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.

These are the proposals lawmakers hope will save Texas’ water supply. Track them here.

News Feed
Monday, March 17, 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. It will also be updated through the legislative session as bills advance. Texas’ water supply is full of uncertainties. Leaking water pipes and deteriorating infrastructure plague the state’s water systems. Prolonged droughts and record-setting heat waves are depleting the state’s rivers. And a growing population is adding more stress to the system every day. One state figure estimates there could be a severe shortage of municipal water by 2030 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. State lawmakers have proposed several possible solutions. Their proposals range from committing to annual funding for water projects to tapping into new sources, like oil and gas wastewater that comes from the ground during extraction, and making sure the quality of drinking water is safer. There are a number of steps to the legislative process, however, and they all have to take place before a bill can go into law. There are 10 bills the Tribune is tracking — some of them have moved quickly in the legislature, while others have failed to pick up steam. Here are the steps of the process we are tracking: Related Story March 13, 2025 Bill has been filed: This is the very first step in the process. A bill is written and introduced in one of the two legislative chambers, the Texas House or state Senate. In the works: Bills are assigned to committees where a panel of lawmakers vet the bill and take testimony from the public. Bills must be approved by at least one committee before the full chamber votes on it. Both chambers have to approve a bill for it to become law. A bill may also go to a conference committee to reconcile any differences between the chambers on the bill before it’s passed. Passed the House: The bill received a majority vote of approval by state representatives. If it is a House bill, it must go to the Senate next for approval. If it has already passed by the Senate, then it is sent to Gov. Greg Abbott. Passed the Senate: The bill received a majority vote of approval by state senators. If the bill starts in the Senate, it will go to the House for approval. If it’s already been passed by the House, then it is sent to Abbott. Signed into Law: Bills signed by Abbott become law. If there is a bill left unsigned but was not vetoed by Abbott, then it automatically becomes law. Vetoed or failed: A legislative proposal failed by missing a key deadline or did not make it out of the original committee for a floor vote. Abbott could also veto any bills sent to him. Here are the bills to follow: Senate Bill 7 — A priority bill that establishes an administrative framework for how water projects — including building of infrastructure that would transport water across the state and fixing leaking pipes — would be funded under the Texas Water Development Board. The bill would also establish the Texas Water Fund Advisory Committee for oversight and the Office of Water Supply Conveyance Coordination to improve regional and statewide water infrastructure connectivity. Bill has been filed. Senate Joint Resolution 66 — A constitutional amendment to dedicate $1 billion to the Texas Water Fund for up to 16 years beginning in 2027. The annual stream of state tax dollars and insurance premium taxes would help cities and local water agencies buy more water and repair aging infrastructure. It calls for 80% of the appropriated money to go to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund — prioritizing desalination projects and pipelines transporting water from the water-rich regions of Texas to arid, drought-stricken areas. The other 20% would go to fixing aging infrastructure. The bill would expire in 2043. In the works. Bill has been referred to a Senate committee on finance. 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. The bill would also create the Texas Water Fund Advisory Committee to oversee operations on each fund and report to the Texas Water Development Board. In the works. Bill has been referred to a House committee on natural resources. House Joint Resolution 7 — A constitutional amendment to dedicate $1 billion to the Texas Water Fund for up to 10 years. The annual stream of state tax dollars would help cities and local water agencies buy more water and repair aging infrastructure. It gives the Texas Water Development Board full discretion over the $1 billion, allowing it to distribute the money as it sees fit. In the works. Bill has been scheduled for a public hearing. House Bill 1501 — Directs the Texas State University Meadows Center for Water and the Environment to study how Texas can develop seawater desalination plants along the Gulf Coast. Desalination is the process of removing salt from seawater or salty groundwater so it can be used for drinking water, irrigation and industrial uses. The study will examine international desalination plants in Israel and Australia to identify best practices and challenges, including financial barriers and explore ways to dispose of brine — highly salty and concentrated liquid — including its potential use in nuclear energy production. The findings must be reported by Jan. 1, 2027. In the works. Bill has been referred to a House committee on natural resources. House Bill 310 — A bill that directs the Texas Water Development Board, the state agency that oversees water supplies and projects, on how to allocate money from the Texas Water Fund. The board would ensure a portion of the money is used for water infrastructure projects and prioritized by risk or need. It would go to rural areas with less than 20,000 people, and areas with at least 20,000 residents but no more than 150,000. It also calls for money to be spent on a statewide public awareness campaign about water. In the works: Bill is pending in a House committee on natural resources. Senate Bill 1145 — Authorizes the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to issue permits for land application of produced water — wastewater that comes out of the ground during the extraction of oil and gas production — and develop standards that prevent pollution of surface and groundwater. Passed the Senate: The House has received the bill for review. House Bill 2080 — A bill that calls for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to appoint a panel to review the duties of a groundwater conservation district. This would happen if someone files a petition with the TCEQ requesting an inquiry about a conservation district. If the petition is not dismissed, the commission would appoint a review panel of five members. Bill has been filed. House Bill 2114 — This bill aims to prevent conflicts of interest by barring engineering firms involved in state or regional water planning from also constructing reservoirs. It specifically applies to feasibility reviews assessing costs, timelines, land acquisition, and economic impacts. One example of a case is the $7 billion Marvin Nichols Reservoir, which groups estimate would flood over 66,000 acres of northeast Texas forest. A feasibility review released last year found no major obstacles to the project. The firm that conducted the review, Freese and Nichols Inc., is also set to build the reservoir. Bill has been filed. House Bill 1400 — Creates a new fund to support scientific research that will expand knowledge about the quality, quantity and threats to the state’s groundwater resources. It will be administered by the Texas Water Development Board. In the works. Bill has been scheduled for a public hearing. 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.

Most lawmakers — as well as Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — want to invest big in water. Here are the proposals that would do it.

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. It will also be updated through the legislative session as bills advance.

Texas’ water supply is full of uncertainties.

Leaking water pipes and deteriorating infrastructure plague the state’s water systems. Prolonged droughts and record-setting heat waves are depleting the state’s rivers. And a growing population is adding more stress to the system every day.

One state figure estimates there could be a severe shortage of municipal water by 2030 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.

State lawmakers have proposed several possible solutions. Their proposals range from committing to annual funding for water projects to tapping into new sources, like oil and gas wastewater that comes from the ground during extraction, and making sure the quality of drinking water is safer.

There are a number of steps to the legislative process, however, and they all have to take place before a bill can go into law. There are 10 bills the Tribune is tracking — some of them have moved quickly in the legislature, while others have failed to pick up steam. Here are the steps of the process we are tracking:

Related Story

Bill has been filed: This is the very first step in the process. A bill is written and introduced in one of the two legislative chambers, the Texas House or state Senate.

In the works: Bills are assigned to committees where a panel of lawmakers vet the bill and take testimony from the public. Bills must be approved by at least one committee before the full chamber votes on it. Both chambers have to approve a bill for it to become law. A bill may also go to a conference committee to reconcile any differences between the chambers on the bill before it’s passed.

Passed the House: The bill received a majority vote of approval by state representatives. If it is a House bill, it must go to the Senate next for approval. If it has already passed by the Senate, then it is sent to Gov. Greg Abbott.

Passed the Senate: The bill received a majority vote of approval by state senators. If the bill starts in the Senate, it will go to the House for approval. If it’s already been passed by the House, then it is sent to Abbott.

Signed into Law: Bills signed by Abbott become law. If there is a bill left unsigned but was not vetoed by Abbott, then it automatically becomes law.

Vetoed or failed: A legislative proposal failed by missing a key deadline or did not make it out of the original committee for a floor vote. Abbott could also veto any bills sent to him.

Here are the bills to follow:

Senate Bill 7 — A priority bill that establishes an administrative framework for how water projects — including building of infrastructure that would transport water across the state and fixing leaking pipes — would be funded under the Texas Water Development Board. The bill would also establish the Texas Water Fund Advisory Committee for oversight and the Office of Water Supply Conveyance Coordination to improve regional and statewide water infrastructure connectivity.

Bill has been filed.

Senate Joint Resolution 66 — A constitutional amendment to dedicate $1 billion to the Texas Water Fund for up to 16 years beginning in 2027. The annual stream of state tax dollars and insurance premium taxes would help cities and local water agencies buy more water and repair aging infrastructure. It calls for 80% of the appropriated money to go to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund — prioritizing desalination projects and pipelines transporting water from the water-rich regions of Texas to arid, drought-stricken areas. The other 20% would go to fixing aging infrastructure. The bill would expire in 2043.

In the works. Bill has been referred to a Senate committee on finance.

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. The bill would also create the Texas Water Fund Advisory Committee to oversee operations on each fund and report to the Texas Water Development Board.

In the works. Bill has been referred to a House committee on natural resources.

House Joint Resolution 7 — A constitutional amendment to dedicate $1 billion to the Texas Water Fund for up to 10 years. The annual stream of state tax dollars would help cities and local water agencies buy more water and repair aging infrastructure. It gives the Texas Water Development Board full discretion over the $1 billion, allowing it to distribute the money as it sees fit.

In the works. Bill has been scheduled for a public hearing.

House Bill 1501 — Directs the Texas State University Meadows Center for Water and the Environment to study how Texas can develop seawater desalination plants along the Gulf Coast. Desalination is the process of removing salt from seawater or salty groundwater so it can be used for drinking water, irrigation and industrial uses. The study will examine international desalination plants in Israel and Australia to identify best practices and challenges, including financial barriers and explore ways to dispose of brine — highly salty and concentrated liquid — including its potential use in nuclear energy production. The findings must be reported by Jan. 1, 2027.

In the works. Bill has been referred to a House committee on natural resources.

House Bill 310 — A bill that directs the Texas Water Development Board, the state agency that oversees water supplies and projects, on how to allocate money from the Texas Water Fund. The board would ensure a portion of the money is used for water infrastructure projects and prioritized by risk or need. It would go to rural areas with less than 20,000 people, and areas with at least 20,000 residents but no more than 150,000. It also calls for money to be spent on a statewide public awareness campaign about water.

In the works: Bill is pending in a House committee on natural resources.

Senate Bill 1145 — Authorizes the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to issue permits for land application of produced water — wastewater that comes out of the ground during the extraction of oil and gas production — and develop standards that prevent pollution of surface and groundwater.

Passed the Senate: The House has received the bill for review.

House Bill 2080 — A bill that calls for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to appoint a panel to review the duties of a groundwater conservation district. This would happen if someone files a petition with the TCEQ requesting an inquiry about a conservation district. If the petition is not dismissed, the commission would appoint a review panel of five members.

Bill has been filed.

House Bill 2114 — This bill aims to prevent conflicts of interest by barring engineering firms involved in state or regional water planning from also constructing reservoirs. It specifically applies to feasibility reviews assessing costs, timelines, land acquisition, and economic impacts. One example of a case is the $7 billion Marvin Nichols Reservoir, which groups estimate would flood over 66,000 acres of northeast Texas forest. A feasibility review released last year found no major obstacles to the project. The firm that conducted the review, Freese and Nichols Inc., is also set to build the reservoir.

Bill has been filed.

House Bill 1400 — Creates a new fund to support scientific research that will expand knowledge about the quality, quantity and threats to the state’s groundwater resources. It will be administered by the Texas Water Development Board.

In the works. Bill has been scheduled for a public hearing.


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

Ofwat letting water firms charge twice to tackle sewage, court to hear

River Action bringing legal action against water regulator over who should foot bill for firms’ past failures to investOfwat is unlawfully allowing water companies to charge customers twice to fund more than £100bn of investment to reduce sewage pollution, campaigners will allege in court on Tuesday.Lawyers for River Action say the bill increases being allowed by Ofwat – which amount to an average of £123 a year per household – mean customers will be paying again for improvements to achieve environmental compliance that should have been funded from their previous bills. Continue reading...

Ofwat is unlawfully allowing water companies to charge customers twice to fund more than £100bn of investment to reduce sewage pollution, campaigners will allege in court on Tuesday.Lawyers for River Action say the bill increases being allowed by Ofwat – which amount to an average of £123 a year per household – mean customers will be paying again for improvements to achieve environmental compliance that should have been funded from their previous bills.Ofwat has approved a £104bn injection of cash by water companies to the end of the decade, in what is referred to as its PR24 decision, to tackle record sewage pollution into rivers as a result of underinvestment over many years.Customers of some of the worst-performing companies are facing huge bill rises. Thames Water customers are being charged 35% more, raising average bills from £436 to £588, and Southern Water customers are being charged 53% more, increasing from £420 to £642 a year on average. United Utilities is raising bills by 32% to an average of £535 a year.Lawyers are using the case of Windermere as an example to argue that customers are being unlawfully charged twice. They argue that any investment to repair historic under-investment in infrastructure should be paid for by shareholders, not customers. According to Ofwat rules, customers must only pay for new infrastructure investment, not investment to bring a company into compliance with environmental legislation.Emma Dearnaley, the head of legal at River Action, said: “It is fundamental that the public should not be made to pay twice for water companies’ past failures to invest in improvements to stop sewage pollution. But River Action is concerned that Ofwat’s approach means customers could be paying again. Meanwhile, degraded infrastructure keeps spewing pollution into rivers and lakes across the country that should have been clean decades ago.”The case argues that Ofwat must ensure the billions it approves results in legal compliance by water companies and that customers are charged fairly from now on.Ricardo Gama, of Leigh Day, who is representing River Action at the hearing in Manchester, said: “Our client believes that this case shows that Ofwat has failed to make sure that water bills are used for infrastructure upgrades.“River Action will argue that the money that could and should have been used to make essential infrastructure improvements is now gone, and customers are being asked to foot the bill for those improvements a second time over.”The hearing takes place at Manchester civil justice centre on Tuesday and Wednesday.An Ofwat spokesperson said: “We reject River Action’s claims. The PR24 process carefully scrutinised business plans to ensure that customers were getting fair value and investment was justified.“We stated that customers should not pay twice for companies to regain compliance with environmental permits, and have included appropriate safeguards in our PR24 determinations to monitor this, which we will monitor closely, taking action if required. We cannot comment further at this time due to the ongoing hearing.”

Scientists Hope Underwater Fiber-Optic Cables Can Help Save Endangered Orcas

Scientists from the University of Washington recently deployed a little over 1 mile of fiber-optic cable in the Salish Sea to test whether internet cables can monitor endangered orcas

SAN JUAN ISLAND, Wash. (AP) — As dawn broke over San Juan Island, a team of scientists stood on the deck of a barge and unspooled over a mile of fiber-optic cable into the frigid waters of the Salish Sea. Working by headlamp, they fed the line from the rocky shore down to the seafloor — home to the region's orcas.The bet is that the same hair-thin strands that carry internet signals can be transformed into a continuous underwater microphone to capture the clicks, calls and whistles of passing whales — information that could reveal how they respond to ship traffic, food scarcity and climate change. If the experiment works, the thousands of miles of fiber-optic cables that already crisscross the ocean floor could be turned into a vast listening network that could inform conservation efforts worldwide.The technology, called Distributed Acoustic Sensing, or DAS, was developed to monitor pipelines and detect infrastructure problems. Now University of Washington scientists are adapting it to listen to the ocean. Unlike traditional hydrophones that listen from a single spot, DAS turns the entire cable into a sensor, allowing it to pinpoint the exact location of an animal and determine the direction it’s heading.“We can imagine that we have thousands of hydrophones along the cable recording data continuously,” said Shima Abadi, professor at the University of Washington Bothell School of STEM and the University of Washington School of Oceanography. “We can know where the animals are and learn about their migration patterns much better than hydrophones.”The researchers have already proven the technology works with large baleen whales. In a test off the Oregon coast, they recorded the low-frequency rumblings of fin whales and blue whales using existing telecommunications cables.But orcas present a bigger challenge: Their clicks and calls operate at high frequencies at which the technology hasn’t yet been tested.The stakes are high. The Southern Resident orcas that frequent the Salish Sea are endangered, with a population hovering around 75. The whales face a triple threat: underwater noise pollution, toxic contaminants and food scarcity.“We have an endangered killer whale trying to eat an endangered salmon species,” said Scott Veirs, president of Beam Reach Marine Science and Sustainability, an organization that develops open-source acoustic systems for whale conservation.The Chinook salmon that orcas depend on have declined dramatically. Since the Pacific Salmon Commission began tracking numbers in 1984, populations have dropped 60% due to habitat loss, overfishing, dams and climate change.Orcas use echolocation – rapid clicks that bounce off objects – to find salmon in murky water. Ship noise can mask those clicks, making it difficult for them to hunt.If DAS works as hoped, it could give conservationists real-time information to protect the whales. For instance, if the system detects orcas heading south toward Seattle and calculates their travel speed, scientists could alert Washington State Ferries to postpone noisy activities or to slow down until the whales pass.“It will for sure help with dynamic management and long-term policy that will have real benefits for the whales,” Veirs said.The technology would also answer basic questions about orca behavior that have eluded scientists, such as determining whether their communication changes when they’re in different behavioral states and how they hunt together. It could even enable researchers to identify which sound is coming from a particular whale — a kind of voice recognition for orcas.The implications extend far beyond the Salish Sea. With some 870,000 miles (1.4 million kilometers) of fiber-optic cables already installed underwater globally, the infrastructure for ocean monitoring largely exists. It just needs to be tapped. “One of the most important challenges for managing wildlife, conserving biodiversity and combating climate change is that there’s just a lack of data overall,” said Yuta Masuda, director of science at Allen Family Philanthropies, which helped fund the project.The timing is critical. The High Seas Treaty enters into force in January, which will allow for new marine protected areas in international waters. But scientists still don’t understand how human activities affect most ocean species or where protections are most needed. A dataset as vast as the one the global web of submarine cables could provide might help determine which areas should be prioritized for protection.“We think this has a lot of promise to fill in those key data gaps,” Masuda said.Back on the barge, the team faced a delicate task: fusing two fibers together above the rolling swell. They struggled to align the strands in a fusion splicer, a device that precisely positions the fiber ends before melting them together with an electric current. The boat rocked. They steadied their hands and tried again, and again. Finally, the weld held. Data soon began flowing to a computer on shore, appearing as waterfall plots — cascading visualizations that show sound frequencies over time. Nearby, cameras trained on the water stood ready so that if a vocalization was detected, researchers could link a behavior with a specific call.All that was left was to sit and wait for orcas.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 – Oct. 2025

New York to appeal after judge OKs radioactive Indian Point water in the Hudson

Governor Kathy Hochul has confirmed that the Indian Point nuclear plant will not be reopened, despite a federal judge's ruling that the state's Save the Hudson Act, which aimed to prevent the dumping of radioactive wastewater into the Hudson River, was invalid.

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — A federal judge in New York last month struck down the state's Save the Hudson Act, a law that aimed to prevent Holtec International, the owner of the decommissioned Indian Point nuclear plant, from dumping over a million gallons of radioactive wastewater into the Hudson River. Still, despite the ruling and her openness to expand nuclear power in the state, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) maintains that the site will not reopen. "Let me say this plainly: No," Hochul wrote in a letter to Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins on Friday, which can be read at the bottom of this story. Entergy, the previous owners of the Indian Point Energy Center, shut down its final reactor, Unit 3, in April 2021. Holtec bought the three-unit nuclear power plant located in the northwestern corner of Westchester County on the eastern bank of the Hudson River in May 2021. Use it or lose it: Summer EBT food benefits expiring Friday The plant is undergoing a decommissioning process that includes removing equipment and structures, reducing residual radioactivity, and dismantling the facility. Holtec projects that process to finish by 2033. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sided with Holtec in a lawsuit they filed in April 2024, agreeing that state law can't block the discharge of radioactive wastewater from nuclear sites being decommissioned. The court found that only the federal government has that authority, because federal law like the Atomic Energy Act overrules the state under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Hochul launches $1B clean climate plan as state, federal energy agendas diverge The judge determined that S6893/A7208 wasn't meant to protect the radiological safety of the public or the environment, which falls under federal jurisdiction. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James announced their intent to appeal the decision, arguing that the law represents vital protections for the iconic river and the economic health of the region through tourism and real estate values. Jenkins applauded the decision to appeal, saying, "The Hudson River is the lifeblood of our region—a source of recreation, natural beauty, and economic vitality—and we must do everything in our power to protect it." And in the letter to Jenkins, Hochul directly addressed the concern that the state government may plan to reopen Indian Point or build small modular reactors on the site. NYC storm cancels Columbus Day parade amid Indigenous Peoples Day debate "There have been no discussions or plans," the governor wrote. "I would not support efforts to do so." Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group, called the ruling a blow to the progress made in restoring the Hudson River. They worked with local officials to pass the Save the Hudson Act in 2023 after Holtec announced plan to release the wastewater. New York’s 2040 energy grid: Nuclear power, public renewables, and fracked gas pipelines The wastewater in question is contaminated with tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen created during the nuclear fission process. Tritium—whose half-life is 12 years—bonds with oxygen, meaning the wastewater cannot be filtered. S6893/A7208, signed by Hochul in August 2023, lets the attorney general enforce the ban with civil penalties of $37,500 for the first day of violation, $75,000 for the second, and $150,000 per violation thereafter. It came in response to Holtec's initial plan to put between 1.3 and 1.5 million gallons of tritiated water from the spent fuel pools, reactor cavity, and other holding tanks into the Hudson. The company maintained that discharge would be the safest option for the tritiated water, that the planned release represented just 5% of what the plant discharged historically, and that the plan followed federal guidelines. Data challenges tax flight claims in New York The company wanted to start dewatering with three 18,000-gallon batches—45,000 gallons in total—in May 2023. Holtec paused their initial plan so the state could perform independent sampling and analysis of the water. Federal water standards set the maximum contaminant level for tritium at 20,000 picocuries per liter, though California, for example, aims to say below 400 picocuries of tritium per liter. Regulations on radioactive releases from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal body managing decommissions, are based on the dose to the public, regardless of the volume of the discharge. NRC has an internal goal to keep the dose from liquid releases below three millirem per year at the release point, and a legal limit of 25 millirem per year. Power struggle: New York lawmakers, environmentalists clash over electricity The calculated dose to the public from Indian Point in 2021 was about 0.011966 millirem—about one-thousandth of the federal cap. Plus, NRC allows several disposal methods, including transferring the waste, storing it for decay, or releasing it into the environment. Still, critics said the discharge would undermine local economies, erode public trust, and doom the Hudson even as more New Yorkers swim, boat, fish, and work on and in the river. Riverkeeper said there are alternatives, like storing the water for its 12-year half-life. They want the contaminated water to be held at Indian Point for at least 12 years, when its radioactivity will be reduced by half, before exploring any alternative disposal. Gas pipelines eye return to New York But delaying the discharge process could force lay offs of specialized Holtec workers. The company already extended decommissioning timelines at two other sites—Pilgrim and Oyster Creek—from eight to 12 years because of inflated costs and poor market performance. In the letter to Jenkins, Hochul confirmed her support for nuclear as part of the state's energy strategy, but that any new plant would be upstate, and only in communities that want it. Hochul said that downstate New York needs to rely on energy sources like the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line, set to bring hydroelectricity from Canada. New York Republican Senators propose scaling back climate laws She characterized the decision to close Indian Point as a hasty failure that caused emissions to rise. It happened before her administration, Hochul argued, and the state "lost 25% of the power that was going to New York City without having a Plan B." Take a look at the letter below: Hochul Indian point letter to JenkinsDownload Arizona AG threatens legal action if Johnson doesn't seat recently elected Democrat FDA expands cinnamon recall to 16 brands with elevated lead levels New York to appeal after judge OKs radioactive Indian Point water in the Hudson Bondi says Facebook has removed page targeting ICE agents after DOJ outreach Live updates: Trump to honor Kirk with Medal of Freedom; Senate to vote as shutdown hits Day 14

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.