This November, regional voters will decide whether or not to pass the Early Childhood Service District ballot measure proposed by the Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition (CECE). If approved, it would become Colorado’s first special taxing district meant to improve access to early-childhood care and education — another is being explored on the Front Range, but won’t likely make the 2025 ballot. Following a successful judicial review in July, CECE launched its “Strong Start, Bright Future” (SSBF) campaign to promote the measure and connect with voters.

“We really believe sustainable funding is one of the critical pieces [of the] puzzle,” said Maggie Tiscornia, SSBF’s outreach coordinator. 

Spanning Garfield, Pitkin and the southwest corner of Eagle County, the special district would implement a 0.25% sales tax on non-essential goods. Items excluded from the tax are things like groceries, gas, medicines, diapers, feminine hygiene products and other goods not taxed by the state. The tax could generate an estimated $10 million in annual revenue.

To maximize reach and address the region’s diverse socioeconomic needs, the funds would be flexible. Families with children under 5 could benefit from sliding-scale tuition assistance, while childcare providers would receive grants for expanding capacity (particularly for infant and toddler care), lowering tuition rates, improving quality of services or obtaining licensure and so forth. Additional funds would be used for the district’s operational needs and third-party accountability reviews.

Voters will also elect the special district’s five-person board of directors. Akin to a school board, the special district’s board would implement programs, determine policies and listen and adapt to the community’s needs. Nominations for the new board are due Aug. 22. 

“I think the beauty of this being local, and these directors being voter-elected to represent these communities, is that we can directly advocate, have our voices heard and respond to the needs here,” said Tiscornia, “rather than at the state level.” 

Community-wide challenge
From Parachute to Aspen, the need for high-quality, reliable and affordable childcare is increasingly prevalent. Noting that 90% of brain development happens from birth to 5 years old, Tiscornia said supporting these children will set them up for success and also benefit the communities where they live and play.

Currently, the region has 2,272 licensed childcare placements, but over 5,100 children under the age of 5. Faced with this challenge, many working parents have opted to reduce their work hours or leave the workforce entirely. Based on CECE’s data analysis, the lack of accessible childcare leads to an estimated regional loss of $50 million in annual revenue, earnings and productivity.

Families who have secured a spot face another challenge: tuition. The federal government recommends that 7% of household income goes toward childcare. In the Valley, families making the median household income with two young children are budgeting nearly 37% of their monthly income toward childcare. In some cases, this surpasses their monthly housing budget.

Ali Cottle, founder and director of the Thompson Schoolhouse and a CECE volunteer, said childcare funding is a systemic problem. Providers have to charge more to maintain their business and employees in an expensive area, and families struggle to afford the tuition. 

“We just need money; that’s the big answer,” said Cottle. “This proposal is a way [visitors and second homeowners] can help build our small community.”

Sweeping support
Founded in 2017, CECE has been a leading voice in expanding access to childcare. When the ballot proposal was made public, it quickly garnered support from community leaders and organizations. The boards of county commissioners in each of the three counties unanimously supported the proposal, while former and current superintendents from Roaring Fork School District and Aspen School District have endorsed it. In May, CECE gathered over 1,000 registered voter signatures in support. 

“One thing that really grabbed me about this campaign is that it is a nonpartisan group trying to do something good for so many families in our valley,” said Kassidy Birdsong, another CECE volunteer. She added that with the number of overwhelming challenges worldwide – from healthcare to food insecurity –  opportunities for success can be limited. For her, this childcare tax is an actionable piece of the solution.

“Becoming a mom made me feel a sense of solidarity with other moms around the world and in my community,” said Birdsong. “I want to see parents and providers in my community thrive.”

Nominations for the Early Childhood Service District board of directors are open until Aug. 22. Visit www.strongstartbrightfuture.com to learn more about the ballot measure and board nominations.

The post Formation of Colorado’s first special district funding childcare to be decided by tri-county voters appeared first on The Sopris Sun.

En mayo, el Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA) anunció que los estados debían presentar información detallada sobre todos los solicitantes del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP) de los últimos cinco años. Esta medida ha generado preocupación entre los defensores de los derechos de los inmigrantes, quienes advierten que la divulgación de datos dará lugar a deportaciones dirigidas a personas indocumentadas y además negará a las familias los alimentos necesarios.

El USDA solicita “los nombres de todos los miembros del grupo familiar, sus fechas de nacimiento, números de seguro social, direcciones residenciales y postales utilizadas o facilitadas, así como todos los registros de datos utilizados para determinar la elegibilidad o inelegibilidad”. Una evaluación del impacto sobre la privacidad del USDA también menciona una solicitud de información sobre el estatus migratorio y de ciudadanía, la educación, el empleo y el estado civil.

Aunque los inmigrantes indocumentados no son típicamente elegibles a las prestaciones del SNAP, su información puede estar en peligro. Los hogares con estatus mixto que solicitan el SNAP deben proporcionar datos de todos sus miembros, incluidos los indocumentados. 

Beatriz García, organizadora de Western Slope para la Coalición por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de Colorado, dijo que este tipo de divulgación de datos es un riesgo significante para las comunidades de inmigrantes.

“Estas son políticas que están afectando no solo a familias indocumentadas, sino también a las familias con estatus mixto, compuestas por ciudadanos y residentes legales, debido al temor de que el gobierno utilice su información para localizarlos y expulsarlos de los Estados Unidos por el simple hecho de ser inmigrantes”, dijo García. 

Sumado a estas preocupaciones la regla de “carga pública” de la ley de inmigración de Estados Unidos, que permite a los funcionarios de inmigración negar visas o ajustes de estatus si se determina que los solicitantes dependen probablemente de asistencia del gobierno. García señaló que algunos inmigrantes indocumentados evitan programas como el SNAP por temor a que pueda perjudicar sus casos de inmigración, a pesar de que el SNAP no se tiene en cuenta para la regla de carga pública.

Lo que resulta es una relación delicada entre las personas indocumentadas y las agencias gubernamentales en torno a la privacidad de datos. El USDA defiende su solicitud de datos como una herramienta contra “el desperdicio, el fraude y el abuso”, citando una orden ejecutiva de marzo que concede “acceso ilimitado” a los datos estatales. Defensores como García ven esto como otra forma de agravar la injusticia.

“Los niños y las familias están sufriendo inseguridad alimentaria”, dijo García. “Y eso no es fraude. Es una realidad. Si el gobierno no quiere ver la realidad y quiere llamarlo fraude, es difícil porque el SNAP surgió de la necesidad de proteger a las familias para que pudieran tener un plato de comida sobre la mesa. Y si eso es fraude para un gobierno, eso significa estar en contra de un sistema humanitario”.

Datos del Urban Institute estiman que 298,000 familias de Colorado perderán una parte o la totalidad de sus prestaciones del SNAP debido a los recortes del ‘Big Beautiful Bill’. En promedio, los hogares se enfrentan a una reducción de $88 dólares al mes, o $1,056 dólares anuales. Con tantas familias potencialmente afectadas, las organizaciones locales se están preparando para el aumento en la demanda de sus servicios.

Lift-Up ha funcionado por mucho tiempo como una red de seguridad vital desde Aspen hasta Parachute. Desde el colapso de la industria de la pizarra bituminosa hasta la pandemia de COVID-19, Lift-Up ha creado numerosos programas de seguridad alimentaria para satisfacer las necesidades cambiantes y crecientes del valle. Desde 2020, Lift-Up afirma que ha visto un aumento del 600% en la demanda y espera que la cifra vaya en aumento. 

Elyse Hottel, directora ejecutiva interina de Lift-Up, explicó que la ayuda alimentaria contribuye a aliviar los problemas. “Hay mucha gente que se desplaza largas distancias porque no puede permitirse vivir más cerca de su trabajo”, dijo. “Y, por lo tanto, a veces hay que tomar decisiones muy difíciles. ¿Pago el alquiler o compro comida? ¿Pago por cuidado médico o compro comida? ¿Pago la gasolina para ir al trabajo y así tener dinero, o compro comida?”.

Para acceder a los programas de ayuda alimentaria de Lift-Up, es necesario registrarse. Se solicita el nombre, el número de teléfono, la dirección de correo electrónico y un documento de identidad para evitar duplicidad y garantizar una distribución equitativa de los recursos entre las comunidades del valle.

“No buscamos por licencia de conducir, pasaporte o cualquier otra cosa. Pueden traer una sobre postal con su nombre y dirección”, dijo Hottel.

“La divulgación de datos ha sido uno de los mayores riesgos, y el gobierno ha dejado muy claro que los está poniendo a disposición del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional a través de muchos medios”, dijo García. A medida que la administración Trump toma medidas para recopilar datos de programas federales como el IRS y compartirlos con agencias de control de inmigración como el ICE, crece el temor de que los datos personales conduzcan a la deportación.

En el futuro, los recursos locales como Lift-Up pueden ser fundamentales para apoyar a los más vulnerables entre nosotros. García destacó la importancia de dar a conocer estos recursos comunitarios y animó a la gente y a los gobiernos locales a apoyarlos. Con suficiente apoyo, cree que estos recursos pueden satisfacer las necesidades básicas de las personas y crear un movimiento significativamente grande como para resistir un sistema opresivo y llevar los recursos a las personas que más los necesitan.

Traducción por Dolores Duarte

The post Cambios en SNAP afectarán a inmigrantes locales appeared first on The Sopris Sun.

Over 3 million acres of public land could be sold in the next five years, after Senate Republicans on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reintroduced land sales into the party’s major spending bill. 

Released on Wednesday night, the megabill text includes a proposal for extensive transfers of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, supposedly for housing but with leeway for other uses. The new bill text escalates a recent GOP push to sell federal land. In May, the House Natural Resources Committee passed a version of the spending bill that called for 500,000 acres of public land sales in Nevada and Utah.

The Senate bill instructs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to dispose of .5%-.75% of all BLM and Forest Service lands, respectively. While the percentage appears small, each agency manages huge swaths of land, mostly in the Western U.S. The BLM oversees 245 million acres, equating to 1.23 million to 1.84 million acres for sale under this proposal. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres, which would mean 970,000 to 1.45 million acres would be sold off if the bill passes.

In all, the total amount of public lands for sale could be as high as 3.29 million acres. The bill text would allow sales in all western states, except Montana.

“This Senate version is just open season on public lands.”

“It’s a travesty that Senate Republicans are putting more than 3 million acres of our beloved public lands on the chopping block to sell at fire-sale prices to build mega mansions for the ultrarich,” Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an emailed statement. He noted that the proposal’s broad language differed from the House version that focused on lands already identified for disposal in resource management plans. 

“This Senate version is just open season on public lands,” Donnelly added. 

If passed into law, the new proposal would create a process for states, local governments and tribes to have a “right of first refusal” on public land sales — suggesting that if these entities did not want to purchase these parcels, private buyers would be considered. The proposal also prohibits the sale of national parks (which are not managed by the BLM or the Forest Service), national monuments, wilderness areas and national recreation areas, as well as land with mining claims, grazing permits, mineral leases and right of ways. 

Local governments near parcels that sold would get 5% of the proceeds “for essential infrastructure directly supporting housing development or other associated community needs,” while the public land agency would get 5% for deferred maintenance.

Attempts to sell public land are not new. But during President Trump’s second term, opponents of federal land management have couched transfers as a solution to the housing crisis. The Senate committee’s one-page summary of the plan blames the federal government for “depriving our communities of needed land for housing and inhibiting growth.” 

A recent analysis by Headwaters Economics found that public land transfers offer little promise as a housing solution.

“Our findings show that opportunities are limited to a few states, and are complicated by wildfire and drought risks, as well as other development challenges,” the researchers wrote. They found that less than 2% of Forest Service and Department of Interior land is close enough to population centers to make sense for housing development.

The only viable chunks of Forest Service land — defined as 5,000 acres or more — near towns are in Arizona, Utah and Oregon. Department of Interior parcels that could work for housing development are primarily in Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico and Utah, according to the analysis. Economists also found that more than half of federal lands within a quarter-mile of towns needing more housing and a population of at least 100 people had high wildfire risk.

Research also shows that creating more housing in scenic resort towns and gateway communities doesn’t usually result in more affordable housing. “If you build more housing and your community is a very popular place to visit, then often that housing gets consumed by short-term rentals” or second homes, Danya Rumore, founder and co-director of the Gateway and Natural Amenity Region Initiative at Utah State University, told High Country News last year. 

A broad bipartisan coalition opposes selling public land, especially among Western voters. Some members of the committee, like Steve Daines (R-Mont.), have specifically said they would not support disposing of federal land. “Sen. Daines opposes public land sales,” spokesperson Matt Lloyd told the Montana Free Press on June 4. Idaho Senator James Risch (R) has also publicly opposed such sales. Montana Republican Representative Ryan Zinke — also Trump’s former DOI secretary — was instrumental in removing land sales from the House spending bill. 

“Our findings show that opportunities are limited to a few states, and are complicated by wildfire and drought risks, as well as other development challenges.”

Chairman Mike Lee (R-Utah) has long championed attempts to sell federal land or transfer it to the states. Other Energy and Natural Resources Committee members represent Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, California and Arizona and Alaska — all states with thousands of acres of public land. 

If the committee passes this version of their megabill, a vote on public land sales would go to the entire Senate, and then, the House of Representatives. If this becomes law, it could “establish a model for members of Congress to liquidate America’s lands at any time to pay for their pet projects, with little benefit to local communities,” said Michael Carroll, director of the BLM campaign at The Wilderness Society, in a statement.

The post Senate Republicans want to sell 3 million acres of public land appeared first on High Country News.

Editor’s note: I, Raleigh Burleigh, was a student at Roaring Fork High School and in its inaugural agriculture-biology class in 2011. The experience gave me a connection with several local elders in sustainability, as well as a greater appreciation for the wisdom of plants.

In the year 2010, Roaring Fork High School (RFHS) — with assistance from local nonprofits Fat City Farmers and Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute (CRMPI) — welcomed the installation of a new 42-foot diameter “grow dome” greenhouse on campus. This was just a few years after the new high school was built along Highway 133. Yampah Mountain High School paved the way, completing their own grow dome in 2009. 

Making use of “climate battery” technology, circulating sun-warmed air via underground pipes, the dome maintains year-round growing conditions without the use of fossil fuels. Eco Systems Designs provided the blueprint, modeled after successes at CRMPI, including the presence of a fig and pomegranate tree. 

Illène Pevec, then a University of Colorado PhD candidate, arranged an AmeriCorps program on the site, earning student-interns money toward college along with real-world work experience. Her interviews with students at RFHS, Yampah, Colorado Rocky Mountain School and others resulted in a book: “Growing a Life: Teen Gardeners Harvest Food, Health, and Joy.”

RFHS science educator Hadley Hentschel used the dome for an agriculture-biology class which welcomed local experts to teach about the pitfalls of our industrial food system and potential solutions. With the addition of outdoor growing beds and fruit trees surrounding the dome, students were soon producing food to be used by the school cafeteria for more nutritious meals. In 2014, the project received a visit from Janey Thornton, then an undersecretary for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The mental health aspect of it for kids is enormous,” Pevec commented. “They have time outside, touching the Earth, watching things growing, feeling empowered by what they do. They can see the results of what they’re doing; they work with adults who are in a mentorship relationship with them.” 

Gradually, the gardens fell into decline and that program was put on pause. With Hadley now teaching at Carbondale Middle School, RFHS principal Lindsay Hentschel (also Hadley’s wife) is working with RFHS science teacher Megan Ravenscraft to revive the gardens with help from volunteers and the Garfield County CSU Extension. At a Feb. 6 planning meeting, Lindsay attributed the current state of affairs to responsibility falling on individuals, rather than a system. Also, with so much work to be done during the summer months, when students are out of session, it was a losing battle with the weeds.

Nonetheless, “Where else can one be part of a community garden with a greenhouse harboring a year-round Mediterranean climate, complete with a mature and productive fig tree and kiwi vines?” Michael Thompson, an architect who first brought the dome to fruition, mused. “Where else to harvest plenty of pears, apples, apricots and plums in the first year, on mature trees outside?”

Efforts are already underway to rebuild the raised bed soil in the greenhouse, replace the climate battery fans, build a new irrigation system indoors and outdoors, repair the dome roof vents, retape the polycarbonate glazing panels on the outside and replace the insulation in the north side.  

This group hopes the community will get engaged as they see fit. There’s even a set-up for keeping bees — complete with an electric fence — that is currently unused, Pevec noted, if any community member desired to take that aspect on. Additional improvements will include a shade structure and benches. There’s also a hoop house on the property in need of a new skin and end walls. Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers is already actively hosting projects on the site.

Eventually, the group would like to have an accessible sensory garden planted, to compliment all the other features. Mariah Foley works for the CSU Extension and lives at the new Meadowood teacher housing nearby, thanks to her husband working for the school district. She is optimistic about getting other members of that housing development involved. Lindsay called her presence “a perfect miracle.”

“It can be a really amazing space,” Lindsay said. “There’s no reason that only one class needs to use it. There should be potential for English classes to go out and have writing time, art classes to paint flowers. [Woodshop teacher] Mr. Black wants to build benches and things to go out there.” 

RFHS parent Karen Crownhart has also come forth to help shape up the irrigation system and outdoor gardens. She sits on an advisory committee meeting regularly to secure funding and keep projects on track. 

“My hope is that with an advisory committee, even if certain individuals leave, because it’s a standing committee, other people would join,” remarked Lindsay. Those interested in joining the committee, or lending a hand (or heavy machinery), can contact lhentschel@rfschools.com

Specifically, a contractor is sought to 1) help bury an electrical line and 2) dig a trench and tap into the water main, ideally this summer into early fall. 

Keep an eye out for future volunteer opportunities, including a tour of the property on June 23. Community members are invited to lend a hand anytime from noon to 5:30pm followed by a focused interest meeting and a potluck. The grow dome is located on the east side of the RFHS building. Questions? Contact the garden coordinator at mariah.foley@colostate.edu

The post Community rallies to revive RFHS greenhouse and garden appeared first on The Sopris Sun.

Daniel Herrera Carbajal
ICT

In March, Gila River took out 10,000 acre-feet of their allotted water from Lake Mead after the Trump administration’s Unleashing American Energy executive order froze money for any program related to the Inflation Reduction Act. The act, which Congress passed during the Biden Administration in 2022, allocated money for tribes and states in exchange for giving up some of their shares of Colorado River water.

The Trump administration later unfroze the Inflation Reduction Act funds that would be used for water conservation projects and to build canals. The act allocated around $4 billion to compensate tribes, states and other organizations to not take water out of the Colorado River to use to generate revenue like crops.

Gila River Governor Stephen Roe Lewis wrote a letter to the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Feb. 11 before removing Colorado River water from Lake Mead.

“We have given the department every opportunity to avoid what could be a calamitous break in our longstanding partnership, with terrible consequences for the entire basin,” he said.

If water levels continue dropping, hydroelectric dams on the Colorado River will not be able to generate electricity. But the compensation to not take water out of the river has been seen as a short-term solution by many experts, including Mark Squillace, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder who specializes in natural resource law.

“My concern is that the Biden administration seemed to be focused on short-term buyouts of water consumption,” he said. “I just don’t think that kind of approach is sustainable. What we need on the Colorado River are permanent reductions in consumption, and so spending a lot of money to temporarily buy out the rights of people to use all of their water, right, is just not something that is going to solve the problem.”

Thirty tribes have rights to the Colorado River. The river is a resource, but for the Zuni Pueblo it is the source of life.

“For the Zuni people, the Colorado River is really important because the river and the Grand Canyon are our homeland. That’s where the Zunis emerged,” said Councilman of Zuni Pueblo Edward Wemytewa.

The Colorado River has important cultural significance to each tribe that has water rights to it, but the Colorado River compact that outlined how the river would be divided was not drafted in consultation with tribes.

“Laws were created by the US governments, by the US agencies, and during those times, the federal government, in the name of public interest, they started delineating territories. They start creating laws about water usage, water compacts,” said Wemytewa. “Well, in those earlier years, when the laws were being developed and implemented, the Zuni was not at the table. Many Native peoples weren’t at the table.

“Under federal law, those tribes have the right to take their water, usually in priority over everybody else, because the date of priority for Indian water rights is the date of their reservations, which is typically within the 19th century,” said Squillace. “So those water rights tended to date back before other non-Indian users.

“Those are legal rights that they are entitled to. And so one of the things I’ve suggested in my article is that maybe we should think about closing down the river to new appropriations. Why are we continuing to appropriate new water rights when we have this crisis and we have early water rights from Native American tribes that are currently legal but not being utilized for a number of different reasons?” he said.

The current compact being used was created in 1922, and it divided the river into two basins – upper and lower.

Each basin was allotted no more than 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year, equaling 15 million acre-feet of water each year. Mexico was also allocated 1.5 million acre-feet a year. The amount of water the river produces was vastly overestimated at the time of the compact’s creation.

“At the time that they negotiated the compact, it was thought that there was maybe 18 million acre feet of water on an annual basis in the river, which turned out not to be true,” said Squillace.

Currently, the Colorado River is producing about 12.5 million acre-feet a year. A vast over-allocation of water has led to states battling over water and how to use it.

Squillace proposed a new Colorado River compact. It proposes to update states’ water usage laws and to bring tribal nations into the conversation.

“I’ve suggested that maybe we could come up with a new compact, which would look very different from the current compact, but would basically be an agreement among the states to modernize their water laws,” he said. “Right now we have a number of principles in the various state water laws that I think allow for, I don’t want to call them wasteful, but at least inefficient uses. We could increase our efficiency in terms of the amount of water that we use if we sort of refined what we call beneficial use. There’s a principle in western water law that you only get as much water as can be beneficially used.”

For the Zuni Pueblo, a history of strong-handed negotiations and a lack of knowledge of a government system that is not their own led to signing deals that did not benefit them.

“When there were any land settlements or water settlements, tribes were never provided attorneys.Tribes were never given a heads up, They were never given funding to educate ourselves as Indigenous peoples,” Wemytewa said. “We are stewards of the water. We find the corn seed central. The corn seed is central. In fact, our abstract name is Children of Corn because we’re farmers, we’re agricultural people. What agricultural people would give up their water rights? What agricultural people would give up their watershed? We didn’t have much choice.”

Tribes have priority over everyone else when it comes to their water rights pertaining to the Colorado River, which means they must have a voice in the conversation.

“There are 30 Native American tribes with water rights along the Colorado River. And it may be impractical to basically have all 30 tribes represented during negotiations. We’ve got seven states, two countries, 30 tribes. That would be a very difficult kind of negotiation,” he said.

“But you could certainly have some representatives. The reason it’s tricky is that not all tribes agree on the best approach here. And so it’s important that we treat individual Native American tribes as people who can have their own views that might be different from other tribes. And so how do you ensure fair representation of all the tribal views without actually putting all those tribes at the table during negotiation?”

For Wemytewa, a new compact with tribes involved is necessary.

“Today, as a tribal leader, I submit comments to federal agencies, whether it’s the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management or (U.S. Geological Survey). We submit our comments trying to provide guidance to the federal agencies that you have to consider that you can’t continue to open up the lands. You cannot continue to give away water, because by doing so, you continue to remove Indigenous peoples from their aboriginal lands to make room for other people, other cultures.” 

Our stories are worth telling. Our stories are worth sharing. Our stories are worth your support. Contribute $5 or $10 today to help ICT carry out its critical mission. Sign up for ICT’s free newsletter!

The billions of dollars approved by Congress to clean up abandoned oil and gas wells have been frozen as part of President Donald Trump’s sweeping cuts to government spending, creating concerns that the cleanup will be halted just as it’s getting started.

President Trump’s barrage of executive orders included a January directive called “Unleashing American Energy,” which, among other provisions, ordered that federal agencies stop distributing money appropriated by President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

The Trump administration titled this section of the order “Terminating the Green New Deal.” But in freezing this congressionally approved spending, the administration halted a program that paid for plugging and reclaiming so-called “orphaned” or abandoned oil and gas wells. The order stated that agencies should “immediately pause the disbursement of funds” from those two Biden laws. It set a 90-day deadline, upcoming in April, for agencies to review their spending programs and make sure that they align with the Trump administration’s goal of increasing U.S. energy production.

The orphaned well program, which was modeled on a North Dakota initiative, had been widely used by oil states, including several in the West.

The program — which set aside $4.7 billion, a historically large sum, for plugging wells — was distributed to states via grants from the Department of the Interior. In January, days before Trump took office, New Mexico announced that it would be receiving $5.5 million to clean up abandoned wells in the state. California also received a $9 million grant.

California, Colorado, Montana and New Mexico had each plugged over 100 orphaned wells using the Biden funds, according to an Interior Department report in 2024. Wyoming alone plugged 1,021 wells in just one year using federal grants.

As of last fall, the U.S. government had released over half a billion dollars in grants. Wells have been plugged in the people’s front yards, in national park areas and deep in the remote Alaskan wilderness. More than $3 billion are still left to be distributed, but previously available information about the grants appears to have been removed from the Interior Department’s website.

In response to questions from High Country News, an Interior Department spokesperson said that the grant program is “under review.”

“President Trump’s decisive actions are necessary steps to eliminate bureaucratic waste and refocus our agency on its core mission: serving the American people and managing our nation’s natural resources with integrity and efficiency,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Orphaned wells negatively impact current and future oil and gas development activities and pose significant risk to national energy security and public safety.”

In addition to supporting jobs that address oil patch pollution, these federal dollars are used on wells that lack any owner to pay for reclamation. Left unplugged, such orphaned oil and gas wells leak huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere and can contaminate local water sources with salty water and benzene.

Now the future of that work is uncertain, in legal limbo alongside many of the Trump administration’s cost-cutting policies. The funding in question had already been appropriated by Congress, making it unclear that the Trump administration can indefinitely cancel it.

On March 20, more than 30 House Democrats sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, asking him to clear up the lingering confusion surrounding orphaned well funding and restart the grant program.

The funding “protects our communities, cleans up our environment, and builds our economy.”

“We have already begun to hear from IIJA funding recipients impacted by this pause who now face an uncertain future after DOI issued a stop work order on their orphaned well remediation projects,” the letter states.

The letter goes on to say that the Interior Department has issued no guidance on the funds’ status.

“We urge you to resume distribution of this Congressionally directed funding immediately,” the letter stated. “It protects our communities, cleans up our environment, and builds our economy.”

ORPHANED WELLS represent the final stage in what ProPublica recently described as the oil industry’s “ playbook”: When oil wells are no longer productive, large companies sell them off to smaller companies and thereby shed their obligation to plug those wells.

Oil industry profits don’t pay for cleanup

The increasingly marginal wells change hands, eventually landing with operators who lack the financial means to plug them. And when these companies go bankrupt, the wells become orphaned, meaning that the plugging costs then fall on American taxpayers.

The Biden administration’s infrastructure law was the first significant federal attempt to address the growing problem of orphaned wells across the United States, although the funding it provided paled in comparison to the scale of the problem.

The Interior Department estimates that there are about 157,000 documented orphaned oil and gas wells nationwide. This figure is likely a dramatic undercount: The Environmental Protection Agency stated in an April 2021 report that there could be as many as 3.4 million abandoned wells nationally.

“Undocumented orphaned wells may emit nearly 63 million grams of methane per hour into the atmosphere,” according to a November 2024 report, “the equivalent of over 3.6 million gasoline-powered passenger cars driven per year.”

Many state regulators are aware that their financial requirements for oil and gas operators are are aware of this pattern and struggle to prevent it.

Several state oil regulators stated this explicitly in a 2024 survey conducted by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), a quasi-governmental body that represents dozens of oil states. The documents were obtained via a records request by Fieldnotes, an industry watchdog, and shared with High Country News.

“Yes, this is the common life of a well,” regulators from Louisiana said, referring to the pattern of marginal wells being passed along to smaller companies.

Utah regulators agreed: “It is definitely a problem when wells are transferred to ‘poor’ operators.”

The plugging program was supposed to address these dysfunctional state programs, primarily by providing money. The Interior Department released its first round of grants in 2023, offering up $658 million to 26 states, including most of the oil states in the West.

The subsequent grants were intended to actually push states to fix their well-plugging programs and require that operators submit more money up front — enough to ensure that the industry and not the public ends up paying for the cost of plugging.

Known as regulatory improvement grants, these pools of funding required that states demonstrate higher financial assurance standards, increase scrutiny on well transfers, improve their plugging standards or show other reforms to their orphaned well regulatory regimes.

These grants essentially became the sole tool for the federal government to incentivize tougher state regulations. But the attempt immediately ran into headwinds: Oil states pushed back on these conditions. Some of this occurred via the IOGCC, which collaborated with the federal government on the rollout of the infrastructure law. This included initiatives to reduce orphaned well numbers, program implementation and data collection. Public documents show the inter-state commission lobbied to keep the federal guidelines as weak as possible. 

“Undocumented orphaned wells may emit nearly 63 million grams of methane per hour into the atmosphere.”

In a meeting of the Texas Railroad Commission in May 2022, Commissioner Wayne Christian – also an appointee to the IOGCC – said that he was working to remove the requirements from the federal grants.

“I’m part of the negotiation with IOGCC on the dollars coming down,” Christian said. “The Interior Department kind of have slowed things down, because all of a sudden, surprise, surprise, they decided they wanted to tell us how to do our work. And so we’re kind of fighting back on that.”

Interior devotes billions to plugging old oil wells. Is it enough?

Regulatory improvement grants would have made available an additional $40 million per state. Now the future of those grants and the improvement incentives are in jeopardy, though some groups are challenging the legality of Trump’s decision to freeze funds that had already been appropriated by Congress and passed into law.

Several environmental groups and many Democratic states have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration, seeking to release the unspent funds from the Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction acts, the Biden administration’s landmark spending bills.

“The Trump Administration has continued to block funds needed for our domestic energy security, transportation, and infrastructure provided under the IRA and IIJA,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a statement in February, after filing an injunction alongside 23 Democratic attorney generals, attempting to halt the administration’s funding cuts.

Bonta’s statement noted that the administration was blocking funding that “creates well-paying jobs while simultaneously reducing harmful pollution.”

The post Trump halts historic orphaned well-plugging program appeared first on High Country News.