# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last year, Americans spent more than $22 billion on chocolate. But the tasty treat comes at a far greater cost than this. That’s because farmers in Africa and South America often cut down trees in the rain forest when…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LANSING, MI -- To say that Michigan is an ideal state in which to operate a bottled water factory is something of an understatement.

Nestle Waters North America, the world's largest bottled water company, shipped the first bottle from its Ice Mountain plant in Stanwood in May 2002. Since then, the company has extracted billions of gallons of groundwater from underneath Michigan and has paid next to nothing for it.

Michigan, a water-rich state surrounded by four of the five Great Lakes, charges high-volume, self-supplied water bottlers like Nestle and Absopure only $200 per year in paperwork fees to operate. There's no state tax, license fee or royalty associated with the company's extraction of a precious natural resource.

That has not exactly sat well with many Michiganders after it was revealed this fall that the Department of Environmental Quality was ready to sign off on a 167-percent capacity increase on a high-volume well Nestle owns in Osceola County.

The DEQ has since received about 14,000 comments on the Nestle request. Most of them oppose the increased water extraction and a good portion of the debate has involved talk of ending Nestle's free ride and requiring some compensation -- all against the backdrop of the water crisis in Flint, where Michigan is currently fighting in court against the expense of delivering safe water door-to-door.

"The juxtaposition is pretty stark," said Liz Kirkwood, director of the Traverse City nonprofit environmental advocacy group FLOW (For Love of Water).

"It's ironic that the state of Michigan won't pay for bottled water and 100 miles away they are giving away Pure Michigan water for $200 a year at the wellhead."

The notion that Nestle should pay something for the Michigan water it sells for profit appeals to many, but environmental law experts say developing a groundwater tax or pricing scheme could be a tricky endeavor that would likely be fought not just by Nestle, but the combined might of industry, agriculture and possibly even municipal governments -- all of which benefit from the same legal framework that permits Nestle to stick a big straw into Michigan's aquifer.

It's a high bar, but perhaps not insurmountable. Maine, where Nestle gets water for its popular Poland Spring brand, is among several other states that charge at least a minimal amount for extracting groundwater for bottling.

There's even precedent in Michigan for Nestle paying for water. The company actually pays the municipal rate, which is now $2.30 per 1,000 gallons, to the city of Evart for about a quarter of the company's annual bottling supply in Michigan.

Nonetheless, "just this reaction to the Nestle proposal shows the public has realized how valuable the resource is," said Nicholas Schroeck, director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center at Wayne State University.

"I think we might see a push to have some regulations - whether that's fees or some other scheme - that could capture revenue," he said.
What allows Nestle to pump for free?
In Michigan, Nestle extracts water under what's known as the "reasonable use" doctrine, a riparian right with roots in British common law. The doctrine allows landowners use of water on or under theirs and adjacent property as long as that use doesn't adversely impact neighboring ground or surface waters. The philosophy holds that nobody really "owns" the groundwater, but everyone has the right to use it in a reasonable fashion in connection with the overlying land.

"Michigan doesn't really have anything written down anywhere which says 'this is what you can do,'" said Andrew LeBaron, a water quality analyst who tracks usage statistics for the DEQ.

"It's more a lack of stipulations on things that you can't do."

Because the water is below ground and inaccessible for recreational use like fishing and paddling, it's not really considered subject to the public trust doctrine that compels the state of Michigan to protect surface waters for the people. There are, however, some arguments the doctrine should apply to groundwater because what happens to it can affect public trust rights to surface waters.

The reasonable use doctrine is not unique to Michigan. Most states east of the Mississippi River regulate groundwater use under a version of it. Decades of riparian case law have established limitations on reasonable use. Property owners cannot, for instance, cause harmful environmental impacts or dry up a neighboring well by diverting or extracting groundwater.

"The cases are pretty clear that you can't do it if it diminishes the flow and level of streams to any degree," said Jim Olson, an environmental law attorney who co-founded FLOW. "You're taking from everybody else."

"You end up with a tragedy of the commons."

Olson represented the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) in a nine-year court battle against Nestle that resulted in a 2009 settlement limiting how much water the company could pump from its four wells near Canadian Lakes in Mecosta County. Nestle wanted to pump 400 gallons per minute (gpm) from its Sanctuary Springs wells, but Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Root ruled that rate would harm river tributaries and ordered the pumping stopped.

Nestle appealed, and the case worked its way through Mecosta County Circuit Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. The eventual settlement limited Nestle pumping to an average of 218 gpm, with restrictions on spring and summer withdrawals from the Sanctuary Springs field.

The case was a big deal. It drew national attention, influenced subsequent state legislation regulating large water withdrawals, and helped prod Michigan and other Great Lakes states to pay closer attention to freshwater resource uses.

Whether Nestle pumping was diminishing stream flows was at the heart of the original dispute -- and remains a bone of contention on the latest request -- but Olson says when the MCWC case reached the Michigan Court of Appeals, the judges in effect modified the reasonable use standard in a way that erased a distinction between on- and off-property water usage.

The court ruled that Nestle pumping wasn't causing environmental harm and remanded the case to a lower court, where it was settled. In a general sense, it extends the legal blanket of reasonable use over water bottling.

"They changed the common law," Olson argues.

Now, "Nestle can argue under the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in 2005 that its pumping is within the scope of its reasonable use, to the extent it isn't harming anybody," he said. "And it doesn't have to pay for it."
Everybody wants spring water
In Michigan, Nestle bottles Ice Mountain, a spring water brand with a label showing a snow-capped mountain that bears absolutely no resemblance to the actual state topography. Michigan is one of eight U.S. states where Nestle extracts spring water for regional brands.

In every state, there have been varying levels of opposition to the pumping.

In Maine, Nestle bottles Poland Spring, an eastern seaboard brand the company calls the best-selling bottled water brand in the U.S. In California and Colorado, Nestle extracts water for the Pacific coast spring brand Arrowhead. In Texas, Nestle bottles Ozarka. In Maryland and Pennsylvania, it bottles Deer Park spring water. In Florida, the spring brand is Zephyrhills.

Only 18 states specifically tax water-bottling factories. Nationwide, the costs for groundwater extraction differ. Some states, like Maryland, charge nothing. Other states charge based on how much water is used. The fee Nestle for pump Ozarka water in Texas is based on acres used. In Maine, there's a $250 base fee plus a sliding-scale fee of $50 per million gallons. Florida charges a well construction fee and consumptive use permit that can cost up to $11,500.

Regardless of the state and label, each bottle contains essentially the same thing: Calorie-free, essentially flavorless groundwater that meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration definition of "spring water" because the aquifer from which the water is drawn is shallow and vents to the surface somewhere nearby.

Nestle bottles a nationwide brand, Pure Life, which is sourced from various public supply wells around the country. It's purified water that has been filtered to remove impurities. It's not spring water, which has a higher perceived marketing value based on the notion of natural springs being a source of healing, and varying degrees of dissolved minerals that impart a very subtle flavor.
Nestle isn't the only big straw
Remove the marketing aspect and it would make more business sense to pump from a less environmentally sensitive area than the headwaters of a coldwater trout creek, as Nestle does in Osceola County, said Michigan Trout Unlimited Director Bryan Burroughs.

Michigan Trout Unlimited (MITU) pays close attention to high volume groundwater withdrawals in Michigan and recently the process the DEQ used to review Nestle's pumping increase. Although the computer model Michigan uses to asses the environmental impacts of any large water extraction flunked Nestle's initial request, MITU concurred that the assessment tool was being overly conservative and backed-up the DEQ Water Resources Division follow-up site-specific assessment process.

DEQ's vetting of the Nestle application was completed in a "standard and legally compliant manner," wrote the MITU assessment.

"While we certainly would prefer that all the groundwater near this small trout stream find its way into the stream to ensure the trout's optimal success, Nestle appears to be within their legal rights" under Michigan's water withdrawal law, Part 327 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

Although MITU found no cause to object to the DEQ assessment, Burroughs said the organization is not thrilled about spring water bottling or the increasing prevalence of large amounts of groundwater extraction in Michigan. Since Part 327 was passed in 2008 -- partly in response to Nestle's presence -- more than 3,800 large-quantity water withdrawals have been requested and only about 580 have been either retracted, canceled or denied. That's about one request on par with Nestle's latest application submitted daily for the last seven years.

About 90 percent of the withdrawals are for agriculture, he said.

"This is something the public ought to be paying closer attention to," said Burroughs. Nestle is bottling water for consumption and thus has more scrutiny hoops to jump though, but "there's a lot of other people who are asking to withdraw the same volume or more that are flying under the radar."

Michigan farms, parks and golf courses used 1.37 trillion gallons of water between 2005 and 2014, according to data kept by the DEQ. Most of that water came from groundwater wells for use as irrigation.

Drive across the state and it's not hard to spot municipal water towers rising above the treetops. While more than three quarters of Michigan's total drinking water supply comes from the Great Lakes, most inland counties actually rely heavily on groundwater. Michiganders drank, cooked with and bathed in about 782 billion gallons of groundwater between 2005 and 2014.

By comparison, the five self-supplied Michigan water bottling operations the DEQ tracks groundwater withdrawal data on -- Nestle, Absopure Co. in Jackson County, Mill Brook Water Co. in Mecosta County, Shay Water Co. in Saginaw County, and White Cloud Natural Spring Water in Newaygo County -- extracted 4.1 billion gallons between 2005 and 2015. Of the five, Nestle, which used 3.4 billion gallons, was the largest user.
"Good argument" for some kind of tax
"You have to be careful when you talk fees because at some point you have to make a call on what use of water should have a fee tacked on," said Schroeck. The Michigan Legislature would have to dive into the weeds and weigh private and public needs with moral arguments about human rights to water.

"Pumping water and putting it into a plastic bottle is easy for people to understand," Schroeck said. "The type of use is to make money."

Although farmers use water to grow crops for profit, the public view is "that's a different type of cost comparison," he said.

Olson believes Michigan could find the political will to perhaps consider a license fee or severance tax on bottled water, such as what's imposed on removal of nonrenewable resources like oil and natural gas. Although water is a renewable resource, aquifers generally need time to recharge. Bottling sends the water away for consumption, including to states outside the Great Lakes basin.

"There's a good argument Michigan could require a license and a payment because water has always been considered public, and there are aspects of water other than reasonable use that would seem to allow for that," Olson said.

Michigan is going to only see increased pressure to use its abundant resources as global demand for freshwater increases, he said. In that sense, Olson said a fee-based system could actually open the door to more bottling, or possibly weaken the state's ability to fend off water grabs from drought-stricken areas.

Nonetheless, "there is enough legal gray area and importance to what Michigan faces in the future that a serious analysis should be conducted."

"A water ombudsman or trustee is what we need," he said.

What would a tax mean for Nestle and its Ice Mountain plant in Stanwood? Representatives of the company say that if Michigan were to start charging for the groundwater Nestle pumps, closure of the plant is not likely. Nestle is currently investing about $36 million into a plant expansion right now.

"I don't think there would be any intention to leave the state," said Nelson Switzer, chief sustainability officer for Nestle Waters North America.

"If the state was inclined to look into that, we'd be very pleased to be able to sit down and discuss what pricing policy might make sense and how they could make sure the cost that would be levied would go toward the sustainable maintenance of the aquifer system."
Did the DEQ make a procedural error that voids Nestle's water bid?
Public wasn't adequately notified of Nestle water request, says DEQ director
Four wells of Sanctuary Springs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Nestle pays next to nothing for Michigan groundwater

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imposing a water bottling fee could be tricky, say experts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nestlé pays $200 a year to bottle water near Flint - where water is undrinkable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While Flint battles a water crisis, just two hours away the beverage giant pumps almost 100,000 times what an average Michigan resident uses into plastic bottles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bottles of water that come from Michigan sources of groundwater and surface water. Legislation that's expected to be introduced in March could restrict groundwater withdrawals for bottled water. (Lester Graham/ Michigan Radio)

The Michigan Legislature might soon look at a package of bills that would change how the state protects groundwater. However, the goal of the bills and the legal tool the sponsors want to use might be at odds.

Do you remember when Nestlé applied to increase the amount of groundwater it was pulling from wells near Evart, Michigan?

Some bottled water from the Evart region comes from spring water and some from Evart's municipal system. ( Lester Graham / Michigan Radio)

Nearly 81,000 people asked the state to turn down the request. Only 75 indicated they supported the request. But despite overwhelming opposition, the state approved the permit in 2019. It said it had to, under the law.
Related:
A lot of people were outraged.

Since then environmental groups have been trying to change the law.

"The problem with the whole water bottling system is that we're just...we're simply taking that public resource and turning it into a commodity. And if we walk too far down that road, we wind up to a place where water is only available for those who can afford it," said Sean McBrearty with Clean Water Action.

He's working with legislators to find a way to restrict groundwater withdrawals for bottled water.

Democratic Representative Yousef Rabhi is one of the sponsors working to draft the legislation.

"Right now, the Great Lakes Compact protects the Great Lakes from water withdrawal so that a state like Arizona couldn't come and hook a pipe up to Lake Michigan and start pumping. But as long as the water is bottled and in small containers, there is no prohibition on the amount of water that can be taken out of the Great Lakes," Rabhi said.

Once they're drafted, the package of bills would do a couple of things: It would target companies that bottle water and it would expand the Public Trust Doctrine. That doctrine says the state holds resources in trust for the people. It must protect those resources.

The doctrine already covers surface water such as streams and lakes. It does not protect groundwater.

Lawmakers killed that idea back in 2006.

That's when Michigan was putting together state laws to comply with the Great Lakes Compact. The intention at the time was to include groundwater under the Public Trust Doctrine protection.

Bob Wilson was counsel for the Senate Natural Resources Committee at the time. He says the idea was that water -whether underground or on the surface- is one big hydrological system.

"Because the public trust doctrine extends to bottomlands in the Great Lakes and surface water, it should also extend to the groundwater," he said.

But there were powerful groups who didn't want the state regulating groundwater. Big businesses including farms and manufacturers said, 'no.'

They did not want government regulations on the amount of groundwater they used. They also understood that, "it imposes a duty on the state to protect the resource, not just enable the state the option of doing so," said Michael Blumm, a law professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon who's written extensively on public trust doctrine issues.

If the state doesn't protect resources, citizens can take the issue to the courts.

Bob Wilson, the long-time advisor in the Michigan Senate, said it's a good move to expand the public trust doctrine to include groundwater.

He thinks, though, it's a mistake to single out water bottlers for regulation.

He said whether it's bottled water, beer, irrigating crops, or manufacturing, every kind of groundwater withdrawal should be treated the same.

"You needed to regulate and take a look at the withdrawal of the water simply for the impact itself on our natural resources. It shouldn't matter, the end users of the water, it shouldn't matter at all."

Still, it's hard for politicians to ignore people's outrage about bottled water. Think back to those 81,000 public comments protesting Nestle's water withdrawal plans.

Representative Rabhi says people want something done about it.

"This legislation is to say, look, it's not OK for a company to come to Michigan, pump out our groundwater. Put a price tag on it and make a profit. That's not OK."

Two years after it won its permit to pump more groundwater in west Michigan, Nestle sold its water bottling operation to a different company, Blue Triton. Later that year, Blue Triton announced it would not take advantage of the permit after all.

When asked for comment for this story, the company responded, "Blue Triton Brands is not in a position to comment on the legislation at this time as it has not been introduced and made public."

The legislation is expected to be introduced in mid-March.

We're not just a news organization, we're also your neighbors

We've been there for you with daily Michigan COVID-19 news; reporting on the emergence of the virus, daily numbers with our tracker and dashboard, exploding unemployment, and we finally were able to report on mass vaccine distribution. We report because the news impacts all of us. Will you please support our nonprofit newsroom?

Donate Now

But there were powerful groups who didn't want the state regulating groundwater. Big businesses including farms and manufacturers said, 'no.'

They did not want government regulations on the amount of groundwater they used. They also understood that, "it imposes a duty on the state to protect the resource, not just enable the state the option of doing so," said Michael Blumm, a law professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon who's written extensively on public trust doctrine issues.

If the state doesn't protect resources, citizens can take the issue to the courts.

Bob Wilson, the long-time advisor in the Michigan Senate, said it's a good move to expand the public trust doctrine to include groundwater.

He thinks, though, it's a mistake to single out water bottlers for regulation.

He said whether it's bottled water, beer, irrigating crops, or manufacturing, every kind of groundwater withdrawal should be treated the same.

"You needed to regulate and take a look at the withdrawal of the water simply for the impact itself on our natural resources. It shouldn't matter, the end users of the water, it shouldn't matter at all."

Still, it's hard for politicians to ignore people's outrage about bottled water. Think back to those 81,000 public comments protesting Nestle's water withdrawal plans.

Representative Rabhi says people want something done about it.

"This legislation is to say, look, it's not OK for a company to come to Michigan, pump out our groundwater. Put a price tag on it and make a profit. That's not OK."

Two years after it won its permit to pump more groundwater in west Michigan, Nestle sold its water bottling operation to a different company, Blue Triton. Later that year, Blue Triton announced it would not take advantage of the permit after all.

When asked for comment for this story, the company responded, "Blue Triton Brands is not in a position to comment on the legislation at this time as it has not been introduced and made public."

The legislation is expected to be introduced in mid-March.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michigan may restrict withdrawals for bottled water like Nestle | Bridge Michigan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bottles of water that come from Michigan sources of groundwater and surface water. Legislation that's expected to be introduced in March could restrict groundwater withdrawals for bottled water. (Lester Graham/ Michigan Radio) The Michigan Legislature might soon look at a package of bills that would change how the state protects groundwater.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The mild climate of the lower Mississippi required little clothing. Acolapissa men limited themselves pretty much to a breechcloth, women a short skirt, and children ran nude until puberty. With so little clothing with which to adorn themselves, the Acolapissa were fond of decorating their entire bodies with tattoos. In cold weather a buffalo robe or feathered cloak was added for warmth.

Stealing horses was common among the plains tribes, but like everything else concerning the horse, Comanches did it on a grand scale. As the number of Spanish horses in New Mexico became inadequate, Comanche raids reached south into Texas and Mexico. By 1775 the Spanish governor of New Mexico was complaining that, despite constant re-supply from Mexico, Comanche raiders had stolen so many horses he did not have enough to pursue them.

The Comanche epitomized the mounted plains warrior. Until the 1750s, they often employed leather armor and large body shields to protect both horse and rider. This changed with increased use of firearms and quickly changed into the stereotypical light cavalry tactics associated with plains warfare. This development first forced the Spanish, and later Texans and Americans, to cope with a new style of mounted warfare. They did not do very well at first. European cavalry had evolved into heavy-armed dragoons designed to break massed-infantry formations. There was no way these soldiers could stay with mounted Comanches who usually left them eating dust ..if they could find them in the first place. The Texas Rangers were organized during the 1840s primarily to fight Comanches. A decade later, when the American army began to assume much of the Rangers' responsibility, it had much to learn.

By common tradition, the Kickapoo and Shawnee believe they were once a single tribe but separated after an argument over a bear's paw.

[The Kickapoo's] most distinctive characteristic has been a stubborn resistance to acculturization with the white man, and it is difficult to think of another group of Native Americans which has gone to such lengths to avoid this. The tendency of the Kickapoo to avoid direct contact has made it easy to dismiss them as unimportant. Although they never played a lead role, the Kickapoo, like a good character actor, were involved in so many things that their overall contribution was enormous. While reading their history, they seem to disappear at times into a story of another people, only to suddenly resurface in another place and time. Years after the leading tribes with the famous names were gone, the Kickapoo were still in the midst of the struggle to preserve native America.

Male and female, they were hospitable but uneffusive. The men appeared to be respectful but remained aloof, were secure within themselves. They would shake a stranger's hand silently while looking off toward the horizon, securing their own independence. They never bowed to any other creature; they were not even willing to nod. They spoke one at a time, deliberately and with many motions, then fell silent, listened without looking at their companion.

They were of a copper color and proud of it, referred to Europeans as 'ugly whites," were lighter than their Indian neighbors, the Creeks and Choctaws and Iroquois. They were lithe, tall, erect, and without noticeable deformities. Their spoken language was musical, punctuated by gutteral, breathy breaks. The men enjoyed ball games, hunting, and warfare. Indeed, warfare was their favorite activity and occupied much of each winter.

They were a clean people, when compared to the white English, German, and Scots-Irish settlers drifting in, infiltrating their territory, most of whom were satisfied to bathe in autumn and not again til spring. The Indians "went to water" often, considering water, the sun, and fire to be three holy gifts of the Great Spirit...

The Trail of Tears - The Rise and Fall of The Cherokee Nation
John Ehle, ISBN 0-385-23954-8

A Tsalagi Agehya speaks...

Nicollet in 1634 described them as brave but lacking in humility ...almost to the point of arrogance. Their clothing was fringed buckskin, which the Winnebago frequently decorated with beautiful designs created from porcupine quills, feathers and beads - a skill for which they are still renown. Men originally wore their hair in two long braids, but in time this changed to the scalplock and roach headdress favored by the Algonquin. Body tattooing was common to both sexes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The mild climate of the lower Mississippi required little clothing. Acolapissa men limited themselves pretty much to a breechcloth, women a short skirt, and children ran nude until puberty. With so little clothing with which to adorn themselves, the Acolapissa were fond of decorating their entire bodies with tattoos.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smithsonian National Museum of the Native American

# data[].attributes.subject
Smithsonian National Museum of the Native American

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home Page | National Museum of the American Indian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NMAI fosters a richer shared human experience through a more informed understanding of Native peoples.

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding Primary and Secondary Sources

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding Primary and Secondary Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the Difference Between Primary & Secondary Sources?

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Create a Simple Google Earth Tour

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Create a Simple Google Earth Tour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Create a Simple Google Earth Tour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aw snap! Google Earth isn't supported on your browser. You may need to update your browser or use a different browser. Please see our system requirements for more information. Chrome is a great choice and you can download it here.

Or if you're feeling adventurous, you can try Earth anyway by choosing an option below.

Learn more about Google Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aw snap! Google Earth isn't supported on your browser. You may need to update your browser or use a different browser. Please see our system requirements for more information. Chrome is a great choice and you can download it here. Or if you're feeling adventurous, you can try Earth anyway by choosing an option below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Director

Author

National Geographic Society

Production Managers

Program Specialists

other

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protecting Elk Migration in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem | National Geographic Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Media Credits The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited. Director Author National Geographic Society Production Managers Program Specialists other

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Contested Canyon | National Geographic Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Media Credits The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ten Most-Visited U.S. Urban Parks | National Geographic Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of these urban oases date from the mid- to late-19th Century, when a public parks movement led to the creation of large urban reserves, often modeled on English gardens. Explore the ten most visited U.S. urban parks with this interactive map from Esri.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On March 10, 1804, France officially transferred its claim to the Louisiana Territory to the United States. President Thomas Jefferson had acquired-purchased-the Louisiana Territory almost a year earlier, for the price of about $15 million (about $342 million in 2020, adjusted for inflation). The ceremony took place in St. Louis, Missouri, earning the U.S. city its nickname "Gateway to the West."

The Mississippi River, on which St. Louis sits, formed the eastern boundary of the Louisiana Territory-a vast region stretching from the Mississippi Delta to what is now the Canadian border of North Dakota and past the northern border of what is now Montana. That border dispute was settled with the signing of the U.S.-Great Britain Oregon Treaty. The 1846 treaty set the U.S.-Canadian border at the 49th parallel as the border in the Pacific Northwest.

Spain relinquished the territory to France's new ruler, Napoléon Bonaparte, in 1802 under threat. Napoléon wanted to extend the French empire into North America. France originally claimed the Louisiana territory in 1682, despite the presence of Indigenous cultural-linguistic groups, including the Chitimacha, Atakapa, Caddo, Tunica, Choctaw, and Natchez, among others. But France gave up its North American claims after losing the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years' War), giving up the Louisiana territory to Spain in 1762.

Napoléon saw Saint Domingue (now Haiti) as France's most valuable territory in the New World. With the loss of the island after a successful rebellion by enslaved people of African descent, there was little use for the Louisiana territory, which had relatively few settlers and no real administration.

Jefferson was conflicted about France's offer to purchase the Louisiana territory. The president is not granted the power to acquire foreign territory in the Constitution. He did not believe the president could go beyond the powers given in the Constitution, but, at least in this instance, he did so.

However, the U.S. was not making a real estate purchase. Instead, it was buying the exclusive right to purchase or forcibly take lands from various Indigenous governments who actually owned them. Eventually, the lands comprising the Louisiana Purchase became a part of the U.S. government, but the process was long, complex, and multifaceted.

In reality, the price of the territories taken cost much more in monetary value. There were 222 land relinquishments from Indian communities to the U.S. government between 1804 and 1970. The final purchase price for these lands was no less than $2.6 billion ($8.5 billion in 2020), much higher than the $15 million the U.S. paid to France. Not all of these interactions and treaties between the U.S. government and Native American governments were fair-many came from broken treaties, coercion, and threats of violence.

Just months later (in May 1804) Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and their "Corps of Discovery" departed from St. Louis to explore this new American landscape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mar 10, 1804 CE: The Louisiana Purchase Is Completed | National Geographic Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 10, 1804, France officially transferred its claim to the Louisiana Territory to the United States. President Thomas Jefferson had acquired-purchased-the Louisiana Territory almost a year earlier, for the price of about $15 million (about $342 million in 2020, adjusted for inflation). The ceremony took place in St.

# data[].attributes.headline
Michigan May Restrict Water Withdrawals 

# data[].attributes.subject
Michigan May Restrict Water Withdrawals 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bottles of water that come from Michigan sources of groundwater and surface water. Legislation that's expected to be introduced in March could restrict groundwater withdrawals for bottled water. (Lester Graham/ Michigan Radio)

The Michigan Legislature might soon look at a package of bills that would change how the state protects groundwater. However, the goal of the bills and the legal tool the sponsors want to use might be at odds.

Do you remember when Nestlé applied to increase the amount of groundwater it was pulling from wells near Evart, Michigan?

Some bottled water from the Evart region comes from spring water and some from Evart's municipal system. ( Lester Graham / Michigan Radio)

Nearly 81,000 people asked the state to turn down the request. Only 75 indicated they supported the request. But despite overwhelming opposition, the state approved the permit in 2019. It said it had to, under the law.
Related:
A lot of people were outraged.

Since then environmental groups have been trying to change the law.

"The problem with the whole water bottling system is that we're just...we're simply taking that public resource and turning it into a commodity. And if we walk too far down that road, we wind up to a place where water is only available for those who can afford it," said Sean McBrearty with Clean Water Action.

He's working with legislators to find a way to restrict groundwater withdrawals for bottled water.

Democratic Representative Yousef Rabhi is one of the sponsors working to draft the legislation.

"Right now, the Great Lakes Compact protects the Great Lakes from water withdrawal so that a state like Arizona couldn't come and hook a pipe up to Lake Michigan and start pumping. But as long as the water is bottled and in small containers, there is no prohibition on the amount of water that can be taken out of the Great Lakes," Rabhi said.

Once they're drafted, the package of bills would do a couple of things: It would target companies that bottle water and it would expand the Public Trust Doctrine. That doctrine says the state holds resources in trust for the people. It must protect those resources.

The doctrine already covers surface water such as streams and lakes. It does not protect groundwater.

Lawmakers killed that idea back in 2006.

That's when Michigan was putting together state laws to comply with the Great Lakes Compact. The intention at the time was to include groundwater under the Public Trust Doctrine protection.

Bob Wilson was counsel for the Senate Natural Resources Committee at the time. He says the idea was that water -whether underground or on the surface- is one big hydrological system.

"Because the public trust doctrine extends to bottomlands in the Great Lakes and surface water, it should also extend to the groundwater," he said.

But there were powerful groups who didn't want the state regulating groundwater. Big businesses including farms and manufacturers said, 'no.'

They did not want government regulations on the amount of groundwater they used. They also understood that, "it imposes a duty on the state to protect the resource, not just enable the state the option of doing so," said Michael Blumm, a law professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon who's written extensively on public trust doctrine issues.

If the state doesn't protect resources, citizens can take the issue to the courts.

Bob Wilson, the long-time advisor in the Michigan Senate, said it's a good move to expand the public trust doctrine to include groundwater.

He thinks, though, it's a mistake to single out water bottlers for regulation.

He said whether it's bottled water, beer, irrigating crops, or manufacturing, every kind of groundwater withdrawal should be treated the same.

"You needed to regulate and take a look at the withdrawal of the water simply for the impact itself on our natural resources. It shouldn't matter, the end users of the water, it shouldn't matter at all."

Still, it's hard for politicians to ignore people's outrage about bottled water. Think back to those 81,000 public comments protesting Nestle's water withdrawal plans.

Representative Rabhi says people want something done about it.

"This legislation is to say, look, it's not OK for a company to come to Michigan, pump out our groundwater. Put a price tag on it and make a profit. That's not OK."

Two years after it won its permit to pump more groundwater in west Michigan, Nestle sold its water bottling operation to a different company, Blue Triton. Later that year, Blue Triton announced it would not take advantage of the permit after all.

When asked for comment for this story, the company responded, "Blue Triton Brands is not in a position to comment on the legislation at this time as it has not been introduced and made public."

The legislation is expected to be introduced in mid-March.

We're not just a news organization, we're also your neighbors

We've been there for you with daily Michigan COVID-19 news; reporting on the emergence of the virus, daily numbers with our tracker and dashboard, exploding unemployment, and we finally were able to report on mass vaccine distribution. We report because the news impacts all of us. Will you please support our nonprofit newsroom?

Donate Now

But there were powerful groups who didn't want the state regulating groundwater. Big businesses including farms and manufacturers said, 'no.'

They did not want government regulations on the amount of groundwater they used. They also understood that, "it imposes a duty on the state to protect the resource, not just enable the state the option of doing so," said Michael Blumm, a law professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon who's written extensively on public trust doctrine issues.

If the state doesn't protect resources, citizens can take the issue to the courts.

Bob Wilson, the long-time advisor in the Michigan Senate, said it's a good move to expand the public trust doctrine to include groundwater.

He thinks, though, it's a mistake to single out water bottlers for regulation.

He said whether it's bottled water, beer, irrigating crops, or manufacturing, every kind of groundwater withdrawal should be treated the same.

"You needed to regulate and take a look at the withdrawal of the water simply for the impact itself on our natural resources. It shouldn't matter, the end users of the water, it shouldn't matter at all."

Still, it's hard for politicians to ignore people's outrage about bottled water. Think back to those 81,000 public comments protesting Nestle's water withdrawal plans.

Representative Rabhi says people want something done about it.

"This legislation is to say, look, it's not OK for a company to come to Michigan, pump out our groundwater. Put a price tag on it and make a profit. That's not OK."

Two years after it won its permit to pump more groundwater in west Michigan, Nestle sold its water bottling operation to a different company, Blue Triton. Later that year, Blue Triton announced it would not take advantage of the permit after all.

When asked for comment for this story, the company responded, "Blue Triton Brands is not in a position to comment on the legislation at this time as it has not been introduced and made public."

The legislation is expected to be introduced in mid-March.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michigan may restrict withdrawals for bottled water like Nestle | Bridge Michigan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bottles of water that come from Michigan sources of groundwater and surface water. Legislation that's expected to be introduced in March could restrict groundwater withdrawals for bottled water. (Lester Graham/ Michigan Radio) The Michigan Legislature might soon look at a package of bills that would change how the state protects groundwater.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

The White House issued a measure on April 18. It has to do with infrastructure, things like roads, bridges, water pipes, and high-speed Internet. Society needs these things in order to function smoothly. The measure requires new infrastructure projects to purchase materials made in the United States. This is meant to ensure that money spent on construction goes to U.S. factories and workers.

"From day 1, every action I've taken to rebuild our economy has been guided by one principle: made in America," President Joe Biden said at an event in Greensboro, North Carolina, on April 14.

The measure directs how money from the $1 trillion infrastructure law can be spent. That law was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president in November. According to guidance issued on April 18, "none of the funds" from the law can be spent "unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States."

The president hopes to reduce dependence on material from other countries. He also wants to create more jobs. Since 1979, the U.S. has lost nearly 7 million manufacturing jobs.

Exceptions to the new rule will be allowed. For instance, the government may set aside the requirement if there is not enough U.S.-made material available. It can also waive the requirement if the price of materials increases a project's cost by more than 25%.
How might the author approach writing a follow-up story to this piece? For instance, whom would he interview? Explain your answers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The White House issued a measure on April 18. It has to do with infrastructure, things like roads, bridges, water pipes, and high-speed Internet. Society needs these things in order to function smoothly. The measure requires new infrastructure projects to...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In December, United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy put out an urgent health advisory. He warned that children's mental health was in crisis. He asked for help from many different sources, including schools.

Schools help protect kids' mental health in many ways. Some states let kids take mental health days. In August 2021, the New York Times reported that in the previous two years, eight states had passed bills allowing kids to stay home for "mental or behavioral health reasons."

Should schools offer mental health days? Some students say yes. They're advocating for time off school so they can rest, recharge, and tend to their mental well-being. Other kids say no. They worry that students will take advantage of the offer, or be negatively affected by taking time off.

We asked TIME for Kids readers to weigh in on this important issue. Here's what six of you had to say.

COURTESY TANJA VAN TOOREN-PIJPAERT
Bibi van Tooren, 11 San Diego, California
Schools should give kids days off for mental health, because mental health is an important part of overall health. In fact, it is just as important as physical health. If you don't feel 100%, it will have a big impact on your ability to focus. Kids get stressed with long school days, and school can cause a lot of anxiety and tension. Plus, kids don't have much experience dealing with mental health crises.

COURTESY LAURA LANDIS
Nugg Canales, 8 York, Pennsylvania
Kids should get mental health days off from school. Sometimes, we need to stay home and play games to calm our minds. Some schools don't allow music, and I have days where I need calming music to make me feel good about me and the world. If you take a mental health day, you should not have to make up work because it adds stress to your life.

COURTESY ANGELICA FIALLOS-ASCENCIO
Sofia Ascencio, 10 Los Angeles, California
Schools should give kids days off for mental health. A lot of students have felt a difference in their mental health since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, when they were away from friends and family. Now that they are back in school, many students have developed feelings of depression, stress, and anxiety because of the load of homework and schoolwork that's being put on them. Mental health days would help students reset, relax, and refresh. Then they would be able to come back to school ready to learn.

COURTESY JAMES J. YOUNG III
Hailey Young, 12 Secane, Pennsylvania
The weekend was created to give us time off, but people don't take advantage of those 48 hours. We children need to learn to better manage our time. We barely get our schoolwork done in the five work days we get. Plus, schools would need students to make up mental health days. They would probably do so during our real breaks: summer, winter, or spring. Another thing is that, for some kids, school might be their safe haven. Home might be scary or stressful for them. A mental health day might end up being more stressful than school.

COURTESY ROY ITTICHERIA
Jeremin Roy Itticheria, 10 Des Plaines, Illinois
Stress is increasing in kids because of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and pollution. A report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that between March and October 2020, there was a 24% increase in the number of mental health emergency-room visits by kids ages 5 to 11. Stress is on the rise for kids today. Mental health days would give kids a break and a chance to make up their schoolwork without being penalized for taking time off. And they might have time to get the professional help they need.

COURTESY HARRISON W. GABEL
Johnny Gabel, 9 St. Louis, Missouri
I don't think schools should give students days off for their mental health. Having too many days off can affect grades. And many people's parents have to go to work. If students get too many days off, they might get left home too much. This could make some people's mental health issues worse. I know some kids have serious mental health challenges. Those students could take breaks between subjects. There could also be services to improve their mental health and help them in school.

This is our last debate of the school year. Do you have questions you'd like kids to debate in the fall? Email suggestions to tfkeditors@time.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In December, United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy put out an urgent health advisory. He warned that children's mental health was in crisis. He asked for help from many different sources, including schools. Schools help protect kids' mental health in...

# data[].attributes.headline
See the World Like a Political Scientist

# data[].attributes.subject
See the World Like a Political Scientist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
See the World Like a Political Scientist

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Governments Regulate Screen Time?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Governments Regulate Screen Time?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In fall 2021, the United States Senate held a hearing about Facebook. Senators discussed whether the platform is harmful for younger users. Senator Dan Sullivan, of Alaska, suggested that national screen-time limits could protect kids. He referenced something that took place in China last year.

On August 30, the Chinese government announced that kids would no longer be allowed to play online games Mondays to Thursdays. On most weekends and holidays, they would be limited to an hour a day of online gaming. Kids would need to register to play. Their time could be tracked. "Recently, many parents have reported that game addiction among some youths and children is seriously harming their normal study, life, and mental and physical health," the Chinese government said online.

This news and Senator Sullivan's suggestion got us thinking. Should a government be responsible for limiting how much time kids can spend online? We asked TIME for Kids readers to share their opinion. Many of you wrote to us with your thoughts.

COURTESY VICKY NING
Justin Lining, 10
Bellevue, Washington

Most people are obsessed with their phones and TVs. You can hurt your eyes and waste your time by being addicted to screens. And watching a lot of TV or playing games can interfere with kids' learning and social skills, jeopardizing their future. If the government limited screen time, people would be encouraged to spend more quality time with their family or join a sports team in their neighborhood.

COURTESY TIMOTHY MCNEELY
Esmé McNeely, 11 Tacoma, Washington
The government should not be allowed to set screen-time limits. That decision should be up to parents or guardians. Some children need more screen time than others. Some children need to use screens for homework. And during quarantine, one of the only ways to talk to friends was online. Government limits would not be fair to people who are responsible with their screen time.

COURTESY KATHEE BOWES
Jacie Lynch-Plaisted, 12
Elmira, New York

The government should set screen-time limits. That's because kids can forget how to socialize. And they can neglect to take care of their mental health if they are staring at a screen for too long.

In addition, without screen-time limits, kids can sometimes stay up too late. Staying up too late can be bad for a person's sleeping schedule. Not getting enough sleep can make you feel tired during the day. And feeling tired during the day can affect your performance in school.

COURTESY ANTHONY BARONE

Lucas Barone, 11
Washington, D.C.
The government should not limit screen time. A 2021 study from the University of Colorado Boulder says that screen time may be less harmful to kids than people think. Some parents worry that children who are on screens too much won't make friends. But the study reports that screen time can actually improve kids' friendships with others.

Screen time can be educational. It can help kids do a lot of good work. I use websites to read and to learn math. And kids can become healthier by using certain apps. For example, you can learn how to do yoga from screens!

COURTESY WEN SHI
Xiuhan Zhu, 9 Hopkinton, Massachusetts
I think the government should take action and limit screen time for kids. Too much screen time can lead to exhaustion and a decrease in socialization. And smartphones are distracting. People who use them are more likely to trip or get into car accidents.

Devices like computers can also be harmful for kids. If children aren't careful with the websites they use, criminals can get access to important information.

Instead of keeping busy on the screen, try doing something fun and creative, such as making origami, reading books, playing sports, or tinkering with Legos.

COURTESY MARISELA CUARA
Belem Gaeta Cuara, 10 Hudson, Colorado
The government should not set screen limits for a few reasons. First, kids need time to unwind after school. They should have as much time on screens as they want. I work hard all day, and looking at something on a screen when I get home helps me settle down and relax.

Second, kids should have the right to talk with friends online and play their favorite games. Friendships are very important, and playing a game with your buddy can put a smile on your face.

Third, screens help kids develop their knowledge.

COURTESY AKSHAY SHAH
Akshay Shah, 9 Scotch Plains Township, New Jersey
Spending too much time looking at screens can lead to poor grades, strain on the eyes, and loss of sleep. According to a national survey done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, children ages 8 to 18 years old spend an average of seven hours and 38 minutes on entertainment media on most days. And that data was published in 2010! About half of the students reported to be heavy media users got low or fair grades in school. With screen-time limits, kids would have more time to go outside, exercise, read a book, or play a game.

The Next Debate! Should schools give kids days off for mental health? Email your opinion to tfkeditors@time.com by April 6, 2022. Your response might be featured in an upcoming issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Governments Regulate Screen Time?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In fall 2021, the United States Senate held a hearing about Facebook. Senators discussed whether the platform is harmful for younger users. Senator Dan Sullivan, of Alaska, suggested that national screen-time limits could protect kids. He referenced something that took...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To vote for president of the United States, a person must be 18 years old. In the U.S., the voting age was 21 before the Vietnam War. It was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, in 1971. Today, many young people are showing a commitment to civic engagement. But they're not able to vote. In the U.S., some cities and towns allow 16-year-olds to vote in smaller elections. In several places in Maryland, for example, kids that age can vote in local elections.

In 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment proposing that the voting age be lowered to 16. In some countries, including Argentina, Brazil, and Scotland, 16-year-olds have the option to vote. Here, TFK Kid Reporters Sophia Hou and Miguel Madero debate whether the voting age in the U.S. should be lowered. What do you think?

Yes!
By Sophia Hou, 11 Short Hills, New Jersey
Lowering the voting age to 16 would be good for democracy. It would increase civic engagement at an earlier age. Young people would be more interested in learning about issues that affect their community and the world if they knew their voices would be heard sooner. They'd want to be involved in shaping their future and would be more likely to become lifelong voters.

Young people might have different opinions from adults. Different perspectives are valuable. They can open people's minds to novel ideas that can change the world. If the voting age were lowered, it'd shed light on new ideas. Everyone's voice, including young people's, should count at election time. After all, isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be about?

No!
By Miguel Madero, 10 San Antonio, Texas
Before the Vietnam War, the voting age was 21. When 18-year-olds went to war, they said that if they were old enough to fight for their country, they should be able to vote. The country changed its rules, and the voting age became 18. Now there are people trying to change that to 17 or 16. The argument is, if they can drive, they can vote. I don't think they should lower the voting age again. Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility.

A 16-year-old does not have the same maturity as an 18-year-old. They may vote for someone because he or she is popular. They may not realize how much an election can affect the country. Maybe they won't even be informed or interested enough to vote. So I think the voting age should stay where it is.
The next debate! Do we still need movie theaters? Email your opinion to tfkeditors@time.com by October 23, 2020. Your response might be featured in an upcoming issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To vote for president of the United States, a person must be 18 years old. In the U.S., the voting age was 21 before the Vietnam War. It was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, in...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a girl in New York City in the 1930s and '40s, Bernice "Bunny" Sandler wasn't allowed to be a school crossing guard-only the boys at her school could do that. Running the classroom projector was also forbidden for girls. And though the boys had plenty of opportunities to play sports at school, there weren't teams for girls-and they weren't allowed on boys' teams.

Sandler didn't think it was fair but told herself that's just the way the world works. Then years later, she wasn't hired for a teaching position at a public school because she was a woman.

Enough was enough. Sandler began a three-year-long fight for equal opportunities for all females. Here's how that struggle led to the passage of Title IX, the 1972 law banning gender discrimination at places that get money from the government.

The fight for girls in schools

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed by the United States Congress to expand the rights of all Americans, especially people of color. It made racial segregation, or separation by race, illegal in public places like swimming pools and buses, as well as in private businesses like restaurants and stores. It also banned discrimination against workers at privately owned businesses because of their race, color, religion, gender, and national origin.

However, the act didn't include protections for women and girls in public institutions, meaning places that received money from the U.S. government in order to run. This included places like schools, libraries, museums, and government agencies. Women who worked at these places-as well as girls who attended public schools-could legally be treated unfairly because of their gender.

After complaints from equal rights activists, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued an executive order in 1967 to ban gender discrimination at places that receive federal money. (An executive order is rule made by a president instead of Congress.)

Because a new president can overturn executive orders, activists wanted to strengthen and expand the protections for women. Sandler had a plan.

How schools discriminated against girls and women

To draw attention to the challenges facing girls and women in education even after the passage of the executive order, Sandler studied hundreds of schools. Her research found that many universities had quotas, or limits, on how many women could attend. One veterinary school allowed only two women to enroll each year-no matter how many applied or how smart they were.

Other schools required women to have higher test scores and better grades than men to get in. And once enrolled, female students didn't have equal access to scholarship money to help pay for their education.

Women and girls also didn't have equal opportunities to play on sports teams because schools spent money mostly on boys' teams. (For instance, in 1969, one college budget set aside $90,000 for boys' sports-and $200 for girls'.) Locker rooms, equipment, and training programs for female students were often not as good as what the boys had.

These were all violations of the executive order. Sandler wanted lawmakers to pay attention.

The campaign begins

With the help of like-minded people, Sanders used her research to file official complaints with the government against 250 colleges and universities that had violated the executive order. She encouraged people affected by the unequal treatment to share their stories with their congressional representatives. The protesters created so much mail that several full-time employees were assigned to handle the letters.

Lawmakers noticed Sandler's complaints about these violations and realized that stronger rules were needed to protect females from discrimination. Representatives Patsy Takemoto Mink of Hawaii and Edith Starrett Green of Oregon, along with Senator Birch Evans Bayh of Indiana, worked to convince their colleagues to support the bill. After several months of discussion, other elected officials agreed, and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972. It states:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

The impact of Title IX

Even though Sandler's research was on colleges and universities, Title IX would apply to elementary, middle, and high schools, too. That meant that girls were no longer forced to take classes in cooking, sewing, or typing. They could also learn to build things in shop class and repair cars-just like the boys.

Although the law wasn't specifically written to address sports, it had a huge impact on athletics as well. With three million more athletic opportunities than they had in the 1970s, girls can now play school sports like soccer, track, and basketball. Some girls even wrestle or play on football teams.

Thanks to equal opportunities in school, today nine out of 10 girls have at least a high school education, up from six out of 10 before Title IX. Women now make up about 60 percent of all college students, often in fields like law and medicine, areas of study that very few women were allowed to enter in the past. And the number of girls participating in sports is 10 times greater since the passage of Title IX. That's an increase of more than 1,000 percent!

Before her death in 2019, Sandler told reporters she's proud of the work she and her allies did to gain equality for female students. And she smiles when she sees female athletes walk "with their heads up and feeling like, 'Yeah, I can handle this world.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equality in schools: Title IX and the fight for women's rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A civil rights law called Title IX makes sure girls have the same opportunities as boys in schools. Here's how the 1972 act was passed.