Lawmakers debate bill that could forever alter lawn care: 'This policy safeguards the health of … our children and grandchildren'
There's more than meets the eye with this proposed bill.
President Donald Trump temporarily halted proposed Environmental Protection Agency limits, affecting protections under the Safe Drinking Water Act set for 2027, as noted by CBS News. This rollback prompted Maryland to introduce legislation to limit harmful chemicals at the state level.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown stressed the importance of the regulations, telling CBS News that "this rule permits water systems across the country, including here in Maryland, to regulate and treat these harmful substances."
Environmental advocate Adrienne Esposito of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment expressed concern, saying, "This is really a tragic setback for water protection throughout America." In response, according to CBS News, Maryland joined 17 other states in defending stronger regulations to remove forever chemicals from drinking water.
Chemical contamination isn't limited to lawn treatment. Companies have used PFAS in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and as a water repellent in everything from nonstick cookware to clothing since the 1940s.
The problem? PFAS can take hundreds or even thousands of years to break down, seeping into groundwater and contaminating drinking water, which may lead to serious health risks.
But here's the good news — if House Bill 386 passes, the Department of Agriculture will distribute the list of prohibited chemicals by January 2026, and they will be banned by June 2028 for use on residential lawn care and schools and health care facilities.
The ban on these chemicals and PFAS means a safer environment and cleaner water for us all, and it will have a greater positive impact than we can imagine. Brown summed up the importance of this effort by telling CBS News: "By making our drinking water cleaner, this policy safeguards the health of not only our generation but also our children and grandchildren."
Do you think the government should ban gas-powered lawn tools?
No way
Definitely
Only certain tools
I don't know
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
For those opposing the bill, lawmakers have noted they are not singling out farmers with this ban, according to WMDT. However, some landscapers and veterinarians in the state have raised concerns about the ban potentially having negative effects on the efficacy of products, increased costs, and the usage of parasiticides to treat pets. However, research has already suggested that pet owners should pay attention to active ingredients in flea treatments to avoid toxic chemicals.
In regard to the potential benefits, according to WMDT, toxicologist Linda Birnbaum said: PFAS "are readily absorbed through the skin, creating a dangerous occupational hazard for farmers and farm workers exposed to PFAS in pesticides used in the field, in the air, and when produce is handled."
And if you're concerned about how this may affect your lawn care, don't worry — plenty of safe and natural alternatives can keep your lawn beautiful while protecting the environment.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump became the new master of the Senate
The most eventful week to date in the midterm battle for the Senate just came to a close. The field in one of the marquee races of 2026 finally took shape in North Carolina, the lead architect of Project 2025 launched a primary challenge against South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Mike Collins joined the Georgia GOP Senate primary, appointed Florida Sen. Ashley Moody continued on her special election glide path when her most serious Democratic challenger dropped out, and we got a little more insight into Nebraska. But don't lose sight of the larger narrative. Whatever else is happening in these races from week to week, the single most important factor determining the outcome of the 2026 Senate election cycle is President Donald Trump. Nothing else is even close. His approval ratings are part of this equation. Trump is famously rangebound in the polls, with a low ceiling and a high floor, but his popularity next year will matter — midterm history shows there is a correlation between a president's ratings and his party's fate. But Trump's unique ability to unleash the forces of electoral chaos is what really makes him the single most influential character. No one — not Mitch McConnell, not the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not Majority Leader John Thune nor anyone else — has done as much as Trump to directly shape the Senate GOP Conference over the past decade. Since taking office in 2017, he's hounded a handful of members out of office, been the proximate cause of lost Senate seats in Georgia and blown opportunities elsewhere (just Google McConnell and 'candidate quality'). By elevating JD Vance and Marco Rubio from their Senate seats into his administration, Trump created two more new Republican senators. Most recently, Trump upended the landscape in North Carolina. The traditional presidential play would have been to cut GOP Sen. Thom Tillis some slack, recognizing the complexity of the terrain and the party's need to maximize Tillis' chances of holding his seat. Instead, Trump became the catalyst for his retirement, enhancing Democratic chances of flipping the seat in one of the most competitive states in the nation. So far, Trump has been unusually disciplined when it comes to the Senate — by his standards, at least. Surrounded by the most capable political team he's ever assembled — and tempered by the bracing experience of two unsuccessful midterm elections — the president has judiciously dished out endorsements to incumbents and strategically withheld them. He's also largely avoided trashing wayward Senate Republicans. Until now. Whether it's the pressure from the Jeffrey Epstein saga or a reversion to the mean, the cracks are beginning to show. The gravitational pull toward chaos is overtaking his strategic imperatives. In the last week alone, Trump has publicly whacked three Senate Republicans — Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and 91-year-old Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the longest-serving member of the Senate — for largely minor political offenses. [Here's a thought exercise: Try imagining Barack Obama lighting up Robert Byrd for respecting an informal Senate practice, or George W. Bush torching Strom Thurmond. The missile aimed at Collins, who has consistently vexed the president, was predictable, though not particularly productive. Dragging one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents doesn't advance the goal of holding a Senate majority. The dig at Grassley — especially after the Senate Judiciary chair and champion of whistle-blowers fell in line on the Emil Bove nomination — was simply gratuitous. The Iowan's GOP bona fides date back to the Eisenhower era; his ticket's been punched in the Iowa Legislature, the House and nearly a half-century in the Senate. To suggest Grassley lacks political courage, or is a RINO, or that the president carried him to reelection in 2022, is to play cat's paw with him. It also served no discernable purpose, other than to remind Grassley and everyone else of Trump's dominion over the Senate, which isn't really in question anymore. Grassley's meek response was revealing: he said he was 'offended' and 'disappointed' by the insult. Welp. Trump can't seem to help himself: He delights in taking down members of the world's most exclusive club. Counting his Truth Social posts aimed at Chuck Schumer and four other Senate Democrats ('SLEAZEBAGS ALL') Trump leveled public attacks on eight different senators in recent days. The equal-opportunity disparagement helps explain his deep connection with the base of an increasingly populist GOP: The grassroots appreciates the fact that, when it comes to Trump, everyone in a position of power — senators, foreign leaders, former presidents, billionaires and Fortune 500 CEOs — is fair game. The GOP begins with a structural advantage on the 2026 Senate map: Nearly all of the Republican seats up for election are in states Trump carried easily last year, while Democrats must defend at least four seats that are more precariously perched. While the midterm political winds typically blow against the party in power, to win back the majority Democrats have to flip four Republican seats, while not losing any they currently control. It's a daunting task, but Trump looms as the great equalizer. It wouldn't take more than a few impulsive, undisciplined moves — such as endorsing slavishly loyal but unelectable candidates in key races, or creating messy primaries by torpedoing shaky GOP incumbents — to create just enough opportunities for Democrats to compete on what is otherwise an unforgiving Senate map.
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove 'improper ideology' – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's 'legacy content.' The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about 'Limits of Presidential Power.' And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian says an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that 'we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today.' To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it 'kind of impetuous' to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for,' said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump 'just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them 'hostages,' before pardoning them. His administration's efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women. He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being 'illegal.' A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior. Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn't like. His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account. All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.
UPI
17 minutes ago
- UPI
India responds to U.S. penalty over Russia oil
Aug. 2 (UPI) -- Indian officials confirmed Saturday the country is not altering policy and will continue buying oil from Russia, despite threats of a financial "penalty" from U.S. President Donald Trump. India's government has not given any directive to the country's oil refiners to stop or reduce the amount of Russian crude oil, the New York Times reported, citing two senior Indian officials. Trump earlier this week said he would impose a financial "penalty" on the South Asian country if it did not cut back on its reliance on Russian oil. The sanction would be in addition to a 25% American tariff on Indian goods. The president did not elaborate on the extent of the additional financial "penalty." "Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country, " Trump said in a Truth Social post. "Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE." Trump on Friday said it was his understanding "that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens." Indian officials told the New York Times the country has "not given any direction to oil companies" to change direction. Publicly, Indian officials said they are considering options without confirming or denying the Times report. "We have taken note of the sanctions, and we are looking into it," Ministry of External Affairs of India spokesman Shri Randhir Jaiswal said during a news conference Friday in New Delhi. "On the other question about proposed oil sale, I would say that I have no comments to offer in this particular matter. As far as sourcing our energy requirements is concerned, you are well aware of our broad approach, meaning our overall approach and stance. We take decisions based on the price at which oil is available in the international market and depending on the global situation at that time. As for the specifics of your particular question, I am not aware of it. I don't have details of these specifics." Jaiswal also attempted to avoid further escalating the situation. "I would also like to underline this particular point that this is a sensitive and complex case and therefore, I would urge all to be mindful that media reports based on speculation and misinformation are not helpful at all," he told reporters. "In so far as the reports claiming that there has been certain developments etc., such reports are incorrect. Please wait for an update from us, this is a sensitive matter, and we urge all sides to stay away from misinformation."
