Latest news with #NativeAmerican
USA Today
3 hours ago
- Climate
- USA Today
Critical reservoirs Lakes Mead, Powell hit 'alarmingly low levels' again
A report shows that both Mead and Powell have "reached alarmingly low levels, holding just one-third of their usual capacity." After a brief reprieve in 2023 and early 2024, a long-simmering water crisis in the West is back with a vengeance, impacting massive water reservoirs, drought conditions and wildfire concerns. In fact, according to a recent report from environmental firm AEM, the western United States faces "a rapidly worsening drought crisis, with affected areas nearly tripling compared to last year." "The drought in the West is a real concern," said AEM senior meteorologist James Aman in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "Over the past few weeks, drought has worsened in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and northern Utah," he said. Overall, the recent western drought was at its worst in late 2021, when nearly 94% of the West was in drought, before easing in 2023-24. It is now at 58%. Of particular concern in the Southwest are the giant reservoirs of the Colorado River basin, Lakes Mead and Powell, which remain far below capacity. The Colorado River and the two reservoirs have been in crisis because of a multidecade drought in the West intensified by climate change, rising demand and overuse. The river also serves Mexico and more than two dozen Native American tribes, produces hydropower, and supplies water to farms that grow most of the nation's winter vegetables. The report shows that both Mead and Powell, crucial reservoirs that provide drinking water for 40 million Americans, have "reached alarmingly low levels, holding just one-third of their usual capacity. This shortage poses significant challenges to agriculture, urban water supplies, and industries reliant on consistent water availability," according to the report. This is up from a low point in 2022, when they were 25% full, but still far from their historic highs of the early 2000s, when they were 95% full. What's the latest on Lakes Mead and Powell? Could they drop to record low levels this year? The two reservoirs are located in the Southwest, with huge Lake Mead primarily in Nevada and Powell located along the Utah-Arizona border. Aman said that "in historical terms, current water levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead remain very low. Lake Mead is currently at only 31% of capacity," he said. Lake Powell is at 34% capacity, according to David Simeral, a scientist with the Desert Research Institute. Lake Mead and Lake Powell did see water levels increase a bit early this summer, as spring snowmelt worked its way down the Colorado River system, according to Aman. "However, as the summer progresses, lake-levels will begin to decrease," he said. "Water levels are projected to continue falling through the end of this year. The lowest level ever recorded at Lake Mead was 1,041 feet in July 2022 (lowest level since the reservoir started filling in the 1930s). Projections show Lake Mead remaining just above 1,050 feet by later this year, so it would not set a new record low this year." However, long-range projections show even lower water levels by later 2026, with some chance of reaching near the record low, Aman said. The two reservoirs are vital for water supply in the West, according to Aman: "Seven states use Colorado River for parts of their water supply (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California). Just over 50% is used for farm irrigation, and almost 20% is used for drinking water. Lake Mead and Lake Powell are by far the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado River." KDSK-TV reported that the Colorado River, which connects the two lakes, provides drinking water for major cities including Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix, as well as 90% of Las Vegas's drinking water. Expanding drought in the West Just one year ago, only 18% of the western U.S. was in a drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. As of this week's monitor, that number is up to 58%. This significant drought expansion "raises serious concerns about water availability, agricultural productivity, wildfire threats, and infrastructure stability across the region," the AEM report said. The latest medium and long-range outlooks from the National Weather Service (NWS) Climate Prediction Center (CPC) indicate below-normal precipitation in the area for the next several months, according to Aman. Additionally, hotter-than-normal temperatures are expected across the Rockies, Pacific Northwest, and the Upper Midwest, exacerbating drought conditions and placing significant stress on regional electric grids, the AEM report stated. Some good news However, there is some good news in one part of the West: "An active North American monsoon is anticipated to continue through all of July and possibly into August," Aman told USA TODAY. "This is likely to bring above-normal rain and thunderstorms to parts of the Southwest U.S. We agree with the NWS CPC outlooks that show above-normal precipitation is likely across Arizona and New Mexico, and perhaps into southeast Utah and western Colorado through all of July." He added that parts of the Southwest have very deep drought, so just a single summer of above-normal rainfall won't be enough to eliminate drought in these areas. Wildfire worries The severe drought conditions are further intensifying wildfire risks in the West, particularly around the July 4th holiday, historically associated with increased wildfire activity, the AEM report said. Areas such as California, the Great Basin, and the northern Rockies are projected to face above-normal fire potential throughout the summer months, further straining firefighting resources and endangering communities. Canada is also facing extreme fire danger across western provinces, with burned acreage already triple the seasonal average. 'This summer will bring a dangerous combination of heat, dryness, and fuel buildup that elevates wildfire risks across North America,' said Aman. 'We're already seeing an above-average number of wildfires in the U.S., with similar trends north of the border.' Why might July 4 be especially dangerous for wildfires? "There is a huge spike in the number of human-caused wildfires in the United States around the 4th of July holiday, related to the improper use of fireworks," Aman told USA TODAY. "When plotted on a map, the highest concentration of wildfires caused by fireworks occurs in the western half of the U.S., mainly in national parks, national forests, and certain other rural areas. Other smaller clusters of wildfires caused by fireworks are seen around some large U.S. cities, and in national parks and forests in the eastern U.S."
Los Angeles Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Mexico threatens to sue Musk's SpaceX over contamination from exploding rockets
Mexico City — A small Texas town just across the border from Mexico is the testing ground for Starship, the hulking spacecraft that Elon Musk hopes will one day ferry people to Mars. In recent months, multiple test launches have ended in explosions, causing debris to rain down on both countries and in the Gulf of Mexico. Mexican scientists say the wreckage is killing wildlife, including dolphins, sea turtles and fish. Amid growing pressure from her constituents, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said this week that her government is investigating the 'security and environmental' impacts of Musk's rockets and has found that 'there is indeed contamination,' a charge Musk's company denies. Sheinbaum said her government is trying to determine whether SpaceX has violated international laws and said Mexico will file 'necessary lawsuits.' Her statements come amid hightened tensions between the U.S. and Mexico on security, migration and the economy. President Trump's new tariffs on Mexican imports and threats of U.S. drone strikes on cartel targets have sparked a surge of nationalism here. Musk, a billionaire who is also the CEO of Tesla and the owner of X, is closely allied with the U.S. administration, having donated more than a quarter billion dollars to help elect Trump. For several months this year he was the informal head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. SpaceX said in a post on X that independent tests performed on the material used in Starships confirm that it 'does not present any chemical, biological or toxicological risks.' The company said it attempts to recover all debris from exploded devices. U.S. groups have also blamed SpaceX rockets for environmental degradation. The company's Starbase launch facility in South Texas abuts the Boca Chica Wildlife Refuge, an expanse of tidal flats, mangroves and sand dunes that is home to rare and endangered species including ocelots, sea turtles and northern aplomado falcons. A coalition including the Sierra Club and a local Native American tribe sued the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging the agencies approved test launches without conducting thorough environmental reviews. They say failed rocket launches have spread concrete and metal debris across thousands of feets of surrounding lands — and once set off a fire that burned several acres of protected dunes. In Mexico, environmentalists began raising alarm earlier this year after space debris was discovered in the border city of Matamoros, in the Río Bravo — as Mexico calls the Rio Grande — and in the Gulf of Mexico. A local NGO in the state of Tamaulipas issued a report documenting animal deaths in a region known as a nesting ground for manatees, sharks, whales and other animals. It warned particularly about risks to sea turtles who ingest particles of space debris. The group said it had collected more than a ton of debris scattered along an area more than 25 miles long. The governor of Tamaulipas said authorities were also looking into the issue. Gov. Américo Villarreal Anaya said his government will verify whether 'the internationally required distances are being respected in order to have these types of facilities so that there is no risk to urban centers.'
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Birthright citizenship order: US Supreme Court curbs power of judges to block executive actions; a major victory for Trump
The US Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling on Friday restricted the authority of individual federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions, delivering a major win to President Donald Trump, who has long criticised lower courts for blocking his executive agenda. The case stemmed from Trump's attempt to revoke birthright citizenship through an executive order signed on his first day in office. While the court refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the order itself, it stated that sweeping nationwide injunctions 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' The decision marks a significant judicial shift in how lawsuits against federal policies can proceed. However, the ruling did not settle whether Trump's controversial policy change — which would deny citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented immigrants — can be implemented. Birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, has been a cornerstone of American citizenship law since shortly after the Civil War. The Supreme Court's 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that nearly all individuals born on US soil are automatically citizens, except children of diplomats, hostile occupiers, those born on foreign ships, or to members of sovereign Native American tribes. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cuối cùng, chơi miễn phí game chiến thuật hay nhất 2025! Sea of Conquest Phát ngay Undo Trump's executive order challenges this long-standing interpretation, arguing that children born to those 'not subject to the jurisdiction' of the US — such as undocumented immigrants — should not be granted citizenship. In the order, Trump described American citizenship as 'a priceless and profound gift,' and claimed current policies allow for its exploitation. So far, federal judges across various courts have unanimously ruled against the administration, rejecting its narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Immigrant advocates, states, and civil rights groups have argued that the move is an unconstitutional effort to redefine American citizenship and disrupt settled law. The Department of Justice, supporting the president's position, maintained that no single judge should be able to halt national policies for the entire country, urging the Supreme Court to limit injunctions to only the plaintiffs involved in a given case. While the justices agreed that broad injunctions should be curbed, they left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship order could still be challenged — or blocked — under other legal avenues. For now, the executive order remains unenforced, though future litigation may ultimately determine its fate. The administration also requested that, at minimum, it be allowed to publicly explain how it intends to implement the policy if it gets the green light in future proceedings. As of now, the court's decision limits judicial overreach, but the core debate over who qualifies for US citizenship remains unresolved.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US birthright citizenship fate remains unclear as SC limits judges' powers on nationwide injunctions
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday delivered a 6-3 ruling limiting the authority of individual federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The decision came in response to a case involving President Donald Trump 's executive order aimed at ending birthright Court stated that such broad injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." In what maybe a win for Trump, the top court's ruling restricts lower courts from blocking federal policies beyond the scope of the specific parties involved in a legal Supreme Court ruling does not immediately determine whether Trump's directive on birthright citizenship will be executive directive, signed on Trump's first day back in office, instructs federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices the order 'reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment , which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.'An 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship, with few exceptions such as children of diplomats or those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. That precedent has long supported the application of jus soli, or 'right of the soil,' in the United States, one of around 30 countries that recognize birthright citizenship.A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 11–12 found that 52% of Americans opposed ending birthright citizenship, while 24% supported it. The rest were undecided.
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
US Supreme Court set to rule on FCC fund for phone, broadband access
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday on the legality of how the Federal Communications Commission funds a multi-billion dollar effort to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries. The FCC and a coalition of telecommunications firms and interest groups have appealed a lower court's ruling that found that the agency's funding operation effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on American consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress. It is the latest in a series of cases to come to the Supreme Court challenging the power of federal agencies. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. A law called the Telecommunications Act passed by Congress in 1996 authorized the FCC to operate a " Universal Service Fund ," to be drawn from regular contributions by telecommunications companies. The fund draws around $9 billion annually, with the vast majority of telecommunications companies passing on the cost to customers. The law lays out six principles to guide the fund's operation, including that "quality services should be available at just, reasonable and affordable rates," that "access to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the nation," and requiring that "sufficient" mechanisms be in place to "preserve and advance universal service." At issue in the case was a legal principle called the non-delegation doctrine that involves limits on the ability of Congress to confer powers derived from the Constitution to government agencies like the FCC. The FCC's handoff of authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company, the private company that administers the fund, involves a related concept called the private non-delegation doctrine. The FCC appointed the company to help determine contribution amounts, collect payments from telecommunications businesses and deliver funding to beneficiaries. A set of challengers comprising the conservative group Consumers' Research, a telecommunications carrier and consumers asked the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 to review the legality of the funding mechanism. They argued that Congress effectively handed off legislative power to the FCC by giving the agency open-ended latitude to operate the fund. They also argued that the FCC had unlawfully transferred authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company and given it an outsized role in determining contribution amounts to be paid by telecommunications companies. The 5th Circuit in 2024 concluded that "the combination of Congress's sweeping delegation to FCC and FCC's unauthorized subdelegation" to the private company violated the Constitution's provision giving the legislative power to Congress. The FCC was established as an independent federal agency in 1934 and is overseen by Congress. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 26. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has reined in the actions of federal regulatory agencies in a series of rulings in recent years, though those cases did not involve the non-delegation doctrine.
