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.

Unlocking Arctic Secrets Through Mercury and Ice

News Feed
Friday, April 19, 2024

During a near-shore Beaufort Sea sampling campaign in July 2023, PhD student Emma Bullock sampled ocean water with recent meltwater inputs to test for radium isotopes, trace metals, carbon, nutrients, and mercury. Credit: Paul HendersonMIT PhD candidate Emma Bullock studies the local and global impacts of changing mineral levels in Arctic groundwater.A quick scan of Emma Bullock’s CV reads like those of many other MIT graduate students: She has served as a teaching assistant, written several papers, garnered grants from prestigious organizations, and acquired extensive lab and programming skills. But one skill sets her apart: “fieldwork experience and survival training for Arctic research.”That’s because Bullock, a doctoral student in chemical oceanography at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), spends significant time collecting samples in the Arctic Circle for her research. Working in such an extreme environment requires comprehensive training in everything from Arctic gear usage and driving on unpaved roads to handling wildlife encounters — like the curious polar bear that got into her team’s research equipment. To date, she has ventured to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, five times, where she typically spends long days — from 5:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. — collecting and processing samples from Simpson Lagoon. Her work focuses on Arctic environmental changes, particularly the effects of permafrost thaw on mercury levels in groundwater.“Even though I am doing foundational science, I can link it directly to communities in that region that are going to be impacted by the changes that we are seeing,” she says. “As the mercury escapes from the permafrost, it has the potential to impact not just Arctic communities but also anyone who eats fish in the entire world.”Weathering a Storm of SetbacksGrowing up in rural Vermont, Bullock spent a lot of time outside, and she attributes her strong interest in environmental studies to her love of nature as a child. Despite her conviction about a career path involving the environment, her path to the Institute has not been easy. In fact, Bullock weathered several challenges and setbacks on the road to MIT.As an undergraduate at Haverford College, Bullock quickly recognized that she did not have the same advantages as other students. She realized that her biggest challenge in pursuing an academic career was her socioeconomic background. She says, “In Vermont, the cost of living is a bit lower than a lot of other areas. So, I didn’t quite realize until I got to undergrad that I was not as middle-class as I thought.” Bullock had learned financial prudence from her parents, which informed many of the decisions she made as a student. She says, “I didn’t have a phone in undergrad because it was a choice between getting a good laptop that I could do research on or a phone. And so I went with the laptop.”Bullock majored in chemistry because Haverford did not offer an environmental science major. To gain experience in environmental research, she joined the lab of Helen White, focusing on the use of silicone bands as passive samplers of volatile organic compounds in honeybee hives. A pivotal moment occurred when Bullock identified errors in a collaborative project. She says, “[Dr. White and I] brought the information about flawed statistical tests to the collaborators, who were all men. They were not happy with that. They made comments that they did not like being told how to do chemistry by women.”White sat Bullock down and explained the pervasiveness of sexism in this field. “She said, ‘You have to remember that it is not you. You are a good scientist. You are capable,’” Bullock recalls. That experience strengthened her resolve to become an environmental scientist. “The way that Dr. Helen White approached dealing with this problem made me want to stick in the STEM field, and in the environmental and geochemistry fields specifically. It made me realize that we need more women in these fields,” she says.As she reached the end of college, Bullock knew that she wanted to continue her educational journey in environmental science. “Environmental science impacts the world around us in such visible ways, especially now with climate change,” she says. She submitted applications to many graduate programs, including to MIT, which was White’s alma mater, but was rejected by all of them.Undeterred, Bullock decided to get more research experience. She took a position as a lab technician at the Max Planck Institute of Marine Microbiology in Bremen, Germany, where she studied methane emissions from seagrass beds — her first foray into chemical oceanography. A year later, she applied to graduate schools again and was accepted by nearly all of the programs, including MIT. She hopes her experience can serve as a lesson for future applicants. “Just because you get rejected the first time does not mean that you’re not a good candidate. It just means that you may not have the right experience or that you didn’t understand the application process correctly,” she says.Understanding the Ocean Through the Lens of ChemistryUltimately, Bullock chose MIT because she was most interested in the specific scientific projects within the program and liked the sense of community. “It is a very unique program because we have the opportunity to take classes at MIT and access to the resources that MIT has, but we also perform research at Woods Hole,” she says. Some people warned her about the cutthroat nature of the Institute, but Bullock has found the exact opposite to be a true. “A lot of people think of MIT, and they think it is one of those top tier schools, so it must be competitive. My experience in this program is that it is very collaborative because our research is so individual and unique that you really can’t be competitive. What you are doing is so different from any other student,” she says.Bullock joined the group of Matthew Charette, senior scientist and director of the WHOI Sea Grant Program, which investigates the ocean through a chemical lens by characterizing the Arctic groundwater sampled during field campaigns in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Bullock analyzes mercury and biotoxic methylmercury levels impacted by permafrost thaw, which is already affecting the health of Arctic communities. For comparison, Bullock points to mercury-based dental fillings, which have been the subject of scientific scrutiny for health impacts. She says, “You get more mercury by eating sushi and tuna and salmon than you would by having a mercury-based dental filling.”Environmental Advocacy and Future AspirationsBullock has been recognized as an Arctic PASSION Ambassador for her work in the historically underresearched Arctic region. As part of this program, she was invited to participate in a “sharing circle,” which connected early-career scientists with Indigenous community members, and then empowered them to pass what they learned about the importance of Arctic research onto their communities. This experience has been the highlight of her PhD journey so far. She says, “It was small enough, and the people there were invested enough in the issues that we got to have very interesting, dynamic conversations, which doesn’t always happen at typical conferences.”Bullock has also spearheaded her own form of environmental activism via a project called en-justice, which she launched in September 2023. Through a website and a traveling art exhibit, the project showcases portraits and interviews of lesser-known environmental advocates that “have arguably done more for the environment but are not as famous” as household names like Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio.“They are doing things like going to town halls, arguing with politicians, getting petitions signed … the very nitty-gritty type work. I wanted to create a platform that highlighted some of these people from around the country but also inspired people in their own communities to try and make a change,” she says. Bullock has also written an op-ed for the WHOI magazine, Oceanus, and has served as a staff writer for the MIT-WHOI Joint Program newsletter, “Through the Porthole.”After she graduates this year, Bullock plans to continue her focus on the Arctic. She says, “I find Arctic research very interesting, and there are so many unanswered research questions.” She also aspires to foster further interactions like the sharing circle.“Trying to find a way where I can help facilitate Arctic communities and researchers in terms of finding each other and finding common interests would be a dream role. But I don’t know if that job exists,” Bullock says. Given her track record of overcoming obstacles, odds are, she will turn these aspirations into reality.

MIT PhD candidate Emma Bullock studies the local and global impacts of changing mineral levels in Arctic groundwater. A quick scan of Emma Bullock’s CV...

Emma Bullock

During a near-shore Beaufort Sea sampling campaign in July 2023, PhD student Emma Bullock sampled ocean water with recent meltwater inputs to test for radium isotopes, trace metals, carbon, nutrients, and mercury. Credit: Paul Henderson

MIT PhD candidate Emma Bullock studies the local and global impacts of changing mineral levels in Arctic groundwater.

A quick scan of Emma Bullock’s CV reads like those of many other MIT graduate students: She has served as a teaching assistant, written several papers, garnered grants from prestigious organizations, and acquired extensive lab and programming skills. But one skill sets her apart: “fieldwork experience and survival training for Arctic research.”

That’s because Bullock, a doctoral student in chemical oceanography at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), spends significant time collecting samples in the Arctic Circle for her research. Working in such an extreme environment requires comprehensive training in everything from Arctic gear usage and driving on unpaved roads to handling wildlife encounters — like the curious polar bear that got into her team’s research equipment.

To date, she has ventured to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, five times, where she typically spends long days — from 5:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. — collecting and processing samples from Simpson Lagoon. Her work focuses on Arctic environmental changes, particularly the effects of permafrost thaw on mercury levels in groundwater.

“Even though I am doing foundational science, I can link it directly to communities in that region that are going to be impacted by the changes that we are seeing,” she says. “As the mercury escapes from the permafrost, it has the potential to impact not just Arctic communities but also anyone who eats fish in the entire world.”

Weathering a Storm of Setbacks

Growing up in rural Vermont, Bullock spent a lot of time outside, and she attributes her strong interest in environmental studies to her love of nature as a child. Despite her conviction about a career path involving the environment, her path to the Institute has not been easy. In fact, Bullock weathered several challenges and setbacks on the road to MIT.

As an undergraduate at Haverford College, Bullock quickly recognized that she did not have the same advantages as other students. She realized that her biggest challenge in pursuing an academic career was her socioeconomic background. She says, “In Vermont, the cost of living is a bit lower than a lot of other areas. So, I didn’t quite realize until I got to undergrad that I was not as middle-class as I thought.” Bullock had learned financial prudence from her parents, which informed many of the decisions she made as a student. She says, “I didn’t have a phone in undergrad because it was a choice between getting a good laptop that I could do research on or a phone. And so I went with the laptop.”

Bullock majored in chemistry because Haverford did not offer an environmental science major. To gain experience in environmental research, she joined the lab of Helen White, focusing on the use of silicone bands as passive samplers of volatile organic compounds in honeybee hives. A pivotal moment occurred when Bullock identified errors in a collaborative project. She says, “[Dr. White and I] brought the information about flawed statistical tests to the collaborators, who were all men. They were not happy with that. They made comments that they did not like being told how to do chemistry by women.”

White sat Bullock down and explained the pervasiveness of sexism in this field. “She said, ‘You have to remember that it is not you. You are a good scientist. You are capable,’” Bullock recalls. That experience strengthened her resolve to become an environmental scientist. “The way that Dr. Helen White approached dealing with this problem made me want to stick in the STEM field, and in the environmental and geochemistry fields specifically. It made me realize that we need more women in these fields,” she says.

As she reached the end of college, Bullock knew that she wanted to continue her educational journey in environmental science. “Environmental science impacts the world around us in such visible ways, especially now with climate change,” she says. She submitted applications to many graduate programs, including to MIT, which was White’s alma mater, but was rejected by all of them.

Undeterred, Bullock decided to get more research experience. She took a position as a lab technician at the Max Planck Institute of Marine Microbiology in Bremen, Germany, where she studied methane emissions from seagrass beds — her first foray into chemical oceanography. A year later, she applied to graduate schools again and was accepted by nearly all of the programs, including MIT. She hopes her experience can serve as a lesson for future applicants. “Just because you get rejected the first time does not mean that you’re not a good candidate. It just means that you may not have the right experience or that you didn’t understand the application process correctly,” she says.

Understanding the Ocean Through the Lens of Chemistry

Ultimately, Bullock chose MIT because she was most interested in the specific scientific projects within the program and liked the sense of community. “It is a very unique program because we have the opportunity to take classes at MIT and access to the resources that MIT has, but we also perform research at Woods Hole,” she says. Some people warned her about the cutthroat nature of the Institute, but Bullock has found the exact opposite to be a true. “A lot of people think of MIT, and they think it is one of those top tier schools, so it must be competitive. My experience in this program is that it is very collaborative because our research is so individual and unique that you really can’t be competitive. What you are doing is so different from any other student,” she says.

Bullock joined the group of Matthew Charette, senior scientist and director of the WHOI Sea Grant Program, which investigates the ocean through a chemical lens by characterizing the Arctic groundwater sampled during field campaigns in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Bullock analyzes mercury and biotoxic methylmercury levels impacted by permafrost thaw, which is already affecting the health of Arctic communities. For comparison, Bullock points to mercury-based dental fillings, which have been the subject of scientific scrutiny for health impacts. She says, “You get more mercury by eating sushi and tuna and salmon than you would by having a mercury-based dental filling.”

Environmental Advocacy and Future Aspirations

Bullock has been recognized as an Arctic PASSION Ambassador for her work in the historically underresearched Arctic region. As part of this program, she was invited to participate in a “sharing circle,” which connected early-career scientists with Indigenous community members, and then empowered them to pass what they learned about the importance of Arctic research onto their communities. This experience has been the highlight of her PhD journey so far. She says, “It was small enough, and the people there were invested enough in the issues that we got to have very interesting, dynamic conversations, which doesn’t always happen at typical conferences.”

Bullock has also spearheaded her own form of environmental activism via a project called en-justice, which she launched in September 2023. Through a website and a traveling art exhibit, the project showcases portraits and interviews of lesser-known environmental advocates that “have arguably done more for the environment but are not as famous” as household names like Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio.

“They are doing things like going to town halls, arguing with politicians, getting petitions signed … the very nitty-gritty type work. I wanted to create a platform that highlighted some of these people from around the country but also inspired people in their own communities to try and make a change,” she says. Bullock has also written an op-ed for the WHOI magazine, Oceanus, and has served as a staff writer for the MIT-WHOI Joint Program newsletter, “Through the Porthole.”

After she graduates this year, Bullock plans to continue her focus on the Arctic. She says, “I find Arctic research very interesting, and there are so many unanswered research questions.” She also aspires to foster further interactions like the sharing circle.

“Trying to find a way where I can help facilitate Arctic communities and researchers in terms of finding each other and finding common interests would be a dream role. But I don’t know if that job exists,” Bullock says. Given her track record of overcoming obstacles, odds are, she will turn these aspirations into reality.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.