louisiana, which is actually near a big coastal restoration project.Living in lower Alabama, I’ve spent a decent amount of time in the Mobile Delta and Mobile Bay. It’s quite disgusting, and I know from reading reports that much of the seagrass is dead, killed by pollution and a lack of sunlight. And I often wonder how effective our environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act of 1972, have been.I’m not a Clean Water Act specialist, but in the late 1960s and 70s, the Cuyahoga River around Cleveland would catch fire. That sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore, so I think these laws have had some effect, like reducing harmful chemicals in the water. Industry is now required to report pollutants. Whether the Clean Water Act has done enough is more of a policy question.You mentioned the importance of wetlands earlier. The Supreme Court decided they weren’t part of the Clean Water Act. What effect has that had on coastal communities?The previous interpretation of the Clean Water Act was that it could be used to prevent dredging, filling in, and other activities that would harm wetlands. Last year, the Supreme Court decided that wetlands don’t come under the Clean Water Act, significantly reducing the federal government’s ability to regulate them. That may be the most significant change to the delta ecosystems.Wetlands provide a lot of assets to coastal communities, including flood protection and habitat for many economically important species that people harvest, like crabs, shellfish, and fin fish Their lifecycles are tied to wetland marshes. And a lot of wading birds — herons and egrets and the like —  also call them home. Wetlands also buffer against storms and regulate water quality by filtering out harmful pollutants. These are big issues.What can we do to improve the situation of our Southern Deltas?There’s a lot that can be done. One thing that should be mentioned is that Louisiana has a significant plan to restore the Mississippi River Delta. It could involve taking sediment from onshore or offshore, putting it on the marshes, and partially diverting the flow of the Mississippi River. It’s a broad program that aims to spend about $1 billion annually for the next 50 years. About half of that is for restoration, and the rest is for coastal protection, which largely involves building levees. The idea is to reduce flooding impacts.Louisiana is doing it on a significant scale. It’s not going to be perfect by any means. If you look at the projections with climate change and sea level rise, the area will continue to lose land, and intense and damaging storms will continue. So, I don’t want to tell you it’s a panacea. However, the idea of combining storm, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration on a broad scale is something that other coastal communities should consider. If you look at the data, many of these plans will work if climate change is modest and stays at relatively moderate levels. But wetland restoration becomes very difficult if climate change accelerates and continues to accelerate.The data point is that if we want to save and preserve our southern deltas, we need to do something about climate change.

North America’s largest Delta systems are among the most biodiverse places on Earth. But they also support a bustling and wealthy oil and gas industry.

The Mississippi River Delta and its smaller kin to the east, the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, are the largest systems of their kind in North America. Their floodplains, rivers, streams, and swamps stretch across the southeastern United States and support thousands of animal and plant species

Collectively known as the Southern Deltas, they are among the most biodiverse places on earth.

However, they are also critical economic centers that support the vast oil, gas, and chemical industries. A dizzying array of ships of all sizes can be seen traversing the busy waters of the lower Mississippi River, the end of what is essentially a superhighway between Minneapolis and the Gulf of Mexico. The Mobile-Tensaw delta, while smaller, is also a major regional hub of industry, allowing Mobile, Alabama’s port to become one of the fastest growing in the country.

The delta’s industrial roles, which support hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, are often at odds with those who want to protect their waters and the rich ecosystem they support.

Can they co-exist? And what can be done to improve the health of the deltas?

On World Water Day, Reckon spoke with Dr. Alex Kolker, a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans. He specializes in understanding how coastal systems of the Mississippi River Delta and along the Gulf Coast are impacted by climate change and human-caused pollution.

Reckon: In this era of hyper-awareness about the environment and climate change, I was curious about the health of our two major delta systems. How are they doing?

Dr. Kolker: Many deltas worldwide are retreating and losing land because of a vast array of human impacts, like climate change, sea level rise, and natural processes. The Mississippi River Delta in Louisiana is a prime example of that. Coastal Louisiana has lost about 2,000 square miles, or about 5,000 square kilometers worth of land, over the last 100 years.

The ground under the Mississippi River Delta is sinking because so many canals were cut for oil and gas. It also doesn’t receive much restorative sediment from the Mississippi River because it’s behind levees, which is another big problem. Climate change is causing water levels to rise, preventing the protective wetlands in the deltas from doing their job.

Can you explain the Mississippi Delta and why it has so much activity in its waters?

[The Mississippi Delta] is an area where there were huge plantations, and a lot of people who live there today are descendants. Then there’s the Mississippi River Delta, which is the part that hits the Gulf of Mexico. When people like me talk about the Mississippi River Delta, they talk about the lower part of that system.

Industrial facilities are in that general area, supporting oil and gas facilities south of Baton Rouge. You’ll see heavy shipping because that’s where the most intense parts of the petrochemical corridor are. About half of what moves up and down the lower Mississippi River is related to energy, oil, coal, gas, and heavy chemicals.

As you mentioned, the Mississippi River Delta has a huge amount of industrial activity. At the same time, the Mobile Delta is surrounded by sources of pollution, from port activity to chemical plants upriver and a giant coal ash pond that feeds toxic chemicals into the groundwater.

What’s the effect of pollution on people, our water and the precious ecosystems of the Southern Deltas?

There are a lot of effects of chemical pollution in the Mississippi River Delta, in terms of chemistry in the water, but also the bigger impact on people’s health. These facilities produce a lot of air toxins–nitrogen oxide, volatile organic carbon, sulfur dioxide and other things that are harmful to people. They are respiratory hazards and carcinogens. That is a big concern for a lot of people in South Louisiana. That’s the stretch that people call “Cancer Alley.

In terms of the water’s chemistry, there’s a large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico that has lost much of its dissolved oxygen because of the nitrogen fertilizer that flows from farms upriver.

It’s hard for fish and shellfish to breathe.

Coal terminals are also along the lower Mississippi River, raising concerns that dust from those coal facilities could get into wetlands. They’re also building huge liquefied natural gas plants near wetlands in Louisiana, which is actually near a big coastal restoration project.

Living in lower Alabama, I’ve spent a decent amount of time in the Mobile Delta and Mobile Bay. It’s quite disgusting, and I know from reading reports that much of the seagrass is dead, killed by pollution and a lack of sunlight. And I often wonder how effective our environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act of 1972, have been.

I’m not a Clean Water Act specialist, but in the late 1960s and 70s, the Cuyahoga River around Cleveland would catch fire. That sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore, so I think these laws have had some effect, like reducing harmful chemicals in the water. Industry is now required to report pollutants. Whether the Clean Water Act has done enough is more of a policy question.

You mentioned the importance of wetlands earlier. The Supreme Court decided they weren’t part of the Clean Water Act. What effect has that had on coastal communities?

The previous interpretation of the Clean Water Act was that it could be used to prevent dredging, filling in, and other activities that would harm wetlands. Last year, the Supreme Court decided that wetlands don’t come under the Clean Water Act, significantly reducing the federal government’s ability to regulate them. That may be the most significant change to the delta ecosystems.

Wetlands provide a lot of assets to coastal communities, including flood protection and habitat for many economically important species that people harvest, like crabs, shellfish, and fin fish Their lifecycles are tied to wetland marshes. And a lot of wading birds — herons and egrets and the like —  also call them home. Wetlands also buffer against storms and regulate water quality by filtering out harmful pollutants. These are big issues.

What can we do to improve the situation of our Southern Deltas?

There’s a lot that can be done. One thing that should be mentioned is that Louisiana has a significant plan to restore the Mississippi River Delta. It could involve taking sediment from onshore or offshore, putting it on the marshes, and partially diverting the flow of the Mississippi River. It’s a broad program that aims to spend about $1 billion annually for the next 50 years.

About half of that is for restoration, and the rest is for coastal protection, which largely involves building levees. The idea is to reduce flooding impacts.

Louisiana is doing it on a significant scale. It’s not going to be perfect by any means. If you look at the projections with climate change and sea level rise, the area will continue to lose land, and intense and damaging storms will continue. So, I don’t want to tell you it’s a panacea.

However, the idea of combining storm, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration on a broad scale is something that other coastal communities should consider. If you look at the data, many of these plans will work if climate change is modest and stays at relatively moderate levels. But wetland restoration becomes very difficult if climate change accelerates and continues to accelerate.

The data point is that if we want to save and preserve our southern deltas, we need to do something about climate change.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

EPA urged to classify abortion drugs as pollutants

It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the drug.

(NewsNation) — Anti-abortion group Students for Life of America is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to add abortion drug mifepristone to its list of water contaminants. It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the abortion drug. “The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the [Food and Drug Administration],” Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA, said in a release. “Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she added. In 2025, lawmakers from seven states introduced bills, none of which passed, to either order environmental studies on the effects of mifepristone in water or to enact environmental regulations for the drug. EPA’s Office of Water leaders met with Politico in November, with its press secretary Brigit Hirsch telling the outlet it “takes the issue of pharmaceuticals in our water systems seriously and employs a rigorous, science-based approach to protect human health and the environment.” “As always, EPA encourages all stakeholders invested in clean and safe drinking water to review the proposals and submit comments,” Hirsch added. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump’s EPA' in 2025: A Fossil Fuel-Friendly Approach to Deregulation

The Trump administration has reshaped the Environmental Protection Agency, reversing pollution limits and promoting fossil fuels

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has transformed the Environmental Protection Agency in its first year, cutting federal limits on air and water pollution and promoting fossil fuels, a metamorphosis that clashes with the agency’s historic mission to protect human health and the environment.The administration says its actions will “unleash” the American economy, but environmentalists say the agency’s abrupt change in focus threatens to unravel years of progress on climate-friendly initiatives that could be hard or impossible to reverse.“It just constantly wants to pat the fossil fuel business on the back and turn back the clock to a pre-Richard Nixon era” when the agency didn’t exist, said historian Douglas Brinkley.Zeldin has argued the EPA can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. He announced “five pillars” to guide EPA’s work; four were economic goals, including energy dominance — Trump’s shorthand for more fossil fuels — and boosting the auto industry.Zeldin, a former New York congressman who had a record as a moderate Republican on some environmental issues, said his views on climate change have evolved. Many federal and state climate goals are unattainable in the near future — and come at huge cost, he said.“We should not be causing … extreme economic pain for an individual or a family” because of policies aimed at “saving the planet,” he told reporters at EPA headquarters in early December.But scientists and experts say the EPA's new direction comes at a cost to public health, and would lead to far more pollutants in the environment, including mercury, lead and especially tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs. They also note higher emissions of greenhouse gases will worsen atmospheric warming that is driving more frequent, costly and deadly extreme weather.Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who led the EPA for several years under President George W. Bush, said watching Zeldin attack laws protecting air and water has been “just depressing.” “It’s tragic for our country. I worry about my grandchildren, of which I have seven. I worry about what their future is going to be if they don’t have clean air, if they don’t have clean water to drink,” she said.The EPA was launched under Nixon in 1970 with pollution disrupting American life, some cities suffocating in smog and some rivers turned into wastelands by industrial chemicals. Congress passed laws then that remain foundational for protecting water, air and endangered species.The agency's aggressiveness has always seesawed depending on who occupies the White House. Former President Joe Biden's administration boosted renewable energy and electric vehicles, tightened motor-vehicle emissions and proposed greenhouse gas limits on coal-fired power plants and oil and gas wells. Industry groups called rules overly burdensome and said the power plant rule would force many aging plants to shut down. In response, many businesses shifted resources to meet the more stringent rules that are now being undone.“While the Biden EPA repeatedly attempted to usurp the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to impose its ‘Green New Scam,’ the Trump EPA is laser-focused on achieving results for the American people while operating within the limits of the laws passed by Congress,” EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said. Zeldin's list of targets is long Much of EPA’s new direction aligns with Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation road map that argued the agency should gut staffing, cut regulations and end what it called a war on coal on other fossil fuels.“A lot of the regulations that were put on during the Biden administration were more harmful and restrictive than in any other period. So that’s why deregulating them looks like EPA is making major changes,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Heritage's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment.But Chris Frey, an EPA official under Biden, said the regulations Zeldin has targeted “offered benefits of avoided premature deaths, of avoided chronic illness … bad things that would not happen because of these rules.”Matthew Tejada, a former EPA official under both Trump and Biden who now works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the revamped EPA: “I think it would be hard for them to make it any clearer to polluters in this country that they can go on about their business and not worry about EPA getting in their way.”Zeldin also has shrunk EPA staffing by about 20% to levels last seen in the mid-1980s. Justin Chen, president of the EPA’s largest union, called staff cuts “devastating.” He cited the dismantling of research and development offices at labs across the country and the firing of employees who signed a letter of dissent opposing EPA cuts. Relaxed enforcement and cutting staff Many of Zeldin's changes aren't in effect yet. It takes time to propose new rules, get public input and finalize rollbacks. It's much faster to cut grants and ease up on enforcement, and Trump's EPA is doing both. The number of new civil environmental actions is roughly one-fifth what it was in the first eight months of the Biden administration, according to the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. “You can effectively do a lot of deregulation if you just don’t do enforcement,” said Leif Fredrickson, visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Montana.Hirsch said the number of legal filings isn't the best way to judge enforcement because they require work outside of the EPA and can bog staff down with burdensome legal agreements. She said the EPA is “focused on efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible” and not making demands beyond what the law requires.EPA's cuts have been especially hard on climate change programs and environmental justice, the effort to address chronic pollution that typically is worse in minority and poor communities. Both were Biden priorities. Zeldin dismissed staff and canceled billions in grants for projects that fell under the “diversity, equity and inclusion” umbrella, a Trump administration target.He also spiked a $20 billion “green bank” set up under Biden’s landmark climate law to fund qualifying clean energy projects. Zeldin argued the fund was a scheme to funnel money to Democrat-aligned organizations with little oversight — allegations a federal judge rejected. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said the EPA's shift under Trump left him with little optimism for what he called “the two most awful crises in the 21st century” — biodiversity loss and climate disruption.“I don’t see any hope for either one,” he said. “I really don’t. And I’ll be long gone, but I think the world is in just for absolute catastrophe.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

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.