This is the 4th in a series of articles about reporting skills by Knight Center students who attended the 2025 Society of Environmental Journalists conference.

By Mia Litzenberg

Mia Litzenberg

Experts are looking beyond climate resiliency to build adaptive capacity, a process for navigating changes to cultural lifeways that promotes living well – not just bouncing back.

The ability to be climate-resilient suggests that people will bounce back to their previous ways of life – a paradigm that is being reshaped altogether.

“I’m keenly aware of the problematic word ‘resilience,’ especially as an academic,” said Knowledge Exchange for Resilience Executive Director Patricia Solís. “We often are now using adaptive capacity to signal that it’s a building process.”

Patricia Solis discusses her work on climate adaptation at Arizona State University. Credit: Mia Litzenberg

Solís spoke on the panel “Beyond Worst-Case Scenarios: Building a Vibrant Subculture of Climate Adaptation” at Arizona State University in April. The panel was part of the annual Society of Environmental Journalists conference.

Panelist Nabig Chaudhry, the director of climate adaptation strategy at the climate literacy nonprofit Probable Futures, said there are two things that can be done to address climate change.

While the first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through mitigation, the second is to build adaptive capacity.

“We’re seeing a lot of new ideas pop up of how we can rebuild these systems, hopefully back in the future, that are better because they have been torn down,” Chaudhry said.

Chaudhry said the goal at Probable Futures is to step beyond the predominant climate narrative that most people don’t have a hand in solving the climate crisis and that it is a perpetual apocalypse where everything falls apart. Continue reading →

This is the 3rd in a series of feature stories on environmental topics by Knight Center students who attended the 2025 Society of Environmental Journalists conference.

By Mia Litzenberg

Mia Litzenberg

When most people flush the toilet, the thought of where wastewater ends up goes down the drain.

At the Arizona Snowbowl Ski Resort, treated wastewater is used to create artificial snow that blankets the San Francisco Peaks – a sacred mountain to over a dozen Indigenous tribes.

“I was out here inspecting the area one time and some family with some kids were out here, and they were eating the snow,” said Diné activist Shawn Mulford.

Mulford said the parents had not noticed the sign saying the resort was using reclaimed wastewater that should not be drunk. Since the incident, Mulford said the sign was moved away from the entrance even further down the hillside.

An empty ski lift at the Arizona Snowbowl Ski Resort in April. Credit: Mia Litzenberg

Although the resort uses Grade A+ reclaimed water to make its snow, it does not pass drinking water standards.

The Indigenous tribes who have stewarded the sacred mountain, called Dookʼoʼoosłííd in Navajo, have harvested medicinal plants and held religious ceremonies there for thousands of years.

“My elders have been telling me ‘You can’t go harvest on the peaks anymore,’” said Ka-Voka Jackson from the Hualapai tribe. “We don’t know what’s in those plants – the drugs, the chemicals, hormones. Birth control is a big one that’s not something they can filter out or that they do.”

The San Francisco Peaks of Arizona. Credit: Mia Litzenberg

The Rio de Flag Wastewater Treatment Plant that supplies reclaimed water to Snowbowl does not have the technology to remove contaminants of emerging concern, according to the facility’s staff. These include pharmaceuticals, personal care products and PFAS, which are all classified as endocrine-disrupting compounds for their damaging effect on organisms.

In the 2008 Supreme Court case Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, the court ruled that “there are no plants, springs, natural resources, shrines with religious significance or religious ceremonies that would be physically affected by the use of such artificial snow.” Continue reading →

This is the 2nd in a series of feature stories on environmental topics by Knight Center students who attended the 2025 Society of Environmental Journalists conference.

By Ruth Thornton

Ruth Thornton

The widespread use of several potent pesticides remains a problem in several countries, according to investigative reporters.

Their research shows that the often-cozy relationship between government officials who issue permits and the industry endangers not only the environment but also human lives.

The reporters discussed their reporting on a panel at this year’s Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual conference at Arizona State University.

Panel members were Liza Gross, a reporter with Inside Climate News, Sanket Jain, an independent journalist, Talli Nauman, a contributing editor at Buffalo’s Fire, and Carla Ruas, a freelance journalist. The panel was moderated by Mark Schapiro, an investigative journalist and lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Toxic fumigant pesticide use in California

The “toxic fumigant 1,3-D should probably not be on the market, because it’s been known to be a carcinogen for years,” Gross said.

The fumigant 1,3-D, short for 1,3-Dichloropropene, is a pesticide also known under its tradename Telone. It is applied to farm soils to control nematodes, a type of worm that can harm crops, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It was first registered in the 1950s.

SEJ Pesticide Panel

Gross said she originally focused on that chemical when an advocacy group in California was upset that regulators in the state proposed standards that would have exposed residents near application sites to about 14 times the safe amount.

“When I started looking into 1,3-D’s regulatory history, I found some troubling things that were going on at the federal level,” Gross said.

“It was pretty clear, without that much digging, that I could test the idea that there was regulatory capture going on there,” she said. Continue reading →