Iowa communities to receive $5.5 million for brownfield site cleanup
Five Iowa communities have been selected to receive $5.5 million in grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to clean up and restore blighted or contaminated properties.
Sites selected in Iowa are former grocery stores, a YMCA building, a meat packing plant, abandoned businesses and a smelting facility. The EPA Brownfields Program helps a community to assess, clean up and eventually reuse contaminated sites that would otherwise be unusable.
The City of Clinton received a grant for a little over $1 million, which City Administrator Matt Brooke said will be used to remove the pool section of the city's former YMCA.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The former YMCA building is contaminated with asbestos and lead, which make it unsuitable for redevelopment until it is remediated.
'This grant funding will enable Clinton to continue a crucial environmental cleanup project,' Brooke said in a press release sent by EPA. 'Clinton continues to work toward a cleaner and greener community for all people to live, work, and enjoy.'
Iowa Western Community College receives EPA grant for job training
The Iowa grants are part of a nationwide allotment of $267 million in brownfields grants.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the program will help to create new opportunities for businesses and housing while strengthening local economies.
'EPA's Brownfields program demonstrates how environmental stewardship and economic prosperity complement each other,' Zeldin said in a statement. 'Under President Trump's leadership, EPA is Powering the Great American Comeback, ensuring our nation has the cleanest air, land, and water while supporting sustainable growth and fiscal responsibility.'
The EPA Brownfields Program started in 1995, but saw a significant boost in funding under former President Joe Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan.
Another recipient of the recently awarded funding, East Central Intergovernmental Association, has facilitated brownfield clean up projects in eastern Iowa through its participation in the Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund with EPA. The association was awarded $1.5 million to help replenish the fund, which EPA said has been 'high performing.' The fund thus far has supported projects like the YMCA remediation in Clinton and a property in Dubuque.
'Many communities are burdened with brownfield sites but lack the resources to address them,' said Dawn Danielson, ECIA's brownfields coordinator. 'The ripple effect of EPA's investments is transformational, not only for the site itself but also for surrounding properties.'
Danielson said the remediated sites typically become 'catalysts for economic development' in the area and breathe 'new life' into communities.
Le Mars Mayor Rob Bixenman, similarly said the grant will revitalize 'key areas' of the community and help to accelerate the city's community development plan.
Le Mars was awarded $400,000 to assess and develop clean up plans at a former Walmart, meat packing plant, landscaping company and unused hotel along the city's business corridor.
The City of Keokuk was also selected to receive just under $2 million to clean up a 16-acre site that formerly smelted and refined zinc and lead. According to EPA, the site is contaminated with coal tar, zinc smelting residuals that are high in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH, and heavy metals. The plant opened in 1915 and operated until the 1980s.
The site has received a number of EPA grants as the city works to clean up the site and hopefully attract a redeveloper.
The City of Red Oak was also selected and will receive a $500,000 grant to conduct site assessments and community engagement for unused properties along its Broadway Street.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
6 in 10 voters view Democrats negatively: WSJ poll
The Democratic Party is viewed negatively by 63 percent of American voters — the lowest approval rating of the party in more than 30 years of The Wall Street Journal's surveys — according to a new poll from the newspaper. The survey found that while voters disapproved of President Trump's handling of a variety of issues, they generally said they trusted Republicans more than Democrats to take care of those issues in Congress. On tariffs, for instance, voters disapproved of Trump's policies by 17 percentage points, but trusted Republican lawmakers more than Democrats on the issue by seven points. Only 8 percent of voters viewed Democrats 'very favorably' in the poll. President Trump himself had an approval rating of 46 percent. The Wall Street Journal poll follows a survey from CNN released Thursday which found that just 28 percent of voters viewed the Democrats favorably. Democrats are confronting widespread voter malaise and perceptions that the party is listless ahead of the 2026 midterms as key parts of the party's national infrastructure have been rocked by infighting. Still, they are seeking to capitalize on Trump's more unpopular policies. They hope the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' with tax cuts favoring the wealthy alongside significant cuts to Medicaid and other social services, could galvanize voters. A slight majority — 52 percent — of voters in Friday's Journal poll disapproved of the bill. The ongoing controversy over the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a flashpoint for MAGA voters that Democrats have sought to exploit — may also come into play as members of Congress head home for the August recess. The Journal's poll found that voters were highly skeptical that the Justice Department had thoroughly investigated the issue, with 65 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans saying they had 'no confidence' in the department's review. The poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted between July 16 and July 20 with a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points. It was conducted by Democratic pollster John Anzalone and GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio.
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Responds After Judge Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The White House issued a defiant statement on Friday after a judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, marking the third time a court has done so since a critical Supreme Court ruling in June. Why It Matters Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The Supreme Court in June blocked judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's order, though it left an exception for class-action lawsuits, which multiple plaintiffs subsequently filed. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on Friday that the nationwide injunction he granted to more than a dozen states who sued over the order is still in effect because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Associated Press that the administration expects to be "vindicated on appeal." "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson told the news outlet. Lawyers representing the Trump administration argued in the case that Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. But Sorokin pushed back, taking aim at the Trump administration for failing to explain how a narrower injunction would work in practice. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," Sorokin wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." The New Jersey federal judge also wrote that he has "no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question" of whether Trump's order is constitutional. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." Sorokin's is the third court to block or uphold a block on Trump's order since last month's Supreme Court ruling that carved out an exception for the class-action challenges. Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional and upheld a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement. A federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked the order from going into effect nationwide in a ruling earlier this month. The judge in that case, Joseph LaPlante, paused his decision to give the administration a chance to appeal. But it did not do so, meaning his order went into effect last week. What People Are Saying Sorokin said in his 23-page ruling on Friday: "Despite the defendants' chosen path, the Court — aided substantially by the plaintiffs' meticulous factual and legal submissions — undertook the review required of it by [June's Supreme Court ruling] and considered anew whether its original order swept too broadly." He added: "After careful consideration of the law and the facts, the Court answers that question in the negative." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who led the case before Sorokin, said in a statement: "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." What Happens Next The case will almost certainly make its way back up to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and has handed the Trump administration more than a dozen critical victories so far this year.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say
WASHINGTON — President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with three Asian nations this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs,' experts predict. Trump secured Japan's agreement to pay a 15% tariff on exports to the US while making $550 billion in new investments in America in what he called a 'signing bonus' — while Indonesia and the Philippines said they would accept 19% tariffs on their goods while applying 0% tariffs on US products. 'I was a little bit surprised by the extent to which the US, at least at this stage of the game, has succeeded in striking what seems to me to be quite a hard bargain,' said Pravin Krishna, an economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 3 Experts say President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs.' AFP via Getty Images Robert Lawrence, an international trade professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, agreed, saying he was also left stunned that Trump roped in a large Japanese investment in addition to the tariff terms — likening it to his successful demand for a 'golden' US stake in this year's Nippon-US Steel merger deal. 'He's a wheeler-dealer, our president, needless to say, and he's kind of cutting these deals — but he has scared these people, and he's leveraged American bargaining power,' Lawrence said. 'The next one on the block is [South] Korea… for the Koreans, the auto issue is just about as important as for the Japanese.' Wilbur Ross, who served as Trump's commerce secretary during his first term and at one point expressed concern about administration emissaries potentially over-playing their hand, hailed Trump's trio of Asian deals. 'It's very important that people realize why he yoked the three together and announced them at the same time, and I think that's largely to send a message to China that their hope that his tough trade policy would somehow drive the Asian countries to China is simply incorrect,' Ross explained. 'I think the second importance of it is it puts tremendous pressure on the EU to make a deal because they have a great danger of being relatively isolated and relatively stuck with a worse deal.' Trump traveled to Scotland Friday and will meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over the weekend to discuss averting a threatened 50% tariff. 3 President Trump secured a trade agreement with Japan to pay a 15% tariff on exports, while Indonesia and the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs on their goods, with US products not being tariffed. The president previously announced deals with Vietnam, which agreed to a 20% tariff — or 40% on items sourced in China — while breaking down barriers to US imports, as well as a UK deal that features a 10% tariffs — with British steel and car exports also paying 10% rather than Trump's much higher sectoral tariffs, in exchange for promises to open UK markets to American ethanol, beef and chicken. China, meanwhile, brokered a cease-fire with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — with the US applying a 30% rate on Chinese goods and China applying a 10% rate on American imports. Meanwhile, the impact of Trump's tariffs — which also include 50% on foreign steel and aluminum and 25% on foreign cars — have been slighter than anticipated thus far on inflation, with the annual increase in consumer prices 2.7% in June. 'The same 'experts' that were loudly spewing doomsday predictions are now quietly looking at their portfolios and planning their early retirement or vacation home purchases,' said Arthur Schwartz, a Republican operative with close ties to the administration. Major challenges remain on the horizon for Trump, however, and academics remain divided on the merits of higher tariffs now padding federal coffers. Krishna, the Hopkins economist, said questions remain about whether the Asian nations that just agreed to steep terms are able to ratify them politically due to the fact that Trump seems to have secured such lopsided terms. He also said that India — initially expected to be one of the first nations to ink a trade deal — faces notable trade-talk road bumps due to the potentially devastating effects on poor farmers who comprise about 45% of the labor force. 'It's a very sensitive sector for India. The Modi government itself, a few years ago, tried some reasonably market-oriented reforms in the agricultural sector.. and they were unable to push that through,' he said. 'That is an extremely challenging thing for the Indian government to manage politically,' Krishna said. 'You're talking about survival-level incomes for a large number of farmers. And to mess with that would be, again, politically challenging and even morally questionable from an Indian standpoint. 3 The US is currently charging China a 30% tariff rate on Chinese goods, while they are charging a 10% rate on American imports. AP Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It really is a question of how much of a change the US wants in terms of reduction of protectionism and so on, and how much India's willing to give up,' he added. It's also unclear how talks with China will end — with the temporary deal set to expire in mid-August, though it may be extended. 'There's a real question whether we will make a deal with [China],' Ross said. 'It's hard for me to imagine that they're going to make very big concessions, and meanwhile, we're collecting very high tariffs. So it's not so clear to me that there's a big, compelling motive for President Trump to make a deal.' China also may be politically constrained by an upcoming Communist Party congress next month and a housing crash that has sapped the nation economically, Ross noted. Lawrence, of Harvard, said that the disruption of Trump's trade wars remains worrying for certain US industries — with carmakers General Motors and Stellantis reporting quarterly income slumps this week — and that he's skeptical of an ensuing boom in US manufacturing employment. 'I personally think it's damaging our economy … We have to be competitive to make sales abroad, not to bludgeon people through threats of tariffs. That's not the way you win friends, and it's also not the way you retain customers,' he said. But Lawrence noted that Trump's delays in implementing 'reciprocal' tariffs initially announced on April 2 likely make them more palatable for the American public and less stinging on their budgets. 'By dragging out the process, it's kind of like the famous boiling of the frog who doesn't quite notice it. [If the] net effect of these tariffs would be to raise the consumer price index by one percentage point or even two, that would be a huge increase, right? But if I told you it was take place over a couple of years, it is going to work out to half a point, or less a fraction each month. Are you going to notice it itself?' he said. 'From the standpoint of, 'How do you want to distribute the shocks?' I think… whether it's negotiating strategy or it's dithering or it's intuition, it actually serves to cushion the blow.'
