US and Mexico sign deal to stop sewage release into Tijuana River
Under the deal, Mexico agreed to complete an allocation of $93 million toward sanitation infrastructure, and complete all projects by Dec. 31, 2027, the EPA said. The United States, which had withheld funds for water infrastructure improvements on the border, will release money to complete the rehabilitation of a pump station and other projects.
Advertisement
'The Trump administration is proud to deliver this massive environmental and national security win for Americans in the San Diego area who have been living with this disgusting raw sewage flowing into their communities for far too long,' Zeldin said in a statement.
Advertisement
Bárcena Ibarra said in a statement the agreement 'strengthens collaboration to address environmental and health challenges along the northern border.'
San Diego County residents have suffered acutely. The Office of the Naval Inspector General this year found that more than 1,100 Navy recruits contracted gastrointestinal illnesses after training in southern San Diego waters. And nearly half of the 40,900 households in the region have experienced health problems, including rashes and shortness of breath, that were most likely attributable to the sewage, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The agreement comes three months after Zeldin visited San Diego to begin negotiations with Mexico. It drew praise from local officials, including from Democrats, but some environmental advocates said more needs to be done.
Jim Desmond, a Republican supervisor of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, wrote on the social platform X that the announcement 'marks a significant step forward.' He said the federal government had previously failed to hold Mexico accountable for the sewage flowing into California. 'Our beaches must be clean, safe, and open year-round — anything less is unacceptable,' he wrote.
Todd Gloria, the mayor of San Diego and a Democrat, thanked Zeldin on X and called the deal 'a huge step toward ending this crisis.'
Matthew Tejada, senior vice president of environmental health for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, called the agreement a good start. 'It's great that we're starting to roll up our sleeves' on this issue, he said. But he added that the waste-water improvements are enormous and complicated infrastructure projects that are likely going to be hit with unexpected problems, including worsening levels of runoff and sewage exacerbated by climate-fueled storms. 'These are really tough projects to implement, with really elusive outcomes,' he said.
Advertisement
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government shutdown talk is starting early ahead of a difficult funding fight in Congress this fall
WASHINGTON (AP) — It's become tradition. Congressional leaders from both major political parties blame each other for a potential government shutdown as the budget year draws to a close. But this year, the posturing is starting extraordinarily early. The finger-pointing with more than two months to go in the fiscal year indicates the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual as a Republican-controlled Congress seeks to make good on its policy priorities, often with no support from the other political party. Democratic leadership from both chambers and the two panels responsible for drafting spending bills met behind closed doors recently to discuss the strategy ahead. The leaders emerged demanding that Republicans work with them but were careful to avoid spelling out red lines if Republicans don't. 'We are for a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That's what always has been done,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. 'The onus is on the Republicans to help us make that happen.' On the Republican side, lawmakers describe the Democrats as itching for a shutdown. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Schumer had threatened a shutdown should Republicans pass a bill to roll back $9 billion in public broadcasting and foreign aid funds. Republicans subsequently passed those cuts. 'It was disturbing to see the Democratic leader implicitly threatening to shut down the government in his July 'Dear Colleague' letter, but I'm hopeful that he does not represent the views of Senate Democrats as a whole," Thune said. Where things stand on government funding The federal government is operating on a full-year continuing resolution that provided about $1.7 trillion in spending for defense and non-defense programs. The funding expires Sept. 30. President Donald Trump requested a comparable amount for the coming fiscal year, but the Republican proposed dramatically overhauling how that money is distributed to include more for defense and border security and significantly less for health, education, housing and foreign assistance. So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills. The Senate has yet to approve any, but those bills that have advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee are enjoying bipartisan support while the House bills are generally advancing out of committee on party line votes. This week, the Senate is expected to consider the appropriations bill to fund military construction projects and the Department of Veterans Affairs, generally one of the easier spending bills to pass. One or two others could get added to the package. Congress got off to a late start on the funding process. Republicans prioritized Trump's tax and spending cut bill. Most lawmakers agree Congress will need to pass a stop-gap measure before Sept. 30 to avoid a shutdown and allow lawmakers more time to work on the full-year spending measures. The view from Democrats Democrats overwhelmingly opposed this year's funding bill that expires in two months. But in the end, Schumer and nine Democratic colleagues decided a government shutdown would be even worse. They voted to allow the bill to proceed and overcome a filibuster, giving Republicans the ability to pass it on their own on a final vote. Schumer took considerable heat from progressives for his strategy. House Democratic leadership issued a statement at the time saying 'House Democrats will not be complicit.' And members of his own caucus publicly expressed disagreement. 'If we pass this continuing resolution for the next half year, we will own what the president does,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. 'I am not willing to take ownership of that.' Some liberal groups threatened to hold protests at various events Schumer was planning to promote a new book, and some of those events ended up being postponed due to security concerns. The Democratic frustrations have only grown stronger in the ensuing months. First, the Democrats watched the Trump administration slow-walk or block hundreds of billions of dollars from going out in part through the work of its Department of Government Efficiency. Then they watched as Republicans passed Trump's big tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic votes. Finally, they watched as Republicans this month canceled $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds when much of it had been previously agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Meanwhile, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, declared that the appropriations process "has to be less bipartisan.' Democrats complain that much of the work taking place in the House has been a waste of time, since those partisan bills have no chance of getting 60 votes in the 100-member Senate. 'At this point in time, why have appropriations if they can just unilaterally through rescissions whack it all away?' said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. 'I think what you're seeing is more frustration than I've ever witnessed.' Republicans position for impasse Republicans control all the levers of power in Washington. That could make it harder to blame Democrats for a shutdown. But in the end, any bill will need some Democratic support to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. 'Our concern is that from their standpoint, they want to have a shutdown,' Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said of Democrats. '... The Democrats see it as a way to derail the agenda that we're putting through.' Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2-ranked Republican in the Senate, said Republicans were determined to hold votes on the 12 spending bills. He said that Schumer 'had unilaterally shut down the appropriations process' in previous years by not holding such votes, moving instead to negotiate directly with GOP leadership in the House and then-President Joe Biden's Democratic administration on an all-encompassing spending package. 'If Democrats walk away from this process again, simply to protect wasteful Washington spending," Barrasso said, 'they will be the ones sabotaging the Senate and shutting down the government.' ___ Follow the AP's coverage of Congress at Kevin Freking, The Associated Press Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EPA Set to Unravel US Authority to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration is set to announce its plans to abolish the US government's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, threatening to strike a deep blow at Washington's ability to fight climate change. Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy The Environmental Protection Agency will unveil a proposal in Indiana on Tuesday to scrap a landmark determination that planet-warming gases endanger public health and welfare, the agency's administrator, Lee Zeldin, said in a podcast. If finalized, the move would lay the foundation to unwind a host of regulations limiting emissions from power plants, oil wells and automobiles. Rolling back the 2009 endangerment finding would be among the most far-reaching steps yet by President Donald Trump's administration to gut US capacity to fight climate change. The finding forms the bedrock of the government's authority to impose limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. Ending it would be squarely at odds with the scientific consensus that those gases are causing climate change that's already leading to rising seas and more intense storms. 'How big is the endangerment finding? Well repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America — resulting in over a trillion dollars in savings,' Zeldin said during an interview on the Ruthless Podcast that aired Tuesday. The EPA's proposal will also aim to end some automobile emission limits, according to a person familiar with the matter. Environmentalists have argued that any move to reverse the endangerment finding not only bucks scientific conclusions about the ways carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases interact with the world's atmosphere, but also imperils the planet. Efforts to restrain emissions now are critical to restraining the world's temperature rise and avoiding more tipping points where the consequences of climate change are magnified. 'The endangerment finding is based on decades of established, proven scientific evidence and has been repeatedly affirmed by courts,' said National Wildlife Federation chief scientist Diane Pataki. 'Overturning this decision directly contradicts the EPA's mandate to protect public health and address the sources of greenhouse gas pollution that have caused the climate crisis.' The Supreme Court effectively compelled the EPA to asses the impact of greenhouse gases in 2007 when it affirmed the agency's authority to regulate them as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. At that point, it was up to the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases constituted a threat that should be regulated. Critics have argued Congress designed the Clean Air Act to regulate localized pollutants, not those with widespread, global effects. Some have been pushing for repeal of the endangerment finding ever since. A policy blueprint drafted by conservative groups and Trump loyalists known as Project 2025 recommended addressing the endangerment finding. Energy businesses and some Trump allies are deeply divided over the wisdom of efforts to wholly scrap the endangerment finding. Some are concerned the effort would siphon time and manpower from other regulatory priorities, including rewriting Biden-era rules governing power plant and vehicle pollution. The effort would require the EPA to go through the formal, time-consuming federal rulemaking process. Even if the measure is finalized by the end of the year, it might not survive inevitable legal challenges. Energy companies also have warned that doing away with the endangerment finding — as well as the federal climate regulations it supports — could revive public nuisance lawsuits against oil producers and power plant operators. Under a 2010 Supreme Court decision, federal climate regulation under the Clean Air Act has effectively precluded those claims. (Updates with remarks from EPA administrator in fourth paragraph.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump may rue the day he sued Murdoch for libel over Epstein's birthday card
President Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones — the Wall Street Journal's parent company — and two of the paper's reporters for $10 billion over the Journal's story about a lurid birthday card that Trump allegedly sent to the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump claims that the card, which contains arguably compromising statements, was fabricated by unnamed Democrats. He posted about 'a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS 'article' in the useless 'rag' that is, The Wall Street Journal.' Murdoch and Trump have had an off-again-on-again relationship over the years. Murdoch's media outlets, principally the Journal and Fox News, after largely opposing Trump during the 2016 Republican primary, have been credited with helping propel him to the White House. According to the Journal's story, a letter bearing Trump's name 'contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker.' 'Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person,' the paper reported. It reportedly contained a joking reference that 'enigmas never age' and ended with the words, 'A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denied writing the note after the article was published, posting, 'These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures.' The birthday note, if authentic, hints at Trump's contemporaneous awareness of Epstein's criminal behavior — as might Trump's comment to a reporter less than a year earlier that Epstein 'likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' Dow Jones said it would 'vigorously defend' itself against the lawsuit. 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting.' And so the issue is joined in court as well as the court of public opinion. Libel suits have historically been gravely dangerous not only for defendants but for plaintiffs as well. Such a suit often serves only to magnify the allegedly defamatory statements. Roy Cohn advised his clients never to sue for libel. He knew that Oscar Wilde and Alger Hiss sued for libel, and the truth, which is always a complete defense in a libel suit, led to criminal prosecution, conviction and jail. Gen. William Westmoreland sued CBS over defamatory statements about his conduct of the Vietnam War. Israeli Gen. Ariel Sharon sued Time Inc. over its reporting about his actions in Lebanon. Both came up essentially empty-handed. Trump will have a steep uphill climb to make out his complaint against Murdoch. The venerable New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is still good law, despite Justice Clarence Thomas's stated desire to overrule it. A public official suing for libel must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory statements were published with actual knowledge of their falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth. In this case, we are talking about the Wall Street Journal, not the National Enquirer. It is very unlikely that the Journal knew the birthday card was a fabrication or that they proceeded recklessly, knowing that the source of the document was unreliable. More likely than not, the document came from the files of the Justice Department. Indeed, Trump, apart from lashing back at Murdoch, may have sued mainly to unearth via discovery the source of the leak. Trump claims that he relishes discovery in the case. 'I hope Rupert and his 'friends' are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies they will have to provide in this case,' the president stated. Trump's lawyers have asked the court to expedite Murdoch's deposition while he is still alive because Murdoch is '94 years old' and 'has suffered from multiple health issues.' But those 'many hours' may prove more harmful than helpful to Trump. Murdoch's lawyers will be able to bring out just where the Journal obtained the birthday card, as well as all the torrid details of the 15-year relationship between Epstein and Trump, including such undisclosed gems as how the friendship began; how close was it; whether it involved under-age women; whether, and, if so, when Trump learned that Epstein was trafficking teenagers; when Trump learned that Epstein was engaged in criminal acts; and when there was a severance of the relationship and why. Reports have suggested Trump and Epstein had a rift in 2004 over competing bids on a Palm Beach mansion, but there may be more to the story. Peggy Noonan reminds us that Trump's mantra is 'fight, fight, fight,' and he will do so even when it hurts him. 'There is no way on earth that [the lawsuit] will be a net positive for him. Which surely he knows,' she writes. 'He fights even when he will hurt himself, because the fight is all.' Trump is essentially libel-proof. What are his damages? His reputation for sexual misconduct is well known. A civil jury in New York found him liably for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room. A New York jury convicted him of 34 counts of felony document falsification to cover up a tryst with pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels. It is too early to tell, but Trump may not have the sort of walk in the park he's had in his recent media lawsuits. He settled with ABC shortly after his reelection for $15 million, arising from George Stephanopoulos carelessly saying Trump was convicted of rape instead of sexual assault. Trump's recent settlement with CBS for $16 million, arising out of the claim that '60 Minutes' left unfavorable footage of former Vice President Kamala Harris on the cutting-room floor, seemed influenced more by parent company Paramount's need for FCC approval of its corporate merger than by the merits of the case. The Murdoch libel lawsuit, if pressed, may be full of booby traps and surprises for Trump. It could result in disclosure of many of the documents in the possession of the Justice Department, which the Journal reported subsequently were riddled with references to Trump himself. People in a position to know tell me that Murdoch will never settle. But he did appear to blink a little with a front-page 'exclusive' Journal article Friday under the headline: 'Jeffrey Epstein's Birthday Book Included Letters From Bill Clinton, Leon Black.' The article was singularly uninformative.
