

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Karen Feridun, Berks Gas Truth, 610.678.7726, karen.feridun@gmail.com
Wes Gillingham, Catskill Mountainkeeper, 845.901.1029, wes@catskillmountainkeeper.org
Kate Kiely, NRDC, 212-727-4592, kkiely@nrdc.org.
Peter Hart, Food & Water Watch, 732.839.0871, phart@fwwatch.org,
Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club, 609.558.9100, jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org
David Pringle, Clean Water Action New Jersey, 732.996.4288 dpringle@cleanwater.org
Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, 215.369.1188x102 keepermaya@delawareriverkeeper.org
Barbara Arrindell, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, 845.252.6677 dcs@DamascusCitizens.org
Tracy Carluccio, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, 215.369.1188x104 tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org
Representatives of organizations and members of the public spoke directly to the Delaware River Basin Commissioners today during a comment period at the Delaware River Basin Commissioner's (DRBC) public business meeting demanding a just public input process for the draft fracking regulations and proposed ban on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Watershed.
The DRBC issued draft natural gas regulations on November 30 that are open for public comment through 5:00pm, February 28, 2018. But the agency set a public input process that the public is heavily criticizing as very difficult to navigate. For example, there are only Public Hearings in two locations, both in Pennsylvania, both difficult to access, with no hearings in New York, New Jersey or Delaware and, for some inexplicable reason, it's required that people register on line by December 31- right in the middle of holidays - to speak at the January 23 and 25 Hearings. Written comments can only be submitted through an on-line system, prohibiting written comments to be filed through the postal service, email, or hand delivery. This gauntlet actually limits public access on the critical issue of whether or not fracking and all its activities, including frack wastewater dumping and water withdrawals for fracking, will be banned in the Basin - a decision that will indelibly impact the future of the Delaware River Watershed, the Wild and Scenic Delaware River, the communities throughout the Watershed, and the water supplies for 15 to 17 million people.
The proposed fracking rules were not on the agenda but people saw this as a rare opportunity to ask the Commissioners - who are the ultimate deciders at the DRBC - for changes that would add accessibility, time, and fairness to the public process on this crucial issue. This may be the only meeting with all of the Commissioners present during the draft fracking regulation public comment period.
"The process the DRBC has put in place is unjust. People throughout the basin feel strongly about preserving all of the protections that have been in place since 2010. They want a full fracking ban. They should be able to be heard regardless of whether or not they have access to computers to submit comments or have cars to get to difficult to access hearing locations. They should not have to travel for hours, miss work, or try to figure out how to pay for parking just to be able to participate in a process that is the public's one opportunity to be heard," said Karen Feridun, Founder of Berks Gas Truth.
"While there are many positives to the fracking regulations proposed by the DRBC, there is a lot that needs to be fixed in order for our watershed to be truly protected. Rather than present a process to allow people to bring forth the science, facts, and information needed for a good outcome, DRBC seems to be carefully crafting a process designed to shut people out. The process needs to be fixed and we are here today to ensure the Commissioners hear us on that point," said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.
"DRBC seems to keep forgetting or caring that its charge is to protect the public's water and the public is its base. The proposed public process and the proposed fracking rules do not protect the public's water well enough and do not permit the public meaningful, plentiful public comment. DRBC needs more public hearings in more public places at more public friendly times in all the Delaware River Basin's regions and states," David Pringle, NJ Campaign Director, Clean Water Action.
"The DRBC needs to get the frack out of the Delaware Valley! Not only do we need a complete ban on fracking in the Valley, but they cannot allow fracking waste to be dumped here either. The purpose of a ban is to protect the drinking water for 17 million people. We can't do that if they steal our water for fracking or dump toxic chemicals into our waterways, " said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. "The DRBC needs to schedule more than just two hearings and extend the comment period to give citizens across the Basin a chance to play a part in the process. We're telling the DRBC to do their job to represent the people and protect the environment of the Basin!"
"That the DRBC is proposing to prohibit fracking is excellent, that the DRBC is making it a difficult and technology dependent process to comment on the proposed regulations is not good. No postal letters? Only hearings where there is no public transportation? And only two days of hearings and only at the extreme ends of the Basin? Is this even a legal process?" said Barbara Arrindell, Director, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.
"Banning fracking while allowing frack waste and water withdrawals puts the drinking water for millions at risk," said Lena Smith of Food & Water Watch. "Any deal that would allow toxic, radioactive fracking waste into the watershed should be a non-starter for the governors responsible for protecting the Delaware River watershed."
"The DRBC has proposed regulations that will affect the future of our lives and this region for years. That is why we need easier access to making comments on these important regulations. They should allow for written comments, give us more hearings and ensure the people of this region have a voice the process," said Wes Gillingham, Associate Director, Catskill Mountainkeeper.
"A fracking ban would be historic, but these regulations still put drinking water at risk of contamination from the cocktail of chemicals found in wastewater," said Kimberly Ong, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council. "The public deserves a real chance to share the concerns they have about how fracking--and everything that goes with it--would impact their health and communities."
"One of the most important decisions to ever be made by the DRBC regarding the water resources of the Delaware River Watershed - a frack ban and proposed regulations - requires a robust and inclusive public participation process. Everything from the scarcity of public hearings to the restrictive logistics of submitting verbal and written comment, to the short length of time of the comment period, especially considering the holidays, is unjust and limits public input. This is so wrong but can be easily transformed into an open and fair process if the Commissioners listen to the public's plea for the opportunity to meaningfully participate," said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
To see the letter filed with the DRBC for public input process changes, go here: https://bit.ly/2AqjQ2H and to see some Talking Points about the unfair process, go here: https://bit.ly/2kZcUlT.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.