Trump Budget Slashes Funds to Help Rural America Keep Farm Pollution Out of Drinking Water.
WASHINGTON – Rural Americans were key to President Trump’s election, but the president’s proposed budget would reward their support by allowing more animal waste, toxic pesticides and fertilizer pollution in their drinking water, said EWG.
“President Trump has put a dirty-water bullseye on the backs of the very same voters who swept him into office,” said Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at EWG.
“If the president’s plan to cut programs that protect clean drinking water in farm country becomes law, his most ardent supporters will see even more manure, pesticides and nitrates fouling their drinking water sources than they do now.” Recent image from a Nebraska rest stop.
Trump’s budget proposal seeks to eliminate or slash federal funding for a number of vital programs that help states and rural communities deal with water pollution, much of which comes from polluted runoff from corn and soybean fields and factory farms.
One water protection program targeted for elimination is the Environmental Protection Agency’s 319 grant program for nonpoint source pollution.
EPA estimates that its nonpoint source pollution program has “partially or fully restored 674 water bodies” in the U.S.
Success stories of this initiative abound for virtually every state in the country, including Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio and Michigan.
In Iowa alone, there are 124 nonpoint source pollution projects that are either ongoing or completed.
Exposure to nitrates in drinking water has been linked to higher rates of thyroid, bladder and ovarian cancer, and can lead to so-called blue baby syndrome, which can be fatal to infants under 6 months old.

As many as 1 million Californians, mostly in the farming communities of the Central Valley, have dangerous levels of an unregulated chemical linked to cancer in their drinking water, according to California’s State Water Board.
State and private water experts say it remains there and is now found in dangerous levels in the drinking water served by 94 different public water systems.
State data show about two-thirds of the 94 affected water systems are in the Central Valley, although the chemical also has been found at levels experts say is unsafe in parts of the Bay Area, Sacramento and Los Angeles.
The two chemical companies have argued in court they shouldn’t be responsible for damages or cleanup costs because the state doesn’t have a maximum legal limit set for TCP in drinking water.
Those Priorities Don’t Apply Here Activists and environmental groups argue Shell and Dow should bear cleanup costs where TCP contamination is found because of the chemical’s widespread marketing to farmers.
It should be on those that are causing it.” Monaco is working with Central Valley communities to test their water for contaminants such as TCP.
That’s what I worry about.” Although there is no legal limit set for TCP anywhere in the country, attorney Todd Robins has settled eight lawsuits filed against Dow and Shell on behalf of small public water systems affected by TCP.
“This is another compelling example of the fact that the poorest among us, the people with the voices that are least heard, bear the brunt of the worst environmental burdens.” Although no state in the country has set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for TCP, California water officials expect to formalize an MCL for the chemical in drinking water soon.
If the water served to the public exceeds the MCL, the water system will be required to clean it up.
A previous NBC Bay Area investigation found that nearly 700,000 Californians still have drinking water contaminated by chemicals already regulated by the state.