Firefighting planes are dumping ocean water on the Los Angeles fires – why using saltwater is typically a last resort

by dap | Jan 21, 2025 | The Moderate Voice

Patrick Megonigal , Smithsonian Institution

Firefighters battling the deadly wildfires that raced through the Los Angeles area in January 2025 have been hampered by a limited supply of freshwater . So, when the winds are calm enough, skilled pilots flying planes aptly named Super Scoopers are skimming off 1,500 gallons of seawater at a time and dumping it with high precision on the fires.

Using seawater to fight fires can sound like a simple solution – the Pacific Ocean has a seemingly endless supply of water. In emergencies like Southern California is facing, it’s often the only quick solution, though the operation can be risky amid ocean swells .

But seawater also has downsides.

Saltwater corrodes firefighting equipment and may harm ecosystems, especially those like the chaparral shrublands around Los Angeles that aren’t normally exposed to seawater. Gardeners know that small amounts of salt – added, say, as fertilizer – does not harm plants, but excessive salts can stress and kill plants.

While the consequences of adding seawater to ecosystems are not yet well understood, we can gain insights on what to expect by considering the effects of sea-level rise.

A seawater experiment in a coastal forest

As an ecosystem ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, I lead a novel experiment called TEMPEST that was designed to understand how and why historically salt-free coastal forests react to their first exposures to salty water.

Sea-level rise has increased by an average of about 8 inches globally over the past century, and that water has pushed salty water into U.S. forests, farms and neighborhoods that had previously known only freshwater. As the rate of sea-level rise accelerates, storms push seawater ever farther onto the dry land, eventually killing trees and creating ghost forests , a result of climate change that is widespread in the U.S. and globally.

In our TEMPEST test plots , we pump salty water from the nearby Chesapeake Bay into tanks, then sprinkle it on the forest soil surface fast enough to saturate the soil for about 10 hours at a time. This simulates a surge of salty water during a big storm.

Our coastal forest showed little effect from the first 10-hour exposure to salty water in June 2022 and grew normally for the rest of the year. We increased the exposure to 20 hours in June 2023, and the forest still appeared mostly unfazed, although the tulip poplar trees were drawing water from the soil more slowly, which may be an early warning signal.

Things changed after a 30-hour exposure in June 2024. The leaves of tulip poplar in the forests started to brown in mid-August, several weeks earlier than normal. By mid-September the forest canopy was bare, as if winter had set in. These changes did not occur in a nearby plot that we treated the same way, but with freshwater rather than seawater.

The initial resilience of our forest can be explained in part by the relatively low amount of salt in the water in this estuary, where water from freshwater rivers and a salty ocean mix. Rain that fell after the experiments in 2022 and 2023 washed salts out of the soil.

But a major drought followed the 2024 experiment, so salts lingered in the soil then. The trees’ longer exposure to salty soils after our 2024 experiment may have exceeded their ability to tolerate these conditions.

Seawater being dumped on the Southern California fires is full-strength, salty ocean water. And conditions there have been very dry , particularly compared with our East Coast forest plot.

Changes evident in the ground

Our research group is still trying to understand all the factors that limit the forest’s tolerance to salty water, and how our results apply to other ecosystems such as those in the Los Angeles area.

Tree leaves turning from green to brown well before fall was a surprise, but there were other surprises hidden in the soil below our feet.

Rainwater percolating through the soil is normally clear, but about a month after the first and only 10-hour exposure to salty water in 2022, the soil water turned brown and stayed that way for two years. The brown color comes from carbon-based compounds leached from dead plant material. It’s a process similar to making tea.

Our lab experiments suggest that salt was causing clay and other particles to disperse and move about in the soil. Such changes in soil chemistry and structure can persist for many years.

Sea-level rise is increasing coastal exposure

While ocean water can help fight fires, there are reasons fire officials prefer freshwater sources – provided freshwater is available.

U.S. coastlines, meanwhile, are facing more extensive and frequent saltwater exposure as rising global temperatures accelerate sea-level rise that drowns forests, fields and farms, with unknown risks for coastal landscapes.

Patrick Megonigal , Associate Director of Research, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Smithsonian Institution

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

The post Firefighting planes are dumping ocean water on the Los Angeles fires – why using saltwater is typically a last resort appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

President Biden Awards Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction to His Holiness Pope Francis

by dap | Jan 21, 2025 | The Moderate Voice

Today, President Joe Biden, who cancelled his trip to the Vatican in order to oversee the U.S. government’s response to the California wildfires spoke to His Holiness Pope Francis and named him a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction, “the nation’s highest civilian honor, presented to individuals who have made exemplary contributions to the prosperity, values, or security of the United States, world peace, or other significant societal, public or private endeavors.”

While Pope Francis is the 57th person to earn a Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Biden, it is the only time during his presidency that Biden has bestowed the medal with distinction, and it is only three times since 1994 that the Presidential Medal of Freedom has been awarded with distinction.

In a post on ‘X,’ President Biden, a practicing Catholic, said:

Pope Francis, your humility and your grace are beyond words, and your love for all is unparalleled. As the People’s Pope, you are a light of faith, hope, and love that shines brightly across the world.

The citation reads :

As a young man, Jorge Bergoglio sought a career in science before faith led him to a life with the Jesuits. For decades, he served the voiceless and vulnerable across Argentina. As Pope Francis, his mission of serving the poor has never ceased. A loving pastor, he joyfully answers children’s questions about God. A challenging teacher, he commands us to fight for peace and protect the planet. A welcoming leader, he reaches out to different faiths. The first pope from the Southern Hemisphere, Pope Francis is unlike any who came before. Above all, he is the People’s Pope – a light of faith, hope, and love that shines brightly across the world.

The post President Biden Awards Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction to His Holiness Pope Francis appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

Trump’s executive orders can make change – but are limited and can be undone by the courts

by dap | Jan 21, 2025 | The Moderate Voice

Before his inauguration, Donald Trump promised to issue a total of 100 or so executive orders once he regained the presidency. These orders are expected to reset government policy on everything from immigration enforcement to diversity initiatives to environmental regulation. They also aim to undo much of Joe Biden’s presidential legacy.

Trump is not the first U.S. president to issue an executive order, and he certainly won’t be the last. My own research shows executive orders have been a mainstay in American politics – with limitations.

What is an executive order?

Though the Constitution plainly articulates familiar presidential tools like vetoes and appointments, the real executive power comes from reading between the lines.

Presidents have long interpreted the Constitution’s Article 2 clauses – like “the executive power shall be vested in a President” and “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” – to give them total authority to enforce the law through the executive branch, by any means necessary.

One leading way they do that is through executive orders, which are presidential written directives to agencies on how to implement the law. The courts view them as legally valid unless they violate the Constitution or existing statutes.

Executive orders, like other unilateral actions, allow presidents to make policy outside of the regular lawmaking process.

This leaves Congress, notoriously polarized and gridlocked, to respond.

Thus, executive orders are unilateral actions that give presidents several advantages, allowing them to move first and act alone in policymaking.

How have they historically been used?

Every U.S. president has issued executive orders since they were first systematically cataloged in 1905.

In March of 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized President Obama’s use of executive orders.

“Executive orders sort of came about more recently. Nobody ever heard of an executive order. Then all of a sudden Obama – because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him – he starts signing them like they’re butter,” Trump said . “So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.”

Little in this statement is true.

Obama signed fewer orders than his predecessors – averaging 35 per year. Trump issued an average of 55 per year.

Against conventional wisdom, presidents have relied less on executive orders over time. Indeed, modern presidents used drastically fewer orders per year – an average of 59 – than their pre-World War II counterparts, who averaged 314.

Executive orders have been used for everything from routine federal workplace policies like ethics pledges to the controversial 2017 travel ban restricting entry into the United States.

They have been used to manage public lands , the economy , the civil service and federal contractors , and to respond to various crises such as the Iran hostage situation and the COVID-19 pandemic .

Presidents often use them to advance their biggest agenda items, by creating task forces or policy initiatives and directing rulemaking , the process for formally translating laws into codified policy.

Limitations in their use

Why don’t presidents always issue executive orders, a seemingly powerful policy device? Because they come with serious constraints.

First, executive orders may not be as unilateral as they seem. Drafting an order involves a time-consuming bargaining process with various agencies negotiating its content.

Second, if they are issued without proper legal authority, executive orders can be overturned by the courts – although that happens infrequently .

Trump’s 2017 travel ban faced several legal challenges before it was written in a way to satisfy the court . Many of his initial orders, on the other hand, didn’t face legal scrutiny because they simply requested agencies to work within their existing authority to change important policies like health care and immigration.

Congress is another barrier, as they give presidents the legal authority to make policy in a certain area. By withholding that authority, Congress can deter presidents from issuing executive orders on certain issues. If the president issues the order anyway, the courts can overturn it.

Legislators can also punish presidents for issuing executive orders they do not like by sabotaging their legislative agendas and nominees or defunding their programs.

Even a polarized Congress can find ways to sanction a president for an executive order they don’t like. For example, a committee can hold an oversight hearing or launch an investigation – both of which can decrease a president’s public approval rating .

Congresses of today are equipped to impose these constraints and they do so more often on ideologically opposed administrations. This is why scholars find modern presidents issue fewer executive orders under divided government , contrary to popular media narratives that present executive orders as a president’s way of circumventing Congress.

Finally, executive orders are not the last word in policy. They can be easily revoked.

New presidents often reverse previous orders, particularly those of political opponents. Biden, for instance, quickly revoked Trump’s directives that excluded undocumented immigrants from the U.S. Census.

All recent presidents have issued revocations, especially in their first year. They face barriers in doing so, however, including public opinion, Congress and legal limitations.

Regardless, executive orders are not as durable as laws or regulations.

Constraints on Trump

Some of Trump’s executive orders, particularly those focused on the economy, will require legislation since Congress holds the purse strings.

Though Trump inherits a Republican House and Senate , their majorities are marginal, and moderate party dissenters may frustrate his agenda. Even so, he will undoubtedly use all available legal authority to unilaterally transform his goals into government policy.

But then again, these directives may be undone by the courts – or by the next president with the stroke of a pen.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on January 26, 2021.

Sharece Thrower , Assistant Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

The post Trump’s executive orders can make change – but are limited and can be undone by the courts appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

Trump promises to end birthright citizenship and shut down the border – a legal scholar explains the challenges these actions could face

by dap | Jan 21, 2025 | The Moderate Voice

During his first day in office on Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders on immigration that would make it harder for refugees, asylum seekers and others to try to enter the U.S. – and for some immigrants to stay in the country.

On Monday night, Trump signed executive orders that included declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border and pausing refugee admissions for at least four months. Migrants trying to enter the U.S. at the border also found that CBP One, an app they used to schedule asylum application appointments, was shut down .

Amy Lieberman, a politics editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with scholar Jean Lantz Reisz , co-director of the University of Southern California’s Immigration Clinic and a clinical associate professor of law, to understand the meaning of Trump’s new executive orders – and the challenges he could face in implementing them.

Will Trump be able to carry out these many executive orders?

When it comes to immigration and national security, the president has a broad range of powers. We are hearing that Trump is trying to end asylum. Migrants at the U.S. border today had their appointments with Customs and Border Protection canceled .

There will be litigation because asylum is a big part of U.S. law and only a Congressional act can end it. Using different kinds of national security and public health actions, like Title 42 , an emergency health order that allowed the government to turn away migrants at the border because of COVID-19, has been successful in the past at making it harder for people to seek asylum – but a presidential action cannot end asylum.

If Congress wanted to end asylum, it would be a terrible thing in the world of international human rights, but it could still happen.

Trump announced he will reinstate the Remain in Mexico program , which requires people seeking asylum in the U.S. to remain in Mexico while they await their court date. It would require Mexico’s cooperation to do this, especially since this would apply to migrants who are not even from Mexico. Usually, this kind of announcement would have to first be published in the Federal Register for comment. This procedure has not been followed here and could leave this policy open to legal challenges.

What does it actually mean to shut down the border?

We don’t have the details yet, but it looks like shutting down the border means the U.S. government will no longer process any migrants coming to the border without visas for asylum or other kinds of humanitarian relief.

Up until now, if a migrant comes to the U.S. border and says they fear returning to their home country, they are supposed to be given a so-called “credible fear interview.” That would be suspended. People have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law , and by shutting the border down, the president is preventing people from exercising that right.

Now, under Trump’s orders, migrants who are crossing into the country and seeking asylum or humanitarian parole at a U.S. border port of entry will be denied the right to stay in the country, even temporarily. Everyone who crosses the border will be immediately expelled from the country.

That is an immediate impact that is already being felt at the border. But for people who already crossed the U.S. border and applied for asylum, their situations have not changed, according to these executive orders. This is also unlikely to affect people who have visas to enter the country or those conducting any commerce across the border.

Trump announced that he will use the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants who are in the country illegally. Are there limits on his ability to do that?

The president has the authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act , a law from 1798 that allows a president to detain and deport noncitizen males during times of war. This is aimed at making it easier to deport people who have been suspected of belonging to a drug cartel.

But the U.S. government then has to prove that it is at war with the migrant’s country of origin, and that the drug cartels represent this entire country and government. In the immigration system, a president can deport someone who is suspected of supporting or belonging to a drug cartel or terrorist group, but Trump may be using the Alien Enemies Act to deport a targeted group of persons more quickly.

The Alien Enemies Act does allow a federal court to review whether or not a person being targeted by the U.S. government is actually an alien enemy. This hasn’t actually played out for almost 100 years, but someone could challenge the government’s designation that they are a foreign enemy and take the claim to a federal court, or all the way up to the Supreme Court.

What are some of the other big changes that you will be watching?

First, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration will end birthright citizenship , which gives U.S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of noncitizens. I think that would play out by Trump issuing orders to federal agencies like the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to not process citizen’s applications for passports or Social Security numbers if they cannot demonstrate that the citizen’s parents were lawfully present in the U.S. at the citizen’s birth.

That would then be challenged with lawsuits because the president can’t just say there is no more birthright citizenship when it is part of the U.S. Constitution .

I am also expecting mass arrests of immigrants living in the U.S. without legally authorized status through workplace raids targeting them. The president has the authority to arrest everyone who is in unlawful status. But most immigrants living in the U.S. without legal authorization have the right to go in front of an immigration judge to argue that they are lawfully in the U.S. There is a long backlog right now of cases in immigration court. It could also be prohibitively expensive to arrest, detain and deport the millions of people that Trump wants to deport.

Finally, by declaring a national emergency at the southern border, Trump could use Department of Defense funding for immigration enforcement and allow the military and the National Guard to help patrol the border and build a border wall.

The National Guard has assisted in border security administrative work under Joe Biden’s administration, as well as Barack Obama’s and Trump’s, by doing things like mending fences and stocking warehouses . This freed up more Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents to go out and actually arrest immigrants. That is nothing new.

But the way Trump is saying he is going to enlist military to do the law enforcement would likely be challenged . U.S. law says you cannot use the military in internal law enforcement operations.

Jean Lantz Reisz , Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Co-Director, USC Immigration Clinic, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

The post Trump promises to end birthright citizenship and shut down the border – a legal scholar explains the challenges these actions could face appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

U.S. Military Fighting the Fires in California

by dap | Jan 21, 2025 | The Moderate Voice

“More than just a fighting force, the Defense Department delivers health care, disaster relief and other support to people around the world in humanitarian missions every day.”

The U.S. military has a storied background in participating in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, whether the disaster is caused by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, epidemics, oil spills, blizzards or wildfires; whether caused by natural hazards or by human activity; whether at home or abroad.

This honorable tradition goes back as far as just after the Civil War when the Army Corps of Engineers helped freed Black people survive flooding along the Mississippi in 1865, and then in 1882, 1889, and 1906 during the Mississippi Flood, the Johnstown, Pennsylvania Flood and the Sam Francisco Earthquake, respectively.

These disaster relief operations have continued unabatedly into the 20th and 21st centuries. In 2023, the Defense Department listed more than 500 humanitarian missions supported by the U.S. military since 1975.

Today, as Los Angeles County, California, is being ravaged by wildfires of historical proportions, the Defense Department and all its military Branches are providing vital firefighting personnel, equipment and capabilities to Los Angeles County.

The following are some examples of that support as described in recent DoD briefings and press releases:

There are over 1,800 California National Guardsmen who have been activated to assist with firefighting efforts. (The California governor’s office announced Sunday that around 2,500 National Guard soldiers had been activated for the California’s wildfires.)

In addition, hundreds of Nevada and Wyoming Guardsmen are assisting in battling the wildfires, both in the air and on the ground.

There are currently eight Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFF)-equipped C-130 Hercules aircraft assisting in firefighting efforts. The aircraft come from the California Guard, the Nevada Guard, the Wyoming Guard, and from U.S. Air Force Reserve units in Colorado.

These aircraft can drop 3,000 gallons of water or fire retardant in about 5 seconds, covering an area one-quarter of a mile long by 100 feet wide. Over the weekend they dropped more than 16,000 gallons of fire suppressant. (Click HERE to watch a MAFFS-equipped C-130 drop a line of fire retardant on the Palisades Fire.

The National Guard announced on Friday that it will also be deploying 10 helicopters that will be used in firefighting and search and rescue operations.

Ten active-duty Navy helicopters equipped with water delivery buckets are ready to assist with relief efforts at San Diego County’s Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton along with 500 active-duty Marines.

March Air Reserve Base, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles in Riverside County, was set up to serve as a staging base for efforts by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Referring to the magnitude and complexity of the disaster, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh commented:

We have to work in coordination with the state and FEMA when it comes to how we address each single fire. And not just the fires; it’s the road clearing, it’s the management, it’s how people get back to their homes. All of this knits together very carefully and in an intricate way that is going to take a little time, it’s going to take some coordinating.

The post U.S. Military Fighting the Fires in California appeared first on The Moderate Voice .