By Jon Devine, Senior Attorney, Water Program, NRDC
Originally published here
President Trump announced his proposed budget on Thursday. If it were to be adopted by Congress, it would threaten public health and our natural resources enormously. Although this budget is so radical that it has no chance of enactment, it still bears close examination for a couple reasons. First, it provides a window into the values that the Trump administration holds (or, based on this document, lacks). Second, we need to be on guard for attempts to cast the president’s budget as the starting point for discussing the ultimate funding levels, such that Congress seems reasonable by providing more funding than the president would for environmental programs, but cutting them below already-insufficient current levels.
This post examines President Trump’s budget with respect to water programs. I’m sorry to report that it is an unmitigated disaster. It’s no exaggeration to say the administration has declared war on clean water, when one looks at this budget combined with the administration’s rollback of water rules protecting communities from coal mining and its initiation of a scheme to weaken safeguards for a variety of critical water bodies, including streams that feed the drinking water supplies of one in three Americans.
Water Infrastructure Funding: Not What Administration Wants You to Think
Let’s start with the least bad news, as the Trump administration has touted the budget’s alleged “robust funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure.” It is true that the levels that this proposal suggests for EPA’s clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure funds are roughly the same as in recent years.But focusing only on that budget item would be a big mistake, for several reasons.
First, the recent level of investment is woefully inadequate to address the nation’s infrastructure needs; the American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave America’s wastewater and drinking water infrastructure D and D+ grades, respectively. Second, the budget proposes to cut nearly half a billion dollars from a Department of Agriculture program that supports improvements to water and wastewater services for small rural communities, meaning the federal commitment to water systems actually would be cut. Third, if one looks at keeping these popular programs steady in context of EPA’s entire proposed budget, it means even deeper cuts to agency functions like enforcement, scientific research, and policy development, as my colleague John Walke recently noted.
Agency Staffing: Killing Effective Protections by Dumping Personnel
From that inauspicious start, the president’s budget goes far downhill. Perhaps most strikingly, the overall agency budget cut would, the administration estimates, “result in approximately 3,200 fewer positions at the agency.”
These “positions” are people – public servants with expertise in pollution control and cleanup technologies, environmental monitoring, law enforcement, public health impacts of exposure to contaminants, and more. Tossing them off the agency payroll would mean delays in updating health standards for swimming and fishing in surface waters and for drinking water; it would mean fewer major pollution sources being inspected and more illegal dischargers escaping enforcement; and it would mean less information about the condition of the nation’s waters.
Short-Changing State Water Programs
Not satisfied with cutting the heart out of the federal government’s ability to implement public safeguards, the Trump budget also proposes to make a 45 percent cut to the “categorical grants” which enable state-run water protection programs to operate effectively.
Ordinarily, state and federal pollution control officials’ work acts in a complementary way. States issue most discharge permits for industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants and develop standards water bodies should meet. These and other state actions are subject to EPA oversight and, often, approval. With these cuts, however, both the states and EPA would be starved for basic operating resources.
The categorical state grants in the EPA budget, and subject to major cuts, include:
Public water system supervision – these funds support state drinking water programs, which give technical assistance to utilities, collect and share sampling information with the public, and enforce against violating systems, among other actions.
“Non-point” pollution management – EPA provides grants to states to implement control programs for “non-point” sources of water pollution, like agricultural runoff, which are often poorly controlled but which also can be significant contributors to water bodies’ degradation. According to EPA, “[i]n 2014 there were an additional 11.3 million pounds of nitrogen, 2.7 million pounds of phosphorus, and 1.7 million tons of sediment reduced from nonpoint sources.” Across the country, states have used these funds for projects to restore or improve waters impaired by non-point pollution, resulting in numerous “success stories.”
Wetlands program development – states use these funds for wetland condition assessments, to set water quality standards for wetlands, for voluntary restoration efforts, and to run programs by which states review discharges into wetlands to ensure state standards will not be violated. These grants also support “the Five-Star Restoration Program with other partners. Under this program, approximately 45 to 50 grants will be awarded to provide technical support and opportunities for information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects while bringing together students, conservation corps, other youth groups, citizen groups, corporations, landowners, and government agencies to provide environmental education and training through projects that restore wetlands, streams, and coasts.”
Surface water quality management programs – states use these funds to operate their day-to-day pollution control programs. This enables states to issue permits to discharge, in accordance with industry-specific pollution limits and water body-based quality standards. States also use this support to develop cleanup targets for polluted waters and evaluate the condition of waterways in their states.
This approach – gutting state implementation capacity while also killing EPA’s operations – gives the lie to new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s common refrain that the agency under his leadership will protect water resources while also empowering states. In fact, the Trump administration clearly intends to do neither. This budget, again in combination with the early policy moves the administration has made, reveals that the plan is really just to make drastic reductions in environmental implementation and enforcement.
Geographic Programs: Abandoning National Commitment to Great Waters
To make matters worse, the Trump administration’s budget zeroes out restoration programs for some of the nation’s most iconic water bodies. The federal government serves as a critical partner in efforts to restore several important watersheds, but this budget would have the country shirk these responsibilities, and leave these water bodies’ health to the various states. This approach endangers multi-year, multi-state cleanup initiatives, running the risk that years of investments from numerous stakeholders could be wasted.
Great Lakes: The budget’s irresponsibility starts with the Great Lakes. Though the federal government invested $300 million in the Great Lakes in fiscal year 2016, the Trump administration proposes to spend nothing on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. To give a sense of what that means on the ground in the watershed, just have a look at what EPA said just last year, when the Obama administration asked Congress to provide a quarter of a billion dollars for the initiative. Here’s a partial list of what EPA, together with various partners and leveraging funds from different sources, helped accomplish:
“Over 3.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment has been remediated through GLRI-associated projects.”
“GLRI partners implemented invasive species control activities on over 100,000 acres.”
“GLRI has been central to the Administration’s coordinated efforts to keep self-sustaining populations of silver, bighead, and black carp out of the Great Lakes.”
“Over 1 million acres of agricultural land in the Great Lakes watershed were put into conservation contracts to reduce erosion and loadings of nutrients and/or pesticides.”
“More than 3,800 river-miles have been cleared for fish passage.”
“More than 150,000 acres of wetland, coastal, upland, and island habitat have been protected, restored, or enhanced.”
“For the first time, 100 percent of U.S. Great Lakes coastal wetlands have been assessed.”
“Projects were implemented that lead to 15 populations of native aquatic non-threatened and non-endangered species becoming self-sustaining in the wild.”
Disinvesting from these kinds of programs is not exactly the treatment the nation’s crown jewel water bodies deserve.
Chesapeake Bay: For decades, the approach of leaving the Chesapeake Bay’s fate to the individual states failed people throughout the watershed, including the approximately 13 million people who get drinking water supplied by tributaries to the Bay and the commercial seafood industry that relies on a healthy Bay.
The Bay’s health has slowly improved, however, as states have begun to implement the Chesapeake Bay cleanup blueprint EPA and watershed states established in 2010. The blueprint, as EPA explains, “is designed to ensure all nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution control efforts needed to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025, with controls, practices, and actions in place by 2017 that would achieve 60 percent of the necessary pollution reductions.”
Despite the progress brought on by the state-federal collaboration, the Bay fares no better than the Great Lakes under President Trump’s budget. It too gets nothing, meaning there would be no federal funds next year to help ensure the implementation of the blueprint. Federal funding through EPA provides support for individual projects aimed at reducing the pollutants that threaten the Bay and its tributaries, such as municipal improvements to manage polluted urban runoff. EPA also tracks state progress in implementing their cleanup plans, and exercises an important oversight and backstop function if states don’t keep up.
Other Geographic Programs: In addition to singling out the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, the proposed budget says that the administration intends to eliminate funding for “other geographic programs.” It’s unclear whether that includes all such programs, but if so, it would affect federal investments for restoration efforts in San Francisco Bay, Long Island Sound, the Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound, South Florida, Lake Champlain, and a handful of other important resources.
Hurting Under-served Areas
The administration’s budget inexplicably would eliminate two small programs targeted to aid disadvantaged communities.
First, the budget targets a program providing water infrastructure assistance for Alaska Rural and Native Villages. That program, EPA has explained, helps provide “critical basic drinking water and sanitation infrastructure in vulnerable rural and native Alaska communities,” ones which “lack such services disproportionately when compared to the rest of the country.” The program has helped lower waterborne disease and health care costs “through the reduction of exposure to raw sewage and drinking water contaminants.”
Second, the budget would slash a program under which federal funds support improvements in drinking water and sanitation in communities near the U.S.-Mexico border. According to EPA, “[s]ince 2003, the program has provided approximately 65,600 homes with first time access to safe drinking water and more than 626,000 homes with first time access to wastewater collection/treatment.”
In addition, the program assists with targeted improvements – such as upgrades to wastewater plants discharging to north-flowing rivers – south of the border when doing so will address water quality needs in the United States. The administration did not explain why it thinks these projects don’t warrant federal support, and it’s hard to imagine how it could, given the program’s achievements:
The EPA investments in these wastewater projects are protecting public health from waterborne diseases and have been a key factor in significant water quality improvements in U.S. waterbodies, such as the Rio Grande (Texas and New Mexico), Santa Cruz River (Arizona), New River (California), and Tijuana River and Pacific Ocean (California). In both the New River and the middle Rio Grande, for example, fecal coliform levels have dropped by over 80 percent (as a result of jointly-funded wastewater treatment plants built in Mexicali and Ojinaga, Mexico, respectively). California beaches in the border region that were once closed throughout the year due to wastewater pollution from Mexico now remain open throughout the summer, resulting in decreased health risks to beachgoers and an economic benefit for local governments. The Santa Cruz River now supports a healthy fish population where a few years ago only bloodworms thrived.
Jon Devine, Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Programu ya Maji ya NRDC, alisema kuwa Trump atafanya kazi ya kuunda bajeti ya nchi hiyo. Kama ingekubaliwa na Bunge, ingetishia afya ya umma na rasilimali zetu za asili sana. Ingawa bajeti hii ni ya kimkakati sana kwamba haina nafasi ya kupitishwa, bado inastahili kuchunguzwa kwa karibu kwa sababu kadhaa. Kwanza, inatoa dirisha la maadili ambayo utawala wa Trump unashikilia (au, kulingana na hati hii, haupo). "Kwenye hatua nyingine, ""Tunahitaji kuwa makini na majaribio ya kutupa bajeti ya rais kama hatua ya kuanzia kwa ajili ya kujadili viwango vya mwisho vya ufadhili, hivyo kwamba Bunge inaonekana busara kwa kutoa fedha zaidi kuliko rais ingekuwa kwa ajili ya mipango ya mazingira, lakini kupunguza yao chini ya tayari ya kutosha viwango vya sasa.""" Chapisho hili linachunguza bajeti ya Rais Trump kuhusiana na programu za maji. Naomba radhi kuripoti kwamba ni msiba usio na kifani. """Si jambo la kupita kiasi kusema kwamba serikali imetangaza vita dhidi ya maji safi, wakati mtu anapoangalia bajeti hii pamoja na marekebisho ya sheria za maji ya serikali ya kulinda jamii kutoka uchimbaji wa makaa ya mawe na kuanzisha mpango wa kudhoofisha ulinzi kwa aina mbalimbali za maji muhimu, ikiwa ni pamoja na vijito vinavyotoa maji ya kunywa kwa mmoja kati ya Wamarekani watatu." """Hebu tuanze na habari mbaya kidogo, kama utawala wa Trump umedai bajeti ina madai ya fedha za msingi za maji safi na maji machafu, ni kweli kwamba viwango ambavyo pendekezo hili linadokeza kwa EPA maji safi na maji salama ya kunywa ni sawa na miaka ya hivi karibuni, lakini kuzingatia tu kipengele hicho cha bajeti itakuwa ni kosa kubwa kwa sababu kadhaa." "Kwa mfano, ""kiwango cha hivi karibuni cha uwekezaji ni cha kutosha kukabiliana na mahitaji ya miundombinu ya taifa,"" Jumuiya ya Marekani ya Wahandisi wa Ujenzi hivi karibuni alitoa Amerika ya maji taka na maji ya kunywa miundombinu D na D + darasa, kwa mtiririko huo." Kwa upande mwingine, bajeti hiyo inatoa mapendekezo ya kupunguza karibu dola bilioni nusu kutoka kwa mpango wa Idara ya Kilimo unaounga mkono maboresho ya huduma za maji na maji machafu kwa jamii ndogo za vijijini, ikimaanisha kwamba ahadi ya shirikisho kwa mifumo ya maji itafutwa. "Tatu, ikiwa mtu ataangalia kuweka programu hizi maarufu thabiti katika muktadha wa bajeti nzima iliyopendekezwa ya EPA, inamaanisha kupunguzwa kwa kina zaidi kwa kazi za shirika kama utekelezaji, utafiti wa kisayansi, na maendeleo ya sera, kama mwenzangu John Walker hivi karibuni alivyosema. """ Uteuzi wa Wafanyakazi: Kuua Ulinzi wa Ufanisi wa Shirika kwa Kuondoa Wafanyakazi Kutoka mwanzo huo usiofaa, bajeti ya rais inaenda chini sana. "Hata hivyo, kwa mujibu wa takwimu za serikali, ""kupunguzwa kwa bajeti kwa jumla kwa shirika hilo kutasababisha nafasi 3,200 za kazi katika shirika hilo, na nafasi hizo ni za watumishi wa umma wenye utaalam katika teknolojia za kudhibiti uchafuzi wa mazingira na kusafisha, ufuatiliaji wa mazingira, utekelezaji wa sheria, athari za afya ya umma za kuambukizwa na uchafuzi, na zaidi.""" "Kuwatupa nje ya orodha ya mishahara ya shirika hilo kutamaanisha kuchelewesha kusasisha viwango vya afya kwa kuogelea na kuvua samaki katika maji ya uso na kwa maji ya kunywa; itamaanisha vyanzo vichache vya uchafuzi vikubwa vinavyochunguzwa na wavuvi zaidi wa haramu wakikwepa utekelezaji; na itamaanisha habari kidogo juu ya hali ya maji ya taifa. """ "Hata hivyo, Trump pia alitoa pendekezo la kupunguza asilimia 45 ya ""msaada wa jumla"" ambao unaruhusu programu za ulinzi wa maji za serikali kufanya kazi kwa ufanisi." Kwa kawaida, kazi ya maafisa wa kudhibiti uchafuzi wa mazingira wa serikali na serikali ya shirikisho hufanya kazi kwa njia ya ziada. Nchi zinazotoa ruhusa nyingi za kutolewa kwa vifaa vya viwanda na mitambo ya kusafisha maji machafu na kuendeleza viwango ambavyo miili ya maji inapaswa kukidhi. Hizi na hatua nyingine za serikali zinategemea usimamizi wa EPA na, mara nyingi, idhini. Hata hivyo, kwa kupunguzwa kwa fedha, majimbo na EPA zitakosa rasilimali za msingi za uendeshaji. Msaada wa serikali katika bajeti ya EPA, na chini ya kupunguzwa kubwa, ni pamoja na: Usimamizi wa mfumo wa maji ya umma - fedha hizi zinaunga mkono mipango ya maji ya kunywa ya serikali, ambayo hutoa msaada wa kiufundi kwa huduma, kukusanya na kushiriki habari ya sampuli na umma, na kutekeleza dhidi ya mifumo ya ukiukaji, kati ya hatua nyingine. "Usimamizi wa uchafuzi wa maji ""non-point"" EPA hutoa ruzuku kwa majimbo kutekeleza mipango ya udhibiti kwa ""non-point"" vyanzo vya uchafuzi wa maji, kama vile maji ya kilimo, ambayo ni mara nyingi chini ya udhibiti lakini ambayo pia inaweza kuwa na mchango mkubwa kwa ajili ya maji ""mzigo." Kulingana na EPA, katika mwaka wa 2014, kulikuwa na ziada ya paundi milioni 11.3 za nitrojeni, paundi milioni 2.7 za fosforasi, na tani milioni 1.7 za sediment iliyopunguzwa kutoka vyanzo visivyo na uhakika, na katika nchi nzima, majimbo yametumia fedha hizi kwa miradi ya kurudisha au kuboresha maji yaliyoharibiwa na uchafuzi usio na uhakika, na kusababisha hadithi nyingi za mafanikio. Misaada hii pia inasaidia <unk>Mipango ya Kurudisha Nyota Tano na washirika wengine. Msaada wa kiufundi na fursa za kubadilishana habari ili kuwezesha miradi ya kurudisha msingi wa jamii wakati wa kuleta pamoja wanafunzi, vikosi vya uhifadhi, vikundi vingine vya vijana, vikundi vya raia, mashirika, wamiliki wa ardhi, na mashirika ya serikali kutoa elimu ya mazingira na mafunzo kupitia miradi ya kurudisha maeneo ya mvua, vijito, na pwani. Hii inawezesha majimbo kutoa vibali vya kutolewa, kulingana na mipaka ya uchafuzi maalum wa sekta na viwango vya ubora wa mwili wa maji. Serikali za nchi hizo pia zinatumia msaada huo kuanzisha miradi ya kusafisha maji yaliyochafuliwa na kutathmini hali ya njia za maji katika nchi zao. "Mtazamo huu - kuondoa uwezo wa utekelezaji wa serikali wakati pia kuua shughuli za EPA - hutoa uongo kwa msimamizi mpya wa EPA Scott Pruitt, kwamba shirika chini ya uongozi wake litalinda rasilimali za maji wakati pia kuwezesha majimbo. """ Kwa kweli, utawala wa Trump waziwazi hauna nia ya kufanya lolote kati ya hayo. Bajeti hii, tena pamoja na hatua za mapema za sera ambazo utawala umefanya, inaonyesha kwamba mpango ni kweli tu kufanya kupunguzwa kwa nguvu katika utekelezaji wa mazingira na utekelezaji. "Mipango ya kijiografia: Kuacha kujitolea kwa kitaifa kwa Maji Makubwa ""Kufanya mambo kuwa mabaya zaidi, bajeti ya utawala wa Trump hupunguza mipango ya ukarabati kwa baadhi ya miili ya maji ya taifa ya kihistoria." Serikali ya shirikisho ni mshirika muhimu katika juhudi za kurudisha mabwawa kadhaa muhimu, lakini bajeti hii ingekuwa na nchi kuepuka majukumu haya, na kuondoka afya ya miili hii ya maji kwa majimbo mbalimbali. Njia hii inahatarisha mipango ya kusafisha ya miaka mingi, ya majimbo mengi, ikiendesha hatari ya miaka ya uwekezaji kutoka kwa wadau wengi inaweza kupotea. Maziwa Makuu: Uhasibu wa bajeti huanza na Maziwa Makuu. Serikali ya Marekani imewekeza dola milioni 300 katika eneo la Maziwa Makuu ya Marekani katika mwaka wa kifedha 2016, lakini serikali ya Trump imepanga kutotumia fedha yoyote katika mradi wa kuirekebisha Maziwa Makuu. "Kwa mfano, kwa mfano, katika eneo la maji, EPA ilisema mwaka jana wakati utawala wa Obama ulipoomba Bunge kutoa robo ya bilioni ya dola kwa mpango huo. """ "Kama sehemu ya mpango wa ""Ukaguzi wa Ulinzi wa Mimea ya Uvuvi,"" zaidi ya hekta milioni moja ya ardhi ya kilimo katika maji ya Maziwa Makuu imewekwa katika mikataba ya uhifadhi ili kupunguza uharibifu na kupungua kwa virutubisho na dawa za kuua wadudu, zaidi ya kilomita 3,800 za mto zimetolewa kwa njia ya samaki, zaidi ya hekta 150,000 za maeneo ya maji, pwani, milima, na visiwa vimehifadhiwa, kurudishwa au kuimarishwa." Kwa miongo kadhaa, mbinu ya kuacha hatima ya Ghuba ya Chesapeake kwa majimbo binafsi imeshindwa watu kote katika eneo la maji, ikiwa ni pamoja na watu milioni 13 ambao hupata maji ya kunywa yanayotolewa na vijito vya Ghuba na sekta ya biashara ya samaki ambayo inategemea Ghuba yenye afya. Kwa mujibu wa taarifa ya shirika la EPA, hali ya maji ya Ghuba ya Chesapeake imeboreshwa kwa kiasi kikubwa na serikali za mkoa wa Chesapeake zimeanza kutekeleza mpango wa kusafisha ghuba ya Chesapeake na maeneo ya maji ya ghuba ya Chesapeake. "Mfano huo, kama EPA inavyoeleza, ""umebuniwa kuhakikisha kwamba juhudi zote za kudhibiti uchafuzi wa nitrojeni, fosforasi na sediment zinazohitajika kurudisha kabisa Ghuba na mito yake ya mawimbi ziko katika nafasi ya 2025, na udhibiti, mazoea, na hatua zilizopo kufikia 2017 ambazo zingeweza kufikia asilimia 60 ya kupunguzwa kwa uchafuzi unaohitajika.""" "Hata hivyo, hakuna fedha za serikali za mkoa mwaka ujao ambazo zitatusaidia kuhakikisha utekelezaji wa mpango huo.""" Fedha za shirikisho kupitia EPA hutoa msaada kwa miradi ya mtu binafsi inayolenga kupunguza uchafuzi ambao unahatarisha Ghuba na vijito vyake, kama vile maboresho ya manispaa ya kusimamia maji machafu ya mijini. EPA pia hufuatilia maendeleo ya serikali katika kutekeleza mipango yao ya kusafisha, na hufanya kazi muhimu ya usimamizi na msaada ikiwa majimbo hayafanyi kazi. "Kulingana na ripoti ya Wizara ya Usalama ya Marekani, ""Mapato ya Serikali ya Marekani kwa ajili ya mipango mingine ya kijiografia"" ni pamoja na ""mapato ya serikali ya Marekani kwa ajili ya mipango ya ziara ya San Francisco, Long Island Sound, Ghuba ya Mexico, Puget Sound, South Florida, Lake Champlain, na rasilimali nyingine muhimu.""" Kumuua Wenye Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa Kwanza, bajeti inalenga mpango wa kutoa msaada wa miundombinu ya maji kwa vijiji vya vijijini na vya asili vya Alaska. Programu hiyo, EPA imeelezea, inasaidia kutoa "mafunzo muhimu ya maji ya kunywa na usafi wa mazingira katika jamii dhaifu za vijijini na za asili za Alaska, ambazo zinakosa huduma kama hizo kwa kiasi kikubwa ikilinganishwa na nchi nzima. "" Programu imesaidia kupunguza magonjwa yanayopitishwa na maji na gharama za huduma za afya kwa kupunguza mfiduo wa maji machafu na uchafuzi wa maji ya kunywa. "" Pili, bajeti itapunguza mpango ambao fedha za shirikisho zinaunga mkono maboresho ya maji ya kunywa na usafi wa mazingira katika jamii karibu na mpaka wa Marekani na Mexico. Kulingana na EPA, tangu 2003, programu hiyo imetoa karibu nyumba 65,600 na upatikanaji wa mara ya kwanza wa maji salama ya kunywa na zaidi ya nyumba 626,000 na upatikanaji wa mara ya kwanza wa mkusanyiko wa maji taka na matibabu. "Usimamizi wa Marekani haujabainisha kwa nini unafikiri miradi hii haistahili msaada wa shirikisho, na ni vigumu kufikiria jinsi inaweza, kutokana na mafanikio ya programu: Uwekezaji wa EPA katika miradi hii ya maji taka ni kulinda afya ya umma kutoka kwa magonjwa ya maji na imekuwa sababu muhimu katika kuboresha ubora wa maji katika mifumo ya maji ya Marekani, kama vile Rio Grande (Texas) na New Mexico (Arizona), Santa Cruz (Arizona), New River (California) na Tijuana (California)." Kwa mfano, katika New River na katikati ya Rio Grande, viwango vya coliforms katika matumbo vimepungua kwa zaidi ya asilimia 80 (kwa sababu ya mitambo ya kusafisha maji taka iliyojengwa kwa pamoja huko Mexicali na Oaxaca, Mexico). Pwani za California katika eneo la mpaka, ambazo wakati mmoja zilifungwa mwaka mzima kwa sababu ya uchafuzi wa maji taka kutoka Mexico, sasa zinaendelea kufunguliwa wakati wote wa majira ya joto, na kusababisha hatari za afya kwa watalii na faida ya kiuchumi kwa serikali za mitaa. Mto Santa Cruz sasa una idadi nzuri ya samaki ambapo miaka michache iliyopita ni minyoo wa damu tu waliositawi.