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.

Texas is running out of water. Here’s why and what state leaders plan to do about it.

News Feed
Thursday, March 13, 2025

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here. Texas officials fear the state is gravely close to running out of water. Towns and cities could be on a path toward a severe shortage of water by 2030, data compiled in the state's 2022 water plan by the Texas Water Development Board indicates. This would happen if there is recurring, record-breaking drought conditions across the state, and if water entities and state leaders fail to put in place key strategies to secure water supplies. At risk is the water Texans use every day for cooking, cleaning — and drinking. State lawmakers are debating several solutions, including finding ways to bring new water supply to Texas, and dedicating more money to fix dilapidated infrastructure. For most other Texans, however, the extent of their knowledge of where water comes from is the kitchen faucet and backyard hose. But behind every drop is a complicated system of sources, laws and management challenges. So, where does Texas get its water? Who owns it? And why are we running out? Let’s break it down. Where does Texas get its water? Texas’ water supply comes from two main sources: Groundwater makes up 54%. It is water that is stored underground in aquifers. Surface water makes up 43%. It is water from lakes, rivers and reservoirs. Texas has nine major aquifers and 22 minor ones. They are large formations underground made of sand, gravel, limestone and other porous rocks. The formations act as giant tubs that hold and filter the water. The largest is the Ogallala Aquifer underneath the Panhandle and West Texas. It is also the biggest aquifer in the U.S., and Texas shares it with seven other states. It’s a lifeline for farms and ranches in the Texas High Plains. However, overuse is rapidly depleting it. Another major source is the Edwards Aquifer, which provides drinking water to San Antonio and the surrounding Hill Country. The state also gets water from 15 major river basins and eight coastal basins, lakes, and more than 180 reservoirs. Reservoirs are man-made lakes created by damming rivers to store water for drinking, agriculture and industry. Like aquifers, they are not endless supplies — water levels can depend on rainfall. And climate change, which alters precipitation patterns, leads to more droughts and fluctuating water levels. Major surface water sources include the Rio Grande, Colorado River, and reservoirs like Lake Travis in Austin and Toledo Bend in East Texas. Does water supply vary region by region? Yes, and where you get your water from depends on where you live. Groundwater is not equally available across the state. As water expert Carlos Rubinstein puts it: "People don’t all live next to rivers, and the aquifer isn’t a bathtub with the same amount of water everywhere. Rocks and sand get in the way." For example, people living in Lubbock get their water from several sources — two water well fields, Lake Meredith and Lake Alan Henry. Texans living in Fort Worth get their water from mostly surface water sources — lakes, reservoirs and the Trinity River. Is my city going to run out of water? How can I check? Since water supply varies by region, the Texas Tribune created an address-search tool. This tool shows where your local water supply comes from and what supply and demand projections look like for the future. The tool also explains how you can get more involved in water planning. This can be by attending meetings with regional groups who plan for water needs and use, providing public comments to the water development board as they draft new water plans, or by reaching out to lawmakers. Who owns Texas’ water — and who governs it? Water in Texas is a legally complex, highly managed resource. If you own land above an aquifer in Texas, you own the groundwater beneath it — just like owning oil or gas. You don’t have to pump it to claim it; it’s yours by default. However, that doesn’t mean you should use as much as you want. There are consequences. “Groundwater is your long-term bank account,” says John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board. “The more you withdraw, the faster it declines because it doesn’t replenish quickly.” To manage this, some areas have groundwater conservation districts that regulate how much water can be pumped. Since groundwater is owned by the landowner, general managers at the districts say they constantly have to strike a balance between protecting water supplies and respecting private property rights. “We have to let landowners use their water,” says Ty Edwards, general manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District. “But we also have to protect everyone else’s wells. It’s a juggling act.” Unlike groundwater, surface water belongs to the state. To use it — whether it’s for cities, farms, or businesses — you need a permit from the state’s environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Texas follows a “first in time, first in right” system, meaning older water rights take priority. In a drought, those with senior rights get water first, and newer users might be cut off entirely. “Think of it like a sold-out concert,” said Rubinstein, a former chair of the Texas Water Development Board. “There are no more tickets. The only way to get more water is to build new storage, but that’s easier said than done.” Texas’ two separate legal systems for water — one for groundwater and one for surface water — makes management tricky. Dupnik, the water board administrator, said Texas is unique in having the system divided this way. Just nine states, including Texas, have this two-tiered system. “Most states are usually one or the other,” Dupnik said. The two water resources are also deeply connected. About 30% of the water in Texas rivers comes from groundwater, according to a water board study. When wells pump too much, rivers and springs can dry up. Sharlene Leurig, a managing member with environmental consulting firm Fluid Advisors, said it’s important for people to understand the relationship between the two. “Depletions of one drives depletions of the other,” Leurig said. Why are people concerned about water now? Texas is growing, and its water supply isn’t keeping up. With droughts, overuse and changing rainfall patterns, water is becoming a scarce resource. The 2022 Texas Water Plan estimates the state’s population will increase to 51.5 million people by 2070 — an increase of 73%. At the same time, water supply is projected to decrease approximately 18%. The biggest reduction is in groundwater, which is projected to decline 32% by 2070. This shortfall will be felt most in two major aquifers: The Ogallala Aquifer, as a result of its managed depletion over time, and the Gulf Coast Aquifer, which faces mandatory pumping reductions to prevent land sinking from over-extraction. Texas is not only losing water to overuse. The state’s aging water pipes are deteriorating, contributing to massive losses from leaks and breaks. A 2022 report by Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of environmental groups, estimated that Texas water systems lose at least 572,000 acre-feet per year — about 51 gallons of water per home or business connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of Austin, El Paso, Fort Worth, Laredo and Lubbock combined. These old pipes also raise concerns about water quality and supply. Breaks trigger boil-water notices, while repairs and replacements strain budgets. This issue is amplified by the lack of funding for maintenance in some areas and the increasing demand for water due to population growth. Who’s using the most water and how is that changing? Irrigation holds the top spot for water use in Texas, according to the water board. In fact, agriculture has been the dominant water consumer for decades. In 2020, over a third of irrigation and livestock water in Texas came from the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. At the same time, more than one-fifth of non-agricultural water came from the Trinity River Basin. But the way water is used is shifting. By 2060, municipal water demand is projected to overtake irrigation as the biggest user, according to the water board. Agriculture producers will struggle to meet water prices, said Alan Day, general manager of the Brazos Groundwater Conservation District. As climate change intensifies, he said, water supply may decrease in certain parts of the state and compound challenges for farmers and ranchers. “With water getting more expensive, we’re seeing a shift from agricultural use to municipal demand,” he said. Day added that water use isn’t just about who’s taking the most — it’s about where it’s coming from, who’s willing to pay for it, and how we decide to share it in the future. “What do we want our shared water resources to look like 50 years from now?” Day said. “That’s a moving target. And it’s a political hot potato.” The state’s water plan says Texas does not have enough water supply to meet the growing need of 6.9 million acre-feet of additional water supplies by 2070 — enough to support 41.4 million Texans for one year. If water strategies are not implemented, the plan says approximately 25% of Texas’ population in 2070 would have less than half the municipal water supplies they will require during a significant drought. “There's going to be a fight over at what level does harm occur to any of these particular aquifers,” Day said. How are we planning for water shortages? The water board is responsible for planning for water shortages. The agency uses the 1950s drought or “drought of record” as a benchmark for statewide water planning. Temple McKinnon, the director of water supply planning at the state agency, said using the “worst-case scenario” allows water planners to come up with strategies for how to meet future water needs. That planning has manifested in state legislation and infrastructure investment. In 2023, voters approved a one-time use of $1 billion to fund infrastructure projects. This year, two Republican lawmakers, state Sen. Charles Perry from Lubbock and state Rep. Cody Harris of Palestine, filed constitutional amendments to dedicate $1 billion annually for up to 10 years for water projects. Harris also filed House Bill 16 — a sweeping priority bill that touches on water funds, flood plans, and the development of infrastructure to transport water into a water supply system. Senate Bill 7, which Perry is expected to author, was named a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and would increase investments in water supply efforts. Texas budget writers have already signaled a willingness to invest at least $2.5 billion in water plans. Perry previously told the Tribune he wants as much as $5 billion. A key part of this effort is the creation of a statewide water grid — a network of pipelines and supply connections to better distribute water across Texas. Currently, water systems across the state operate independently. A new water grid would allow Texas to shift water from wetter regions to drier ones when supply shortages hit. However, a framework is still being developed to determine who will oversee and manage this interconnected system. Lawmakers, including Perry, are also eyeing new water resources to meet future water supply needs. Some Texas cities, like Corpus Christi along the coast, are turning to desalination to treat seawater and make it drinkable. El Paso has been a leader in this effort, but focusing on cleaning brackish groundwater — slightly salty water found deep underground — enough to drink. Experts say that the state has untapped water resources — potentially enough to meet the state’s long-term needs. Disclosure: Texas Living Waters Project has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more. Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

The state’s water supply faces numerous threats. And by one estimate, the state’s municipal supply will not meet demand by 2030 if there’s a severe drought and no water solutions are implemented.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state.


This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here.

Texas officials fear the state is gravely close to running out of water.

Towns and cities could be on a path toward a severe shortage of water by 2030, data compiled in the state's 2022 water plan by the Texas Water Development Board indicates. This would happen if there is recurring, record-breaking drought conditions across the state, and if water entities and state leaders fail to put in place key strategies to secure water supplies.

At risk is the water Texans use every day for cooking, cleaning — and drinking.

State lawmakers are debating several solutions, including finding ways to bring new water supply to Texas, and dedicating more money to fix dilapidated infrastructure.

For most other Texans, however, the extent of their knowledge of where water comes from is the kitchen faucet and backyard hose. But behind every drop is a complicated system of sources, laws and management challenges.

So, where does Texas get its water? Who owns it? And why are we running out? Let’s break it down.

Where does Texas get its water?

Texas’ water supply comes from two main sources:

  • Groundwater makes up 54%. It is water that is stored underground in aquifers.
  • Surface water makes up 43%. It is water from lakes, rivers and reservoirs.

Texas has nine major aquifers and 22 minor ones. They are large formations underground made of sand, gravel, limestone and other porous rocks. The formations act as giant tubs that hold and filter the water.

The largest is the Ogallala Aquifer underneath the Panhandle and West Texas. It is also the biggest aquifer in the U.S., and Texas shares it with seven other states. It’s a lifeline for farms and ranches in the Texas High Plains. However, overuse is rapidly depleting it.

Another major source is the Edwards Aquifer, which provides drinking water to San Antonio and the surrounding Hill Country.

The state also gets water from 15 major river basins and eight coastal basins, lakes, and more than 180 reservoirs. Reservoirs are man-made lakes created by damming rivers to store water for drinking, agriculture and industry. Like aquifers, they are not endless supplies — water levels can depend on rainfall. And climate change, which alters precipitation patterns, leads to more droughts and fluctuating water levels. Major surface water sources include the Rio Grande, Colorado River, and reservoirs like Lake Travis in Austin and Toledo Bend in East Texas.

Does water supply vary region by region?

Yes, and where you get your water from depends on where you live. Groundwater is not equally available across the state. As water expert Carlos Rubinstein puts it: "People don’t all live next to rivers, and the aquifer isn’t a bathtub with the same amount of water everywhere. Rocks and sand get in the way."

For example, people living in Lubbock get their water from several sources — two water well fields, Lake Meredith and Lake Alan Henry. Texans living in Fort Worth get their water from mostly surface water sources — lakes, reservoirs and the Trinity River.

Is my city going to run out of water? How can I check?

Since water supply varies by region, the Texas Tribune created an address-search tool. This tool shows where your local water supply comes from and what supply and demand projections look like for the future.

The tool also explains how you can get more involved in water planning. This can be by attending meetings with regional groups who plan for water needs and use, providing public comments to the water development board as they draft new water plans, or by reaching out to lawmakers.

Who owns Texas’ water — and who governs it?

Water in Texas is a legally complex, highly managed resource. If you own land above an aquifer in Texas, you own the groundwater beneath it — just like owning oil or gas. You don’t have to pump it to claim it; it’s yours by default. However, that doesn’t mean you should use as much as you want. There are consequences.

“Groundwater is your long-term bank account,” says John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board. “The more you withdraw, the faster it declines because it doesn’t replenish quickly.”

To manage this, some areas have groundwater conservation districts that regulate how much water can be pumped. Since groundwater is owned by the landowner, general managers at the districts say they constantly have to strike a balance between protecting water supplies and respecting private property rights.

“We have to let landowners use their water,” says Ty Edwards, general manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District. “But we also have to protect everyone else’s wells. It’s a juggling act.”

Unlike groundwater, surface water belongs to the state. To use it — whether it’s for cities, farms, or businesses — you need a permit from the state’s environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Texas follows a “first in time, first in right” system, meaning older water rights take priority. In a drought, those with senior rights get water first, and newer users might be cut off entirely.

“Think of it like a sold-out concert,” said Rubinstein, a former chair of the Texas Water Development Board. “There are no more tickets. The only way to get more water is to build new storage, but that’s easier said than done.”

Texas’ two separate legal systems for water — one for groundwater and one for surface water — makes management tricky. Dupnik, the water board administrator, said Texas is unique in having the system divided this way. Just nine states, including Texas, have this two-tiered system.

“Most states are usually one or the other,” Dupnik said.

The two water resources are also deeply connected. About 30% of the water in Texas rivers comes from groundwater, according to a water board study. When wells pump too much, rivers and springs can dry up. Sharlene Leurig, a managing member with environmental consulting firm Fluid Advisors, said it’s important for people to understand the relationship between the two.

“Depletions of one drives depletions of the other,” Leurig said.

Why are people concerned about water now?

Texas is growing, and its water supply isn’t keeping up. With droughts, overuse and changing rainfall patterns, water is becoming a scarce resource.

The 2022 Texas Water Plan estimates the state’s population will increase to 51.5 million people by 2070 — an increase of 73%. At the same time, water supply is projected to decrease approximately 18%. The biggest reduction is in groundwater, which is projected to decline 32% by 2070.

This shortfall will be felt most in two major aquifers: The Ogallala Aquifer, as a result of its managed depletion over time, and the Gulf Coast Aquifer, which faces mandatory pumping reductions to prevent land sinking from over-extraction.

Texas is not only losing water to overuse. The state’s aging water pipes are deteriorating, contributing to massive losses from leaks and breaks.

A 2022 report by Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of environmental groups, estimated that Texas water systems lose at least 572,000 acre-feet per year — about 51 gallons of water per home or business connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of Austin, El Paso, Fort Worth, Laredo and Lubbock combined.

These old pipes also raise concerns about water quality and supply. Breaks trigger boil-water notices, while repairs and replacements strain budgets. This issue is amplified by the lack of funding for maintenance in some areas and the increasing demand for water due to population growth.

Who’s using the most water and how is that changing?

Irrigation holds the top spot for water use in Texas, according to the water board. In fact, agriculture has been the dominant water consumer for decades.

In 2020, over a third of irrigation and livestock water in Texas came from the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. At the same time, more than one-fifth of non-agricultural water came from the Trinity River Basin.

But the way water is used is shifting. By 2060, municipal water demand is projected to overtake irrigation as the biggest user, according to the water board.

Agriculture producers will struggle to meet water prices, said Alan Day, general manager of the Brazos Groundwater Conservation District. As climate change intensifies, he said, water supply may decrease in certain parts of the state and compound challenges for farmers and ranchers.

“With water getting more expensive, we’re seeing a shift from agricultural use to municipal demand,” he said.

Day added that water use isn’t just about who’s taking the most — it’s about where it’s coming from, who’s willing to pay for it, and how we decide to share it in the future.

“What do we want our shared water resources to look like 50 years from now?” Day said. “That’s a moving target. And it’s a political hot potato.”

The state’s water plan says Texas does not have enough water supply to meet the growing need of 6.9 million acre-feet of additional water supplies by 2070 — enough to support 41.4 million Texans for one year. If water strategies are not implemented, the plan says approximately 25% of Texas’ population in 2070 would have less than half the municipal water supplies they will require during a significant drought.

“There's going to be a fight over at what level does harm occur to any of these particular aquifers,” Day said.

How are we planning for water shortages?

The water board is responsible for planning for water shortages. The agency uses the 1950s drought or “drought of record” as a benchmark for statewide water planning.

Temple McKinnon, the director of water supply planning at the state agency, said using the “worst-case scenario” allows water planners to come up with strategies for how to meet future water needs.

That planning has manifested in state legislation and infrastructure investment. In 2023, voters approved a one-time use of $1 billion to fund infrastructure projects. This year, two Republican lawmakers, state Sen. Charles Perry from Lubbock and state Rep. Cody Harris of Palestine, filed constitutional amendments to dedicate $1 billion annually for up to 10 years for water projects. Harris also filed House Bill 16 — a sweeping priority bill that touches on water funds, flood plans, and the development of infrastructure to transport water into a water supply system.

Senate Bill 7, which Perry is expected to author, was named a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and would increase investments in water supply efforts. Texas budget writers have already signaled a willingness to invest at least $2.5 billion in water plans. Perry previously told the Tribune he wants as much as $5 billion.

A key part of this effort is the creation of a statewide water grid — a network of pipelines and supply connections to better distribute water across Texas.

Currently, water systems across the state operate independently. A new water grid would allow Texas to shift water from wetter regions to drier ones when supply shortages hit. However, a framework is still being developed to determine who will oversee and manage this interconnected system.

Lawmakers, including Perry, are also eyeing new water resources to meet future water supply needs.

Some Texas cities, like Corpus Christi along the coast, are turning to desalination to treat seawater and make it drinkable. El Paso has been a leader in this effort, but focusing on cleaning brackish groundwater — slightly salty water found deep underground — enough to drink.

Experts say that the state has untapped water resources — potentially enough to meet the state’s long-term needs.

Disclosure: Texas Living Waters Project has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.

Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘Mad fishing’: the super-size fleet of squid catchers plundering the high seas

Every year a Chinese-dominated flotilla big enough to be seen from space pillages the rich marine life on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned part of the South Atlantic off ArgentinaIn a monitoring room in Buenos Aires, a dozen members of the Argentinian coast guard watch giant industrial-fishing ships moving in real time across a set of screens. “Every year, for five or six months, the foreign fleet comes from across the Indian Ocean, from Asian countries, and from the North Atlantic,” says Cdr Mauricio López, of the monitoring department. “It’s creating a serious environmental problem.”Just beyond Argentina’s maritime frontier, hundreds of foreign vessels – known as the distant-water fishing fleet – are descending on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned strip of the high seas in the South Atlantic, to plunder its rich marine life. The fleet regularly becomes so big it can be seen from space, looking like a city floating on the sea. Continue reading...

In a monitoring room in Buenos Aires, a dozen members of the Argentinian coast guard watch giant industrial-fishing ships moving in real time across a set of screens. “Every year, for five or six months, the foreign fleet comes from across the Indian Ocean, from Asian countries, and from the North Atlantic,” says Cdr Mauricio López, of the monitoring department. “It’s creating a serious environmental problem.”Just beyond Argentina’s maritime frontier, hundreds of foreign vessels – known as the distant-water fishing fleet – are descending on Mile 201, a largely ungoverned strip of the high seas in the South Atlantic, to plunder its rich marine life. The fleet regularly becomes so big it can be seen from space, looking like a city floating on the sea.The distant-water fishing fleet, seen from space, off the coast of Argentina. Photograph: AlamyThe charity Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) has described it as one of the largest unregulated squid fisheries in the world, warning that the scale of activities could destabilise an entire ecosystem.“With so many ships constantly fishing without any form of oversight, the squid’s short, one-year life cycle simply is not being respected,” says Lt Magalí Bobinac, a marine biologist with the Argentinian coast guard.There are no internationally agreed catch limits in the region covering squid, and distant-water fleets take advantage of this regulatory vacuum.Steve Trent, founder of the EJF, describes the fishery as a “free for all” and says squid could eventually disappear from the area as a result of “this mad fishing effort”.The consequences extend far beyond squid. Whales, dolphins, seals, sea birds and commercially important fish species such as hake and tuna depend on the cephalopod. A collapse in the squid population could trigger a cascade of ecological disruption, with profound social and economic costs for coastal communities and key markets such as Spain, experts warn.“If this species is affected, the whole ecosystem is affected,” Bobinac says. “It is the food for other species. It has a huge impact on the ecosystem and biodiversity.”She says the “vulnerable marine ecosystems” beneath the fleet, such as deep-sea corals, are also at risk of physical damage and pollution.An Argentinian coast guard ship on patrol. ‘Outside our exclusive economic zone, we cannot do anything – we cannot board them, we cannot survey, nor inspect,’ says an officer. Photograph: EJFThree-quarters of squid jigging vessels (which jerk barbless lures up and down to imitate prey) that are operating on the high seas are from China, according to the EJF, with fleets from Taiwan and South Korea also accounting for a significant share.Activity on Mile 201 has surged over recent years, with total fishing hours increasing by 65% between 2019 and 2024 – a jump driven almost entirely by the Chinese fleet, which increased its activities by 85% in the same period, according to an investigation by the charity.The lack of oversight in Mile 201 has enabled something darker too. Interviews conducted by the EJF suggest widespread cruelty towards marine wildlife in the area. Crew reported the deliberate capture and killing of seals – sometimes in their hundreds – on more than 40% of Chinese squid vessels and a fifth of Taiwanese vessels.Other testimonies detailed the hunting of marine megafauna for body parts, including seal teeth. The EJF shared photos and videos with the Guardian of seals hanging on hooks and penguins trapped on decks.One of the huge squid-jigging ships. They also hunt seals, the EJF found. Photograph: EJFLt Luciana De Santis, a lawyer for the coast guard, says: “Outside our exclusive economic zone [EEZ], we cannot do anything – we cannot board them, we cannot survey, nor inspect.”An EEZ is a maritime area extending up to 200 nautical miles from a nation’s coast, with the rules that govern it set by that nation. The Argentinian coast guard says it has “total control” of this space, unlike the area just beyond this limit: Mile 201.But López says “a significant percentage of ships turn their identification systems off” when fishing in the area beyond this, otherwise known as “going dark” to evade detection.Crews working on the squid fleet are also extremely vulnerable. The EJF’s investigation uncovered serious human rights and labour abuses in Mile 201. Workers on the ships described physical violence, including hitting or strangulation, wage deductions, intimidation and debt bondage – a system that in effect traps them at sea. Many reported working excessive hours with little rest.Much of the squid caught under these conditions still enters major global markets in the European Union, UK and North America, the EJF warns – meaning consumers may be unknowingly buying seafood linked to animal cruelty, environmental destruction and human rights abuse.The charity is calling for a ban on imports linked to illegal or abusive fishing practices and a global transparency regime that makes it possible to see who is fishing where, when and how, by mandating an international charter to govern fishing beyond national waters.Cdr Mauricio López says many of the industrial fishing ships the Argentinian coastguard monitors turn off their tracking systems when they are in the area. Photograph: Harriet Barber“The Chinese distant-water fleet is the big beast in this,” says Trent. “Beijing must know this is happening, so why are they not acting? Without urgent action, we are heading for disaster.”The Chinese embassies in Britain and Argentina did not respond to requests for comment.

EPA Says It Will Propose Drinking Water Limit for Perchlorate, but Only Because Court Ordered It

The Environmental Protection Agency says it will propose a drinking water limit for perchlorate, a chemical in certain explosives

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday said it would propose a drinking water limit for perchlorate, a harmful chemical in rockets and other explosives, but also said doing so wouldn't significantly benefit public health and that it was acting only because a court ordered it.The agency said it will seek input on how strict the limit should be for perchlorate, which is particularly dangerous for infants, and require utilities to test. The agency’s move is the latest in a more than decade-long battle over whether to regulate perchlorate. The EPA said that the public benefit of the regulation did not justify its expected cost.“Due to infrequent perchlorate levels of health concern, the vast majority of the approximately 66,000 water systems that would be subject to the rule will incur substantial administrative and monitoring costs with limited or no corresponding public health benefits as a whole,” the agency wrote in its proposal.Perchlorate is used to make rockets, fireworks and other explosives, although it can also occur naturally. At some defense, aerospace and manufacturing sites, it seeped into nearby groundwater where it could spread, a problem that has been concentrated in the Southwest and along sections of the East Coast.Perchlorate is a concern because it affects the function of the thyroid, which can be particularly detrimental for the development of young children, lowering IQ scores and increasing rates of behavioral problems.Based on estimates that perchlorate could be in the drinking water of roughly 16 million people, the EPA determined in 2011 that it was a sufficient threat to public health that it needed to be regulated. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, this determination required the EPA to propose and then finalize regulations by strict deadlines, with a proposal due in two years.It didn’t happen. First, the agency updated the science to better estimate perchlorate’s risks, but that took time. By 2016, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council sued to force action.During the first Trump administration, the EPA proposed a never-implemented standard that the NRDC said was less restrictive than any state limit and would lead to IQ point loss in children. It reversed itself in 2020, saying no standard was necessary because a new analysis had found the chemical was less dangerous and its appearance in drinking water less common than previously thought. That's still the agency's position. It said Monday that its data shows perchlorate is not widespread in drinking water.“We anticipate that fewer than one‑tenth of 1% of regulated water systems are likely to find perchlorate above the proposed limits,” the agency said. A limit will help the small number of places with a problem, but burden the vast majority with costs they don't need, officials said.The NRDC challenged that reversal and a federal appeals court said the EPA must propose a regulation for perchlorate, arguing that it still is a significant and widespread public health threat. The agency will solicit public comment on limits of 20, 40 and 80 parts per billion, as well as other elements of the proposal.“Members of the public deserve to know whether there’s rocket fuel in their tap water. We’re pleased to see that, however reluctantly, EPA is moving one step closer to providing the public with that information,” said Sarah Fort, a senior attorney with NRDC.EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has sought massive rollbacks of environmental rules and promoted oil and gas development. But on drinking water, the agency’s actions have been more moderate. The agency said it would keep the Biden administration's strict limits on two of the most common types of harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water, while giving utilities more time to comply, and would scrap limits on other types of PFAS.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 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

New Navy Report Gauges Training Disruption of Hawaii's Marine Mammals

Over the next seven years, the U.S. Navy estimates its ships will injure or kill just two whales in collisions as it tests and trains in Hawaiian waters

Over the next seven years, the U.S. Navy estimates its ships will injure or kill just two whales in collisions as it tests and trains in Hawaiian waters, and it concluded those exercises won’t significantly harm local marine mammal populations, many of which are endangered.However, the Navy also estimates the readiness exercises, which include sonar testing and underwater explosions, will cause more than 3 million instances of disrupted behavior, hearing loss or injury to whale and dolphin species plus monk seals in Hawaii alone.That has local conservation groups worried that the Navy’s California-Training-and-Testing-EIS-OEIS/Final-EIS-OEIS/">detailed report on its latest multi-year training plan is downplaying the true impacts on vulnerable marine mammals that already face growing extinction threats in Pacific training areas off of Hawaii and California.“If whales are getting hammered by sonar and it’s during an important breeding or feeding season, it could ultimately affect their ability to have enough energy to feed their young or find food,” said Kylie Wager Cruz, a senior attorney with the environmental legal advocacy nonprofit Earthjustice. “There’s a major lack of consideration,” she added,” of how those types of behavioral impacts could ultimately have a greater impact beyond just vessel strikes.”The Navy, Cruz said, didn’t consider how its training exercises add to the harm caused by other factors, most notably collisions with major shipping vessels that kill dozens of endangered whales in the eastern Pacific each year. Environmental law requires the Navy to do that, she said, but “they’re only looking at their own take,” or harm.The Navy, in a statement earlier this month, said it “committed to the maximum level of mitigation measures” that it practically could to curb environmental damage while maintaining its military readiness in the years ahead. The plan also covers some Coast Guard operations.Federal fishery officials recently approved the plan, granting the Navy the necessary exemptions under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to proceed despite the harms. It’s at least the third time that the Navy has had to complete an environmental impact report and seek those exemptions to test and train off Hawaii and California.In a statement Monday, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesperson said the Navy and fishery officials did consider “reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects” — the Navy’s exercises plus unrelated harmful impacts — to the extent it was required to do so under federal environmental law.Fishery officials didn’t weigh those unrelated impacts, the statement said, in determining that the Navy’s activities would have a negligible impact on marine mammals and other animals.The report covers the impacts to some 39 marine mammal species, including eight that are endangered, plus a host of other birds, turtles and other species that inhabit those waters.The Navy says it will limit use of some of its most intense sonar equipment in designated “mitigation areas” around Hawaii island and Maui Nui to better protect humpback whales and other species from exposure. Specifically, it says it won’t use its more intense ship-mounted sonar in those areas during the whales’ Nov. 15 to April 15 breeding season, and it won’t use those systems there for more than 300 hours a year.However, outside of those mitigation zones the Navy report lists 11 additional areas that are biologically important to other marine mammals species, including spinner and bottle-nosed dolphins, false killer whales, short-finned pilot whales and dwarf sperm whales.Those biologically important areas encompass all the waters around the main Hawaiian islands, and based on the Navy’s report they won’t benefit from the same sonar limits. For the Hawaii bottle-nosed dolphins, the Navy estimates its acoustic and explosives exercises will disrupt that species’ feeding, breeding and other behaviors more than 310,000 times, plus muffle their hearing nearly 39,000 times and cause as many as three deaths. The report says the other species will see similar disruptions.In its statement Monday, U.S. Pacific Fleet said the Navy considered the extent to which marine mammals would be affected while still allowing crews to train effectively in setting those mitigation zones.Exactly how the Navy’s numbers compare to previous cycles are difficult to say, Wager Cruz and others said, because the ocean area and total years covered by each report have changed.Nonetheless, the instances in which its Pacific training might harm or kill a marine mammal appear to be climbing.In 2018, for instance, a press release from the nonprofit Center For Biological Diversity stated that the Navy’s Pacific training in Hawaii and Southern California would harm marine mammals an estimated 12.5 million times over a five-year period.This month, the center put out a similar release stating that the Navy’s training would harm marine mammals across Hawaii plus Northern and Southern California an estimated 35 million times over a seven-year period.“There’s large swaths of area that don’t get any mitigation,” Wager Cruz said. “I don’t think we’re asking for, like, everywhere is a prohibited area by any means, but I think that the military should take a harder look and see if they can do more.”The Navy should also consider slowing its vessels to 10 knots during training exercises to help avoid the collisions that often kill endangered whales off the California Coast, Cruz said. In its response, U.S. Pacific Fleet said the Navy “seriously considered” whether it could slow its ships down but concluded those suggestions were impracticable, largely due to the impacts on its mission.Hawaii-based Matson two years ago joined the other major companies who’ve pledged to slow their vessels to those speeds during whale season in the shipping lanes where dozens of endangered blue, fin and humpback whales are estimated to be killed each year.Those numbers have to be significantly reduced, researchers say, if the species are to make a comeback.“There are ways to minimize harm,” Center for Biological Diversity Hawaii and Pacific Islands Director Maxx Phillips added in a statement, “and protect our natural heritage and national security at the same time.”This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Hungary's 'Water Guardian' Farmers Fight Back Against Desertification

Southern Hungary landowner Oszkár Nagyapáti has been battling severe drought on his land

KISKUNMAJSA, Hungary (AP) — Oszkár Nagyapáti climbed to the bottom of a sandy pit on his land on the Great Hungarian Plain and dug into the soil with his hand, looking for a sign of groundwater that in recent years has been in accelerating retreat. “It’s much worse, and it’s getting worse year after year,” he said as cloudy liquid slowly seeped into the hole. ”Where did so much water go? It’s unbelievable.”Nagyapáti has watched with distress as the region in southern Hungary, once an important site for agriculture, has become increasingly parched and dry. Where a variety of crops and grasses once filled the fields, today there are wide cracks in the soil and growing sand dunes more reminiscent of the Sahara Desert than Central Europe. The region, known as the Homokhátság, has been described by some studies as semiarid — a distinction more common in parts of Africa, the American Southwest or Australian Outback — and is characterized by very little rain, dried-out wells and a water table plunging ever deeper underground. In a 2017 paper in European Countryside, a scientific journal, researchers cited “the combined effect of climatic changes, improper land use and inappropriate environmental management” as causes for the Homokhátság's aridification, a phenomenon the paper called unique in this part of the continent.Fields that in previous centuries would be regularly flooded by the Danube and Tisza Rivers have, through a combination of climate change-related droughts and poor water retention practices, become nearly unsuitable for crops and wildlife. Now a group of farmers and other volunteers, led by Nagyapáti, are trying to save the region and their lands from total desiccation using a resource for which Hungary is famous: thermal water. “I was thinking about what could be done, how could we bring the water back or somehow create water in the landscape," Nagyapáti told The Associated Press. "There was a point when I felt that enough is enough. We really have to put an end to this. And that's where we started our project to flood some areas to keep the water in the plain.”Along with the group of volunteer “water guardians,” Nagyapáti began negotiating with authorities and a local thermal spa last year, hoping to redirect the spa's overflow water — which would usually pour unused into a canal — onto their lands. The thermal water is drawn from very deep underground. Mimicking natural flooding According to the water guardians' plan, the water, cooled and purified, would be used to flood a 2½-hectare (6-acre) low-lying field — a way of mimicking the natural cycle of flooding that channelizing the rivers had ended.“When the flooding is complete and the water recedes, there will be 2½ hectares of water surface in this area," Nagyapáti said. "This will be quite a shocking sight in our dry region.”A 2024 study by Hungary’s Eötvös Loránd University showed that unusually dry layers of surface-level air in the region had prevented any arriving storm fronts from producing precipitation. Instead, the fronts would pass through without rain, and result in high winds that dried out the topsoil even further. Creation of a microclimate The water guardians hoped that by artificially flooding certain areas, they wouldn't only raise the groundwater level but also create a microclimate through surface evaporation that could increase humidity, reduce temperatures and dust and have a positive impact on nearby vegetation. Tamás Tóth, a meteorologist in Hungary, said that because of the potential impact such wetlands can have on the surrounding climate, water retention “is simply the key issue in the coming years and for generations to come, because climate change does not seem to stop.”"The atmosphere continues to warm up, and with it the distribution of precipitation, both seasonal and annual, has become very hectic, and is expected to become even more hectic in the future,” he said. Following another hot, dry summer this year, the water guardians blocked a series of sluices along a canal, and the repurposed water from the spa began slowly gathering in the low-lying field. After a couple of months, the field had nearly been filled. Standing beside the area in early December, Nagyapáti said that the shallow marsh that had formed "may seem very small to look at it, but it brings us immense happiness here in the desert.”He said the added water will have a “huge impact” within a roughly 4-kilometer (2½-mile) radius, "not only on the vegetation, but also on the water balance of the soil. We hope that the groundwater level will also rise.”Persistent droughts in the Great Hungarian Plain have threatened desertification, a process where vegetation recedes because of high heat and low rainfall. Weather-damaged crops have dealt significant blows to the country’s overall gross domestic product, prompting Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to announce this year the creation of a “drought task force” to deal with the problem.After the water guardians' first attempt to mitigate the growing problem in their area, they said they experienced noticeable improvements in the groundwater level, as well as an increase of flora and fauna near the flood site. The group, which has grown to more than 30 volunteers, would like to expand the project to include another flooded field, and hopes their efforts could inspire similar action by others to conserve the most precious resource. “This initiative can serve as an example for everyone, we need more and more efforts like this," Nagyapáti said. "We retained water from the spa, but retaining any kind of water, whether in a village or a town, is a tremendous opportunity for water replenishment.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 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.