As New Yorkers choked through another day of poor air quality – driven by ongoing Canadian wildfires – another environmental threat looms, this one found in the state’s surface waters. The threat of “harmful algal blooms,” which can jeopardize drinking water supplies and the public’s health, is spreading across the state.

The blooms are a blue-green slimy substance that floats in water.  Harmful algal blooms aren’t the typical green surface ooze seen on the top of lake waters.  While ugly to look at when at the surface, a bloom can also be extremely dangerous, so much so that the state has a policy that warns people to stay out of the water should there be evidence of one.

The heating planet drives the production of algal blooms.  Warmer temperatures prevent water from mixing, allowing algae to grow thicker and faster.  Algal blooms absorb sunlight, making water even warmer and promoting more blooms. 

While not every algal bloom is toxic – some algal species can produce both toxic and nontoxic blooms – toxic blooms can cause problems for swimmers and other recreational users in the form of rashes or allergic reactions.  People who swim in a bloom may experience health effects, including nausea, vomiting, headaches, respiratory problems, skin rash and other reactions.  There have also been reports nationwide of dogs and livestock dying shortly after swimming or wading in a bloom.

Heat alone doesn’t stimulate algal blooms.  As we know, climate changes have also caused stronger, more powerful storms, storms that release much more rainwater than in storms of the past.  Those incredible downpours swiftly flush whatever is sitting on the land directly into lakes, so instead of letting a natural filtration process take place, nutrients that would benefit the soil are washed into surface waters and wreak havoc in the water in the form of algal blooms.

Algal blooms are an increasing menace. New York State has experienced a tenfold increase in the number of waterbodies experiencing a bloom over the past 10 years and $6 billion in mitigation expenses and lost economic value.

Obviously, algal blooms pose a threat to recreational water bodies. But they pose a greater danger to drinking water supplies. Once these blooms are found in drinking water supplies, they are hard to treat. The toxins released from algal blooms make it difficult for treatment facilities to remove them safely and efficiently.

Usually, algal blooms crop up in late summer and early fall. This year, in the Spring they began showing up in lakes across New York. There have been over 450 algal blooms reported by the DEC as of last week.

According to the Department of Conservation, in Albany, for example, Lawson Lake has had confirmed algaL blooms.  In Saratoga, Saratoga Lake has had a confirmed algal bloom. Areas in which the New York City reservoir system is located (most notably in Putnam and Westchester counties) have had reports of algae blooms. 

Unfortunately, the only way to confirm whether an algal bloom is toxic is through laboratory testing. As a result, experts advise that when in doubt, stay out. If you want to check out the lakes in which algae blooms are a concern, you can go to the DEC website, which has a harmful algal bloom notifications webpage that it updates weekly. 

When it comes to minimizing the threat of algal blooms, New York policymakers can take action. And, in fact, there is no shortage of such plans already developed.

But when it comes to protecting surface waters and drinking water supplies, the state has to do a lot more to reduce the runoff from agriculture, landscaping and wastewater sources.  New York must be proactive about protecting drinking water supplies and recreational waters.  The costs for prevention are cheaper than the cost of remediation and illness. That’s a lesson we’ve had to re-learn too many times – particularly when it comes to public health and environmental threats.

Unfortunately, the situation will not get better in our lifetimes. More frequent heat waves, bigger wildfires, rising sea levels, hotter temperatures are the unmistakable signs of climate change. Last year was the hottest ever and with that, surface waters will get warmer too.

While we all must embrace changes that follow the science and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases which causes the worsening climate catastrophe, there are things that we can do to better protect surface waters. We should demand of policymakers that strong steps be taken and taken quickly.

There is an apt observation about government budget-making: They are the clearest way to see priorities. That makes sense of course. After all, when it comes to public spending, there are unlimited demands and limited funds. Balancing the needs of society with the available resources is the centerpiece of rational governmental budget-making.

This month, the President and the Congress have hammered out two deals that would drastically impact funding for federal programs: budget reconciliation and rescission plans.

With that in mind, the recently approved federal budget reconciliation and rescission legislation, advanced by President Trump and approved by both house of Congress, makes clear where their priorities lie.

The budget reconciliation agreement is the one that has the broadest impact, both in terms of the nation’s finances as well as the effect on individual Americans.

The reconciliation legislation, dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” covered a lot of issues. The ones that received the most attention are the changes to Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and SNAP program (subsidies to purchase food for the needy), the elimination of federal spending on climate programs, as well as increasing the nation’s debt ceiling to $5 trillion.

The changes to Medicaid will have a dramatic impact. According to estimates, as many as 11.8 million Americans (including 1.5 million New Yorkers) will lose their health coverage. The changes in the program create new obstacles for beneficiaries, many of whom will end up dropping out due to the new requirements and the difficulty of submitting necessary information.

Moreover, the impacts go beyond those affecting people – hospitals, particularly rural ones – will feel it as well. A recent report estimated that as many as one-third of all rural hospitals in the country are at risk of closing due to financial distress, including 29 New York hospitals.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) serves 42 million Americans and is the government’s effort to combat hunger in the country. Yet the legislation approved earlier this month will result in the biggest cut in its history.

A recent analysis of the changes concluded that 22.3 million American families would lose some or all of their SNAP benefits. Among these families, 5.3 million would lose at least $25 in SNAP benefits per month, and most of them would be working families and families with children.

Of course, other items were included as well. These items touched on subjects like new fees for those applying to immigrate. Immigrants will now have to pay a $100 fee to apply for asylum and a $500 fee to apply for temporary protected status, which only applies to those unable to return to their home country due to “extraordinary and temporary conditions,” such as an armed conflict, environmental disaster or epidemic.

Major changes were made to federal student loans. Loans for graduate school will be capped at $20,500 per year and $50,000 per year for professional degrees.

There are tax cuts for the purchase of gun silencers and short-barrel rifles, which will result in an estimated $1.7 billion loss in tax revenue. From now on only machine guns and “destructive devices” like bombs and missiles are federally required to be taxed $200 and undergo more intensive background checks and waiting periods.

The federal changes contain changes to, or elimination of, the majority of clean energy tax credits that were passed in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Climate researchers at Columbia University estimate that up to $9.65 billion of the $62 billion appropriated in the IRA will be rescinded.

Funds for building coastal management, monitoring air pollution and reducing it in schools, reducing the impact of climate disasters on low-income communities, collecting data on greenhouse gas emissions, and standardization of corporate climate action commitments are all under threat of being revoked.

And the rescission package that passed last week eliminated federal governmental support for public broadcasting and its educational programming, clawing back funds previously approved by Congress.

Yet, the effort to reduce spending was not about reducing the nation’s debt; the legislation increases it and does so massively. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the nation’s debt would increase by $3.4 trillion over the next decade. Moreover, the benefits of the changes go overwhelming to the wealthiest Americans, increasing the tax burden for the poorest while enhancing the incomes of the richest.

Sensing the widespread opposition of the nation to this legislation, the “spin doctors” are hard at work to change the narrative. For example, the Vice President is talking up aspects of the changes that are more popular, such as its creation of a $1,000 savings accounts for newborns.

Yet, there can be no denying the priorities of the Congress and the President: eliminate health coverage for millions, deny access to food for many in need, reduce efforts to combat the climate crisis, while piling on more debt to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy.

We’ll get a clearer picture of whether those priorities match the public’s next Fall.

As Congress debated what to do about federal spending on healthcare, one critical issue did not get adequate consideration: How to improve the quality of hospital care. Hospital care is a big component of the nation’s overall health care spending. Spending on hospital care totaled $1.5 trillion in 2023, representing nearly one third (31%) of national health expenditures in that year. 

There is considerable peer-reviewed research that quantifies the need for improvements in the quality of that care. According to a 2023 report in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, nearly 1 in 4 patients who are admitted to hospitals in the U.S. will experience harm and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable.

And that additional harm drives up costs. Take, for example, the issue of readmissions. If a hospital patient has to be readmitted for a complication, that adds costs, which is why regulators monitor such problems.

The quality of care in hospitals is not an issue that is evenly distributed across the nation. Every year, national rankings are released that examine Medicare data to see how well the nation’s hospitals perform. Typically, New York State lags most of the nation.

A key way to improve patient safety is making the quality of health care delivery transparent.

Perhaps the most comprehensive safety guide is the hospital ranking issued by The Leapfrog Group (http://www.leapfroggroup.org/).  Leapfrog was created over 20 years ago by large businesses that were frustrated by the lack of quality health data.  Those businesses usually negotiated coverage for their employees, yet lacked the data to comparison shop. The Group was established to help them to make health care decisions. The Group issues its ranking twice a year.

In its most recent report, Leapfrog Group found that New York State ranked 31^st nationwide in terms of quality, with only one quarter of hospitals receiving an “A” grade. Why do New York hospitals perform comparatively so much worse? In July 2019 the director of Leapfrog Group, explained what she knew about New York’s hospital safety:

“The system as a whole didn’t seem to have emphasized safety. We’ve seen other states work together and look at what’s working well at other states and implement it. It just doesn’t seem to be happening in New York. It has to be front of mind every single day in a hospital.”

Of course, being ranked only 31^st in the nation means there are other states that are worse off. Yet, the focus on patient safety gets short shrift.

Costs are not the only reason why the issue should be at the top of lawmakers’ consideration. If hospital patients get harmed by the care that they receive, it’s a big problem for them as well.

One national study found that medical errors are the “third leading cause of death in the US. One study reported that approximately 400,000 hospitalized patients experience some preventable harm each year, while another estimated that >200,000 patient deaths annually” as the result of these preventable harms.

The financial costs are staggering, “costing the healthcare system $20 billion each year and others approximating healthcare costs of $35.7 to $45 billion annually for hospital-acquired infections alone.” These “medical errors also negatively impact the patient, their family, involved clinicians and support staff, the healthcare facility, and the community.”

These analyses raise serious questions for Congress. Why is so little being done to invest federal dollars on patient safety? What is the federal government now doing to respond to the national rankings that have consistently found poor quality in hospitals?

Failing to get answers to those questions not only costs taxpayers money, but puts too many Americans’ health at risk. Americans deserve a more thorough, thoughtful examination of quality and safety issues when it comes to healthcare spending.

Many people know the television show “The People’s Court.” In that reality-TV show, parties to real small claims court cases agree to drop their cases, present them before a TV judge, and abide by the decision. (An inducement is that the TV show producers pay the judgments.)

Since 1934, New York State has had its own, real “People’s Court.” New York’s Small Claims Court are a low-cost, informal court where people can bring claims for relatively small amounts of money – up to $10,000 in New York City; $5,000 in city courts outside NYC and the District Courts in Nassau and Suffolk Counties; and $3,000 in town and village courts located across the state.

There are many virtues of the Small Claims Courts: The filing fees are modest, they generally operate more quickly and efficiently than higher courts, and you don’t need to hire an attorney. In its tenth decade of operation, the Court remains an essential do-it-yourself tool for New Yorkers to win back their hard-earned money.

Among the actions consumers can take, the Small Claims Court is widely used by tenants to resolve financial complaints against their landlords.

Landlords often take advantage of consumers in various ways, including by converting rental security deposits after tenants have vacated a rented apartment or home – notwithstanding that the rental premises were left in good condition and rent had been fully paid.

In reaction to those cases, in 2019 the Legislature enacted new protections, establishing tight timelines for the prompt return of residential rental security deposits and requiring that landlords itemize any deductions.

When their security deposit is wrongfully withheld, New Yorkers can look to the Small Claims Courts to recover their money. Unfortunately, historically the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court laws was interpreted to require tenants to file their claims where the landlord lived – not where the property was located. This is a huge inconvenience for consumers. As a result, more often than not, it means the claims won’t get brought.

In 2021, the Legislature amended the four civil court acts to make it easier for tenants or former tenants to use the Small Claims Courts to get security deposits and other monies owed to them by landlords.

Unfortunately, there are two problems with the 2021 law:

• First, the law treated the downstate courts (covering New York City and most of Nassau and Suffolk Counties) differently than the courts serving town, village and city courts outside of those areas. This created the anomaly where downstate courts permit a claim against a former landlord in the court serving where the rental property is located, but in the Small Claims Courts in town and village and city courts outside those downstate areas landlords may only be sued in a Small Claims Court in the county where the landlord was located or an adjoining county.

• Second, is that court personnel don’t appear to have been provided with information and training on the 2021 Small Claims Court law. A recent review of public materials and survey of some civil court personnel across the state indicates that staff may be turning away New Yorkers who would like to use the new law to hold their landlords accountable in their local Small Claims Court.

These are not academic or trivial issues: New York City-based landlords have purchased a lot of upstate rental housing properties and far too often maintain those properties in deplorable, unsafe condition and take advantage of their low-income tenants, including by wrongfully withholding security deposits when tenants leave.

The upshot is that under current law renters in the cities, towns and villages from Westchester to Western New York – and all areas in between – cannot use their local Small Claims Court to hold landlords who are located outside their immediate area accountable for unlawfully failing to return security deposits or for other claims. That leaves those tenants and former tenants in most parts of the state without a good option when landlords have cheated them out of their security deposits, for example.

This past session, the state Senate approved legislation that would correct the problem by establishing equal protections for all tenant-consumers and ensuring that Small Claims Court personnel get the information and training they need to implement the law.

Unfortunately, like hundreds of other bills, the legislation was not brought to the Assembly floor for a vote. Since that decision was made in secret, it’s unclear why the Assembly punted.

Hopefully, next year brings some relief to tenants seeking justice to hold their landlords accountable. In the meantime, landlords continue to have the upper hand.