Long Island water companies sue to rollback EPA standards on toxic ‘forever chemicals’

 Two national utility trade groups representing many of Long Island’s water providers filed a new federal lawsuit this week seeking to overturn the limits established on toxic “forever chemicals” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last April.

The new restrictions had set maximum contaminant levels for six groups of PFAs — known by critics as “forever chemicals” — with two of the most common limited to 4 parts per trillion — basically one drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized pools.

This lawsuit is now merged with another case brought by multiple chemical and manufacturing companies which are also seeking to rescind the EPA’s Biden-era guidelines.

Jeff Szabo, the CEO of the Suffolk County Water Authority, said the Environmental Protection Agency not following proper guidelines “could set a dangerous precedent for future contaminants.”Newsday via Getty Images

Both groups argue that the EPA didn’t follow proper procedures in determining the limits and the rules will cost companies nationwide billions of dollars per-year to meet the new standards.

00:00

00:00

“This could set a dangerous precedent for future contaminants or anything else that the EPA wanted to do,” argued Jeff Szabo, the CEO of the Suffolk County Water Authority.

“The EPA did not follow the proper process,” proclaimed Szabo, who is also President of the National Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.

PFAs, or Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, are over 14,000 chemicals used in products like nonstick cookware and food containers.

Also known as “forever chemicals” due to their inability to break down, PFAs have been detected in most of Long Island’s drinking water, according to multiple independent studies and officials.

According to experts, these chemicals seep into underground water aquafers and are linked to serious health issues such as cancer, organ damage and infertility when consumed.

Pro-business advocates argue that this deregulation would create more competition and spur economic growth, but some local leaders don’t want to roll back standards.

Among those opposed to the suit include Nassau Assemblywoman Michaelle Solages, who held a water quality town hall for the county on Thursday.

“This is a public health crisis,” Solages told the Post about the suit.

The Assemblywoman argues these year-old guidelines are just the beginning of what needs to be done to improve Long Island’s water quality, and that private corporations shouldn’t be able to “poison” Americans because implementing the new standards isn’t profitable.

“They are basically saying they want to sell poison to the American people,” Solages said.

“Long Island has some of the highest cancer rates in the country,” the Assemblywoman pointed out.

“You can’t pinpoint exactly why with just one reason, but I would guess our high levels of PFAs probably plays a part.”

Although the high levels of chemicals detected throughout the island are under the set legal limits, Solages, alongside health experts, explained that legality doesn’t necessarily equate to health.

“There is no such thing as a safe level of these chemicals,” Solages told the Post.

Solages is now looking for avenues to fight this lawsuit and calling on state officials to invest more in water infrastructure to “ensure public water companies can effectively filter out these chemicals.”

https://nypost.com/2025/03/07/us-news/long-island-water-companies-sue-to-rollback-epa-standards-on-forever-chemicals-in-new-lawsuit/

Can a Political Party Have a Personality Disorder?

 by Roger Simon

Who are those people, I wondered Tuesday night, as I watched the Democrats sit on their hands when brain cancer victim 13-year-old Devarjaye “D.J.” Daniel was recognized as an honorary Secret Service agent?

But that was only one moment in a litany of similar nauseating reactions, or lack thereof, during President Trump’s first address to Congress for his second term.

And that’s not counting Al Green’s sad acting out that resulted in his ejection. Mr. Green needs help but is unlikely to get it.

I had to shake myself to remember I was once a Democrat in what seems like the Paleolithic Age but was actually a tad less than twenty-five years ago., scarcely a minute in human time.

Nevertheless, the party I left, even though it was trending in the wrong direction, didn’t seem much like what I was watching now. What had happened? Why did they all behave like sullen children without an ounce of optimism for the future?

The simple explanation was “Trump bad.” But it was almost too obvious and only part of the story. Something more is involved even if “he doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus.”.

I had been wondering this for some time but especially a couple of days ago when I saw the endless list of Democrat senators who voted in lockstep against codifying the prohibition of trans women (aka men) in women’s sports via the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. It had passed the House but needed 60 votes in the Senate but only received 51—all Republicans.

According to polls, the vast percentage of the country, the common man and woman, Groucho Marx’s “Barber in Peru [Indiana],” wanted its passage, but not the Senate Dems.

So who were these psepople voting in such a uniform manner? Didn’t they have wives, daughters, granddaughters? Their actions, in defense of a tiny minority a certain percentage of whom were probably acting from a pathetically selfish desire to win at all costs, not only veered to the pathological, it was arguably pathological.

They were also in evidence Tuesday night, some of them anyway.

When I looked out at that audience of sullen faces I saw myself to some extent. I saw the road not taken. These were my peers, or close enough. These were the people who had been fighting for “causes” since 1968, or had been following obediently in the footsteps of those who had been fighting for those causes, the sons and daughters of activists become quondam activists themselves.

It was how they defined themselves. Only there was a problem—the world had changed. But they had nothing to fall back on, so they continued as those causes became increasingly dubious and out of touch with normal life..

This was something of a replay of the French Revolution with the waving of dopey signs replacing the guillotine (thankfully), yet the impulse is not dissimilar. Ever onwards to the next revolutionary thing, always wanting more, without thinking the obvious—is this enough? Does this make sense?

CRT, equity, DEI, intersectionality, triggering, safe spaces, pronouns for all, pick your gender in elementary school, one thing after another, each increasingly disconnected from normal life as Groucho’s barber, the rest of us, lived it.

Yet these Senators, especially these Senators, did not object to any of it, although I would wager in their heart of hearts, inside their psyches, most of them were not happy about what was happening. There was nothing to be happy about.

How could they not have realized the results of their decision on women’s sports was misogynistic? This was supposed to be the party of women and yet they ignored the possibility that their own family members could be raped by a trans woman in the locker room, let alone humiliated by her/him on the playing field to the extent that the sport itself was rendered irrelevant.

Again, a disconnect. Again, they forgot their reading of Carlyle on the French Revolution that some of them at least, I assume, read in college.

So they had to pretend to themselves they were doing the right thing in part for the excuse of that most cowardly of all things, party unity, and in part for God knows what, maybe some version of what I once called moral narcissism.

This was true of the audience Tuesday night as well. In many case, they squelched their true feelings to maintain that unity.

If ever there were a way to manufacture a party-wide personality disorder, that was it.

They are stuck in time to such a degree they are virtually embalmed, flailing about with nothing positive to say, no ideas, fresh or otherwise.

They also are faced with the realization that they are no longer cool, not for a long time. In fact, the notion of cool itself is no longer cool.

The only hill they fight on now is that hill of gender. In that they are fighting both science (evolution of the human species) and religion at the same time. Neither are to be taken lightly.

https://americanrefugees.substack.com/p/can-a-political-party-have-a-personality

CBDC: The Impacts On Freedom, Privacy, & Economic Development

 by Pedro Saltini via The Mises Institute,

Recent research highlights a concerning trend: 84 percent of Americans are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech, according to a New York Times Opinion/Siena College Poll. While this statistic alone is alarming, it only scratches the surface of a broader issue—the gradual erosion of personal liberties. This decline extends beyond speech into the domains of thought, cognition, and economic autonomy. As this erosion continues, new technologies threaten to accelerate it. Among these is the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which have been at the forefront of recent policy discussions. Though marketed as innovations to improve financial inclusion and efficiency, CBDCs raise legitimate concerns about freedom, privacy, and government overreach.

State Monopolization and the Market

To understand the potential dangers of CBDC adoption, it is critical to revisit Max Weber’s definition of state power. In Politics as a Vocation, Weber describes the state as the institution that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. This definition is particularly relevant in the context of financial systems. Historically, markets have thrived on competition, innovation, and the decentralized nature of monetary policy. CBDCs, however, represent an attempt by the state to monopolize and centralize financial transactions under one digital umbrella.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has articulated that a CBDC could enhance financial inclusion, lower transaction costs, and improve monetary policy. While such benefits may appeal to those unfamiliar with economics, they conceal significant risks. As Friedrich Hayek warned, government control over economic systems is a dangerous path, inevitably leading to greater centralization and reduced personal freedom. The “invisible hand” of the market has proven far more reliable than the visible hand of state intervention. The question is whether we are willing to trade efficiency for liberty.

Lessons from Nigeria’s eNaira

One need only look at Nigeria’s eNaira to glimpse the possible future of CBDCs. Introduced in 2021 following a cryptocurrency ban, the eNaira was supposed to usher in a new era of financial stability. Instead, it became a tool for government control. Initially framed as a way to reduce physical cash transactions and promote digital payments, it soon encountered significant obstacles, including volatility, high transaction costs, and a lack of transparency due to its closed, centralized blockchain.

The Nigerian government imposed strict limits on eNaira wallets, including daily withdrawal caps and balance restrictions. Despite government promises that physical cash would remain in circulation until the eNaira was fully operational, over half the population was left holding worthless old banknotes. This left millions of impoverished Nigerians unable to access basic financial services. Far from promoting inclusion, the eNaira deepened existing economic inequalities.

This case study highlights a crucial lesson: CBDCs are not neutral technologies. They come with inherent risks that disproportionately affect society’s most vulnerable. For developing nations like Nigeria—where over 90 percent of the population lives on less than $6.85 per day—the consequences of poorly-implemented digital currencies are devastating. But even in developed nations like the United States, such policies pose serious risks.

CBDC in the United States

Although the United States is not yet on the brink of adopting a full-scale CBDC, the Federal Reserve has explored the concept. Bank of America suggests that a digital dollar is unlikely in the immediate future. However, the Federal Reserve itself acknowledges several risks associated with CBDCs, such as impacts on financial stability, the cost and availability of credit, and the safety of the broader financial system. These risks are not theoretical; they are grounded in historical experience and economic logic.

Austrian economists have long argued that sound money should emerge naturally through the market, not through state coercion. Ludwig von Mises stated that “the excellence of money lies in its value beyond mere exchange.” Money’s role is to facilitate voluntary exchange and store value—not to serve as a tool for government monitoring and intervention. A CBDC represents a radical departure from these principles, creating a monetary system that is entirely dependent on government policy.

In addition to the financial risks, CBDCs present an existential threat to privacy. The Federal Reserve claims that a future CBDC would aim to balance transparency with consumer privacy. However, as Murray Rothbard argued in The Ethics of Liberty, there is no “balance” to be struck when it comes to privacy. The right to property implies the right to control how that property is used without interference. A CBDC undermines this fundamental right by allowing the state to monitor every transaction, effectively eliminating financial privacy.

Historical Parallels: Lessons from Fiat Money and Gold

The rise of fiat money offers important historical parallels to the current debate over CBDCs. Just as fiat currencies replaced commodity-backed money, CBDCs could replace cash and other forms of decentralized currency. The transition to fiat money was marked by government overreach and monetary instability. As Frédéric Bastiat once observed, “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” This fiction becomes even more dangerous when applied to money itself.

The Austrian School’s critique of fiat money is directly applicable to CBDCs. Fiat money—unlike gold—has no commodity value and is subject to manipulation by central authorities. Similarly, a CBDC would be little more than a digital token, entirely dependent on government policy for its value. This creates an incentive for governments to inflate the money supply and erode the purchasing power of ordinary citizens. Over time, this could lead to widespread economic instability and social unrest.

How to Oppose CBDC: The Austrian Approach

Given these risks, how can we effectively oppose the development of CBDCs? The Austrian approach offers a clear roadmap. First and foremost, education is key. Many people lack a basic understanding of economics, leaving them vulnerable to misleading narratives about the supposed benefits of digital currencies. It is essential to expose the risks and advocate for alternative solutions rooted in market principles.

Advocacy and resistance are equally important. We must actively defend the few remaining freedoms we still possess. This means supporting policies that promote financial privacy, opposing state surveillance, and encouraging the development of decentralized financial systems. It also means resisting the temptation to trade liberty for convenience. History shows that once freedom is surrendered, they are rarely regained without a struggle.

Finally, we must promote voluntary market solutions. The private sector has already developed numerous alternatives to state-backed digital currencies, from decentralized cryptocurrencies to innovative payment systems. These solutions offer the best hope for preserving financial freedom in the digital age. By encouraging competition and innovation, we can create a more resilient and inclusive financial system—one that empowers individuals rather than subjugating them.

As the debate over CBDCs intensifies, it is crucial to remain vigilant. While proponents may emphasize the potential benefits, we must not lose sight of the risks. The lessons of history are clear: centralized control over money leads to economic instability, reduced personal freedom, and greater government overreach. By embracing the principles of the Austrian School, we can chart a different course—one that prioritizes freedom, innovation, and individual autonomy.

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/cbdc-impacts-freedom-privacy-economic-development

Trump Yanks SBA Benefits From Illegals After 'Record Invasion'

 Illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer benefits are fresh out of luck - after the Small Business Administration (SBA) announced a series of reforms, including removing offices from sanctuary cities.

Kelly Loeffler is moving SBA offices out of sanctuary cities (AP/Getty)

SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler said in a press release that the reforms will "put American citizens first by ending taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens."

According to the agency, in the coming days it will require all SBA loan applicants to include citizenship verification so that only legal citizens are accessing its programs. Lenders will also need to confirm that businesses are not owned in "whole or in part by an illegal alien" in order to adhere to President Trump's executive order prohibiting "taxpayer subsidization of open borders."

The SBA is also relocating offices in six sanctuary cities, per the press release, including locations in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City, and Seattle. The new locations will be less costly, more accessible, and located in areas that "better serve the small business community and that comply with federal immigration law," Fox News reports, citing the release.

"Over the last four years, the record invasion of illegal aliens has jeopardized both the lives of American citizens and the livelihoods of American small business owners, who have each become victims of Joe Biden’s migrant crime spree," said Loeffler.

"Under President Trump, the SBA is committed to putting American citizens first again – starting by ensuring that zero taxpayer dollars go to fund illegal aliens."

Loeffler continued - "Today, I am pleased to announce that this agency will cut off access to loans for illegal aliens and relocate our regional offices out of sanctuary cities that reward criminal behavior. We will return our focus to empowering legal, eligible business owners across the United States – in partnership with the municipalities who share this Administration’s commitment to secure borders and safe communities."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-yoinks-benefits-illegals-after-record-invasion-sba-announces-reforms

Trump Justice Department fires more career officials

President Donald Trump's administration on Friday fired at least two senior career officials at the U.S. Justice Department, including the head of the office that handles presidential pardon requests, according to a social media post and sources familiar with the matter.

Liz Oyer served as pardon attorney since 2022, a career Justice Department position. Oyer was fired "effective immediately," according to a memo she shared on LinkedIn, which cited Trump's executive authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Oyer's former office reviews requests for clemency from people convicted of federal offenses and makes recommendations to the White House on whom the president should pardon.

Bobak Talebian, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy, which handles public records requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, was also fired, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The moves mark the latest instance of the Trump administration removing or sidelining career Justice Department officials, who typically keep their positions across presidential administrations.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the moves.

Trump-appointed officials previously reassigned several veteran national security and criminal prosecutors to a newly created immigration office. The top career ethics official left the Justice Department after facing a similar reassignment.

About eight senior career FBI officials were also forced out ahead of the confirmation of Trump-nominated FBI Director Kash Patel by the Senate.

Justice Department leaders have generally not given reasons for the dismissals, but have broadly emphasized that career officials must be trusted to enforce Trump's agenda.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-justice-dept-fires-head-231719949.html

Bayer told analysts of cash call plan a day before official statement

 Bayer told several brokerages about plans to seek shareholder permission to issue shares one day before formally announcing the news on Friday, which weighed heavily on the stock, analysts' notes seen by Reuters showed.

The healthcare and agriculture group said in a statement on Friday it would seek shareholder approval at its annual meeting on April 25 potentially to increase shares outstanding by about 35% over the next three years to cover possible costs of U.S. litigation.

Its shares fell by as much as 10% and closed 6.5% lower.

In a note dated Thursday and seen by Reuters, Jefferies analysts told clients about Bayer's plan, citing detailed remarks by Bayer's leadership to a meeting that day of sell-side analysts from several brokerages. Jefferies did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Two other analysts sent more informal notes, seen by Reuters, to clients on Friday via a messaging system that made clear they learned of the plan at meetings with Bayer on Thursday.

The brokerages did not comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. German financial markets regulator Bafin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bafin requires listed companies to disseminate information with potential to move a share price "to as wide a public as possible on a non-discriminatory basis".

A Bayer spokesperson said that the latest proposal aligns with previous shareholder authorization for a 35% capital increase that was in place until 2019. Bayer also had conditional capital of 10% at its disposal at the time, he added.

The spokesperson pointed to a presentation that Chairman Norbert Winkeljohann gave in January that said the company was considering a vote on raising capital.

In a sign that the market-moving potential of Bayer's move may have been difficult to predict, analysts independently expressed surprise at Friday's share-price slump. Some even said Bayer's move could have been seen as a positive development by working toward resolution of U.S. litigation, which includes lawsuits over the weed killer glyphosate.

"Not saying that it is a positive, but CFO did talk about this being a standard procedure in the sell-side meeting yesterday," one of the analysts' message said, referring to Bayer's plan to seek a vote on raising capital.

Analysts further cited Bayer executives as saying on Thursday that the size of the cash call was not out of the ordinary.

At a January presentation for investors and analysts, Winkeljohann said Bayer was looking into requesting shareholder approval for an unspecified equity capital authorisation at this year's annual general meeting.

The January presentation posted on Bayer's website does not mention the size of any cash call, but says funds would be "used only to resolve major litigation while maintaining balance sheet resilience and safeguarding credit metrics".

In its official statement on Friday, part of an invitation to shareholders to the annual meeting, Bayer said it would only resort to a rights issue "if it is absolutely necessary," and not use it for mergers or acquisitions.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bayer-told-analysts-cash-call-205901389.html

China Imposes Retaliatory Tariffs on Canada Rapeseed Oil, Pork

 

China said it will impose retaliatory tariffs on imports of rapeseed oil, pork and seafood from Canada.

There will be a 100% tariff on rapeseed oil and pea products, and a 25% levy on pork and some seafood imports, the Ministry of Finance said in a statement on Saturday. The changes will be effective March 20.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-08/china-imposes-retaliatory-tariffs-on-canada-rapeseed-oil-pork