The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection filed the proposed amendments July 16. The draft would update both the Wetlands Protection Act regulations, 310 CMR 10.00, and the 401 Water Quality Certification regulations, 314 CMR 9.00.

The changes would create more streamlined permitting paths for certain restoration work involving retired cranberry bogs, invasive-plant management and salt-marsh restoration techniques. MassDEP says the goal is to help municipalities, landowners and restoration organizations repair degraded wetlands while preserving the functions those areas provide.

What MassDEP is proposing

The proposal covers restoration activities intended to improve wetland hydrology, habitat and resilience. Targeted projects include restoration of retired cranberry bogs, removal and replacement of invasive plants, and salt-marsh work such as ditch remediation, runnels and habitat mounds.

The draft includes eligibility requirements for each project type. For retired cranberry bogs, proposed conditions address the reuse or removal of excavated material, consultation about public water supplies and agricultural water use, and requirements involving dams, dikes, levees and dam-safety permits.

Invasive-plant management projects would have to minimize impacts to native plants and avoid filling, permanent topographic changes and direct impacts to wetland hydrology. The draft also would prohibit projects from creating or expanding lawns, landscaped planting beds, hardscaped areas or recreational areas.

For salt-marsh restoration, applicants would need to follow MassDEP guidance, document that the marsh is degraded, consult the Coastal Zone Management Program and beneficially reuse excavated material on site. The draft includes monitoring and reporting requirements for construction and post-construction conditions.

Limited exemptions and reduced permitting requirements

The proposed amendments also address activities that can affect wetland areas but may be lower risk when performed under specified conditions. They include certain invasive-plant removal and damaged-tree removal activities, along with routine construction or maintenance of unpaved trails.

The treatment is limited, not a blanket exemption. The exact eligibility criteria, location restrictions, work limits and required conditions are set out in the draft text. Because the amendments are still proposed, people considering a project should review both the redline and clean versions and consult the applicable local conservation commission and MassDEP guidance before relying on any provision.

For invasive-plant projects that use herbicides, the draft includes conditions on licensing, approved products, application rates and spray drift. Other proposed conditions would require work practices that avoid soil compaction, minimize vehicle crossings and protect wetland soils and vegetation.

Safeguards and technical standards

MassDEP says the proposal is intended to streamline restoration while maintaining environmental protections. The draft also updates technical standards related to wetland-boundary methods, replacement soils and the preservation of wetland functions.

Some proposed provisions address mature trees, forest canopy and soil carbon. The draft includes project conditions and monitoring requirements intended to document whether restoration work is meeting its ecological goals and whether approved designs need correction.

That distinction matters for residents and local officials. The proposal would change how certain restoration projects are reviewed, but it would not make the rules effective immediately. Projects would still need to comply with applicable state, local and federal requirements, including requirements administered through local conservation commissions where they apply.

Why the proposal matters

Wetlands help store floodwater, improve water quality, support wildlife and buffer communities from coastal storms and other climate-related impacts. MassDEP says restoring degraded wetlands could strengthen those benefits, although the proposed rules do not guarantee that a particular project will reduce flooding, lower costs or shorten permitting times.

The Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions has highlighted the proposal and the August 20 deadline. The association’s interest reflects the practical importance of the changes for municipal officials who administer wetland protections and review restoration applications, but its materials do not determine the legal meaning of the proposed amendments.

How to submit a comment

Written comments must be received by Thursday, August 20, 2026, at 5 p.m.

Electronic comments should be emailed to dep.wetlands@mass.gov with the subject line Wetlands-401 Ecological Restoration Comments.

Comments may also be mailed to:

Lisa Rhodes
Attn: Wetlands-401 Ecological Restoration Comments
MassDEP-BWR
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

If mailing a comment, send it early enough for MassDEP to receive it by the deadline.

MassDEP held two virtual public hearings on August 10, 2026, at 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Those hearings are complete. The department will review written comments before deciding whether to revise and adopt the regulations. No final effective date has been established in the current proposal.

Sources

• 310 CMR 10.00: Wetlands Protection Act Regulations

The Department of Ecology’s current statewide roundup lists snowpack at 0% of normal for the calendar date and shows many July-through-September streamflow forecasts below 75% of normal. Ecology declared the emergency on April 8, 2026, after a warm winter and precipitation deficits that compounded drought conditions from prior years.

For residents, the declaration is primarily a statement about water-supply conditions and the state’s response tools. It does not automatically impose the same household-use restrictions across Washington. Ecology says customers should check with their local water utilities for conservation measures or other notices.

Why Washington remains under a statewide declaration

Ecology says 2026 is the fourth consecutive year in which part or all of Washington has been under a drought declaration. It is also the fourth statewide drought emergency since 2015.

Washington’s legal drought standard involves two conditions: water supplies that are, or are expected to be, below 75% of normal, and a likely risk of undue hardship for water users or the environment. Ecology’s comparison uses the 1991-2020 average for the calendar date.

Low snowpack matters because mountain snow normally acts as natural storage. It melts gradually during spring and summer, helping sustain rivers and streams after winter precipitation has ended. A warm winter can cause more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow, leaving less water stored for the months when farms, fish and communities need it most.

Summer streamflows are below normal in many basins

Ecology’s current data roundup, using forecasts last updated July 27, lists several low July-through-September streamflow projections. Examples include 50% of normal for the Yakima River, 46% for the Nooksack, 50% for the Cowlitz, 55% for the Little Spokane and 17% for the Okanogan at Oroville.

These are forecasts, not measurements of every local water system. Conditions also differ across the state. Ecology’s summary of the U.S. Drought Monitor says most areas east of the Cascades are in moderate drought, with severe drought in parts of the northeast and southeast, while other parts of central and eastern Washington and the interior Olympics are classified as abnormally dry.

Yakima water users face the clearest allocation risk

The Yakima Basin is a central concern for agriculture and fish. Ecology’s current roundup cites a July 3 Bureau of Reclamation estimate that 56% of the total water supply available would be available to proratable users for the April-through-September season.

That figure differs from the initial 44% estimate issued March 5. The 56% figure is the later forecast used in Ecology’s current statewide data summary.

Proratable, or junior, water-right holders receive water after senior rights are protected. When supplies are insufficient, newer rights can be curtailed earlier. That puts farmers and other junior water users in the Yakima Basin at the clearest immediate allocation risk, although the effects depend on individual rights, delivery systems and changing supply conditions.

Household impacts depend on the local utility

Ecology says the areas served by Seattle, Tacoma and Everett water utilities do not anticipate impacts for their customers because those systems planned for drought conditions early in the winter.

That statement does not cover every water provider in Washington. Local utilities, irrigation districts and other water managers may issue different conservation requests or restrictions based on their own supplies and watershed conditions. Residents should rely on notices from their provider rather than assume the statewide declaration creates a uniform limit on household water use.

What the emergency declaration allows

The declaration gives Ecology tools to respond to water-supply problems. Those include expedited emergency drought permits, temporary water-right transfers and funding assistance for public entities such as municipalities, irrigation districts and public utility districts.

Ecology says up to $3 million is available in drought emergency response grants for eligible public entities and emergency projects tied to current drought impacts. The money is not a direct household payment. Examples of drought-response spending identified by Ecology include emergency infrastructure, water-right permits, water leasing and fish-passage work.

State planning continues beyond this summer

On Aug. 13, Ecology held an online Washington’s Water Future session for water utilities and local governments. The scheduled meeting was intended to gather views on the state’s water challenges, possible solutions and barriers to action.

The initiative is gathering input from Tribes, agriculture, industry, utilities, environmental organizations, local governments and communities. Topics under discussion include water storage, aquifer recharge, reclaimed water, conservation, wetland restoration, floodplain restoration and region-specific strategies.

The public input survey closes at 11:59 p.m. on Aug. 31, 2026. Ecology says it plans to publish a report summarizing themes from the roundtables and outreach in the fall, followed by continued discussions with Gov. Bob Ferguson and other state agencies.

Those discussions are planning and public-input actions, not a new drought declaration or a binding statewide restriction. For now, the immediate questions remain local: how much water is available in each basin, which rights are protected, whether a utility issues conservation guidance and how long current supplies can meet competing demands from people, farms and fish.

Sources

• Washington Department of Ecology: Statewide conditions
• National Integrated Drought Information System: Washington

That date is the current extension date, not a guarantee that restrictions will end. Authorities may change the rules sooner if water-supply conditions improve or worsen.

What Tampa residents can do

Properties inside Tampa city limits must follow the address-based watering schedule. Residents should use the City of Tampa’s watering-day lookup to find the day assigned to their house number.

For properties under one acre, lawn and landscape irrigation is allowed only once on the assigned day, either from midnight to 4 a.m. or from 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. Watering is prohibited between 4 a.m. and 8 p.m.

Tampa’s schedule assigns Mondays to addresses ending in 0 or 1, Tuesdays to 2 or 3, Wednesdays to 4 or 5, Thursdays to 6 or 7, and Fridays to 8 or 9. Mixed or unaddressed properties are also assigned Friday.

The schedule applies to properties using city water or well water. Rules outside Tampa city limits, including elsewhere in Hillsborough County, may differ.

Hand watering and microirrigation

Hand watering and microirrigation of non-lawn plants such as flower beds, shrubs, palms, trees and groundcover are allowed on any day, but only from midnight to 8 a.m. or from 6 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. Those activities are prohibited between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

Hand watering of lawns is different: It remains restricted to the property’s assigned watering day and permitted watering hours.

Car washing and pressure washing

Residential car washing at home is limited to the assigned watering day. The city also requires a hose with an automatic shutoff nozzle.

Annual pressure washing for aesthetic purposes is prohibited under the current restrictions. Pressure washing may still be allowed for preparation before painting or sealing and for certain necessary maintenance, such as removing hazardous mold or mildew that cannot be removed by dry methods.

Regional supply remains under pressure

Tampa Bay Water reported on July 8 that the Tampa Bay region remained in a Stage 3 Regional Supply Shortage. The agency said the region had a 12-month average rainfall deficit of 14.46 inches.

At the end of June, the C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir held 2.28 billion gallons, or about 14.7% of its 15.5-billion-gallon capacity.

The regional shortage framework comes from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Tampa’s city guidance provides the address-based schedule and operational instructions for properties inside Tampa.

Check before watering

Residents should verify their address-specific day and hours before running irrigation, hand-watering a lawn, or washing a vehicle at home. The current once-a-week schedule and related restrictions remain in place through October 1, 2026, unless authorities revise them earlier.

Sources

• City of Tampa: My Allowed Watering Days and Hours
• Tampa Bay Water: July 8 Supply Update

Apollo Beach is an unincorporated Hillsborough County community, but not every property using an Apollo Beach mailing address necessarily follows the same local schedule. The county says watering rules can differ by jurisdiction, so property owners should confirm whether their address is in unincorporated Hillsborough County or another local service area.

The restrictions are part of the Southwest Florida Water Management District‘s Modified Phase III “extreme” water-shortage order. The district provides the regional framework, while Hillsborough County publishes the schedule and hours used for properties in the unincorporated county.

What the Apollo Beach schedule requires

For properties governed by the unincorporated-county schedule, the permitted watering day depends on the last digit of the house number:

• 0 or 1: Monday
• 2 or 3: Tuesday
• 4 or 5: Wednesday
• 6 or 7: Thursday
• 8 or 9: Friday

Common areas with or without street addresses, locations without an address and properties with mixed addresses, such as shopping centers and office complexes, are assigned Friday under the county schedule.

Conventional irrigation, including sprinklers and overhead spraying, is limited to 12:01 a.m. to 4 a.m. or 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on the assigned day. Properties smaller than one acre may use only one of those two windows.

Private wells and other water sources are included

The county says the lawn and landscaping restrictions apply to irrigation using publicly supplied drinking water, private wells, ponds, lakes and streams. Private-well users therefore are not exempt from the once-weekly lawn-watering schedule.

Hand watering and low-volume irrigation for plants other than lawns or turfgrass are limited to before 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m. Reclaimed water has different treatment under the district order: its watering hours are voluntary unless a local government or utility imposes additional restrictions.

Hillsborough County prohibits noncommercial annual aesthetic pressure washing. Aesthetic fountains and other water features are limited to four hours per day and must be properly maintained and either recycle water, use reclaimed water exclusively or provide a necessary water-quality benefit.

Rules affecting businesses and homeowner associations

The district order requires restaurants to serve water only upon request. It also bars homeowner associations and similar entities from enforcing standards that require increased potable or domestic-well use, including replacement plantings to meet aesthetic standards or pressure-washing requirements during the order.

Residents of Tampa, Plant City and Temple Terrace should follow their municipalities’ watering rules rather than assuming the unincorporated-county schedule applies. Apollo Beach properties should be checked by jurisdiction, not just by mailing address or water provider.

Enforcement and the current end date

Hillsborough County says observed violations may result in citations starting at $100. Its published penalty schedule lists a $100 penalty for a first violation, $200 for a second, $300 for a third, $400 for a fourth and $500 for a fifth and later violations.

The county says property owners are responsible for maintaining automated irrigation systems, setting timers for the correct day and time, and keeping rain shut-off equipment and backup batteries working. Before watering, owners should reprogram timers and confirm the assigned day and jurisdiction.

Watering violations can be reported to Hillsborough County Code Enforcement at (813) 274-6600 during normal business hours or through the county’s Water Conservation Hotline at (813) 224-8993 after hours. The county asks reporters to provide the property address, date and time, and type of violation.

The current restriction period runs through October 1, 2026. That is the present end date of the order, not a permanent rule; the district and local authorities may reduce, change or extend restrictions as water-supply conditions change.

Sources

• Hillsborough County: Water Restrictions Extended Through Oct. 1
• Southwest Florida Water Management District: District Water Restrictions

The action advances leasing but does not authorize drilling or production. Separately, a proposed federal rule published June 24 would lower minimum financial-assurance amounts for oil and gas operators and change several public-participation periods. The proposal is not final, and comments are due Aug. 24, 2026.

What the BLM completed July 14

The BLM’s Montana-Dakotas Q3 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Sale project record identifies the action as NEPA project DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2026-0001-EA. It lists the Montana state office as the lead office, July 14 as the decision date and July 14 as the sale date.

The record identifies 66 parcels and 29,086.62 acres across Montana and North Dakota. That is a combined total; the record does not support describing all of the acreage as Montana acreage.

The project page separately lists sale-result documents that are intended to show the number and acreage of parcels sold and the net revenue from bonus bids, fees and first-year rentals. Those results should not be assumed without reviewing the sale-results document.

A lease is not drilling approval

The July action does not itself approve drilling, production or a completed development project. The BLM describes leasing as the first step in developing federal oil and gas resources.

Before development operations could begin, an operator would have to submit an application for a permit to drill with development plans. The BLM says it would review the application, provide an opportunity for public review, conduct environmental analysis and coordinate with state partners and other stakeholders.

In practical terms, the lease-sale decision creates a potential path for future development on the parcels, but it does not establish that drilling will occur.

Separate proposal would lower minimum bonds

The separate rulemaking proposal would restore minimum bond amounts to $10,000 for an individual federal lease bond and $25,000 for a statewide bond. The proposal describes the current minimums as $150,000 for an individual lease bond and $500,000 for a statewide bond.

Bonds are financial assurance intended to help cover obligations such as plugging wells, reclaiming lease areas and restoring land or surface water affected by oil and gas operations. The proposal cites concerns that insufficient bonds can leave taxpayers responsible for cleanup if operators walk away.

The BLM says the higher minimums can create financial barriers for smaller operators. It argues that returning to the lower amounts could make bonding more attainable while allowing the agency to increase bond amounts through risk-based reviews when an operator, its wells or its compliance history presents greater potential liability.

The proposal also recognizes a possible downside: Lower minimum bonds could reduce incentives to properly reclaim well sites and increase risks to public lands and local ecosystems. Montana Public Radio reported concerns from Montana Wildlife Federation representative Frank Szollosi about habitat, wildlife movement and reduced public input. Federal officials have said the changes would reduce regulatory burdens and support energy development, including for smaller operators.

Public participation would change under the proposal

The proposed rule would remove the existing 30-day scoping and 30-day comment periods during the National Environmental Policy Act review of oil and gas lease sales. It also would change the protest period for a proposed lease sale from 30 calendar days to not less than 10 calendar days.

The 10-day provision applies specifically to protests of an upcoming lease sale. It does not mean that every public comment opportunity would universally be limited to 10 days. The proposal would remove the two existing 30-day NEPA scoping and comment periods described in the Federal Register notice.

The rule remains proposed, not enacted or effective. Montana residents and other members of the public have until Aug. 24, 2026, to comment on the rule. Those comments concern the proposed leasing regulations, not the completed July 14 lease-sale decision.

What happens next

After the Aug. 24 comment deadline, the BLM will review public submissions before deciding whether to issue a final rule, revise the proposal or take another action.

For the July lease sale, any operator seeking to develop a parcel would still face the separate permit-to-drill process, development-plan requirements and environmental review. The July decision therefore advances potential leasing on federal lands, while the proposed rule could change bonding and public-participation requirements for future leasing if it is finalized.

Sources

• BLM Montana-Dakotas Q3 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Sale project record
• Federal Register proposed oil and gas leasing rule
• Montana Public Radio: Proposed oil and gas lease rules would lower clean-up bonds, limit public input

Listed eastern water-access entry points on the Gunflint and Tofte ranger districts reopened Tuesday, August 4, 2026. The Superior National Forest also restored listed overnight motor access for Saganaga and Seagull lakes. Additional overnight entry points on the Kawishiwi and LaCroix ranger districts, including the Trout Lake Unit and locations off Fernberg Road, are scheduled to reopen Wednesday, August 5.

The changes do not amount to a full reopening. Entry points not listed in the applicable Forest Service exhibits remain closed, and reservations for those locations are canceled through August 10. Four fire-affected entry points — 11-Blandin Trail, 14-Little Indian Sioux River North, 15-Sioux-Hustler Trail and 19-Stuart River — remain canceled through September 30, the end of the quota permit season.

Access is returning by entry point, not across the wilderness

The Superior National Forest experienced more than 25 lightning-caused wildfires beginning July 7. To protect visitors and firefighters, the Forest Service temporarily closed all BWCAW access on July 14. The current wildfire-area closure alert covers portions of the wilderness in Cook, Lake and St. Louis counties and was displayed as last updated August 3, 2026.

The August 4 reopening covers the entry points listed in the current Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B, including water-access locations on the Gunflint and Tofte ranger districts and listed overnight motor access for Saganaga and Seagull lakes. The August 5 plan adds listed overnight access in western portions of the forest, including the Kawishiwi and LaCroix ranger districts, the Trout Lake Unit and entry points off Fernberg Road.

The August 5 reopening had not yet taken effect as of Tuesday, August 4. Both reopening phases can change if wildfire activity, smoke, weather, suppression needs or access conditions shift. Visitors should check the latest Superior National Forest alert, Exhibit A entry-point list and Exhibit B map immediately before traveling.

Permits for closed areas will be refunded

Permits for BWCAW entry points closed by the Forest Service because of the wildfires will be refunded after the original entry date. Visitors who obtained reservations through an outfitter or another Forest Service cooperator should contact that cooperator about the reservation and available options.

The Superior National Forest also lists alternatives, including developed and rustic campgrounds, backcountry campsites, hiking trails and canoe routes outside the BWCAW. Some state and county recreation areas may also be available, but conditions vary. Visitors should check current closure notices for those locations before setting out.

Fire damage still creates hazards

Parts of the wilderness remain affected by continuing wildfire activity and suppression operations. Forest Service crews are assessing damaged campsites and portages, clearing hazardous standing and fallen trees, and replacing damaged latrines and other infrastructure.

Those repairs will not happen immediately. The agency says some work, including hauling in replacement latrines, may be better completed during winter, when crews can move supplies over snow. Reopening an entry point therefore does not mean every route, campsite or portage is in normal condition.

The Forest Service advises visitors to check fire conditions and alerts, carry multiple ways to communicate, share a travel plan with family or friends and be self-sufficient in the remote wilderness. Smoke and changing fire conditions can affect a trip even where access has reopened.

A partial reopening cannot restore the lost July business

The reopening may help some outfitters, resorts, restaurants and other businesses regain customers during the remaining summer season. It cannot recover reservations already canceled or erase the uncertainty that spread through the region during the closure.

Independent reporting by the Minnesota Star Tribune found cancellations and sharp losses among Ely-area outfitters, resorts and other businesses during the July closure. The three largest Arrowhead counties — Cook, Lake and St. Louis — had a combined $973 million in outdoor-recreation economic output and more than 4,200 related jobs, according to a 2026 Explore Minnesota report cited by the newspaper. Those figures describe the pre-fire scale of the regional recreation economy, not losses caused by the fires.

MPR News reported that tourism accounts for about 80% of Cook County’s economy and that businesses saw cancellations after the closure, smoke and national coverage of the fires. Conditions are uneven across the region: some North Shore communities and recreation businesses have remained open, while locations closer to active fires face specific closures or emergency notices.

For travelers, the immediate question is not whether the Boundary Waters is open or closed as a whole. It is whether a specific entry point is listed as open on the current Forest Service map, whether the permit matches the authorized use and whether fire conditions remain safe when the trip begins.

Sources

• Superior National Forest: BWCAW Wildfire Area Closures
• Minnesota Star Tribune: Lost in the Minnesota wildfires, too: Summer business
• MPR News: In Cook County, where 80 percent of economy relies on tourism, wildfires prove devastating

Shoreham is an incorporated village in Suffolk County, within the Town of Brookhaven. The county health notice specifically identified Shoreham Village Beach in Shoreham as an affected location. It separately listed Shoreham Beach and Shoreham Shore Club Beach in East Shoreham, so those similarly named locations should not be treated as the same facility.

Advisory followed heavy rainfall

Suffolk County’s Department of Health Services issued the rainfall-related advisory for 64 beaches in areas influenced by stormwater runoff from surrounding watersheds or adjacent tributaries. The county also cited limited tidal flushing in enclosed embayments as a reason bacteria could remain elevated.

The notice said bacteria levels at affected beaches could exceed New York State standards. It did not report confirmed contamination measurements specific to Shoreham Village Beach.

Residents and beach users were told to avoid bathing and other water contact in affected areas. County guidance called for waiting until the waters had been flushed by two successive tidal cycles and at least 24 hours had passed after the rain ended. The advisory was expected to be lifted at 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, July 8.

Storm emergency was countywide

The bathing advisory followed Suffolk County Executive Ed Romaine’s declaration of a local state of emergency, effective at 8 p.m. Saturday, July 4. The county’s July 5 declaration cited torrential rain, damaging winds, flash flooding, widespread power outages, road closures and significant damage to public and private property across Suffolk County. The declaration was set to remain in effect for 30 days.

News 12 separately reported the Suffolk County emergency declaration and the broad storm impacts. Those records establish the countywide severity described by officials, but they do not show that every listed impact occurred inside Shoreham.

What Shoreham’s records show

The Village of Shoreham’s resident-information page says the village was incorporated in 1913 and has its own government and facilities, including a private beach. The page also states that beach advisories can follow heavy rainfall and directs residents to Suffolk County’s beach-monitoring information.

The village’s Health & Safety page provides general resources for checking power outages and road clearing, including links to PSEG Long Island and contact information for Town of Brookhaven road-clearing information. Those are standing preparedness resources, not evidence of a July storm outage or road closure in Shoreham.

In the village pages, notices and agenda materials reviewed for this report, no contemporaneous Shoreham-specific official record was found confirming structural damage, power outages or road closures from the July 4-5 storm. The documented local consequence was the county health advisory against bathing and other water contact at Shoreham Village Beach.

Because the county expected the restriction to end in July, it was a past advisory as of August 4, 2026. For future rainfall-related concerns, Shoreham residents can check the village’s beach-information page and Suffolk County’s Beach Monitoring Program before entering the water.

Sources

• Suffolk County beach advisory, July 6, 2026
• Village of Shoreham Resident Info
• News 12 Long Island storm report

The Tacoma City Council adopted Amended Substitute Ordinance No. 29114 on July 14, 2026. The ordinance updates the city’s Critical Areas Preservation Ordinance and amends Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.01, which contains definitions, and Chapter 13.11, which governs critical-area preservation.

What Tacoma changed

The update is part of the periodic review required under Washington’s Growth Management Act. City materials say the revisions incorporate updated scientific information, align the regulations with the One Tacoma Comprehensive Plan and other applicable policies and laws, and respond to updated guidance for environmental conservation and natural hazards.

The ordinance addresses five categories of critical areas:

• Wetlands;
• Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including streams and related habitat;
• Critical aquifer recharge areas;
• Frequently flooded areas; and
• Geologically hazardous areas.

The city says the adopted revisions include updated guidance for wetlands and wetland buffers, stream buffers and Oregon white oak protections. The ordinance also updates definitions and procedural provisions.

What it means for property owners and developers

The changes do not apply uniformly to every property in Tacoma. Their practical effect depends on whether a site contains, borders or could affect a mapped critical area and on the type of proposed activity.

For property owners, developers and land-use applicants, work such as clearing, grading, construction or redevelopment may require additional site information, critical-area verification, environmental studies, buffers, vegetation protections, mitigation or other review steps. The updated definitions and standards may affect how an application is evaluated when environmentally sensitive areas or natural hazards are involved.

Applicants should not treat earlier draft amendments, Planning Commission materials or public comments as the final law. The Planning Commission recommended a revised draft after the public-review process, and the City Council later adopted Ordinance No. 29114. The enacted ordinance and any associated transition provisions control.

The ordinance changes regulatory standards. It does not, by itself, approve or reject a particular development project.

When the rules take effect

The council adopted the ordinance on July 14. Tacoma’s legal notice, published in the Tacoma Daily Index on July 16, stated that the council had passed Amended Substitute Ordinance No. 29114.

The city’s Critical Areas Ordinance Update page says the regulations take effect 10 days after the council decision is posted in the newspaper. Counting from the July 16 publication produces an apparent effective date of July 26, 2026. That date should remain a calculation rather than a fully confirmed legal conclusion until the final ordinance and publication record establish the effective-date language and any applicable transition provisions.

Existing permits and pending applications may be governed by vesting or other transition rules. Those provisions can determine whether a project is reviewed under earlier or updated standards.

Why the rules matter in Tacoma

Critical-area questions have surfaced in local development disputes, including the Preserve Tacoma project in South Tacoma. The News Tribune reported that neighbors raised concerns about possible eagle and hawk nesting areas during tree clearing, while the developer disputed the claims and city officials said they had not received verified information documenting an active eagle nest on or adjacent to the site.

That dispute is separate from Ordinance No. 29114 and does not establish why the council adopted the update. It does show why habitat information, environmental review and documentation can become important when development occurs near potentially sensitive areas.

What affected applicants should do

Property owners and applicants should check Tacoma’s critical-area mapping, confirm the status of any permit or land-use application, and review the final ordinance for effective-date and transition provisions.

For project-specific guidance, applicants should contact Tacoma Planning and Development Services. The ordinance establishes updated city standards, but its application depends on the site, proposed work and procedural status of each project.

Sources

• City of Tacoma Critical Areas Ordinance Update
• Tacoma City Council July 7, 2026 agenda
• Tacoma Daily Index legal notice for Ordinance No. 29114
• The News Tribune report on The Preserve Tacoma

The inventory, released in July 2026, estimates that Bloomington’s community-wide emissions totaled about 1.27 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent in 2024. WFIU reported the release and findings on July 20.

Stationary energy accounts for most emissions

Stationary energy, including natural gas and electricity used in buildings and other fixed locations, accounted for 67.4% of community-wide emissions, according to the inventory.

Transportation accounted for about 25% of emissions, while solid waste and wastewater accounted for 7.5%.

These are estimates from an annual inventory, not direct real-time measurements. The community-wide figures also should not be confused with the separate emissions associated with municipal operations.

Cars dominate transportation emissions

The inventory identifies transportation as the sector least on track to meet Bloomington’s climate targets and says it will likely be the most difficult sector to decarbonize.

Cars accounted for more than 98% of on-road transportation emissions in the inventory. That makes commuting and everyday vehicle use central to the city’s longer-term emissions challenge, while building energy and waste remain important parts of the overall calculation.

The inventory does not create a new requirement for residents or businesses. It is a progress report and planning tool, not a new law, project approval, funding decision or mandate.

What the city goals require

Bloomington’s Climate Action Plan calls for reducing community-wide emissions 25% below 2018 levels by 2030. The plan also establishes a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.

The 2024 inventory says Bloomington is on track for the 2030 reduction goal but is behind the trajectory needed to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. That does not mean the 2050 goal has been repealed or abandoned. It means the city’s latest assessment indicates that emissions would need to decline faster to close the long-term gap.

What the inventory means for Bloomington

For households, renters, homeowners and building owners, the stationary-energy share shows why energy use in buildings is central to Bloomington’s emissions profile. For commuters and employers, the transportation figures highlight the importance of passenger vehicles in the city’s climate calculations. Waste and wastewater account for a smaller share but remain part of the annual inventory.

The report can inform future planning and investment discussions, but the materials reviewed do not announce a new project, mandate, cost or deadline tied to the findings.

Future annual inventories will give Bloomington a way to measure whether subsequent actions reduce emissions quickly enough to maintain progress toward 2030 and narrow the gap to the 2050 carbon-neutrality goal.

Sources

• Bloomington to meet 2030 emissions goal
• Bloomington Climate Action Plan
• 2024 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

The city lists STACK SVY03A as a 76.6-megawatt project that is under construction. The Planning Commission approved it on May 22, 2025, before Hayward created a specific data-center land-use category. The city says no appeal was filed.

That timing remains important as residents and businesses continue to question the project’s environmental, infrastructure and neighborhood effects, while future applicants now face a more explicit public process.

What Hayward approved in 2025

STACK SVY03A is planned for an approximately 11-acre site at 26062 Eden Landing Road. The project includes a three-story data center, generator yard, substation, switching yard and related accessory structures and site improvements.

The Planning Commission considered application SPR-23-0036 as a Major Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit application. The May 22 agenda also included the project’s environmental documents, mitigation-monitoring and reporting program, public-benefits package and sustainability plan.

At the time, Hayward’s municipal code did not identify data centers as their own land-use category. The city says they were handled under the broader “office” use category, which could be approved administratively. The Planning Commission hearing occurred because STACK’s other project features required Major Site Plan Review.

The California Energy Commission’s record identifies the agency as the lead agency for the project’s environmental review. The commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration and granted a Small Power Plant Exemption in May 2025. Hayward’s Planning Commission agenda separately called for the city to review and certify the environmental documents and mitigation-monitoring program as part of the local approval.

What changed in April 2026

In April 2026, the City Council amended the Hayward Municipal Code to create a specific data-center category. Any new data-center application must now receive a Major Conditional Use Permit and go to a public hearing before the City Council.

Future applicants must also submit sustainability and community-benefits plans and undergo environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Hayward says properties within 300 feet of a proposed project must receive mailed notice when an application is received and when a public meeting is scheduled.

The city currently reports no pending applications for another new data center.

The new rules do not change STACK’s approval

The April code amendment does not, by itself, convert, cancel or reopen STACK SVY03A. The project was approved under the earlier framework and remains listed by Hayward as under construction.

Future applicants will face a more explicit public process than STACK did. STACK remains governed primarily by its existing approval, conditions and permits unless a later legal, permit or agency action changes that record.

What the state docket shows

The California Energy Commission docket for STACK includes a June 18, 2026 staff memorandum requesting that docket 23-SPPE-01 be closed. The memo says the commission granted the project’s Small Power Plant Exemption on May 8, 2025 and asks the docket unit to close the proceeding.

The docket log records that request, but the available record reviewed for this article does not establish that the docket was formally closed. It also does not show that every construction, monitoring or operational obligation has ended.

A May 5, 2025 Hayward letter in the CEC docket states that the city would process the project’s planning entitlements and related building, grading and encroachment permits. It also says the city would enforce the mitigation-monitoring and reporting program after approval of the entitlement application. That document describes the oversight framework; it is not a current certification that all mitigation measures have been completed.

Those records address different parts of the project. The city’s listing concerns local construction status and development oversight. The state memorandum concerns the requested closure of the CEC proceeding. Neither establishes that construction is complete.

Why residents are still watching

Public comments recorded in the CEC docket and recent local reporting show continuing opposition as well as support. Residents have raised concerns about water, energy, air quality, shoreline habitat, noise and the project’s classification under the former code. Those comments are part of the public record, not findings by the CEC or the city.

OpGov.News reported that some local businesses and workers supported the project because of expected customer growth, construction employment and apprenticeship opportunities. The outlet also reported concerns from businesses affected by relocation or reduced walkable space near the construction area. Those accounts are attributed statements and do not establish the project’s final economic effects.

For Hayward residents and nearby property owners, the next useful records to watch are construction and inspection updates, mitigation-monitoring reports, permit actions, any formal confirmation of CEC docket closure and applications submitted under the city’s new data-center rules.

Sources

• City of Hayward — Data Center Development Applications
• Hayward Planning Commission agenda — STACK SVY03A, May 22, 2025
• California Energy Commission — STACK SVY03A Docket 23-SPPE-01
• OpGov.News — Hayward residents’ concerns about the data-center approval

The proposal remains under consideration and is not permanent law or currently enforceable. Its timing matters because the motorized launch area has been closed during hurricane-related repairs, while city materials and local reporting identify December 2026 as the expected completion target for the related Causeway work.

What the proposed rule covers

The proposed restriction applies to the south side of the Dunedin Causeway, including the shoreline launch area west of the drawbridge. It would prohibit launching and retrieving motorized watercraft from that location.

It would not prohibit motorized vessels from operating in the Intracoastal Waterway or St. Joseph Sound. The proposal also would preserve Causeway access for kayakers, paddleboarders, swimmers and other nonmotorized users.

Why city officials support the ordinance

City officials cite environmental and public-safety concerns. Because the area lacks paved ramps on that stretch, boaters have launched directly from the shoreline. City officials say those launches can cause bank scouring, prop scarring and damage to seagrass beds. City staff have also said some seagrass recovery may take years; a parks official cited a recovery period of up to 10 years for some boat scarring.

Safety data presented to the commission came from more than one dataset. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office cited more than 3,000 water-rescue calls from the Causeway area since 2021 at the July 23 hearing. Separately, records presented at a June 2 workshop showed 80 jet-ski-related incidents between January 1, 2022, and April 30, 2026.

The figures are not interchangeable: the 80 incidents are a specific jet-ski-related count, while the more-than-3,000 figure describes water-rescue calls cited at the later hearing.

What could change for boaters

If the ordinance passes, motorized-watercraft users would need to launch and retrieve vessels at other public or private ramps. City staff identified alternatives roughly two to 12 miles from the Causeway, with some locations charging fees. Examples cited in local reporting include a Seminole Boulevard ramp listed at $2.25 per hour and a Sutherland Bayou ramp in Palm Harbor listed at $6 per launch.

The practical change would affect access to the Causeway’s free shoreline launch, not the ability to operate a motorized vessel in nearby waterways. Nonmotorized users would retain access under the proposal.

Repair work sets the timeline

The motorized launch area has been closed while hurricane-related work has been carried out on the Causeway. Pinellas County’s project page, updated July 13, 2026, identifies the project location as Dunedin Causeway Boulevard between Honeymoon Island and Ward Island and says work to restore the access road and repair bridge components has been completed. The county page does not establish a December reopening date.

City materials and local reporting identify December 2026 as the expected completion target for the hurricane-repair work. That timing is not a guarantee that the Causeway or the motorized launch area will reopen on that date. The September vote is scheduled before the expected repair milestone, leaving the ordinance’s status unresolved as reopening approaches.

What happens next

The City Commission’s second public hearing and final vote are scheduled for September 3, 2026. Dunedin says a legislative public hearing is intended to receive public testimony, evidence or comments. Residents can participate through the city’s public-meeting process, including the public-comment opportunities identified in the meeting notice and agenda.

Until commissioners take final action, the proposed launch restriction remains just that: a proposal. The unresolved question is whether the south-side motorized launch will be available when Causeway repair work is completed.

Sources

• City of Dunedin: Proposed motorized-vessel launch ordinance
• Dunedin City Commission workshop documents, June 2, 2026
• Palm Harbor-Dunedin Beacon: Sheriff's data shows 3,000 water rescue calls near Dunedin Causeway since 2021
• Pinellas County: Dunedin Causeway Bridges Project

Pinellas County lists the facility at 7401 54th Avenue N. in St. Petersburg and says construction on the denitrification improvement project is scheduled to conclude in December 2026. The project is intended to improve nitrogen removal, help treated water meet Florida environmental limits and reduce the risk of equipment failures that could lead to emergency spills.

What the contractor says was completed

Walsh reported that crews rehabilitated 11 denitrification filters and installed approximately 2,300 bags of replacement filter media. The filters are part of the treatment system used to remove nitrogen from wastewater before the water is further processed for reclaimed-water use or discharge.

In an April 2026 construction account, Walsh also documented a temporary bypass system and the relocation and tie-in of a 48-inch influent pipe serving the denitrification filters. The contractor said the operation managed approximately 30 million gallons per day of influent flow while the work proceeded.

Those details describe a completed construction phase reported by the contractor. They do not mean the entire South Cross Bayou rehabilitation project is finished.

The broader project remains active

Pinellas County’s project page lists the denitrification improvement work as “Construction: In progress.” The county says the project has been under construction since August 2023 and is scheduled to conclude in December 2026.

The remaining work includes rehabilitation of other filtration-system components, including valves, pumps, flowmeters and underdrain piping. The county’s December 2026 date is therefore the key schedule marker for the overall project, rather than the contractor’s completed filter milestone.

Why the work matters locally

South Cross Bayou is Pinellas County’s largest wastewater treatment facility. County information says the advanced water reclamation facility distributes an average of 14.6 million gallons of reclaimed water per day to more than 21,000 residential and commercial customers.

The denitrification upgrade is intended to help the facility meet nitrogen limits set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and reduce nitrogen pollution that can contribute to algae blooms and harm fish and wildlife. The county also says upgrading aging infrastructure is intended to reduce the chance of system failures and emergency spills.

Those are intended project benefits, not guarantees that regulatory risk or spill risk has been eliminated.

Past service interruption shows the customer impact

Construction has already produced a direct service consequence for some customers. Pinellas County notified customers receiving reclaimed water from South Cross Bayou that service would be temporarily unavailable from February 11 through February 20, 2026, while filtration-system rehabilitation was underway.

The county said affected areas included the southern barrier islands, Belleair, Seminole and Pinellas Park. That interruption was temporary and occurred before the latest filter milestone. Residents and businesses that use reclaimed water should continue to distinguish future service notices from the project’s longer-term reliability and environmental goals.

Related county action does not signal completion

On April 7, 2026, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners approved financial-responsibility forms for planned Class 1 injection-well permit applications involving the South Cross Bayou and W.E. Dunn facilities.

The county record says two planned South Cross Bayou injection wells were still in design, with no construction activity started at that time. The action concerned regulatory financial assurances and did not approve the injection-well permits or show that the denitrification improvement project was complete.

For St. Petersburg residents and reclaimed-water customers, the next major checkpoint is the county’s December 2026 completion target. The rehabilitation of 11 filters is a significant milestone, but it remains one phase of an active wastewater infrastructure project.

Sources

• Pinellas County denitrification improvement project page
• Walsh temporary tie-in and bypass construction update
• Pinellas County legislation record 26-0291A

The 81-acre park is at 3650 S. Main St. in south Gainesville and includes nearly two miles of trails. The closure affects hikers, families, wildlife watchers and nearby residents who use the park’s trails, marsh views and boardwalk areas.

What the restoration includes

The project is intended to restore marsh habitat and wetland water levels that were lowered through channelization and wetland drainage. Planned work includes removing vegetation, installing approximately 1,700 aquatic plants and modifying the marsh’s outlet channel.

Phase 1 construction also includes a sheet-pile weir, a structure designed to help manage water levels, along with related channel work. The broader project includes replacing the park’s boardwalk system.

City project documents connect the marsh restoration to wetland-buffer mitigation associated with Southwest 62nd Boulevard and the Eastside Health and Economic Development Initiative. The work is being carried out in phases, so the Phase 1 construction schedule should not be treated as a completion date for every part of the broader project.

Why the project has two cost figures

WCJB reported the broader Bivens Arm Marsh restoration project at approximately $3.5 million. That figure covers a wider project effort and should not be confused with the construction award documented for the first phase.

The City Commission’s guaranteed maximum price agreement awards Phase 1 construction to Oelrich Construction at $487,880. The agreement documents the Phase 1 construction scope; it does not establish that the entire restoration project has been completed or that the broader project amount has been spent.

The city’s FY 2026 budget records also identify carryforward funding associated with Bivens Arm Marsh restoration and boardwalk replacement projects.

What visitors should expect

For residents, the immediate consequence is that Bivens Arm Nature Park is unavailable during construction. The city’s anticipated April 2027 reopening should be treated as an expected timing, not a guaranteed deadline.

Residents planning hikes or wildlife-viewing visits should check the city’s Bivens Arm Nature Park page for updates before returning. Until the work is finished and the city reopens the site, the park’s trails and boardwalk amenities remain closed.

The intended long-term result is restored wetland habitat and renewed park infrastructure. In the meantime, the closure limits access to one of south Gainesville’s larger public nature areas while the phased work proceeds.

Sources

• Bivens Arm Nature Park closure notice — City of Gainesville
• 2025-816A Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement — City of Gainesville
• Gainesville approves $3.5 million restoration project at Bivens Arm Marsh — WCJB

The Bay Light Bridge would provide vehicle access to a coastal island tied to proposed development in western Charleston County’s ACE Basin. Live 5 News reported that the project would connect to about 9.7 acres of highland and 75 acres of marsh at the junction of Landing Creek and the west side of Toogoodoo Creek. No final bridge permit or construction approval has been established.

Appeal follows April court order

The South Carolina Administrative Law Court issued its final order on April 30, 2026. The order remanded the matter to the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services for further permit processing without the heightened standards that apply to areas of special resource value, according to the South Carolina Environmental Law Project’s case record.

The court found that DES had not presented sufficiently clear evidence to establish the boundaries of the ACE Basin Taskforce Boundary Area for purposes of this case. That was a case-specific ruling. It did not invalidate Regulation 30-12 or declare the ACE Basin Taskforce Boundary Area designation generally unenforceable.

The South Carolina Environmental Law Project, representing the Coastal Conservation League as an intervening party, filed a formal appeal on July 15 after its motion to reconsider was denied. SCELP then filed a stay request on July 23, seeking to halt DES review while the appeal proceeds.

DES review remains the immediate issue

The immediate procedural question is whether a stay will be granted. SCELP’s case record says that, without a stay, DES may continue processing the application and could potentially issue a permit before the appeal is resolved.

Live 5 News reported July 31 that the bridge application was being officially considered for a permit. The report identified the project as a private vehicular bridge serving a coastal island near Meggett and described the dispute over whether the site falls within the ACE Basin Taskforce Boundary Area.

What Regulation 30-12 says

South Carolina Regulation 30-12 governs special project standards for tidelands and coastal waters. Its coastal-island provisions say bridge permits, other than certain non-vehicular public bridges, will not be issued in areas of special resource value unless the application qualifies for the regulation’s special-exception pathway. The listed areas include the ACE Basin Taskforce Boundary Area, the North Inlet National Estuarine Research Reserve and the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge.

Under the special-exception provisions, an applicant must present clear and convincing evidence that the bridge would serve an overriding public interest. The regulation says claimed public benefits must be secured through a permanent conservation easement and identifies possible impact reductions such as permanent habitat protection, lower building density, fewer subdivision rights, fewer docks, larger riparian buffers and measures that minimize environmental and visual effects.

The Department of Environmental Services says the online PDF of Regulation 30-12 is an unofficial convenience copy; the most recent final publication in the South Carolina State Register is the official legal version.

Why the dispute matters locally

SCELP and the Coastal Conservation League argue that the April ruling could create a pathway for private bridge access to a coastal island without applying the stricter standards they say were intended for the ACE Basin. Those are party positions, not settled findings of environmental harm or binding precedent.

The groups have raised potential effects involving wetlands, marsh habitat, water quality, flooding resilience and future development pressure in western Charleston County. Regulation 30-12 itself recognizes that coastal-island bridges can temporarily affect salt marsh and shellfish beds, increase turbidity, permanently displace marsh through pilings and shade marsh areas.

The South Carolina Department of Environmental Services identifies habitat conservation, water quality, public access and community resilience as priority issues for the ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve.

For residents and landowners near Meggett, the case now turns on two linked issues: whether the requested stay pauses the permit review and whether the appeal changes how the ACE Basin boundary and heightened standards apply to this proposed bridge.

Sources

• South Carolina Environmental Law Project: Bay Light Bridge case record
• South Carolina Department of Environmental Services: Regulation 30-12
• Live 5 News: Bay Light Bridge dispute

The revised tentative tract map covers 249.39 acres and includes 144 residential lots plus 47 lettered lots for open space, parks, slopes and infrastructure. The related Notice of Determination was received and posted July 6, 2026.

What changed from the 2017 approval

The earlier Skyline Heights approval called for subdividing 271 acres into 292 single-family lots. The revised project reduces the site’s acreage to 249.39 acres and lowers the project’s residential capacity by 16 dwelling units, from 292 to 276.

The revised housing mix also introduces detached condominium homes alongside other detached housing types. The environmental record describes a total of up to 276 units, including conventional single-family lots and clustered detached homes.

The 144-lot figure and the 276-unit figure describe different parts of the approval. The revised tentative tract map establishes 144 residential lots, while the Skyline Heights Specific Plan provides capacity for up to 276 residential dwelling units across three planning areas. The 276-unit capacity is not a record of completed homes, building permits or move-in dates.

Parks and trails included in the plan

The revised plan designates 11.42 acres for combined parkland, trails and trailheads. The environmental documents identify 9.25 acres of proposed public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, along with trail connections and related open-space features.

The project also includes lettered lots for open space, drainage, homeowners-association-maintained slopes, parks and infrastructure. The records do not establish when any of those amenities would be constructed or opened.

Environmental decision included mitigation

Corona’s Notice of Determination says the project will have significant environmental impacts. The city relied on the Skyline Heights Environmental Impact Report and an addendum addressing the revised plan.

The approval includes mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring or reporting plan. The environmental record also documents CEQA findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted as part of the decision.

That means the approval was not an impact-free determination. The city concluded that the project could proceed with required mitigation, findings and the adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations.

What the approval does not establish

The July 1 action gives the revised Skyline Heights land-use framework city approval, but the reviewed records do not provide a construction schedule, sales timetable or completion date. They also do not establish when residents could move into the homes or use the planned parks and trails.

For now, the concrete change for Corona is an approved, smaller revision to the earlier Skyline Heights proposal: 249.39 acres, 144 residential lots, capacity for up to 276 dwelling units and 11.42 acres designated for parks, trails and trailheads.

Sources

• Skyline Heights Project Notice of Determination

Alljoy is a community along the May River downstream of the Town of Bluffton in unincorporated Beaufort County. The project is a partnership among the Beaufort-Jasper Water & Sewer Authority, the Town of Bluffton and Beaufort County.

Homeowner coordination has started

BJWSA’s July 29 update said pre-construction activity began July 21, when Malphrus Utilities marked grinder-pump station locations with homeowners along Thomas Lawton, Alljoy Road, Shad Avenue and Scotia Street. The contractor also left flyers and locate flags at parcels where owners were not home.

The update said marking work was continuing along Sailors Choice Road, Croaker Street, Trout Street and Blackfish Street. Each participating single-family residence is planned to receive a grinder pump connected to the low-pressure sewer system.

Owners will be contacted in person when possible or will receive a flyer asking them to contact Malphrus Utilities Construction Superintendent Blake Doyle or BJWSA Project Manager Rich Tetrick about pump locations and next steps.

Phase 1 targets aging septic systems

Phase 1 is designed to move roughly 100 homes from private septic systems to BJWSA infrastructure. The project includes decommissioning or replacing aging septic systems within the eligible project area.

BJWSA says the initiative is intended to reduce risks associated with septic failures and protect groundwater, Stoney Creek and the downstream May River watershed. Officials quoted by WTOC also described the targeted septic systems as vulnerable during wet conditions.

The stated purpose is a wastewater and watershed-protection upgrade for existing properties. BJWSA says the project is not a development program and does not change participating owners’ existing by-right development rights. Property owners who participate will need to provide maintenance and access easements.

Contract record and completion targets

An April 23, 2026, BJWSA board agenda recorded approval of a contract award for Alljoy Phase 1 construction to Malphrus Utilities, LLC, for $4,747,651.99, pending review and approval by the South Carolina Rural Infrastructure Authority. The agenda supplied for this report does not independently establish whether the contract was fully executed.

BJWSA’s July 29 construction update lists substantial completion for December 15, 2026, followed by final completion on January 14, 2027. The July 22 groundbreaking marked the launch of the project, not completion of the sewer installation.

Phase 2 remains a proposal

A June 26, 2026, South Carolina Department of Environmental Services Clean Water State Revolving Fund priority list identifies a separate Alljoy Low Pressure Sewer System Phase 2 proposal. The entry describes a project to decommission at least 84 additional septic systems and connect affected properties to a low-pressure sewer system.

Being listed on the state priority list is not a commitment that Phase 2 construction will proceed. Future phases remain dependent on additional funding.

What affected residents should watch

• Flags, flyers and homeowner contacts may precede installation work.
• Participating single-family homes are planned to receive individual grinder pumps.
• Substantial completion is targeted for December 15, 2026; final completion is targeted for January 14, 2027.
• Owners should respond to BJWSA or Malphrus Utilities about pump locations, access and easement requirements.
• Phase 2 could address at least 84 more septic systems, but it is not yet a construction guarantee.

Sources

• BJWSA Go2Sewer Alljoy Project Update, July 29, 2026
• BJWSA Alljoy project page
• SCDES Clean Water State Revolving Fund Comprehensive Priority List, June 26, 2026
• WTOC, July 22, 2026, groundbreaking report

The Newark section runs from Branch Brook Park Drive to Broadway. Current NJDEP project materials say the section is aimed at opening in 2027, so the visible landscaping work marks construction progress—not an immediate opening.

More than 170,000 native plants are planned

NJDEP says more than 170,000 native trees, shrubs, grasses and other perennials will be planted over the coming months along the Newark segment. The planting is intended to establish the landscape for the future walking and biking corridor while adding green space, habitat and gathering areas.

Plans for the Newark phase include a Branch Brook Park Overlook, a community space near Tiffany Manor and the Newark Central Activity Center between Summer Avenue and Broadway. The central area is designed to include a performance stage and lawn, an accessible playground, restrooms, exercise stations, community-garden space, a picnic grove and multi-sport courts.

The overlook is also planned to connect with neighboring Branch Brook Park through a pedestrian path. Those features are part of the future design; they are not currently available for public use.

Orange barrier and clean soil cover historic fill

Construction crews are also installing an orange geotextile layer over historic fill in the Newark corridor. NJDEP describes the fill as material of unknown origin—including soil, gravel, construction debris and industrial material—placed more than a century ago during construction of the former rail line.

Certified clean soil is being placed above the barrier to hold it in place and provide another protective layer. NJDEP says nutrient-rich planting soil will be added as the final layer for the native landscaping.

The work is described as a way to manage and cover historic fill. The project materials do not establish that all historic contamination or environmental risks have been eliminated.

The route remains closed during construction

NJDEP’s project FAQ says the future park property is closed to public access while it is under development. Access is limited to approved guided events, such as scheduled walks.

Residents should therefore not treat the planting milestone as permission to enter the corridor. The next practical milestone is completion of construction, followed by an official opening announcement. NJDEP’s 2027 date is a target, not a guaranteed completion date.

The public naming vote has ended

NJDEP opened a public vote to choose the official name for the future state park, which has been known informally as the Essex-Hudson Greenway. Voting closed at 4 p.m. on June 29, 2026.

That naming process is separate from the construction schedule. For Newark residents, the immediate change is continued work on the landscape and soil-protection systems. The eventual benefit—new walking and biking access, green space and community facilities near Branch Brook Park and Broadway—depends on the remaining construction and the state’s formal opening decision.

Sources

• NJDEP: Tree planting and public naming vote announcement
• Newark Patch: Greenway construction update

Centerport is a hamlet in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County. Centerport Beach and Huntington Beach Community Association Beach are separate facilities; the county listed both under Centerport in its rainfall-related advisory.

What the county notice said

Suffolk County’s Department of Health Services included the two Centerport beaches in a 64-beach advisory issued July 6. The notice said affected beaches were in areas heavily influenced by runoff from surrounding watersheds or adjacent tributaries. Because the waters are in enclosed embayments, officials said they experience limited tidal flushing.

The county advised residents to avoid bathing and other water contact until the affected waters had been flushed by two successive tidal cycles and at least 24 hours had passed after the rain ended. The notice said the advisory was expected to be lifted Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 11:59 p.m., subject to those conditions.

That was a rainfall-related public-health advisory, not a permanent closure. It also did not identify a particular Huntington stormwater installation as the cause of the advisory. News 12 Long Island separately reported a runoff-related advisory and listed both Centerport beaches.

What Huntington says the bioswale is intended to do

The July advisory does not, by itself, establish whether Huntington’s stormwater projects failed, succeeded or changed conditions during the storm.

Town records say Huntington completed a rain-garden bioswale at Centerport Beach with a stated objective of filtering 80 percent of stormwater runoff at the site. The Town describes the project as addressing runoff that has polluted Centerport Harbor. The 80-percent figure is a project objective, not a measured result from the July 6 rainfall.

The wider Centerport watershed system

Huntington’s documented Centerport Harbor work began in 1996, when the Town submitted a proposal for a state nonpoint-source stormwater mitigation grant intended to reduce bacteriological loading in Centerport Harbor.

The Town says one project served Centerport sub-watersheds near significant shellfish resources and the Huntington Beach Civic Association beach, which it described as providing swimming and recreation facilities serving more than 1,000 residences. That grant allowed the Town to install leaching catch basins and Stormceptor technology, which the Town says traps oils and other floatable material and allows sediments to settle for later removal.

Later work added catch basins, leaching basins and associated piping in the Centerport watershed. The Town’s project history lists installations north of Mill Dam Road, near Harvest Hill Lane and Fleets Cove Road, and in the Knollwood Beach/Fleets Cove sub-watershed. It also lists Stormceptor sedimentation collection basins serving Centerport areas including Adams Street, Beach Place and Keith Court.

The Town’s March 2026 Stormwater Management Program Plan places those projects within a broader municipal program that includes public reporting, annual reporting to the state and periodic assessment of stormwater-program goals. The plan describes a framework for managing runoff and compliance; it does not provide a post-storm performance assessment for the July 6 advisory.

What remains unknown

The public records reviewed for this article do not establish how the Centerport Beach bioswale, catch basins, leaching basins, Stormceptors or connected piping performed during the July 6 storm. They also do not establish that the advisory was caused, prevented or reduced by any particular Town installation.

For swimmers, beach users, nearby residents, shellfish interests and local recreation, the practical message is that heavy rain can temporarily make Centerport-area waters unsafe for contact even when no permanent closure is announced. Residents should follow current county health notices and avoid water contact until the applicable clearance conditions are met.

Because the July 8 date was an expected lifting time in the July 6 notice, it should not be treated as a statement about beach conditions on August 3, 2026. The unresolved accountability question is what future post-storm monitoring can show about conditions at individual beaches and the performance of the infrastructure intended to protect Centerport Harbor.

Sources

• Suffolk County Government — Advisory Against Bathing at 64 Beaches
• Town of Huntington — Upgrades to Stormwater Collection Systems in the Bay Complex
• News 12 Long Island — Beach advisory issued across Nassau and Suffolk after possible elevated bacteria levels

The complaints were documented in a July 28, 2026 opinion article by the Santa Clarita Valley Signal that quoted Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo and residents describing bloody noses, headaches, nausea, eye irritation and breathing problems. Those are reported experiences, not independent medical findings, and the available information does not establish that excavation caused the symptoms.

Why the excavation is happening

The 639-acre landfill has experienced a subsurface elevated-temperature event since about May 2022. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the event has led to increases in leachate, air emissions and odors.

Under additional work directed by the EPA in March 2026, Chiquita Canyon LLC is building a soil buttress along the western slope of the reaction area. The project is intended to stabilize bulging ground and reduce the potential for waste to slide or seep.

The EPA’s current project page says construction is expected to continue through Sept. 15, 2026. That date is a project target, not a guaranteed deadline. Excavation into waste is scheduled from late July through mid-August.

Protections required during the work

The EPA’s July 2026 fact sheet says West Toe Improvement Project work is limited to 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday, excluding legal holidays. Saturday work is limited to non-excavation activity.

To limit exposed material, crews are required to work in sections of about 3,000 square feet. Active excavation areas and excavated material must be watered and maintained in a moist condition. When work pauses or the workday ends, exposed waste or material must be covered with at least six inches of clean soil, typically within 30 minutes.

Emissions must be monitored at the excavation area and the downwind property line. Work must stop if unsafe air-pollutant levels, high winds or slope instability are detected. The project also requires monitoring for waste movement, bulging, seepage and other signs of possible slope movement.

Planned excavation into waste is supposed to receive at least 48 hours’ public notice, with written notices sent to addresses within about two miles of the excavation area. Whether those notices and controls are reaching residents consistently is a central accountability question as the work continues.

Cool zone and monitoring information

The EPA fact sheet lists a temporary Santa Clarita cool zone for residents of Val Verde and Castaic at Embassy Suites, 28508 Westinghouse Palace. The listed schedule is Monday through Saturday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., with expected availability from July 20 through Aug. 14, 2026. The EPA says some community-protection measures may change with its approval, so residents should check current agency information before relying on the schedule.

The Chiquita Canyon Landfill Response website, an operator-affiliated response site, says the monitoring network measures benzene, other volatile organic compounds and sulfur-containing compounds at locations around the landfill and in nearby communities. The site says benzene is measured continuously at community stations in Val Verde and Castaic and that data and alerts are available online.

The response site’s FAQ says current monitoring has not identified significant health risks to date, while also acknowledging persistent community health complaints and uncertainty about possible effects from low-level odorous chemicals. It says odors can produce physical symptoms without proving a specific chemical exposure or long-term health effect. Those statements are from the response network and should not be treated as an independent medical assessment.

The same FAQ cautions that low-cost consumer sensors for VOCs and air toxics have significant limitations and should not be treated as equivalent to regulatory or specialized monitoring.

Where residents can report concerns

Residents experiencing symptoms should contact a health-care provider. The Chiquita Canyon response site directs health complaints to Los Angeles County Public Health at (626) 430-9821 or tox@ph.lacounty.gov. Odor complaints can be reported to the South Coast Air Quality Management District at (800) 288-7664 or through its online complaint system.

For residents near the landfill, the practical test during the excavation window is whether required watering, soil covering, monitoring, stop-work rules and advance notifications operate as required while construction is active.

Sources

• EPA Fact Sheet: Recent Efforts at Chiquita Canyon Landfill
• Pilar Schiavo | Another Crisis at Chiquita Canyon Landfill
• Chiquita Canyon Landfill Response FAQ

The city’s water-status page showed the alert as active on August 3, 2026. Burlington says the status became effective July 7 because of reservoir levels, dry conditions, seasonal and weather concerns, and other conservation triggers identified in its water-conservation plan.

Why the alert remains in place

Burlington’s notice says Stage One conservation can be used when reservoir capacity reaches specified levels, when abnormally dry or persistent drought conditions develop, or when treatment, storage, equipment or demand creates additional pressure on the system.

The city has not said that Burlington faces an immediate water-supply failure. Its current notice specifically says the system has sufficient water to meet current demand.

State officials have continued to warn that recent rain has not erased broader drought pressure. In a July 23 update, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality said rainfall had improved conditions in some areas but that precipitation deficits remained and reservoirs across the state were below normal. The state urged residents to follow guidance from their local water systems.

What Burlington customers are being asked to do

Stage One is focused on voluntary conservation. Burlington asks customers to limit lawn watering and water only when grass shows signs of withering, applying water slowly to improve penetration. Shrubbery watering should also be limited.

Residents are asked to limit car washing and outdoor washdowns of sidewalks, patios, driveways and similar areas. The city recommends running dishwashers and clothes washers only when they are fully loaded.

The city’s guidance also asks customers to reduce toilet flushing to the minimum whenever practical and limit the operating hours of water-cooled air conditioners when possible.

What Stage One does not mean

Burlington’s current status is classified as voluntary conservation. It is a request for customers to change water-use habits, not a notice that the city has moved to mandatory restrictions.

The city says the purpose of conservation is to help preserve access to drinking water. Residents should not interpret the alert as an instruction to stop using water for drinking or other essential needs.

What residents should watch next

Recent rain may improve conditions, but state officials say it has not fully restored reservoirs or eliminated drought-related concerns. Burlington customers should rely on the city’s water-status page for the current local alert and any future change in conservation guidance.

The Stage One status may change if reservoir levels, weather, demand or other conditions affecting the city’s water system change.

Sources

• City of Burlington Water Status Update
• North Carolina DEQ drought conservation update
• WXII 12 report on Burlington water restrictions

The county announced the change on July 8, 2026. The current action covers design work, not construction. Engineering, coordination with local, state and federal agencies, and permitting must still occur before a construction timetable can be established.

A damaged 17-acre wetland

Arthur Horne is a 17-acre wetland system in a Port Royal neighborhood that once functioned as stormwater mitigation. County records say Hurricane Matthew damaged the area in 2016. Downed trees and debris interrupted the intended water-flow path, and the wetland has not recovered its former function.

The county’s Stormwater Management Utility Board described the project in June 2025 as a two-phase effort. The first phase would restore drainage. A later phase could add a public-facing amenity, but the minutes described those features as possibilities rather than final commitments.

Design funding comes from stormwater revenue

County staff applied for a federal grant in 2021 to cover design and construction costs. With those federal funds now on hold, Beaufort County says Stormwater Utility Fund revenue will pay for the project’s design. The announcement does not say that local stormwater money will cover the full project or future construction.

In December 2025, the Stormwater Management Utility Board recorded that the county had issued a request for qualifications and selected Black & Veatch as the engineering firm for design. The minutes said the firm was working with Procurement to secure a contract; they do not establish that a final contract had been executed.

Goals include drainage and habitat

Beaufort County says the intended outcomes include restoring stormwater function, reducing pollutants and the risk of flooding in the area, and improving native habitat. Stormwater Manager Taylor Brewer described the project as an opportunity to address drainage while creating habitat and a possible community amenity.

Ducks Unlimited is an official project partner. Earlier board minutes mentioned a possible pathway around the wetlands, a former dock-related amenity and potential certification of the pond as a duck impoundment. Those ideas remain under consideration and should not be treated as approved park improvements.

Residents will have another public-input opportunity

The county says it is planning a community meeting for area residents, neighbors and other stakeholders. No meeting date had been announced in the available county record as of August 3, 2026.

For Port Royal residents, the immediate change is that a long-planned wetland restoration project has moved into design. The next concrete steps are expected to involve engineering, permitting and agency coordination. The final design, total project cost, construction schedule, federal-funding status and any public-access features remain unresolved.

Sources

• Beaufort County: Future Arthur Horne Wetlands Park Enters Design Phase

Richmond Public Utilities said in a July 31 notice that the request would continue while officials monitored conditions. The expected review period is not a guaranteed decision date, and the supplied notice does not confirm that the measures have been lifted.

What officials are watching

The review is expected to consider the stability of James River flows, recent rainfall and guidance from Virginia’s Drought Monitoring Task Force and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

Richmond’s James River Regional Flow Management Plan identifies a trigger of average river flows at 1,700 cubic feet per second for 14 consecutive days. The regional conservation request was first implemented July 1 after river flows met that plan trigger.

Virginia DEQ describes the state’s drought-monitoring process as an evaluation of hydrologic conditions and other indicators that can inform drought responses. That state guidance does not independently announce a change to Richmond’s regional request.

Communities covered

The voluntary measures apply to Richmond and Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico and Powhatan counties.

The request is intended to reduce unnecessary demand and support regional water-treatment and supply operations. It is voluntary, not a mandatory restriction program or an emergency declaration, and it does not announce an immediate drinking-water shortage.

Watering schedule

Under Richmond’s posted schedule:

• Monday is a no-watering day.
• Addresses ending in an odd number may water on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
• Addresses ending in an even number may water on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.

Richmond’s guidance also asks residents and businesses to limit certain uses:

• Fountains should run from 8 p.m. to 10 a.m., with two additional days allowed at any time each week.
• Driveways, sidewalks and other paved areas may be washed on two days each week, except when washing is needed for health or safety.
• Swimming pools should be filled or topped off only as needed to remain safe and clean.
• Vegetable gardens should be watered from 8 p.m. to 10 a.m.; bucket watering is allowed at any time.
• Vehicles may be washed on two days each week with a handheld hose equipped with an automatic shutoff nozzle. Commercial mobile vehicle-washing businesses are exempt.
• New landscaping may be watered at any time during its first 10 days; afterward, the lawn schedule applies.
• Golf courses should be watered from 8 p.m. to 10 a.m., although greens may be watered at any time.

Richmond’s posted guidance says there are no water-use restrictions for restaurants.

What happens next

Officials expected to reassess the request during the week of August 3, but the timing and outcome remain uncertain. Residents should not assume the conservation measures will end unless Richmond Public Utilities issues a new notice.

Until then, residents and businesses in the affected Richmond-area communities should continue conserving water and follow updates from Richmond Public Utilities.

Sources

• Richmond Region Remains in Voluntary Water Conservation Status
• Drought | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
• Richmond region enacts voluntary water restrictions amid ongoing drought